Previous Sittings

Order Paper and Notice Paper

Previous Sittings

Journals of the Senate

Previous Sittings

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Download as PDF

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

1st Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 137, Issue 140

Thursday, May 13, 1999

The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker

SENATORS' STATEMENTS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
QUESTION PERIOD
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
ORDERS OF THE DAY

THE SENATE

Thursday, May 13, 1999

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

Prayers.

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Acadia University

Acadia Advantage Program

Hon. Norman K. Atkins: Honourable senators, I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to certain remarkable achievements that have been taking place at an institution located in the Annapolis Valley in the province of Nova Scotia. Acadia University's Acadia Advantage Program became part of the Permanent Research Collection on Information Technology at the Smithsonian Institute's National Museum of American History on April 16, 1999. On that date, the 1999 Information Technology Innovation Collection was formally presented to the Smithsonian.

For those of you who do not know, the Acadia Advantage is an academic initiative that integrates the use of technology into the undergraduate curriculum, providing students and faculty with notebook computers. To accomplish this, Acadia facilitated computer training for faculty and students. The classrooms, common areas and residences were fully wired to allow access by both faculty and students from all parts of the campus. The Acadia Advantage Program has enriched the curriculum, provided students and faculty with vital communication links, and allowed all of the participants to access on-line resources from around the world.

Imagine, as a student, being able to communicate with professors and experts around the world from your own portable computer. Research and learning is at your fingertips. This is also an important asset for instruction in the classroom.

A great deal of the credit for this far-reaching venture belongs to the president of Acadia University, Dr. Kelvin Ogilvie, whose visionary thinking spearheaded the changes necessary to implement this program four years ago.

As he said recently:

We knew at the outset this was a major innovation. One would say it was almost revolutionary in the way it helps faculty change the learning environment.

In addition to this honour bestowed on Acadia by the Smithsonian, honourable senators should know that the Acadia Advantage has been nominated for the Computerworld Smithsonian Award. This is the first time that Acadia has received international recognition for its program. It should be noted that Acadia is the only Canadian institute to be nominated in the Education and Academia category. The winner of this coveted award will be announced at the beginning the June.

It is little wonder that with all these good things happening at Acadia, resulting in national and international recognition, Acadia has recently received one of the largest gifts ever given to a university in Canada. The Irving family has donated to the university a world-class environmental sciences research centre, botanical gardens and campus meeting place to be built on eight acres on the west side of the Acadia campus.

This centre will be unique in North America. It will contain all of the plant species grown in the north-eastern part of Canada and the United States. When it is completed, it will be a facility that will allow world-class research to be conducted and will attract students from all over the world to study at the university. As well as a research centre, it will have common areas to enable students and faculty to gather in one of the prettiest areas of the campus.

We are living in a time of scarce resources. This presents many challenges to our educational institutions. They are being forced to innovate if they wish to be competitive in the market-place of learning and ideas. They must also be fiscally responsible both in management and in administration.

By the way in which it has adopted computer technology for the benefit of students and faculty, as well as partnering with the private sector, Acadia has demonstrated that it can meet these challenges and succeed.

[Translation]

Quebec Major Junior Hockey League Championship

Congratulations to Titans of Acadie-Bathurst

Hon. Fernand Robichaud: Honourable senators, I should like to congratulate the members of the Titans of Acadie-Bathurst for carrying off top honours in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League championship, which ended last Friday, May 7, 1999 at Bathurst. The Titans won out over the Hull Olympiques in the seventh and final game of the series. I had the pleasure of seeing some of the games, and we were treated to some great hockey. Players on both teams turned in performances that were worthy of our national sport. My congratulations also to the coaches, Roger Dejoie of the Titans and Claude Julien of the Olympiques, who did an excellent job in guiding these young players.

I should also like to wish the best of luck to the grand champions of the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, the Acadie-Bathurst Titans, in the Memorial Cup series which will be starting shortly, here in Ottawa.

[English]

(1410)

International Day of Families

Hon. Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Honourable senators, next Saturday, May 15, is the International Day of Families, as declared by the United Nations General Assembly. This is an occasion to reach out to Canadians and encourage them to honour this day by promoting the importance of families.

The family touches upon so many facets of life. Families are educators; they are providers; they nurture and they reinforce. It is true of the family that individuals are helped in meeting their basic needs of food and shelter, and their need for a sense of belonging.

Family life is a vital source of strength and love, but it can also be a source of immense suffering and pain, such as when hate, violence or abuse exist within a family. It is crucial that we take leadership and manage every effort possible to end abuse and violence in families. As well, we must provide Canadian families with enough support to enable them to thrive in our communities. Families need to be supportive and encouraged. They need the necessary resources to build a good life.

Every day, the family adjusts to external influences, trying to meet the social, economic and psychological challenges which tug and pull at the fabric of family life. The Vanier Institute of the Family reports that the average Canadian family needs two wage earners just to cover basic expenses. The consequence of juggling workplace and family demands can result in a great deal of stress and guilt, especially when the workplace fails to take into account family responsibilities, or when there is a shortage of child care or elder care.

Although caring for children is the most generally recognized responsibility of families, increasingly, families are caring for an elderly family member. However, there are many elderly people who lack the care that families can provide. More and more, seniors will need support in order to live full lives in our communities.

Honourable senators, this year the theme of the International Day of Families is " Families for All Ages." People of all ages need family. I cannot image life without a family. It has one of the most significant bearings on our well-being. Families have the responsibility to look after their members, and our society has the responsibility to support this by fostering family-friendly policies and by helping families in serious need.

Therefore, on this day, may we reflect upon the challenges facing families in our society. Most important, let us honour the resilience of the family.

[Translation]

I should just like to remind my colleagues that they have no doubt received the National Council of Welfare report "Pre-School Children: Promises to Keep."

[English]

My colleagues will probably have a few free minutes in the next two weeks, so I would invite them to read this. We can keep making statements, but we must be more active in helping families and attempting to solve the various problems our society faces.

[Translation]

The Honourable Solange Chaput-Rolland

Hon. Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Honourable senators, I should just point out to my colleagues, if I may, that tomorrow is the 80th birthday of our former colleague the Honourable Solange Chaput-Rolland. She is not very well, so I am sure that she would be delighted to hear from some of you.

National Nursing Week

Hon. Lucie Pépin: Honourable senators, as a former nurse, I should like to join with those of my colleagues who have already spoken on this to remind everyone that this is National Nursing Week. Let us take a few moments to reflect on the huge contribution made by Canada's nurses. There is no doubt whatsoever that registered nurses are the cornerstones of Canada's health system. Without their unflagging support, we would never have had the quality and accessible health care we now have.

In times of great restructuring, however, the nursing personnel also lives in the climate of uncertainty and stress that accompanies all change. Since 1992, over 20,000 full-time nursing positions have been made part-time or casual.

As the nursing personnel lost their job security and the corresponding salary, cuts to the health care system added to their workload. In interviews by the nursing faculty at Laval University in 1998, three nurses out of four said that they could no longer manage and could no longer do their jobs as they would like.

In our attempts at efficiency and our efforts towards savings, we replaced licensed nursing personnel with personnel that had less training and did not belong to a regulated profession. Not only did this move discredit the vital role played by nurses in our health care system, but, according to a number of studies, generic caregivers are less productive and require more supervision than licensed nurses.

[English]

Given this depressing situation, is it any surprise that provincial governments across the country find themselves facing livid nurses? Nurses are incredibly patient, dedicated and responsible. It comes with the profession. If they are striking, or threatening to strike, it is because they are backed up to the wall and see no other means of expressing their frustration with the short-term vision of recent health reform initiatives.

It is time for governments and health administrators to recognize the true contribution of nurses. If we want to move towards patient-centred care and a community-based delivery system in Canada, and if we want to maintain quality and access, how can we afford to treat our nurses in the way in which we have been treating them?

Nurses are incredibly well placed to advise governments and health administrators on health care reform. Who else is as close to the front lines and as close to patient needs as are nurses?

If these arguments do not convince us, maybe the following one will: Nurses represent approximately one out of every seven voters in Canada. The profession is becoming increasingly cohesive and politicized. Politicians simply cannot afford to ignore them any longer.

[Translation]

The Minister of Health had the sense to recognize the strength of the profession and he invested where it counts. He created in the 1999 federal budget a $25-million fund to support research in nursing care. Let us hope that this is the first of a number of initiatives in Canada to encourage nurses and support their role in reforming health care. I therefore encourage you, honourable senators, to support action by nurses in each of your regions. We owe them our support in recognition for the service they have rendered.

[English]

Veterans Affairs

Black Service Battalion

Hon. Calvin Woodrow Ruck: Honourable senators, in 1916, two years after the outbreak of World War I, the government of Sir Robert Borden authorized the creation of the Segregated Black Battalion, now known as No. 2 Construction Battalion. This came about due to the fact that black volunteers were having an extremely difficult time enlisting in the Canadian Forces. Commonly heard were the phrases "This is a white man's war," or "We will call you when we need you." However, these black volunteers persisted, and finally the government decided to authorize the creation of an all-black battalion. The battalion was under the leadership of Colonel Sutherland from Pictou, Nova Scotia.

Each year, on the second Saturday in July, we return to Pictou to honour those veterans. The interim government of Kim Campbell recognized that battalion a few years ago by the erection of a monument in the Town of Pictou. Consequently, we make an annual pilgrimage to Pictou.

(1420)

These men did not ask to serve in a segregated naval battalion. They were willing to serve in any capacity. From Saltspring Island in British Columbia to Cape Breton Island, they received the same treatment: "We will call you when we need you." They went overseas as a construction battalion attached to the forestry corps. They were commended by the government for their service to king and country.

I am sure many Canadians are unaware of the presence of a black battalion during World War I. They had mostly white officers, except that the chaplain was black, and he came from the U.S.A. The battalion did the work they were asked to do as members of the forestry corps, and they were commended for their service. They returned home after service, and it was not until 52 years later that they were recognized for their service by the government of Kim Campbell, with the erection of the monument.

We are proud of that battalion. Some of them were our grandfathers and fathers. They did the work they were asked to do.

If World War III were to break out, black men would still be proud and eager to join with their white compatriots and serve their country. We love this country, and we will do all we can to ensure that the country is preserved.

Conflict in Yugoslavia

Hon. Francis William Mahovlich: Honourable senators:

When children's children shall talk of war
as a madness that may not be;
When we thank Our God for our grief today,
and blazon from sea to sea
In the name of the Dead the Banner of Peace -
That will be Victory.

Those are the words of Robert Service.

Gwynne Dyer, a Canadian-born writer based in London, and one of the world's foremost authorities on military history, was quoted as saying that no great powers in the current international system have vital interests in the Balkans. Economically and strategically, the region has simply fallen off the map, so nothing that happens there now is likely to spread beyond the region. In other words: The third world war is not likely to arise out of this conflict.

I asked this question the other day of Dr. Herspring, professor of political science at Kansas State University, and he says that that is not so. It very well might happen.

Senator Whelan is often quoted as saying, "Frank, you cannot prove a negative." It is true you cannot prove it, but time might be the factor that can prove the negative. If we wait long enough, time might be the only factor that can prove a negative.

Gordon Barfors of the Department of Foreign Affairs says yes, there are guilty parties in this catastrophe in the Balkans apart from its chief architect, Slobodan Milosovic, but do not look for them at NATO in Brussels. He says we should try Moscow and China. That makes me think. It sounds logical. If Russia decided to tell Milosevic not to go into Kosovo, we might not have had a problem.

The Toronto Star, a Liberal paper, quoted General Klaus Newman as saying the alliance air campaign will be prolonged by the failure to use overwhelming force, and that the Yugoslav president could still achieve his aim of the mass deportation of ethnic Albanians.

The Russia envoy, Victor Chernomyrdin, said the United Nations must be engaged in slowing the Kosovo crisis. The United Nations, according to Professor Bliss of the University of Toronto, is a paralyzed institution.

As in any war, there is propaganda, and that is what I am reading every time I pick up a newspaper.

Long before NATO struck at Yugoslavia, Mr. Milosevic's monetary madness had done its damage. Wreck an economy; start a war. It is an age-old ploy. Sound currency is a basic human need. Slobodan Milosevic should be put in the dock on yet another human rights infraction - if someone can tell me what passes for human rights in that part of the world.

James Bisay, Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia in 1990, was quoted on CPAC the other day as saying that the Senate is not paying enough attention to Kosovo in their debates and discussion. His remarks were not favourable to the Senate, to say the least. He went further to say that the Russian nuclear arsenal is well oiled and ready for service, which is contradictory to what I have heard previously.

I think that if the Senate could invite Mr. Bisay to speak to the Senate, it would be very enlightening. His presence would be a challenge for us.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
Canada Shipping Act

Bill to Amend-Report of Committee

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau, Chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries, presented the following report:

Thursday, May 13, 1999

The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries has the honour to present its

FOURTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-27, to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and other international fisheries treaties or arrangements, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, April 27, 1999, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Observation:

Your committee notes that it instructed the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to correct a printing error in the parchment by adding the following words in the English version of the bill, on page 6, in clause 4, after the last word on line 18: "pursuit that began while the vessel was in Canadian fisheries waters.".

Respectfully submitted,

GERALD J. COMEAU
Chairman

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

Hon. Fernand Robichaud: Honourable senators, with leave, later this day.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(b), that this bill be read the third time later this day. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I have no objection, but I would like to see a copy of the report. If we are giving leave, we should know what we are giving leave on, and we should see what the report says, even if it is just one paragraph.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, do you wish me to defer this motion?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I have no objection, honourable senators. It will be deferred anyway, since the motion is for consideration later this day. However, if we are giving leave for third reading later this day, we should at least have a copy of the report before us, to know the comments of the committee on the bill and perhaps have a discussion at third reading on it.

The Hon. the Speaker: I would ask the Clerk to read the report in full.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is not necessary. I wish to have a copy distributed.

The Hon. the Speaker: We will provide a copy in the meantime. Would it be agreeable, honourable senators, that we leave this matter in suspension for the time being and proceed to other reports of committees? We can revert to it when we get the written text.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Proposals

Study of Tabled Document-Report of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Presented

Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the twenty-fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs which deals with the proposals to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature therein and to repeal certain provisions thereof that have expired or lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.

I ask that it be appended to the Journals of the Senate for this day.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, Appendix "A", p. 1618.)

(1430)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

Senator Milne: With leave of the Senate, later this day.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, once again, we have a report on a bill which the committee has studied. Surely we should have the benefit of its efforts before us in writing before we rush through third reading. Just because this happens to be the last day before we take a break does not mean we must be hasty.

The Hon. the Speaker: We will have the report printed. I suggest that we leave this one until we have dealt with all reports of committees before we proceed.

[Translation]

Scrutiny of Regulations

Budget Report of Joint Committee Presented and Printed as Appendix

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette, Joint Chair of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, presents the following report:

Thursday, May 13, 1999

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations has the honour to present its

FIFTH REPORT
("A" presented only for the Senate)

Your committee, which is authorized by section 19 of the Statutory Instruments Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-22, to review and scrutinize statutory instruments, now requests approval of funds for 1999-2000.

Pursuant to section 2:07 of the Procedural Guidelines for the Financial Operation of Senate Committees, the budget submitted to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the report thereon of that Committee are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

CÉLINE HERVIEUX-PAYETTE
Joint Chair

(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, Appendix "B", p. 1631.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(g), I move that this report be now adopted.

[English]

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, it is the same with this report. May we have a printed copy in front of us? We have heard what the Clerk Assistant has read, but we wish to have a copy in front of us.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honorable senators, we will leave agreement until a bit later today.

[English]

First Nations Land Management Bill

Report of Committee

Hon. Charlie Watt, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, presented the following report:

Thursday, May 13, 1999

The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples has the honour to present its

NINTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-49, providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, April 13, 1999, examined the said Bill and now reports the same with the following amendments and observations:

Clause 28, page 15:

1. In the English version, replace line 25 with the following:

"other first nation community purposes.".

2. Replace lines 42 and 43 with the following:

"first nation shall apply the rules set out in the Expropriation Act, with such modifications as the circumstances require.".

Your committee is highly sensitive to the vital importance of the Bill C-49 land management initiative to the economic, social and political development of the participating First Nations, and urges that the bill be proceeded with expeditiously.

Your committee acknowledges receipt of the May 12 letter from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development sharing the committee's concern for the pressing need to address aboriginal women's rights issues, including the division of matrimonial property. In light of existing constitutional guarantees, your committee endorses the Minister's invitation to assist her by studying these issues in a formal way, and undertakes to pursue the requested study in the fall 1999 session.

Respectfully submitted,

CHARLIE WATT
Chair

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

Senator Watt: With leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(g), I move that the report be adopted now.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I am personally more familiar with this issue than with the other three that preceded it. However, I feel that, out of respect for the Senate, the report should be printed ahead of time, distributed and be on our desks. Although our Table Officers read very well, it is incumbent on us to study these reports and have them in front of us, after which we can make the appropriate decision.

When reports are to be read, I urge our Table Officers to ensure that there are enough copies to be distributed to all senators at the time of the reading of the report.

Hon. Noël Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition) : Honourable senators, leave was requested to proceed with this matter now. I would like to recommend that Senator Watt consider making that request later this day under Orders of the Day, Government Business. In the meantime, the Table will see that the report is circulated.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, this concludes Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees. However, we have a whole series of them now which are in abeyance at the request of the Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that we ask for leave to revert later this day to Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees when we have the text of each of the aforementioned reports.

Honourable senators, is it agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Private Bill

Canadian District of Moravian Church of America-First Reading

Hon. Nicholas W. Taylor presented Bill S-30, to amend the Act of incorporation of the Board of Elders of the Canadian District of the Moravian Church in America.

Bill read first time.

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

On motion of Senator Taylor, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading on Monday, May 31, 1999.

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Notice of Motion for Authority to Study Issues Relating to Persons Coming Under Jurisdiction of Department of Veterans Affairs

Hon. R. James Balfour: Honourable senators, I give notice that at the next sitting of the Senate I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to undertake a study on issues relating to persons coming under the jurisdiction of Veterans Affairs Canada, including the availability, quality and standards of all benefits available to such persons;

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

That the committee be empowered to present its final report no later than March 31, 2000; and

That the committee be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit its report with the Clerk of the Senate, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Chamber.

(1440)

Solutions to Tobacco Problem

Notice of Inquiry

Hon. Colin Kenny: Honourable senators, I give notice that on June 2, 1999, I will call the attention of the Senate to solutions to the tobacco problem.

Pages Exchange Program with House of Commons

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I keep you informed usually of our exchanges of pages with the House of Commons. On this occasion, I regret to inform you that one of our pages is leaving us. Kelli Hogan, presently a resident of Hull, Quebec, and recent fourth-year graduate of the University of Ottawa in political science and psychology, leaves us today to further her learning experience in the House of Commons, where she will be working for a member of Parliament.

Sorry as we are to see Kelli leave, we are pleased that our pages proceed in the parliamentary system to other offices, where I am sure that they will be providing very good information on the Senate.

QUESTION PERIOD

Transport

Port of Halifax-Loss of Bid to become Harbour for Supertankers-Possible Upgrade-Government Position

Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Port officials in Halifax, Nova Scotia, suffered a major disappointment last week when shipping companies Maersk Inc. and Sea-Land Corp. selected New York-New Jersey as the home for their East Coast superport. Halifax and Baltimore were bypassed for the multimillion-dollar project.

The news media reported that Halifax was too far removed from major North American markets to act as the port for extra-large container ships. In view of this rejection, can the Leader of the Government tell us what steps the Government of Canada will now take to continue to support the Port of Halifax and build it up so that it can be capable of dealing with overflows that the New York-New Jersey port will be unable to handle?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I wish to thank the Honourable Senator Oliver for his question. I was in Halifax last week at the time of the announcement. There is no question that there was disappointment in the community. As a matter of fact, I think there has been disappointment right across the country. It was not just Halifax versus New York.

The Government of Canada, through its various departments that were involved, assisted in the bid by the Port of Halifax and the Government of Nova Scotia. As a matter of fact, our Ambassador to the United States and our Consul General in New York accompanied Premier MacLellan and other officials when they met with the Maersk-Sea-Land people in the United States.

I should also say that the Prime Minister wrote a letter to the Chief Executive Officer, Mr. M. Møller, Senior Partner and Chairman of A.P. Møller Group, the parent company. The letter from the Prime Minister says:

The people of Canada, like the citizens of your own Denmark, embrace a proud maritime tradition, so it is no surprise that we recognize and understand fully how your post-Panamax generation of vessels is revolutionizing the way the shipping industry does business.

As we stride into the 21st century, we recognize the important changes that are occurring in global shipping. As such, the eastern Canadian Port of Halifax, Nova Scotia, has launched a solid bid in a competition with two American ports to be the site of a new terminal for your ships. The Honourable Russell MacLellan, Premier of Nova Scotia, advises me that the Halifax bid is one of confidence, based on the port's unique combination of advantages, including a natural deep-water harbour and unrivalled potential for feeder ships to serve American ports. These geographic benefits are backed by a strong business case for a terminal to fit Maersk's requirements.

My government wholeheartedly supports the choice of Halifax for your east coast business. As you may be aware, the Halifax bid has received the formal support of the governments of every province and territory in Canada and it enjoys unprecedented community-wide support in Halifax. This is because Canadians believe that your terminal in Halifax will lead to opportunities extending well into the future, beyond Canada and into the rest of North America, and indeed, the world.

I am hopeful for a successful outcome for the Halifax bid.

Yours sincerely,

Jean Chrétien

If it is the wish of the Senate, I will be happy to table the Prime Minister's letter in both official languages.

Senator Oliver: Honourable senators, that was interesting. It confirms the government's support of the bid. However, Halifax was not successful; their bid was rejected.

What will the Government of Canada do now to help build up the infrastructure of the Port of Halifax? How much money will the federal government commit to building up the port so that some of the overflow from the successful bidder can go to the Port of Halifax to strengthen that port?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, the government would respond, obviously, in a positive way to any legitimate and positive proposal put forward by the port partnership. As part of its 1998 capital budget, the Halifax Port Commission sought and obtained federal approval for a dredging project at three locations in and near the Narrows, which is the passage to Bedford Basin and Halifax Harbour, for a total cost of $3 million.

With regard to dredging, it is worth noting that while New York-New Jersey got the award, the depth of the channels in New York-New Jersey is presently 40 feet. They will dredge to 45 feet. It will cost them an estimated $500 million to $700 million U.S. to deepen the channel. It will take them quite some time to do so. They will not do it in one or two years. Blasting and dredging will be involved and it could take several years. We have been assured that Maersk-Sea-Land will continue to call at Halifax, which we believe has the best harbour in the world.

Halifax has a natural depth of 60 feet compared to Baltimore's 50 feet. With that 50 feet, Baltimore would still require some dredging near the piers. New York-New Jersey has 40 feet and it is being dredged to 45 feet. A fully loaded, post-Panamax vessel would have great difficulty getting into New York-New Jersey Harbour even after dredging.

There will be other companies on the global scene. Halifax is well positioned, both now and in the future, to take advantage of the shipping and the offloading that is still taking place. We have been assured of that by Maersk-Sea-Land.

National Defence

Proposal to Reduce Reserves-Possible Loss of Nova Scotia Regiments-Government Position

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, my question is for the minister. In internal documents, including one from the Chief of the Land Staff, the army is recommending the reduction of reserve infantry regiments from 51 to 20; artillery regiments from 15 to 7; and armoured regiments from 17 to 10.

My question for the minister is apropos my comments yesterday. What steps are being taken to ensure that Nova Scotia, already below four battalions, will not lose completely any one of its four principle units by merger or absorption by other units?

(1450)

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I can assure the honourable senator that I have already made representations in that regard to the Minister of National Defence.

I praise the contribution made over the years by the militia. To demonstrate that the militia does have a future in the Department of National Defence, the Government of Canada has funded two new buildings at Victoria Park in Sydney for the very purposes of serving the militia and the reserves.

Senator Forrestall: It is a laughing-stock in Nova Scotia, honourable senators, much to my chagrin and regret.

Senator Graham: Perhaps you could take a positive view of the military and of the facilities being provided by the Government of Canada.

Senator Forrestall: I invite the Leader of the Government in the Senate to get on the phone and call Land Force Atlantic, speak to General Foster and ask him about the plans which he just submitted to the government approximately 10 days ago.

Proposal to Reduce Reserves-Reduction of Combat Arms Presence

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, the documents also recommended reducing the combat arms presence, the bayonets and such, of the militia from 75 per cent to 35 per cent. Young men and women joined the combat arms because it caught their imagination and allowed them to serve their country.

You cannot turn that around and say here is a postal platoon in the age of e-mails and expect young men and women to continue to find a future of sorts in the Canadian militia.

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with all due respect to Senator Forrestall, perhaps he should visit Sydney and talk to the reservists in the militia down there. I am doing my very best.

Senator Forrestall: I know you are but do not let them snow you.

Senator Graham: When I take part in the official opening in Cape Breton of one building -

Senator Forrestall: I am on your side.

Senator Graham: - provided by the Government of Canada for the militia in Cape Breton and I take part in the sod-turning of another new building, I am taking part in positive moves by the Government of Canada for our militia and for our reserves, which have made outstanding contributions to our Armed Forces and to this country.

Proposal to Reduce Reserves-Headquarters of Units Located in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia-Government Position

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Can I take it then from the absence of any new buildings anywhere else in Nova Scotia, that reserve units in Nova Scotia will be centred in Cape Breton?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, a working group that included Reserve 2000, a council of honorary colonels and reserve area deputy commanders, produced a preliminary proposal in April. It must now be studied in detail and evaluated against all the criteria established for reserves restructuring. I have been assured by the Minister of National Defence that they will look at any positive recommendations in a very realistic way.

Senator Forrestall: You got it.

Agriculture

Declining State of Industry-Response of Government-Request for Update

Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson: Honourable senators, I take no joy in having to ask questions about crisis situations in agriculture. We farmers are proud people. If we have one major fault, it is that we are too productive. However, that has been a great strength for this country.

I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate, given the questions asked yesterday and his promises to carry the concerns raised to cabinet and the Prime Minister: Does he have any news or positive things to tell us today?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I spoke directly with the Prime Minister. I spoke directly with the Minister of Agriculture both yesterday afternoon and for some extended time this morning during a cabinet committee meeting from 8 a.m. until 1:30 this afternoon. There were a couple of breaks where we had the opportunity to talk individually with one another.

I do not have any official statement to make on his behalf, except his reminder that the Agriculture Income Disaster Assistance Program, which provided $900 million in aid to western farmers, as announced last December 10, was intended to address the unexpected precipitous drop particularly in grain and hog prices in 1998 to below 1997 prices.

Even before the creation of AIDA, the Minister of Agriculture had begun discussions with the agriculture industry and also the provinces. He is in daily contact with the provinces to discuss the overall review of the farm safety net program and the effectiveness of that package of risk management products.

The experience of AIDA in 1998 will be used in reviewing the overall situation and, if necessary, modifications will be made for 1999. Remember, payments are made on a 60/40 cost-sharing basis and, therefore, require the agreement of all provinces.

I believe at the time Minister of Agriculture made the announcement, the he said it would not be the "be all and end all" for every producer. However, it might be useful if honourable senators used their energies to encourage farmers to fill out the necessary forms. There are great difficulties, particularly in Saskatchewan, as was pointed out by Senator Gustafson and Senator Andreychuk yesterday. In other provinces, the program is apparently working well and the farmers are filling out the forms. All honourable senators should encourage the farmers to fill out those forms at this very critical time of the year.

Senator Gustafson: Honourable senators, I certainly appreciate the Leader of the Government taking this matter to cabinet and the Prime Minister. I hope that he will continue to do so because this is a serious crisis. I do not believe the government realized how serious the problem was when they responded to the lower commodity prices in hogs. They responded quickly but the problem is greater than that. The commodity prices of grain have dropped. A serious crisis is developing. By midsummer, it will be worse. Many farmers do not have the funds to put in a crop. It is very difficult for them.

The government must take the ad hoc steps necessary to alleviate the problem. We do not like the terms "ad hoc" or "cultivated acreage," et cetera, but it must be done. We need both a short-term program and a long-term program. Again, I appreciate the leader carrying the matter to the government. I ask that he continue to do so because the situation is very serious. That is more of a statement than a question but it had to be said.

Senator Graham: Let me respond to the valuable statement.

In order to acquaint myself better with the situation and with the view of westerners, I asked for some newspaper clippings. I have one clipping from the Star Phoenix of Saskatoon, printed yesterday. Kevin Hursh is the author.

(1500)

I will read the first sentence and the last sentence. The headline is "Farmers shouldn't be cowed by AIDA." The first line reads:

Just fill out the darn form and send it in. This is perhaps the best advice there is regarding AIDA, the Agricultural Income Disaster Assistance program.

The final line reads:

As a market-oriented disaster program, AIDA is probably on the right track. If you want to turn agriculture into a long-term welfare case, AIDA is not the plan.

Shortcomings in Agriculture Income Disaster Assistance Program-Government Position

Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson: Honourable senators, that illustrates that the AIDA program is not working. It is based on 70 per cent of the average of the last three years. Seventy per cent of the three-year average income for farmers in a drought area such as western Saskatchewan, or for those who have been hailed out, like my neighbours, is zero. In addition, there has been great confusion about the program. I have not yet encountered a farm group that says this program will work, including the Federation of Agriculture, with which I met yesterday.

The findings of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture on this matter are very serious.

Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate continue to carry this matter to the Prime Minister and cabinet?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I will speak again to my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and will bring to him, later this day, the concerns which have been expressed.

Declining State of Industry-Response of Government

Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, the points made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate may be valid here, but they are not valid in parts of Saskatchewan. One cannot simply fill out the forms and expect a magic answer. Farmers are very clever. As Senator Gustafson has pointed out, even if they fill out the form, they will end up with nothing. They know that.

There is now a suicide watch among farm families in Saskatchewan. Think of being isolated on a farm with children and knowing that you have no money. Why would you fill out a form that you know will not change your position?

That is the issue with which we must grapple. We are asking for immediate action on the crisis in which farm families in Saskatchewan find themselves.

We are asking for something now. We are asking not for long-term welfare but for short-term action in this crisis situation so that those suicide watches do not continue to be necessary.

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): I thank the Honourable Senator Andreychuk for bringing that aspect to our attention. It is not good news, but I did get an indication from my discussions with various sources today that more farmers are filling out the forms than was the case last week.

I recognize the difficulties in Western Canada, and particularly in Saskatchewan. However, I wish to make the point that the most recent farm income forecasts project a 1999 net cash income of $6.7 billion for the entire sector. That would be an 11 per cent increase over the previous five-year average.

Senator Andreychuk: Honourable senators, that may be true for the overall average but there are pockets of difficulties in the small family farms where there is not the flexibility to look optimistically to the future. How will we get these people to the future when they are leaving their farms? They will not be there to benefit from next year's forecast. Something must be done immediately.

We have experienced an ice storm and floods. The current situation in agriculture has the same dramatic effect on family farms in Saskatchewan.

Senator Graham: I thank the honourable senator for her further comment. I treat this matter very seriously. I shall again talk to my colleague later today.

[Translation]

Foreign Affairs

Organization of Meeting between President of Mexico and Premier of Quebec-Government Position

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) : Honourable senators, my first question has to do with the circumstances surrounding the decision of the Department of Foreign Affairs as to whether or not to organize a meeting between the Premier of Quebec and the President of the Republic of Mexico, Ernesto Zedillo. Will the Leader of the Government explain to us the government's policy in this regard?

My second question has to do with something I read in the National Post.

[English]

It quotes Stéphane Dion, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, in reference to the meeting that the Right Honourable Joe Clark, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, had with Lucien Bouchard as follows:

Mr. Clark will never learn. The other day he said that he was still friends with Lucien Bouchard...

I was a deputy minister to Lucien Bouchard and still consider myself his friend. Does the government not believe that bridges can be better built on the pillars and piers of friendship than on those of dissociation?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I agree with communication and pillars of friendship. I also recognize that Canada speaks for Canada in international negotiations.

[Translation]

Intergovernmental Affairs

Comments by Minister Dion-Request for Clarification

Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, once again, we are dealing with a very sensitive issue in our federation, that is the relations between Quebec and Canada. Could the minister explain in greater detail the tactless position taken by Minister Dion? This position is an insult to Quebecers, even those who are not separatists. When Minister Dion wonders about the friendship that may exist between a federalist from Alberta, a former prime minister, the Right Honourable Joe Clark, and the premier of all Quebecers, can the Leader of the Government tell us if this reflects the government's position, or if it is only the minister's position?

[English]

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I shall ask Minister Dion for further clarification in the event that he has anything to add to what he has already said.

Senator Nolin: Am I correct that it is not the position of the government, but that of Mr. Dion, to be confrontational with the Quebec government?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, Mr. Dion is Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I shall be pleased to bring the representations of Senator Nolin to his attention.

Human Resources Development

Millennium Scholarship Foundation-Progress in Negotiations with Provinces-Request for Update

Hon. Ethel Cochrane: Honourable senators, there have been reports that the government is continuing to have difficulty negotiating with Quebec the details of the administration of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate tell us how many provinces have reached an agreement on the administration of this fund? Is there an agreement with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the agreement would not be between the Government of Canada and the individual provinces; it would be between the Millennium Scholarship Foundation and the individual provinces. I do not know how many provinces or which provinces have reached an agreement with that foundation.

It is my understanding that progress is being made between the foundation and the Province of Quebec. As I indicated two weeks ago, Minister Pettigrew has agreed to appoint a facilitator. I believe progress is being made in that respect so that students in Quebec will not be adversely affected in any way.

I would be happy to bring forth a report with respect to the progress of negotiations between the foundation and the various provinces.

Senator Cochrane: Honourable senators, the academic year is now over for post-secondary institutions, and hundreds of thousands of students have added to their student loan debt burdens. A new academic year will begin in September.

I ask the honourable leader again: Why will the government not use money from the millennium scholarship fund to provide money for students this September? Why should they take up yet more debt when the government has money set aside for this?

Senator Graham: It is true that in its fiscal management program - and a very responsible one it is - the government has booked the money. However, the millennium scholarship is just that - it does not start until the millennium.

Honourable senators, I have been checking my notes, and I understand that the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation has signed, this week, agreements with the Provinces of Ontario and Alberta. I am not aware of any other signings.

Delayed Answers to Oral Questions

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have response to questions raised in the Senate on April 27, 1999, by the Honourable Senator Roch Bolduc and the Honourable Senator Pierre Claude Nolin regarding the loss of favoured exemption from international traffic in arms regulations and a possible trade dispute; and a response to questions raised in the Senate on April 27, 1999, by the Honourable Senator Fernand Roberge and the Honourable Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk regarding the conflict in Yugoslavia, summit meeting in Washington, imposition of embargo on military commitment, and oil supply.

Canada-United States Relations

Loss of Favoured Exemption from International Traffic in Arms Regulations-Possible Trade Dispute-Effect on Industry-Terms of Moratorium

(Response to questions raised by Hon. Roch Bolduc and Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin on April 27, 1999)

The Minister of Foreign Affairs met with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on the margins of the NATO Ministerial on April 22, 1999. Minister Axworthy and Madam Albright stressed the importance of maintaining close defence cooperation. The Minister received a positive commitment from Madam Albright to ensure that the amendments to the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) are implemented in such a way as to mitigate the effects of the changes on the North American defence industry.

Although the changes to the ITAR are in effect, the Minister did receive a commitment that there would be a 120-day review period to evaluate and revisit the core issues. This review period will allow officials to examine, in depth, the potential impact on Canadian industry, and at the same time, look a ways to mitigate those affects.

Senior level discussions and meetings are continuing between US and Canadian officials throughout this period. Officials will also be consulting closely with Canadian] industry.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Conflict in Yugoslavia-Summit Meeting in Washington-Imposition of Embargo on Military Equipment and Oil Supply-Position of the Prime Minister

(Response to questions raised by Hon. Fernand Roberge and Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk on April 27, 1999)

At their Summit meeting, NATO leaders stated that, "Allied governments are putting in place additional measures to tighten the constraints on the Belgrade regime. These include intensified implementation of economic sanctions, and an embargo on petroleum products on which we welcome the EU lead. We have directed our Defence ministers to determine ways that NATO can contribute to halting the delivery of war material including by launching maritime operations, taking into account the possible consequences on Montenegro."

The Senate

Reception for King of Jordan

The Hon. the Speaker: As honourable senators are aware, Canada is honoured by the visit of His Majesty, the King of Jordan. There will be a reception this afternoon at 3:55 p.m. in Room 237, to which all honourable senators and members of the House of Commons are invited.

A number of calls have come to my office regarding the possibility of spouses and staff attending. Regretfully, there simply will not be enough room. As well, this is a parliamentary matter.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Business of the Senate

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, now that we have now received all of the reports of the various committees, could we proceed with the referral of those reports for consideration later this day? That could not take place at this moment because we have other government business to deal with, but we could refer them for consideration later this day or to whenever the Speaker wishes to refer them.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreeable, honourable senators, to revert to Reports of Committees on the Order Paper?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I would point out that on the report presented by the Honourable Senator Milne, its adoption was not moved or seconded. I believe that the adoption of the others was moved and seconded.

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
Canada Shipping Act

Bill to Amend-Report of Committee

On the Order:

Consideration of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries, Bill C-27, to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and other international fisheries treaties or arrangements, presented without amendment, but with an observation, earlier this day.

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

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I appreciate that now we have the reports in our hands, we are better informed as to exactly what we are being asked to do.

On motion of Senator Carstairs, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(b), bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading later this day.

Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Proposals

Study of Tabled Document-Report of Legal
and Constitutional Affairs Committee Presented

On the Order:

Consideration of the twenty-fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred the document entitled "Proposals to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature therein and to repeal certain provisions thereof that are expired or lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect" presented earlier this day.

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the Speaker indicated that the adoption of this report had not been moved, so let us move it again, just to be on the safe side.

Hon. Lorna Milne: I move the adoption of this report.

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore (Acting Speaker): Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

On motion of Senator Carstairs, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(b), report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration later this day.

Scrutiny of Regulations

Budget Report of Joint Committee

On the Order:

Consideration of the fifth (A) report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations requesting approval of funds for 1999-2000, presented earlier this day.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

On motion of Senator Carstairs, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

First Nations Land Management Bill

Report of Committee

On the Order:

Consideration of the ninth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, Bill C-49, providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, presented earlier this day.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

On motion of Senator Carstairs, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(b), report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration later this day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Income Tax Amendments Bill, 1998

Second Reading

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Callbeck, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cook, for the second reading of Bill C-72, to amend the Income Tax Act, to implement measures that are consequential on changes to the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention (1980) and to amend the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and certain Acts related to the Income Tax Act.

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, yesterday Senator Bolduc gave an excellent speech on both Bill C-71 and Bill C-72. He presented it so well that I will keep more to the specifics rather than to general comments on the budgets.

I liked one of Senator Bolduc's comments yesterday, and so I will begin my speech today by quoting from his speech. He referred to Minister Martin when he said:

He is doing the Liberal two-step: tax silently and spend noisily, so that Canadians are stuck with big, unlimited government. He is stealing our freedom, never mind about the productivity declines, and all those jobs.

It could not have been said better.

Honourable senators, this bill is from the budget of 1998, some 15 months ago, and many of the measures in this bill are effective for the entire 1998 tax year for which the filing deadline was April 30. It is now mid-week, two weeks after the deadline has passed, and once again we are filing our returns on the assumption that all the changes announced more than a year ago would some day become law.

The government is so slow in bringing its tax measures before Parliament that some of the measures in Bill C-72 were superseded by changes in the 1999 budget before the bill even had first reading in the other place. The primary examples of these are the further changes to the personal credit and surtax announced in the budget.

(1520)

Since Bill C-72 was not introduced in the other place until after the 1999 budget, I have to wonder why the government failed to incorporate budget changes in this bill. In spite of taking its time to bring legislation before the Senate, the government is telling us that it is urgent that the legislation be passed. This time, the gun to our head is the promise of tax refunds arising from changes in the way the minimum tax applies to RRSP and pension rollovers, and these changes are being applied retroactively to 1994. We dare not defeat this bill or hold it up. The government tells us that just as soon as this bill is passed, it will issue tax refunds retroactive to 1994.

The good news about this bill is that it does have some tax reductions. The bad news is that the government is not providing meaningful and broad-based tax relief. The bill increases personal basic exemptions for low- and modest-income Canadians to roughly what is needed to offset the last five years of inflation. Even after this bill passes, even after a year from now when the changes from the 1999 budget pass, we will still be taxing Canadians with incomes as low as $7,131. That is one of the lowest levels at which income tax becomes taxable in the Western World.

Bill C-72 removes the 3 per cent surtax for low- and modest-income Canadians. With the budget in balance, there is no excuse now for any surtax.

These measures will reduce taxes for many Canadians, but not by much. For the most part, the tax relief in this bill is selective. If you are a part-time student, you get a tax break. If you are paying $5,000 per child in daycare, you get a tax break. If you are taking care of low-income, elderly parents in your home, you get a tax break. If you are self-employed, you get a tax break on your health care premiums. If you are an emergency volunteer, you get a tax break. The government is using taxes more as social engineering than solid economic policy.

If you are struggling to get by with a pay cheque that has stood still while your bills have risen, the government seems to be saying that you must be content with a few dollars of relief from surtax and personal amount changes. The heart of our nation, the middle class, is still burdened with extremely high taxation.

Selective tax cuts, though I do not like them, are better than no tax cuts at all. They will not help as much as substantive and meaningful cuts.

Honourable senators, as an example, the ceiling for the labour-sponsored venture capital funds rises to $5,000 from $3,500, even though some of these funds have been unable to place all the money that has been entrusted to them, and that has been a criticism of the financial community. I might ask, why are we limiting this tax credit just to funds sponsored by labour? I know it was an initiative of the previous government, and perhaps it was needed at the time. However, I think we need to have another look at it.

If we need more venture capital, why not have a tax regime that gives an incentive to people to invest in companies and new businesses and research? The labour venture capital fund is obtaining investment by tax credits rather than by smart investment decisions.

I will give you an example. I do not know how many of you have invested in the labour venture capital fund, but it actually is a good investment, albeit not from the point of view that the fund is making money or raises its asset level. It has been basically the same for the last five years. It is a good investment because when you put $1,000 in, if you are in a 45 or 50 per cent tax bracket, which is anything over $40,000 or $35,000 a year, you get 45 to 50 per cent off as an automatic tax deduction. On the $1,000, you pick up $500 or $450. As well, certain provinces give you a tax credit. Saskatchewan gives you 35 per cent, and that was done by the NDP. Ontario gives you 30 per cent, and that was done by a previous NDP government. Alberta gives you no additional tax credit along with the federal tax credit, and B.C. gives you 15 per cent. The three NDP governments followed the federal government's 15 per cent tax credit and sweetened it by 20, 15 and 15, respectively. That means that in my province you get an extra 35 per cent tax credit. On $1,000, you get $350 in tax credit, federal and provincial, and you get a $500 tax deduction. That $1,000 only costs you $150. If you keep it for two years, you can sell it, which gives you a return of 17.5 per cent. However, it does not do anything for anyone. It does not accomplish the goals of venture capital. All it does is accumulate cash in a venture capital fund sponsored by labour, which does not make any money.

Several weeks ago, the Minister of Industry said that the taxes in this country were too high. He was promptly put in his place by the Prime Minister. He had dared to suggest that our tax rates should be brought in line with those of the United States.

Honourable senators, the government leader last week boasted that in its two most recent budgets, the government had announced tax breaks totalling $16 billion over three years, about the same amount as what I call the new surtax on Canadians. While they took off the 3 per cent surtax, and they bragged about it in the 1999 budget on low- and modest-income Canadians, they have continued to overtax through the EI premiums paid by working-class Canadians and by small business. This is equivalent to at least $5 billion a year over the amount that is needed. Therefore, the new surtax imposed on Canadians is assessed through the EI premiums and it takes back the $16 billion that they claim they are giving us in tax cuts.

The government is paying for the tax cuts in this bill and in the last budget by overcharging Canadians for Employment Insurance premiums. That, honourable senators, is an unconscionable act and a burden on working-class Canadians and small companies that is unnecessary.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Callbeck, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cook, that this bill be read the second time. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Motion agreed to and bill read second time.

Referred to Committee

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

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

First Nations Land Management Bill

Report of Committee Adopted

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the ninth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, presented earlier this day.

Hon. Charlie Watt moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, the committee believes that Bill C-49 is an important piece of legislation that meets the important objectives of First Nations participating in the land management initiative it establishes. However, after extensive hearings, the committee acknowledged that the bill is not -

Honourable senators, you must bear with me because I lose my sight every now and then.

(1530)

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, Senator Watt has very severe sunburned eyes and is having trouble reading. Might I read his remarks for him?

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Carstairs: The most frequent criticism of Bill C-49 before the committee concerned First Nations' expropriation powers under clause 28. While the committee heard conflicting views on this matter, witnesses raised a number of concerns. Most of these concerns centred on two issues. The first was that the scope of "other First Nation purposes" justifying expropriation is unduly vague. The second was that the bill offers no assurance that the rules of the federal Expropriation Act would apply to determinations of fair compensation following expropriation.

Several witnesses urged the committee to amend clause 28 of Bill C-49. They asked for the scope of First Nations' expropriation authority to be clarified, in order to provide some comfort that First Nations' expropriation powers would not be exercised for overly broad purposes. They also asked for greater clarity with respect to the rules applicable to compensation.

In her appearance before the committee yesterday, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development acknowledged that questions had been raised about whether the bill was clear enough in these areas. She acknowledged the importance of making our intentions clear and invited the committee to address these aspects of the bill. These amendments are intended to respond to that invitation and to add greater clarity to the piece of legislation.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and report adopted.

Third Reading

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

Hon. Thelma J. Chalifoux: With leave, now, honourable senators.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Chalifoux: Honourable senators, it gives me great pleasure today to move third reading and speak once again on Bill C-49, a bill that will be the beginning of creating a new era of First Nations governance. This bill has been the subject of much debate and consultation. In our deliberations, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples has unanimously approved two amendments that clarify the intent of the expropriation provisions.

The minister is also in agreement with these provisions. As well, Kerry-Lynne Findlay, a spokesman for the Musqueam leaseholders, was quoted in The Vancouver Sun, to have said, "I am very pleased with the amendments. I think it is a very, very necessary step forward."

Bill C-49 ratifies the Framework Agreement that will provide 14 First Nations with authority to manage their lands at the community level and to pass laws for the development, conservation, protection, management, use and possession of their lands.

The Framework Agreement and this legislation gives these 14 communities the option of managing their reserve lands and resources. This means they can undertake projects without having to turn for approval to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They will have the flexibility to move quickly when economic opportunities arise or when potential partners approach them. The First Nations can get on with the task of creating jobs and economic growth in their communities. Decisions can be made at the local level.

Honourable senators, this Framework Agreement supports Canada's efforts to increase self-sufficiency in First Nations communities. We are working, in partnership with aboriginal people, to ensure that they have the skills and expertise to shape their own solutions. This bill is a major component of that effort and the broader goals that the government outlined just over a year ago with the launch of "Gathering Strength-Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan."

Under "Gathering Strength," Canada's priorities are to renew partnerships with aboriginal people, strengthen government systems, develop a new fiscal relationship, and support strong communities, peoples and economies. This Framework Agreement and this bill are steps towards supporting each of these objectives.

The minister has stated that we are entering into a new era. Rather than the paternalistic attitudes of the past, Bill C-49 is creating a partnership that will give these 14 First Nations the opportunity to govern their lands in partnership with Canada. This bill will promote and strengthen the government-to-government relationship for all partners.

Bill C-49 also establishes new partnerships among the 14 First Nations themselves. The communities have agreed that, once the Framework Agreement is ratified, they will work together in a spirit of cooperation. They will coordinate their activities through a land advisory board, to help them develop land codes, negotiate individual agreements, model laws, and monitor the process. This is a tool that will help them build partnerships among themselves and build capacity in their communities. This is the road to self-reliance and the road to self-government.

The Framework Agreement and the legislation spell out a high degree of accountability for these First Nations, both financially and locally.

Under Bill C-49, the decisions of the First Nations must be voted on by the community. This means that all members of the First Nations who are 18 years or older, whether resident on or off-reserve, will be eligible to vote in the community approval process.

For the first time, the elected chief and council will be accountable to their membership. Previously, the elected officials were accountable only to Indian Affairs for the actions and management of the First Nations reserves. In this instance, for the decisions of the elected officials to be valid, those decisions would have to be approved by a majority of the total eligible voters. In that way, First Nations can be assured that their memberships are fully apprised of all aspects of the process and subsequent administration of the lands and moneys. In other words, this is an accountability process built to high standards.

This bill is a win-win situation for all parties. The First Nations win because they can include their land and their resources in decisions that shape their future. The First Nations and their neighbouring communities also win because increased economic development on First Nations land will mean a healthier economy for the region. They will be able to deal directly with the First Nation on business matters, instead of having to go through the Department of Indian Affairs.

The federal government wins from no longer having to administer specific sections of the Indian Act for these 14 First Nations, thereby reducing its involvement in the day-to-day management decisions and activities of those First Nations.

Individual third parties win by being able to deal directly with the First Nations and by the establishment of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

During our deliberations, we addressed a number of contentious issues, one of which was expropriation. I would remind honourable senators that there are already expropriation powers under the Indian Act. On request of First Nations, the minister can already exercise expropriation powers, for the general welfare of the First Nation, under section 18(2) of the Indian Act.

What we are seeking to do with this bill is to replace the powers under the Indian Act to ensure that the signatory First Nations have the tools they need to manage their land. The power of expropriation of the signatory First Nations is similar to the expropriation powers afforded to federal and provincial governments and public and private organizations, such as municipalities, school boards, universities, and hospitals.

It is important to recognize that this bill does not allow for arbitrary expropriation. First Nations must justify any expropriation, just as any other expropriating entity must. The courts and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms will be available to ensure that no abuse takes place, just as they are in respect of other expropriating powers.

The bill also requires that First Nations provide fair compensation following the rules set out in the federal Expropriation Act. That act provides for compensation to be based on fair market value, and contains detailed rules for the determination of compensation. The rules and procedures to be developed by the First Nations will have to follow the principle of fundamental justice.

Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms will be available to those persons who wish to challenge the rationale for the First Nations expropriation or for the amount of compensation. The court will also be available for the same kind of challenge.

(1540)

I understand that specific concerns have been raised out of whether these areas have been treated with sufficient clarity. The bigger and more important social issue upon which we have deliberated is the matter of the rights of aboriginal women as it relates to matrimonial property. This is a significant issue, one that we must address. There is a legislative gap regarding matrimonial real property rights upon marital breakdown on reserve. The Indian Act does not provide guidance, in cases of marital breakdown, on the use, occupation and possession of the matrimonial home, or on the division of the interests in land on reserves. In other words, the Indian Act is totally silent on those issues.

Clearly, this is an issue that needs resolution. This legislation is a significant step forward, as it would enable the 14 signatory First Nations to resolve this matter. The First Nation members are required to vote on a community process for the development of rules and procedures for matrimonial property. This process must result in rules and procedures to be adopted within, at a maximum, 12 months from the date the land code takes effect. An arbitration process has been set up in the Framework Agreement to ensure that that delay will be respected. The rules and procedures cannot discriminate on the basis of gender.

However, there is a larger issue at stake here - one that goes beyond the 14 First Nations that have ratified the Framework Agreement. This issue of matrimonial real property upon marital breakdown affects all First Nations that remain administered under the Indian Act. We must look beyond the proposed First Nations Land Management Act and determine what can be done to resolve the current vacuum in the Indian Act concerning division of matrimonial real property.

Last June, the minister announced that an independent fact-finder process would be established to examine how best to address this issue. The minister stated that matrimonial property is a significant issue, extending beyond the First Nations addressed in this bill. It needs to be treated more thoroughly, as do issues facing aboriginal women generally. We need to address the concerns that have been raised by witnesses whose testimony reached beyond Bill C-49. We need to assess, as well, the work of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access and our special study on aboriginal self-governance. There is much work to be done. The minister has signified her interest in working with our committee to examine these serious issues.

In conclusion, I should like to reiterate that this is a very important piece of legislation. It is the first step toward a more harmonious partnership between First Nations, all levels of government, and all Canadians. I hope that, in returning this bill to the other place, they will recognize the importance of the legislation and return it to the Senate expeditiously for passage and Royal Assent.

I thank you all for your support of Bill C-49.

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, Bill C-49 was an interesting process. Therefore, in the absence of Senator Ghitter, I should like to make a few comments.

The Minister of Indian Affairs was with us yesterday. During that time, I tried to ask a question, but we ran out of time because she had to leave. Therefore, I thought I could make my comments here; hopefully she will read them in Hansard.

The bill showed us something that has been an old saw for me - which is precisely why I want to bring it up.

We need a parliamentary debate on this question of self-government. A series of interesting issues continue to arise. The reason for my private member's bill, S-14, was to try to stimulate debate on that subject - that is, if I can ever get it out of committee stage, where we are having an eternal debate. It is an attempt that has been four years long, yet it is a serious attempt.

I cannot believe that I supported a Liberal amendment. Nevertheless, I supported Senator Austin. It goes to prove that, if we discuss and debate the issues, there is room for compromise and some kind of understanding of where we are going. The difficulty is in marrying the constitutional lines of aboriginal self-government and the reality of self-government.

In 1864 and 1867, the founders of our country were wise enough to include in their discussions not only the people who were in charge, but also the opposition parties in the colonies. They knew that that was the way to get the process started.

If anyone in this room believes that we are not setting up a third order of good government in this country, you have not read what is happening. This is another order of government that we are setting up. We will see it later on, in the fall.

We are experiencing problems in discussing this third order of government, because it is all done in secret. There has been a 10-year program of study by the bureaucrats, by the minister, and by the chiefs. It is then flung on Parliament, and citizens become angry. If we are not open, there will be racial tension. I do not blame the bureaucracy. There must be general direction from Parliament as well as from the government. We must develop the debate.

The Aboriginal Peoples Committee is, at this time, studying aboriginal self-government. That is a good forum in which to debate the issue. We should urge the minister to discuss it in the other place.

We heard testimony about what happened in Kamloops. A union organization unionized a band office in Kamloops. The result of that was that the union was banned. The collection of union dues was also banned. The minister wrote a letter to Kamloops, stating, "You cannot do this." Do you know what the chief said? He said, "Yes, we can."

We are always told that the federal laws of application apply. However, there is no evidence of that. That is what happened in this bill. We are always saying that it is all right, but that is not the way it works when it happens. Many important and fundamental issues are outstanding. For example, how do Charter rights apply? We do not know the answer to that.

In the Nisga'a bill, which will soon be coming to us, 14 areas of governance supersede federal powers. We should not get into a discussion about self-government. We must talk about our country.

The Human Rights Commission does not apply because of what is stated in the Indian Act. If it is in the Indian Act it is all right, but we should talk about it before we grant self-government.

Matrimonial rights and property rights are serious issues. The aboriginal people believe in collective rights. As a Conservative, I am a strong believer in community. However, I am not a collectivist. There is a big difference in granting rights to the collectivity. I have a significant problem with that. I am a firm believer in human rights, individual rights, and property rights. Those rights form the engine that runs the economic system in this country and the engine to create wealth. We have not discussed those issues, yet we continue to receive these bills. It will blow up in our face.

The issues that are before us should have been resolved before Bill C-49 came to the House of Commons. We should have been talking about the bill, not about leases. However, that is exactly what we were doing.

The Meech Lake Accord was only to discuss "distinct society."

(1550)

It is not that big a deal. However, we had a long process. We had a meeting of all the first ministers and the Prime Minister to discuss a constitutional problem.

How, then is it happening that we are developing self-government on reserves with federal law? That is what will happen with the self-government bills, and we have no idea how this will work. We are setting up a third order of government. Perhaps that is what we want to do, but I feel we should be able to discuss it reasonably and with passion from both sides.

Bill C-49 is an enabling bill. That is a good thing. I like enabling bills; that is why I like Bill S-14. It is one bill. You can change one bill, you can deal with one bill. You cannot have 100 bills, which is what we will end up having: one for Sechelt, one for Yukon, one for here, one for there, and this will go on forever. That will not be good for any of us.

I support Bill C-49 in its present form. I am glad that we were able to make the amendments to clarify it. The bill did not go as far as I or Senator Ghitter wanted it to go, but we are willing to compromise, and we are democrats. We understood the majority, we fell into line, and we got what we could.

This process was a great learning experience for all of us, honourable senators. Everyone needs to have that same kind of learning experience that we had. The people in the other place definitely need this kind of learning experience. What will be happening in the near future will be very serious for our country, and I hope we do not lose on the whole issue of self-government because we are not capable of giving general direction as to how these bills will be brought before us, and how we will start the third order of government, which is what is happening to us right now.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, I will be very brief. As a British Columbian representing a region of that great province, I believe that if there was an area that was impacted by this particular legislation more than others, British Columbia was that area.

I wish to start off by thanking the chairman of the committee, who recognized that those of us from British Columbia were impacted, in that he allowed us the time for questioning, and he made certain that our witnesses, who had travelled a great distance, were given the opportunity to express their views. The chairman made certain that we were all given the opportunity to deal with what we believed we needed to deal with in this important piece of legislation.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator St. Germain: In dealing with legislation such as Bill C-49, it is important to recognize that all of the country is saying that we should do something for our native people. Yet when we come to do something, everyone is apprehensive about taking that first step.

This is one of the important steps. I believe someone once said that every major journey begins with a single step. This was an important step in allowing our native peoples to assert themselves and to deal with their own lands with dignity, pride and honour. Amongst our aboriginal peoples, those virtues have been destroyed by many of the actions that have been taken in the past, whether it be residential schools or what have you. In that spirit, there is no piece of legislation that goes through any place that is absolutely perfect.

I should like to thank the members who worked with us on the committee in trying to arrive at a resolution. As Senator Tkachuk pointed out, not everyone was totally happy, but we arrived, and we were working for certainty.

Senator Chalifoux said "clarity;" I believe the word is actually "certainty" that people were seeking, the people who will be affected, the third parties on the various Indian lands in our province.

The question of the expropriation was logically the most contentious aspect. I understand that there are people who are still apprehensive. That apprehension I can understand. Only time will tell, because there is risk in everything we do. There is no reward without risk. I hope this is a reward for our aboriginal peoples.

I worked with Senator Austin and Senator Perrault, the chairman, Senator Watt, Senator Andreychuk and all the members of the committee. Given what we had to work with, we have come up with as close to a deal as we can live with.

I wish to issue a word of caution, however. On these deals, the most important thing is that if the uncertainty has not been resolved, it would be detrimental to our aboriginal peoples. The most cowardly dollars in the world are investment dollars. If the dollars do not flow, the economic benefits that this piece of legislation is designed to generate will not be there, and it will go from a winning situation to a losing situation. I would urge everyone, as we work together, to try and exercise the utmost caution and reason as we go forward with this legislation.

I will finish on this thought: It was Chief Justice Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada who said:

Let's face it, we are all here to stay.

Let us remember that statement. Aboriginals, those of us who are Métis, or whatever we are, all working together, we are all here to stay, and we must make this country, this society, work.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Jack Austin: Honourable senators, I will not keep you long. I am as eager to see this bill pass on third reading as any senator in the chamber. I should like, however, to respond with appreciation to the comments that have been made by Senator Tkachuk and Senator St. Germain, but in the larger context of Senator St. Germain's remarks to the chairman of the committee, and to Senator Chalifoux and others on both sides.

All of us recognize in the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples what a serious issue we deal with when we deal with the relationship between the aboriginal community and the rest of Canadian society. We have major issues in shaping Canada.

The Senate committee in this case, under the chairmanship of Senator Watt, has dealt with those issues with a real maturity which deserves recognition. The evidence that was before us under Bill C-49 made clear that there were concerns of a substantial kind with respect to the meaning of parts of section 28. The stakeholders, including aboriginal leaders, the minister and her department, and senators on both sides of the committee, worked together very effectively to resolve these questions. Whereas Senator Tkachuk says that this is my amendment, and it is difficult for him to accept a Liberal amendment, it actually was a joint amendment. I moved it, but Senator St. Germain seconded it, and I wish to thank Senator St. Germain for working with me.

The same is true of all of the senators, including, on the Conservative side, Senator Ghitter, Senator Andreychuk the deputy chairman of the committee, Senator Johnson, and my colleague Senator Perrault and also Senator Fitzpatrick from British Columbia.

(1600)

As indicated by Senator St. Germain, this matter is of real impact in British Columbia. I wish to emphasize the point that has been made this afternoon: A very unfortunate combination of political images developed in British Columbia. There was Bill C-49, there was the Musqueam leaseholder problem, which is unresolved and on which we will be working over the summer, and then the Nisga'a treaty. A great many British Columbians are "worst case" worriers. Whether their worst case worries were, at the end of the road, real or not, the fact that they believed these things would happen in British Columbia made them real. As far as I am concerned, there was reality in the wording, and that is why I became involved in dealing with the issue in British Columbia.

Senator Tkachuk and Senator St. Germain have made the point that the Senate has an important role to play in ameliorating relations between the aboriginal and the non-aboriginal communities in Canada. We are serving the function for which the Senate was created when we take a last look at legislation and endeavour to respond to real concerns that have emerged, in this case, mainly since the bill passed the other place. That is our role. When it comes to issues between Canadians of non-aboriginal and aboriginal descent, we have a very important role to play in the future.

I thank honourable senators on both sides. Truly, in the Aboriginal Peoples Committee, we show how effective the Senate can be.

Hon. Shirley Maheu (Acting Speaker): Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Motion agreed to and bill, as amended, read third time and passed.

[Translation]

COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
CANADA SHIPPING ACT

Bill to Amend-Third Reading

Hon. Fernand Robichaud moved the third reading of Bill C-27, to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement the agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks and other international fisheries treaties or arrangements.

Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.

[English]

Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Proposals

Study of Tabled Document-Consideration of Report of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee-Debate Adjourned

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the twenty-fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred the document entitled "Proposals to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature therein and to repeal certain provisions thereof that are expired or lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect," presented earlier this day.

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): I move the adoption of the report.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): This report is not just an ordinary report. It is a report on an omnibus bill which is intended to make so-called technical corrections to acts already passed by the Parliament of Canada. If honourable senators have a chance to read the report, they will see that it goes beyond that. Since there is no urgency to it, I should like to adjourn the debate.

On motion of Senator Lynch-Staunton, debate adjourned.

Criminal Code

Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lavoie-Roux, seconded by the Honourable Senator Butts, for the second reading of Bill S-29, to amend the Criminal Code (Protection of Patients and Health Care Providers).-(Honourable Senator Carstairs)

Hon. Mary Alice Butts: Honourable senators, although I was not in this neighbourhood when the Senate committee released its report on euthanasia and assisted suicide in 1995, I have used the document in several circumstances since its release. I am happy to have this opportunity to thank those who worked so diligently to provide us with such a valuable treatise.

I understand Bill S-29 to be another building block which follows from the resolutions of the Senate report. The report considered the legal, social and ethical issues related to problems such as the withholding of treatment and the withdrawal of life supports. Now the Senate needs to provide for the report's recommendations.

Thus, Bill S-29 calls for the amendment of section 45 of the Criminal Code. This bill provides, first, for protection of caregivers who act according to instructions of patients or their designated persons, and, second, for the establishment of guidelines in the area of life-sustaining treatment and pain relief. Thus, the bill places the onus where it belongs - on the lawmakers of the country, rather than on the caregivers or the courts.

Specifically, Bill S-29 provides for amendments that will arrange for the medical procedures that constitute life-sustaining treatment, a determination of dose limits of treatment, and the circumstances in which it is illegal to exceed those dose limits to alleviate pain and physical distress.

Further, it will legislate that the federal Minister of Health, working with his or her provincial counterparts, will provide the standards and parameters for care for the terminally ill.

I want to take a few minutes to explain why I believe Bill S-29 is essential if we are to fulfil our duty as legislators.

First, all recent studies show that the incidents of euthanasia are increasing in our society, with the law as it is today. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that 36 per cent of doctors would be willing to write lethal prescriptions if doing so were legal, while 11 per cent were willing to do so against the law.

The survey concluded that laws protecting against euthanasia prevent two-thirds of doctors willing to kill their patients from doing so and they keep down the numbers of killings even by doctors willing to break the law. It is essential that the law provide another option, so that caregivers are not faced with this dilemma.

Second, laws forbidding euthanasia maintain the moral integrity of the medical profession. They maintain the distinction between healer and killer. The distinction between killing and allowing to die is embedded in our 2,500-year-old moral and medical traditions. When this distinction becomes blurred, euthanasia becomes a solution to some of society's problems.

Third, in a speech made recently at the National Press Club, a doctor who is a director of oncology at the University of Montreal stated that the outcry for euthanasia is based primarily on a mistaken fear that doctors will keep people alive beyond their time or will be unable to control a patient's pain. This doctor reminded his audience that the pain of almost all dying patients can be controlled. As he said, "One in a million has pain that cannot be relieved." Thus, the modern call for euthanasia is unnecessary.

Further, the oncologist said that euthanasia deprives patients and families of many important moments. He called for more education of both doctors and the public regarding the availability of pain control.

(1610)

He maintained that patients often confuse physical suffering with spiritual suffering, and that spiritual suffering is an integral part of the suffering of a cancer patient who has been told that he or she has only months to live. He called for help from psycho-social pastoral teams to help patients see the true meaning of life and of death. Above all, they must be told that their acquired wisdom is a value in society and not a burden. He maintains that dying patients want to live as long as they can. In his 33 years of practice, he has treated thousands of dying patients, and only a handful asked him to help them die.

Finally, honourable senators, I wish to speak of one dilemma with which I am more familiar, that of Dr. Nancy Morrison of Halifax. The ordeal which Dr. Morrison experienced must surely be a deterrent to other doctors who might consider killing a patient.

Paul Mills was administered a drug that is used to execute criminals in certain states of the United States. On the day prior to his death, patient Mills had been taken off antibiotics and the feeding tube was disconnected. On the day of his death, he was taken off life support and administered the last rites of his church.

An attending nurse in the ICU stated that this death was the worst death she had ever witnessed. In her words, "Never have I seen conventional treatments so ineffective."

Dr. Morrison did not go through a murder trial because the Crown could not produce the forensic evidence to prove a fatal dose of the drug had been administered.

Honourable senators, Dr. Morrison need not have faced that dilemma. What was missing in the case was a good palliative care system with standards of legal treatment.

A group of palliative care doctors published a statement about the case which said, in part:

It is an unfortunate reality that what is known about good pain management and palliative care is not widely implemented or accessible.

Every Canadian has the right to adequate pain management at the end of life. We, as legislators, can ensure that they have it. The medical experts tell us that with current medical treatment substantial comfort can be given to the terminally ill. What is missing is a law that will protect both the sufferer and the caregiver.

There exists options to alleviate human suffering other than outright killing. If we do not protect life at its end, we will destroy a key foundation of Canadian society because respect for human life and the need to protect the most vulnerable are foundation principles which support all other rights in this society.

On motion of Senator Carstairs, debate adjourned.

Royal Assent Bill

Second Reading-Order Stands

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bolduc, for the second reading of Bill S-26, respecting the declaration of royal assent by the Governor General in the Queen's name to bills passed by the Houses of Parliament.-(Honourable Senator Poulin)

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise seeking information. Will this bill go to committee or will the government let it languish as it has for the last month or so?

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): The order stands in the name of Senator Poulin. At the last meeting of the Liberal caucus it was determined that a more thorough debate of this legislation within caucus was desired.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Since, from what we have seen in the last month, most of your caucus debates are held in the Senate, could we perhaps continue that practice?

Order stands.

International Search or Seizure Bill

Second Reading-Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Beaudoin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bolduc, for the second reading of Bill S-24, to provide for judicial preauthorization of requests to be made to a foreign or international authority or organization for a search or seizure outside Canada.-(Honourable Senator Grafstein)

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, on March 9, 1999, Senator Beaudoin introduced a private member's bill, S-24. The objective of the bill, we were told, is to improve the protection of the right of privacy in Canada. This is a commendable objective. All senators are interested in the right to privacy. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the O'Donaghue case, affirmed, as a judicial extension of the Charter-like rights, the right to privacy.

Bill S-24 would do so, however, only for those who keep their business and banking records abroad. The practical effect would be to require police agencies to comply with an additional procedure to an already lengthy process for obtaining assistance abroad. Bill S-24 would further delay investigations. It would protect anyone with records abroad, whether in Canada or not, who is the subject of a Canadian police investigation. It would add a protection beyond the case law and the Charter. For example, a drug dealer in a foreign country who uses bank and corporate secrecy jurisdictions to hide activities from law enforcement officers, who has never been to Canada but is being investigated for offences in Canada, would benefit from the additional procedural requirements and delay.

Innovations in technology would make it easier each year for criminals to carry out criminal plans which take advantage of foreign laws. International assistance is an essential means to combat this problem. An integral part of such assistance is the ability of Canadian officials to quickly locate, secure and obtain documentary and other evidence which is to be found in foreign locations.

Such a measure appears, to me at least, to be unnecessary and inappropriate in the modern transnational crime context. The result of Bill S-24 would be to hamper the efforts of Canadian authorities to fight effectively the ever-growing problem of transnational crime.

If Senator Beaudoin's object is to renovate the law to protect the privacy of Canadians who do not maintain banking or business records abroad, as might have been the case in the Airbus affair, that object commends itself to me. This does not appear to be either the aspiration or the ambit of this bill. For all of the above, I cannot agree to support Bill S-24.

Honourable senators, as an aside, it seems that the Honourable Senator Beaudoin would welcome the principle of extra-territorial protection in this measure, but not in others. Consistency remains, as always, the ogre of smaller minds.

Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, I should like to pose a question to Senator Grafstein. Bill S-24 deals with a Charter right. What is the opinion of Senator Grafstein on the extent of Charter rights? Is it his view that Canadians are entitled to those rights only when they are in Canada, or wherever they are in the world? Do those rights extend to property in Canada only, or to property wherever it is in the world?

Senator Grafstein: Honourable senators, the way the question is worded raises a difficulty. I would rather respond with regard to the limitations of this bill. As I read it, this bill inhibits Canadian authorities from investigating bank or business records of Canadians who seek to do their business overseas. To my mind, this is an additional extension of the right of privacy that I think goes beyond the Charter and beyond the case law. It has the counter-productive objective of assisting criminals who are prepared to use Charter-like protections to protect themselves against the reach, beyond the Canadian border, of investigations in Canada.

(1620)

This is my reading of the bill. If the objective of the bill is different than that, I remain open-minded. However, as I read this bill, it would place additional tools in the hands of international criminals to prevent using the theory of the right of privacy to protect them against a proper and appropriate criminal investigation. I cannot believe the Senate would agree to that.

Hon. Gérald-A. Beaudoin: My honourable colleague said that the right to privacy is involved, and I could not agree more. However, suppose the request for a search and seizure were made in this country? Do you not agree that under the present law a Canadian citizen has the right to oblige the police to seek a warrant? If so, what differs when the same citizen, in Canada, is subject to search and seizure, but the execution is taking place in another country? Is it not the same Canadian, the same person, under the Charter of Rights, which applies everywhere in this country? Is that person not subject to the same rights, as if the execution of the warrant were inside Canada?

Senator Grafstein: Honourable senators, the drafting of the bill goes beyond what the honourable senator intends. I see the drafting as being much larger than that. You do not have to be a Canadian citizen. You can be anywhere in the world and still seek that protection for a writ issued in Canada.

Perhaps the honourable senator, when he deals with this further, might enlighten me, but that is the way I read his bill as presently drafted.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I think Senator Grafstein is misreading the bill. It is not a question of protecting criminal elements. Bill S-24 is designed to protect innocent Canadians in respect of a search or seizure outside Canada, just as they are protected by the Charter in their own country. When a police force wants to engage in a search of assets, they must go before a court to justify that search and to obtain a warrant. The court will decide whether the warrant is justified and, if so, will issue it.

A Canadian may have assets abroad. Just because an individual has a bank account in Vermont or France does not mean he or she is a criminal. The Government of Canada may want to search the account for a number of reasons. Bill S-24 states that a Canadian who has assets abroad should have the same protection as if those assets were in Canada; that they should have the protection of the court, in the sense that the court will have to assess the evidence put before it to justify that search.

Honourable senators, this bill was inspired by the Airbus affair. The Government of Canada wrote the Swiss nearly four years ago. Shall we go over that letter again? No, we had better not. Suffice it to say that the letter made terrible accusations, which turned out to be false. The Government of Canada besmirched reputations. Had the government been forced to go before a court in Canada to obtain a warrant to search for assets abroad, it may have had to use a more discreet approach, a less flamboyant approach, and certainly a less politicized approach.

I would urge Senator Grafstein to read the minority judgments of the Supreme Court. I believe there were two dissenting opinions in the Schreiber case.

Again, this bill is not meant to protect or give an escape clause to criminal elements. It is meant to protect innocent Canadians from unwarranted searches, wherever their assets may be.

Senator Grafstein: One should not do this, but I will quote my own speech again.

In response to Senator Lynch-Staunton's previous question, let me again quote my speech, because I think it will succinctly answer what the honourable senator is asking. With respect to the ambit of the bill, I say:

For example, a drug dealer in a foreign country who uses bank and corporate secrecy jurisdictions to hide activities from law enforcement officers, who has never been to Canada but is being investigated for offences in Canada, would benefit from the additional procedural requirements and delay.

If, in fact, the import of the honourable senator's question is that this is not the intention of the bill, so be it. However, that is not the way I read the bill, as currently drafted.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Would Senator Grafstein agree to having the bill sent to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, so we can hear from the appropriate witnesses, in an effort to have a better understanding of the bill? I think I understand the purpose of the bill. Senator Grafstein has a different understanding, and perhaps the wording needs to be tightened up.

Again, as I understand it, the bill is not designed to protect the drug dealer who has never lived in Canada and has assets abroad. Rather, the bill is designed to ensure that, when a Canadian citizen is subject to a search and seizure, he has the same protection of the Charter, no matter where the assets may be located.

Senator Grafstein: That is obviously for the Senate to decide.

Honourable senators, I have satisfied myself that the drafting, as presently presented, does not fulfil the objective to which I thought Senator Beaudoin was directing his objection, namely, that a Canadian who does not have business records abroad, unintentionally or intentionally, has his privacy challenged without some sort of renovation or right to protect himself. That, to my mind, was the way I read the heart of the Airbus affair, and I thought that it was unfair. That is not what this bill does.

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I move the adjournment of the debate.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, these private bills seem to flounder and go on and on. Can we not move these bills on to the appropriate committees? They are not exactly partisan bills. They are non-governmental bills meant to improve existing legislation. Just because they come from one side rather than the other, does that mean that they must be dismissed with adjournment motions on a constant basis.

I have asked a question to the mover of the motion, and hopefully I will get an answer.

On motion of Senator Carstairs, debate adjourned, on division.

Canada Elections Act

Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Order Stands

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Grimard, for the second reading of Bill S-27, to amend the Canada Elections Act (hours of polling at by-elections).-( Honourable Senator Carstairs)

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Once again, honourable senators, this bill is straightforward. I do not understand why it has been sitting on the Order Paper for nearly a month. All it says is that, during by-elections, the hours of voting will be from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. There is nothing controversial about that. Why is it necessary to keep standing this order? Why can we not send the bill to committee and have it properly assessed? Why the delay by the government?

Bill S-27 is non-controversial. It is a worthwhile amendment to the Canada Elections Act. It is not saying anything partisan. To my mind, it improves an existing act.

Why is the government delaying and adjourning the debate on this matter? I would like an explanation from the other side, otherwise we will call a vote and force the issue.

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): My understanding, honourable senators, was that the Honourable Senator Graham would be in the chamber this afternoon to speak to this bill. That is the only explanation I can give to Senator Lynch-Staunton at this time.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I accept that and thank the deputy leader.

Order Stands.

(1630)

State of Financial System

Consideration of Report of Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee on Study-Debate Concluded

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the consideration of the seventeenth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce entitled: "A Blueprint for Change" (Volumes I, II and III), tabled in the Senate on December 2, 1998.-(Honourable Senator Stewart)

Hon. John B. Stewart: Honourable senators, on December 2, 1998, Senator Kirby presented the seventeenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. That report is entitled "A Blueprint for Change." On motion of Senator Kirby, that report was placed on the Order Paper for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate. There it stood until Thursday, April 29.

When Senator Kirby presented the report, I made it known that some members of the committee, including myself, did not agree with the committee's recommendation on the subject of auto leasing by banks. As I said at that time, I was opposed to the recommendation that banks be allowed to lease automobiles and small trucks. I was not convinced that the Banking Committee understood fully the implications of this recommendation. In the months since last December, I have not changed my mind.

It is obvious, honourable senators, that I see this recommendation from my own viewpoint, the viewpoint of a senator from rural Nova Scotia. Perhaps some of my concerns apply equally in cities such as Halifax, Montreal and Toronto. Let me explain.

In Canada, we have a very safe banking system. However, one result of the measures we have taken over the years to achieve such a safe system is that we have very few banks. Those banks now aspire to be world-class players. However, this report of the Banking Committee raises a question: Do we want our banks, which are few in number, to expand into other forms of business within Canada? Surely there is an advantage in long-term commitment. Take the car business as an example.

I ask myself the following question: Is it likely that the banks would be as committed to the car business as are the local car dealers in small-town and rural Canada? Unlike the banks, these dealers are specialists. They are in a single line of business. It is a complex business, but it is still a single business. Because a dealer does business in one community, he or she has a lively interest in the prosperity of that place. If the consumers they serve do not flourish, it follows that they, the dealers, will not flourish.

I now move up to the level of the big banks and the big North American automobile companies - GM, Ford, and Chrysler. I ask myself: Is it likely that the big banks, with their extensive, worldwide financial operations and involvements, would be as committed to the car business as are the big automobile companies?

I hold no brief for either the banks or the automobile companies. However, the automobile companies must succeed in the automobile business, otherwise their profits will drop. They need a network of sound dealerships. In hard times, each big company has an obvious interest in helping its dealers survive, even if this means resorting to forms of vertical subsidization such as reducing the cost paid by the dealers for automobiles. The banks have no such direct interest, neither do they have the means for internal subsidization. They are in the banking business, not the automobile business.

I come now to my second argument. It relates to tied selling. A banker speaks: "Yes, we are ready to lend you the money to buy your new house. The interest rate will be, oh, about 9 per cent. Of course, if you did more business with us, we might be able to do better. Are you planning to lease a car soon?"

Wisely, the Banking Committee is opposed to tied selling. The committee believes strongly that competition is essential if we are to have a genuine free market economy. Indeed, in this very same report, the Banking Committee says that if Canada is to have true competition in the financial sector, we will need more second-tier financial institutions; more institutions such as credit unions. To achieve that new, higher level of competition, the committee makes several recommendations. They can be found at paragraphs 147 through 163. Moreover, the committee warns against thinking that greater competition in the financial sector is likely to come soon.

Paragraph 164 reads:

The committee cautions, however, not to expect instantaneous competition to materialize from the set of new policies designed to encourage new entrants.

That being so, why give the banks yet another opportunity, a major opportunity, to engage in tied selling?

I now turn to the financial benefit that bank car leasing is alleged to produce for consumers. Look at paragraph 188 of the committee's report. That paragraph reads:

The only justification for changing the law to allow deposit-taking institutions to enter into lease-financing arrangements for automobiles would be if such a change in public policy would be of benefit to consumers.

The key question is obvious: Will allowing banks lease-financing for automobiles reduce the cost to the consumer?

To support their submission to the committee that lease-financing by banks would benefit the consumer, the banks cited a report by Vertex Consultants. The Vertex report compares the cost of car leasing in Canada with the cost in the United States where financial institutions are in the car-leasing business. The Vertex report says that the cost of a lease is higher in Canada by up to 2 per cent.

I assumed that that evidence was correct, but it led me to a conclusion different from that drawn by the banks. I interpreted that evidence as an argument for remodelling our financial system along American lines, that is, to increase competition within our financial sector by introducing new financial institutions, such as credit unions, on a wider basis. I interpreted that evidence as meaning that we should make no recommendation on allowing banks into the automobile leasing business until we had been successful in increasing competition within the financial sector. In any case, the Vertex report seems an impressive argument against bank mergers.

Now I am told by the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association that the Vertex report, the one on which the banks relied, is misleading. This is so, they say, because it focuses only on the price of the lease. It does not take into account three other factors essential to a correct analysis of the true cost to the consumer: It does not take into account the selling price of the vehicle. It does not take into account the duration of the lease. It does not take into account the residual value of the vehicle at the end of the lease contract. When these three factors are included, it is found, the vehicle manufacturers say, that leasing actually costs the Canadian consumer less than his or her counterpart in the United States.

Michigan was the test case in the manufacturers' study. That study found that to lease a small car in Michigan costs Canadian $99.30 more per month than to lease a small car in Canada. To lease a mid-car in Michigan costs C$137.15 more a month than in Canada. To lease a van costs C$150.13 more per month in Michigan than in Canada. When all the vehicle categories are combined - cars, vans, light trucks, et cetera - the cost of a leased vehicle is 17 per cent higher in Michigan than in Canada.

(1640)

Obviously, I cannot say that the information provided by the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association is accurate. I am in no better position to pass judgment on their data than I am on the Vertex report used by the bankers. However, I must say that it seems manifestly true that the rate of interest taken in isolation is not an accurate measure of the true cost of a lease transaction; that is, the true cost to the consumer.

Perhaps someone will say that even if the true cost of leasing a vehicle is lower in Canada than south of the border, the fact remains that the Canadian automobile dealers and the companies behind them need more competition, that they need the competition that the banks would provide. However, let us remember that world auto production capacity is far in excess of the effective demand. The competition among the automobile makers and the car dealers is far keener than the competition among the bankers, at least where small business is concerned.

Honourable senators, it is my conclusion that the committee has gone astray in this part of its report. I do not believe that evidence has been adduced to sustain this part of the report. However, I must say that I am open to persuasion. I ask those who think I am wrong to put me right.

Hon. Pierre De Bané: Honourable senators, would my honourable friend allow me to ask him a question?

Senator Stewart: Of course.

Senator De Bané: As to whether it is better for consumers to have more options, I think we should leave that in the hands of the consumers. It is up to them to decide if they would prefer to do their financing through one financial institution or another.

The point that I would like to bring to the attention of my colleague is the following. Does he not find it odd that Canadian banks are not allowed to compete with American car manufacturers in Canada, while those same car manufacturers must compete with American banks in their own country? Does the honourable senator not find this quite odd?

Senator Stewart: Honourable senators, I think I have anticipated various parts of the question in my speech.

If the competition is so much keener in the United States, notwithstanding that they have more financial institutions than we have, why is bank car-leasing not cheaper in Michigan than it is in Canada? That is one point.

Another point is the one I mentioned concerning specialization. General Motors, for example, is in the car business. It must maintain its dealerships or it is in real trouble. That is true for all the North American manufacturers, particularly in this day of keen competition because of overproduction.

On the other hand, the banks are in a multitude of businesses, and they are all over the world. They may have an interest in auto-leasing, but they have to vital interest, as the big automobile dealers do, in maintaining the dealership chain. In fact, having gone into the car leasing business, they might find, perhaps three or four years thereafter, that it was more profitable to put their money and efforts into a faraway place such as Indonesia. Therefore, they withdraw from the car-leasing business after they have, in effect, put out of business some of the automobile dealerships in small towns.

My argument is that the automobile companies and their dealerships are in one special line of business and each is dependent on the other. That is not true in the case of the banks. They certainly are making a significant amount of money without being in the automobile-leasing business.

Senator De Bané, in his question, did not touch upon tied selling. The committee report says that tied selling is very bad; that it disrupts the market. Surely, we are presenting the banks with a wonderful temptation. As I said, if a consumer wants a new house, the banks may say, "We are more than interested in lending you the money, but we will give you a much better rate if you give us your car lease, too."

Surely, Senator De Bané is interested in protecting the integrity of the market.

Hon. Nicholas W. Taylor: Honourable senators, I also have a question to ask of Senator Stewart. He mentioned the difference in charges for renting cars. I have had occasion to rent cars in the U.S. I have noticed the higher price, in particular in Michigan. I was told in an off-hand way that that was because of higher insurance costs, not bank costs.

Did your committee check as to what the component parts of the higher costs for car rentals in Michigan were made up of?

Senator Stewart: No, Senator Taylor, not to my knowledge. When the banks made their case before the committee, as far as my knowledge goes - I must say that I did not travel across the country with the committee, I had to stay here - they relied on a report which says that car leasing in the United States is less costly to the consumer than in Canada. The report of the automobile manufacturers' association to which I referred was not available to the committee. I cannot certify that report, but I have a suspicion that it is accurate. They are adducing this evidence to rebut information already on our record. I think they would have been careful to ensure that their information was accurate.

What they found was that a car lease was more expensive in Michigan, which was their trial state, than in Canada. They explained why the Vertex figures were astray by reason of not taking into account such things as the residual value of the vehicle at the end of the contract.

Senator Taylor: Bearing in mind that the institutions which lease cars are huge financial institutions themselves, did any member of the committee ask the banks whether they would be against these institutions getting into the banking business by operating savings accounts, for example, for their customers?

Senator Stewart: No, Senator Taylor, as far as I know, we did not ask that important question.

The Hon. the Speaker: If no other honourable senator wishes to speak, the debate on this report will be considered concluded.

(1650)

Asia-Pacific Region

Report of Foreign Affairs Committee on Study-Inquiry-Debate Adjourned

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Stewart calling the attention of the Senate to the eighth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs entitled: "Crisis in Asia: Implications for the Region, Canada and the World."-(Honourable Senator Andreychuk)

Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, you will understand why I will be speaking at such a late hour. In October 1996, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs began its study of the Asia-Pacific region and its importance to Canada, with particular emphasis on APEC and the Vancouver conference in 1997, Canada's year of the Asia-Pacific. An interim report was filed in June 1997, touching on trade and economic issues, with, regrettably, other issues to be reported in the final report.

Most notably to me, the issue of the linkage between trade and human rights was delayed. Much occurred before the final report was filed in December 1998. Our title, "Crisis in Asia: Implications for the Region, Canada and the World," tells the story.

I should like, at the outset, to particularly thank Peter Berg, Anthony Chapman and Collen Hoey, who assisted so ably in the research and preparation of this report. Also, Serge Pelletier, clerk of the committee, offered his time and assistance generously. The chairman, Senator Stewart, deserves to be acknowledged and commended for a host of reasons, not the least of which is his patience and even-handed chairing.

Honourable senators, I agree generally with the report. The trade, investment and overall economic enumerations are clear and need little explanation. There are only some points that I should like to make. First, the economic situation in the Asia-Pacific region was never a miracle. It is based on some real economic advances, as the second page of chapter 2 of our report indicates, particularly the World Bank indicators.

The second point I should like to make is that the Asia crisis of 1997 has proven that there is no mystique in Asia, or, put another way, that Asian countries had found no way around the usual economic forces and rules.

Turning to the chapter on the IMF involvement, this remains one of the hotly debated issues with reference to the Asia-Pacific crisis. As stated in the committee's report, the current global financial system has increasingly come under attack.

The main problem is that, even though financial markets are much more integrated than product markets and capital is much more mobile than other factors of production, there is no global governance of international financial transactions analogous to that found in the areas of trade. Moreover, the present international arrangements are not only inadequate but also asymmetrical; they are designed to discipline borrowers rather than regulate lenders. This stands in sharp contrast with the way national financial systems are designed. Moreover, international arrangements are designed to manage rather than prevent crisis.

The Asian financial crisis has made it almost inevitable that there will be a post-crisis attempt to strengthen the global financial architecture, and so it should. There is growing consensus that major changes, not just stop-gap measures, are required. At present, under the mandate of IMF, it is involved by invitation only and relies on that country's data. However, there is agreement in most quarters that the IMF was not singularly at fault or ineffective in Asia. Its weaknesses are more generic; for example, its structures, its lack of transparency, its lack of attention to human consequences and their policies.

In this vein, recommendation 4 of the same chapter, asking the Government of Canada to explore the concept of a global supervisor of domestic bank regulators, both bilaterally with individual countries and within international fora, is laudable. However, the question remains, as in the IMF, about its potential real effectiveness. That is, in part, why the committee has requested a reference to study the IMF in the coming months.

I should like to draw senators' attention to the chapter on Asia-Pacific security issues. While traditional security threats are raised enumerating potential conflicts in the region and internal armed conflicts, the most worrisome aspects lie in the arms trade. Next to the Middle East, the Asia-Pacific region represents the largest arms market in the world. In contrast to the post-Cold War draw-downs of personnel and equipment in the countries of NATO and the former Warsaw Pact, the recent years have seen significantly increased expenditures on the part of the countries of East Asia. Mr. David Dewitt, director of the Centre for International and Security Studies, York University, described the Asia-Pacific region as follows:

...the sink for weapons, both old and new, recycled and cutting edge.

Perhaps one positive outcome of the Asian financial crisis is the decreased financial capacity of these governments, and hence their smaller purchases. Beyond some bilateral arrangements, there are no regional security mechanisms and no history of the same. We should not underestimate the tensions in this region.

I note that China has the largest army in the world. Wealth is being siphoned off for weapons. The real need is to encourage de-escalation in the region and to begin to build a climate of trust or confidence-building, as it has commonly come to be referred.

I believe that the Government of Canada is on the right track with its policy, and the recommendations in the committee's report go to bolster the current activity. If we are to prevent conflict, we need to act now, not at the point of conflict. In this case, the track-two measures identified in our report are crucial, as they involve more of civil society and the academic community and, therefore, create a better climate for peace than simply government contacts which inevitably lead to defending sovereignty dialogues.

Turning to Canada's trade policy towards the Asia-Pacific region, most witnesses, including government officials, noted that Canada needed to expand its trade potential. Generally, three reasons were given: The globalization of markets, the need to be competitive, and the realization that growth would come to Canada only through exports.

Much more time was spent by witnesses who generally were engaged in the Asia-Pacific region already, and from the Asia-Pacific region, scholars and the like, noting the growth potential in this vast region. It would seem the easiest road to travel for Canada was to step up its trade initiatives in the region, especially China, and all would be well at home.

In short, "Asian fever" broke out, as Chris Patton, in his book East and West, pointed out. The Canadian government seemed to place trade strategies around two concepts, Team Canada and APEC, with customs and tariff liberalization as the keys to success for 1997. Our study followed in time, chronologically, the economic crisis in Mexico and the continuing economic prosperity in Chile. The dialogue with government officials and Canadian ministers did not centre on Canada's need to look again at our internal productivity, tax structures, research and development strategy, et cetera. All these issues were dismissed. Nor was the economic miracle questioned. On the contrary, it was lauded, dismissing as uninformed any criticism or questioning. Somehow, Asia had found the key to success, and few questioned its continuance. Rather, many foretold of its expansion. It was a time when economic success was seen to be the precursor for all other positive change.

(1700)

The debate, certainly from Canadian officialdom, was about how to get into the action, but not by any discussion and at what cost. Their answer was quick and not to be questioned: Team Canada and tariff and custom liberalization through APEC.

It was reassuring that some of our witnesses, business people and others, told a more balanced account. While trade opportunities were there, and continue to be there, some noted the real dilemmas of working in the Asia-Pacific region. As one witness pointed out, deals come only after long-standing relationships are built. Many raised the issues of corruption, cronyism, lack of an independent judiciary, no protection or recourse in contracts, and no rule of law.

Canadian businesses even talked of codes of professional conduct to combat the lack of ethics displayed in business competition. Some even raised the need to hold countries accountable for the human rights contraventions where these countries had signed conventions to the contrary.

All this was happening while the Canadian government was moving in a different direction. I shall say more about this later.

The report noted, for the government's consideration, many worthy suggestions made to the committee by the Canadian businesses in the Asia-Pacific region. For example, the need to assist small and medium businesses was paramount. Cross-cultural training, education and more effective use of the immigrant population in Canada was explained and recommended. In fact, the immigrant population was said to be our hidden resource, and one worthy of note. The need for continuity of knowledge in our embassies was another issue.

From the government side, it would seem that the debate was simplified to a quick fix: Team Canada to open the door and APEC to lower barriers.

It would seem that Canada's position lay not with the deep analysis but with the quick-fix mentality. In the heady times of the era of the Asian miracle, Canada - though not alone - did not pursue a normal trade policy nor a principled, balanced foreign policy. Rather, Canada fell into, or bought into, a quick solution: Get your fair share of trade in the expanding market, no matter how you do it. It was a sure fix, an easy way out of Canada's financial difficulties and, it appeared, desired at any cost.

What was the result? All countries are judged on their economic successes, but not alone on this marker. The Canadian government made the mistake of turning Canada's foreign policy into a trade policy, relegating all other facets to oblivion or poor seconds.

Professor Brian Job of the Institute of International Relations, University of British Columbia, pointed out in early 1997, rather prophetically:

The basic argument in my remarks is that we Canadians in academic, government and private sectors cannot simply define our relationship with Asia in narrow economic terms, that is, as jobs, jobs, jobs and trade, trade, trade. I argue that if we do define our foreign policy and our bilateral relations with Asia solely in economic terms, we would be myopic because we will eventually undermine our economic interests and our success in the region.

My first point is the inseparability of stability, security and economics in the Asia-Pacific region. The second is the drawbacks to what I will term a "monochromatic foreign policy." The third point is sustainability after APEC and the year of Asia Pacific in Canada.

To the first of these points, the inseparability of stability, security and economics, in 1995 a survey of senior executives and middle managers doing business in Asia Pacific found that 77 per cent of them regarded political instability to be the major barrier to doing business in emerging markets in the region. In January 1997, the lead editorial in the Far Eastern Economic Review states:

The question marks that hang over the Asia miracle have little to do with business. From Japan to Thailand and Indonesia, the question marks are fundamentally political.

My point is that we have to continue to pay attention in our foreign and economic policy to these particular underpinnings within the region and within these countries as we go forward, I would suggest, perhaps a bit more than we are doing at the moment.

My second point is on the drawbacks to what I would call a "monochromatic foreign policy." I am overstating this a bit, but I want to focus your attention by using that phrase.

In its statement on foreign policy, the Canadian government defined its primary foreign policy priority as an economic one, that is, advancing the economic health of Canadians. Certainly this makes sense for a country as dependent on trade as Canada. The result needs to be foreign policies that focus on advancing our economic interests. However, this should not mean that our foreign policies can or should be defined solely in economic terms.

Increasingly, Canada will find that its economic interests have social, political and security implications.

Mr. Chris Patten in his book East and West at page 110 states:

Despite the continuing friendliness of the Chrétien government and its avowed interest in human rights, we got the distinct impression that concerns about trade with China inhibited outspokenness about political issues on which China appeared sensitive.

This short-sighted policy played heavily into the hands of Asian leaders; for example, to accept no criticism, to use sovereignty as a shield, to cow countries into abiding by their opinions and wishes and to praise Asian values as something different from international values.

In fact, in the case of China, around that time there was no mention of three T's - Tiananmen Square, Taiwan and Tibet. References were not to be tolerated. Inference or outright suggestion of the risk of loss of trade was the order of the day. The backing down on the China resolution in the Human Rights Commission by Canada and others will be regretted.

These concepts lay at the root of the debate on whether political change follows economic development, or vice-versa. More important, is human rights too Western a concept, and only to be considered after economic reform?

The debate was crystallized in a very interesting exchange in the committee on April 9, 1997, between our chairman and Professor Amitav Acharya, associate professor, Department of Political Science, York University, Toronto, and also associate professor at the University of Toronto, York University Joint Centre for Asia-Pacific Studies.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable Senator Andreychuk, I regret to interrupt you but your 15-minute speaking period has expired.

Is leave granted for the honourable senator to continue?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Andreychuk: Mr. Acharya gave a long and studied presentation to the committee on human rights. Our chair, in his excellent, probing manner - and I believe playing the devil's advocate to a certain extent - took the opposite view on the issue of human rights as that presented by Professor Acharya when he pointed out that the development of human rights in England and France took time to formulate. It was a long and developmental process, preferring peace and security first. He stated:

Using that as an example, what is wrong with the position taken by thoughtful people in some of these countries that, despite their good intentions, what the advocates of human rights are likely to bring about is poverty and anarchy?

(1710)

Professor Acharya responded as follows:

Two things are wrong with this policy, if I may put it very bluntly. First, when countries such as England, the United States and European countries were going through a comparable stage in their economic development at a time when they emphasized peace and stability over human rights, they were living in an international environment where no one cared about human rights. The international norm of human rights was not there.

Today, Asian governments make the same point that you are making....We have had about 40 or 50 years of independent existence. European countries have existed for centuries. They have had their own fights and wars. They went through a lot of turmoil. There were no human rights then. Who are they to tell us to observe human rights which they learned to observe after centuries of evolution?

My answer to that is that the world has changed. We have international norms and standards of behaviour which are very different from the kind of behavioural norms that we had in the 17th and 18th centuries. International human rights today is an accepted norm of international politics and, therefore, I think one can learn it much faster. One should try to adapt to it much faster.

My more important concern is that I do not think there is a negative correlation between human rights and prosperity. Until recently, people used to say look at Southeast Asia. Singapore has done very well. It is economically prosperous partly because of a kind of soft totalitarianism. The leaders of Singapore used to say look at India; look at the Philippines. They have a lot of civil liberties, but, economically, they are left far behind Singapore.

That, of course, has changed.

He went on to say:

Even if I concede your point that it is necessary in the beginning to have some restrictions on human rights in order to allow political stability and economic growth, you cannot continue to do that forever....Why do they continue to have the same policies in the 1990s that they had in the 1950s and 1960s?

Yet, per capita income has grown in Singapore.

The question of Asian values and human rights as a western concept was raised by me. Again, Professor Acharya responded by saying:

My definition of human rights is rights that every person enjoys simply by being human. There are no cultural conditions attached to this.

Governments will say that there will be a core group of human rights, but whether they observe it in practice is another question. The issue becomes very complicated.

Much research has been done on the question of human rights in different cultures, and they have come up with the same point that you made - every culture acknowledges and respects the dignity of human beings. We just have to make sure that political authorities do not abuse it.

Many others echoed his position. Therefore, at the back of our study on trade and investment was always the human rights dimension.

Rather than usual practices, the Canadian government became an apologist for certain leaders in the Asia-Pacific region, embracing their arguments rather than bringing our perspectives. That was left to individual Canadians and organizations. In this process, our values and good practices were left at the door at home. "Economy first" became our slogan.

What happened to cause this? There has always been a dialogue about the methods and mechanisms that Canada should employ in the pursuit of human rights. It was the first time in recent history that a Canadian government relegated human rights to such a low priority. It would seem that as Prime Minister Chrétien stated "jobs, jobs, trade, trade," he and others of his government simultaneously made further less helpful statements; for example, that Canada should not be shrill on human rights. However, many questioned: "When were we shrill?" Comments continued, as we are no boy scouts: Even if Canada spoke, we are not powerful enough to be listened to.

The trouble with this constantly moving approach was two-fold. First, it was not reflective of the majority of Canadians. Second, the matter of timing coincided with the muscling of Asian tigers and the Asian miracle.

With the Canadian government focusing on trade, the APEC summit in Vancouver took on a different character. Official after official went to great pains to characterize APEC as a trade environment with no room for other issues, especially human rights.

However, many outside of the government disagreed. Ms Maureen O'Neil, president at that time of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, stated:

I wish to thank this committee for calling hearings on APEC and, in particular, for providing this opportunity to talk about issues that are not, in the strictest sense, economic or business related, but which encompass the broader social, environmental and human rights implications of participating in APEC.

Again and again it has been said that APEC is a forum for discussion about trade and, to a certain extent, economic and technical cooperation and that there is no use muddying its waters with other issues. In our view, this is short-sighted...

It has become increasingly clear that issues of trade and investment ought not to be discussed in isolation from human rights and democracy.

Ms O'Neil further stated that the ideas of human rights, as being translated to us through APEC members, were not the ideas of the citizenry, that they were really the ideas of the leaders and that the fundamental values which we call human rights were being echoed in those countries.

When pressed on issues, government officials conceded room for an NGO forum on human development issues but still emphatically maintained no human rights on the agenda. The clear impression I received was that human rights was a no-no; only pure trade. There was no room for discussion, no room for opposition, and certainly opposite views would not be tolerated.

It is small wonder that the demonstrations in Vancouver took place. Our government's behaviour is and will continue to be scrutinized as a result of its narrowed foreign policy.

As I said in the hearings in February 1997, this is not an Asia-Pacific human rights debate; this is a Canadian debate. It was created and propelled by the government. The majority of Canadians had the right take on the human rights issue.

Ironically, APEC 1997 showed that human rights is still a Canadian issue. In my opinion, the answers for the government lie in Chapter 7 of the committee's unanimously adopted report. It is the starting point for a sensible, balanced and principled foreign policy. I personally would have gone further. However, I would have been satisfied in 1997, and I would be satisfied today, had the government adhered to the minimum standards set out in Chapter 7 of our report.

Finally, as a footnote about Asia-Pacific, I should like to say that Asia-Pacific is not over there; Asia-Pacific is us, as we were told time and again. It mattered greatly in 1997 and it matters just as greatly now. However, so does our foreign policy, and I trust that it will be more balanced in the future.

Hon. John. B. Stewart: Honourable senators, I think it is fair to say that all members of the committee put great importance on the value of human rights. However, we were told that one of the problems in that part of the world is weak governments. When a government does what was done at Tiananmen Square, that is not evidence of strength; rather, it is evidence of weakness.

The problem in many countries is that they have weak governments.They are competent to sign agreements and conventions in New York, but when they get back home, they do not have the competence to perform.

Is that not the real problem, rather than getting an agreement on the content of a charter of human rights?

(1720)

Senator Andreychuk: Senator Stewart has often addressed this matter eloquently in our committee hearings. I respect the point of view that governance is an issue in that area. I would encourage other senators who have not read Chapter 7 to read it, because that point is clearly made there.

However, if we were only zeroing in on economics, we forget about the stability and security, and that is the good governance issue. We addressed that in Chapter 7 by saying that we need to work on their independent judiciary, and find ways and means to support and encourage civil society and encourage good development frameworks for their governments.

I do not believe that the problems in the Asia-Pacific region lie squarely with that alone. I believe that there must be a calling to task of the leadership, and their willingness to work on the issues of good governance, rather than just on maintaining power and authority. When governments run into problems, there are alternatives, if they wish to seek them. Time and time again, we have had that debate. I recall the Guatemala debate when the government would not respond. It said, "We do not have the structures. It is our security that is being threatened. We must go to these measures." When we started to get governments that would open up and pointed out the weaknesses and difficulties that they had, there was a de-escalation of the human rights abuses.

I would point out what was said in our community by Canadian businessmen who were going there. They said, "If countries in the Asia-Pacific region go to the United Nations and become members and sign covenants, it is perfectly in order for Canada to call them to task on violating such covenants." The only way we will have a universal international order is by holding them accountable for what they have already signed. Perhaps we should be encouraging them to sign more, but the accountability should be there.

On motion of Senator Kinsella, debate adjourned.

[Translation]

Official Languages Act

Progressive Deterioration of French Services Available to Francophones Outside of quEbec-inquiry-debate continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Simard calling the attention of the Senate to the current situation with regard to the application of the Official Languages Act, its progressive deterioration, the abdication of responsibility by a succession of governments over the past ten years and the loss of access to services in French for francophones outside Quebec.--(Honourable Senator Kinsella)

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, on June 3, 1998, the Honourable Jean-Maurice Simard called to the attention of the members of this House the deterioration of services in French for francophones outside Quebec. Like a number of my colleagues, I wish to speak today in support of his action, by bringing to your attention the recent report by the Task Force on Government Transformations and Official Languages.

[English]

However, before dealing with that report, I should like to raise several adjacent matters, only because these two questions have troubled me about our official languages in the recent past. Both involve the academic community, a community in which I myself participate.

I was curious to find out what progress had been made in Canadian academia as far as our official languages are concerned, so I contacted the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the Canadian Association of University Teachers. I asked them, in 1999: "What is the rate of our professorial core in Canada who are now bilingual, and how does that compare with 25 years ago?" Unfortunately, honourable senators, neither organization, as they informed me, keep any data as to our official languages capacity among the professorial core in our Canadian institutions.

I recognize that the Official Languages Act does not apply directly to the universities. However, on the other hand, we all recognize that the public treasury of Canada is an important resource, through the transfer programs and the student loans programs and the research programs, of Canadian academia. I do not know what that status is, but I would hope that someone would undertake such an inquiry.

My hypothesis is that unless the leadership in this country is making progress there, then perhaps we will not be making the level of progress that we ought to be making as a national community.

Second, as honourable senators may know, various academic associations such as the Canadian Association of Economists and the Canadian Association of Political Scientists, meet at about this time of year. They meet at different universities, which they choose in order to keep the costs down, across the country under the umbrella of the Learned Societies - la Société des savants. I recall a few years ago attending one of their meetings and seeing the banner welcoming the members to the Learned Societies of Canada, la Société des savants du Canada. I was astonished. What was present? Simultaneous translation in French and in English for our savants in Canada. I found that somewhat curious. I attempted to find out how many of our learned societies are getting government grants to pay for translation. Does that not speak to something? Can you imagine the professional associations meeting in Belgium or in Switzerland and having simultaneous translation? It does not happen. They all communicate in the official languages of their country.

[Translation]

For several years now, the federal government's application of the Official Languages Act in the federal public administration and its support to the francophone minorities in our country have often been in the spotlight. In the past 10 years, regardless of who was in power, the federal government has made major changes to its administrative mechanisms with a view to modernizing and rationalizing the delivery of services to the Canadian public.

These government changes have had a major impact on people's daily lives. When services have been privatized, service points and sometimes meeting spaces have been eliminated in a number of regions.

For many, it was clear that the impact of government transformations on the people of Canada warranted in depth study. Canada's Commissioner of Official Languages undertook such a study from an official languages standpoint. In a report entitled "Government Transformations: The Impact on Canada's Official Languages Program" the commissioner stated that these transformations had led to a marked deterioration in access to services in one of the two official languages in a number of regions in the country for francophone communities, to the federal government's shirking of its responsibilities and to a significant weakening of official languages programs in Canada. In the face of this, the commissioner severely criticized the federal government.

In response to this criticism, the President of the Treasury Board created a task force in 1998 headed by Yves Fontaine. This group comprised members from every region of the country and from both majority and minority official language communities. The mandate of the group was to analyze the effect in official languages terms of government transformations and to propose means of improvements. The investigation was to focus on the following: service to the public, language of work, equitable participation and the growth of minority official language communities. The task force also analyzed the status of federal government obligations, commitments and accountability with respect to official languages as the result of these transformations.

After over eight months of investigation and many consultations, the task force on government transformations and official languages presented the results of its work to the President of the Treasury Board in January 1998. In the Fontaine report entitled "No Turning Point: Official Languages in the Face of Government Transformations," which others have called the Fontaine report, the task force concluded that the transformations had had a significant effect on the minority official language communities, specifically those of the francophones outside Quebec.

To a large extent, the report simply confirmed the earlier criticisms of the Commissioner of Official Languages. The Fontaine group concluded that the government transformations of the past ten years had given rise, and I quote:

...a subtle but cumulative erosion of language rights in delivery of service to the public, language of work, equitable participation and support for the development of minority official language communities.

In this regard, during the consultations held by the task force, the Société Saint-Thomas d'Aquin, in Prince Edward Island, said in reference to the issues that are inherent to government changes that the members of francophone communities outside Quebec are losing hope as they realize that their constitutional rights exist only on paper. They will soon stop fighting for their rights. For this organization, the lack of accountability in the federal public administration, and its withdrawal from the area of minority communities, call the Official Languages Act into question.

Honourable senators, it is urgent, therefore, that the federal government solemnly reaffirm its commitment to Canada's linguistic minorities to ensure enforcement of the act, if it is to preserve its credibility among Canadians.

The Fontaine report also discusses the impact of the recent privatization of several federal Crown corporations, and of the transfer of responsibility to the provincial administrations, on the effectiveness of the accountability process to the Parliament of Canada, regarding enforcement of the Official Languages Act in the delivery of services in both languages.

As for the problem that could be caused by the privatization of a Crown corporation, the committee recognizes that respect of all the rights and obligations mentioned in the act posed a major challenge, since Parliament no longer has any power to monitor the enforcement of the provisions relating to the delivery of services in both official languages. Moreover, these new bodies are not subjected to the accountability processes that are in place for federal departments, for example. Organizations such as Air Canada or Canadian National are commercial ventures, which must, in this era of globalization, meet certain requirements in terms of profitability and competitiveness. This means that the corporate culture of these companies must reflect that reality. It is therefore more difficult to integrate linguistic obligations in this new context. The Task Force recommends that the government use, with these former Crown corporations, an approach that is geared to the new environment in which they operate, while developing appropriate follow-up, evaluation and accountability procedures with regard to the provisions of the act.

Honourable senators, in closing, I would remind you that the strength and unity of our country depends on the vitality of its cultural communities. Canada has two linguistic communities - francophone and anglophone, officially recognized in Canada and in my province of New Brunswick - the first nations, and other ethnic groups forming a partnership that is unique in the world. The French and English languages are the fundamental characteristics of our identity as Canadians. They also underpin our country's constitutional, political and cultural foundations. The founding fathers recognized this in 1867, and they were incorporated into the Constitution in 1982. They attest to the existence of the linguistic duality, something to be cherished by Canadians.

This year, honourable senators, we are celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of the Official Languages Act. It is true that there has been progress in the use of French outside Quebec within the federal government and in the provinces. But in the last ten years the context has changed, as I was saying earlier.

The imperatives of a zero deficit and globalization seem to have relegated the Act's objectives to a backburner. The simple administrative fixes proposed by the President of the Treasury Board are no longer enough to resolve the problems raised by the Official Languages Commissioner and by the Fontaine report.

Honourable senators, the Parliament of Canada must examine this issue more closely in terms of the new national and international realities our country is facing. These realities are very different from those that led to the adoption of the Act in 1969.

For all these reasons, I am very pleased today to second Senator Simard.

On motion of Senator Carstairs, for Senator Gauthier, debate adjourned.

[English]

Adjournment

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

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

That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until Monday, May 31, 1999 at 8 p.m.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

The Senate adjourned until Monday, May 31, 1999 at 8 p.m.

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

1st Session, 36th Parliament, Volume 137, Issue 140

Thursday, May 13, 1999

The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker

Table of Contents

THE SENATE

Thursday, May 13, 1999

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Acadia University

Acadia Advantage Program

Quebec Major Junior Hockey League Championship

Congratulations to Titans of Acadie-Bathurst

International Day of Families

The Honourable Solange Chaput-Rolland

National Nursing Week

Veterans Affairs

Black Service Battalion

Conflict in Yugoslavia

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act Canada Shipping Act

Bill to Amend-Report of Committee

Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Proposals

Study of Tabled Document-Report of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Presented

Scrutiny of Regulations

Budget Report of Joint Committee Presented and Printed as Appendix

First Nations Land Management Bill

Report of Committee

Private Bill

Canadian District of Moravian Church of America-First Reading

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Notice of Motion for Authority to Study Issues Relating to Persons Coming Under Jurisdiction of Department of Veterans Affairs

Solutions to Tobacco Problem

Notice of Inquiry

Pages Exchange Program with House of Commons

QUESTION PERIOD

Transport

Port of Halifax-Loss of Bid to become Harbour for Supertankers-Possible Upgrade-Government Position

National Defence

Proposal to Reduce Reserves-Possible Loss of Nova Scotia Regiments-Government Position

Proposal to Reduce Reserves-Reduction of Combat Arms Presence

Proposal to Reduce Reserves-Headquarters of Units Located in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia-Government Position

Agriculture

Declining State of Industry-Response of Government-Request for Update

Shortcomings in Agriculture Income Disaster Assistance Program-Government Position

Declining State of Industry-Response of Government

Foreign Affairs

Organization of Meeting between President of Mexico and Premier of Quebec-Government Position

Intergovernmental Affairs

Comments by Minister Dion-Request for Clarification

Human Resources Development

Millennium Scholarship Foundation-Progress in Negotiations with Provinces-Request for Update

Delayed Answers to Oral Questions

Canada-United States Relations

Loss of Favoured Exemption from International Traffic in Arms Regulations-Possible Trade Dispute-Effect on Industry-Terms of Moratorium

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Conflict in Yugoslavia-Summit Meeting in Washington-Imposition of Embargo on Military Equipment and Oil Supply-Position of the Prime Minister

The Senate

Reception for King of Jordan

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Business of the Senate

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act Canada Shipping Act

Bill to Amend-Report of Committee

Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Proposals

Study of Tabled Document-Report of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Presented

Scrutiny of Regulations

Budget Report of Joint Committee

First Nations Land Management Bill

Report of Committee

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Income Tax Amendments Bill, 1998

Second Reading

Referred to Committee

First Nations Land Management Bill

Report of Committee Adopted

Third Reading

COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT CANADA SHIPPING ACT

Bill to Amend-Third Reading

Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Proposals

Study of Tabled Document-Consideration of Report of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee-Debate Adjourned

1st Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 137, Issue 140

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
Canada Shipping Act

Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
Canada Shipping Act

Study of Tabled Document-Report of Legal
and Constitutional Affairs Committee Presented

COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
CANADA SHIPPING ACT