Hon. Lise Bacon: Honourable senators, you have received notice of a question of privilege I raised in accordance with rule 43(5), which reads as follows:

Immediately upon receipt of a notice required in sections (3) and (4) above, the Clerk of the Senate shall arrange for the immediate translation and dispatch, to each Senator's office address in Ottawa, of a copy of the original notice and the translation.

I assume that all senators have received this notice. The question of privilege concerns certain leaks to the media, including today's leak to Le Soleil in Quebec City and The Toronto Star, of the second draft of the report by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on the reorganization of the airline industry in Canada.

It is my intention today to address this question at the appropriate time and to propose that the matter be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders.

The Late Jeannine Séguin The Late Omer Deslauriers

Tributes

Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier: Honourable senators, I was saddened to learn of the death of Jeannine Séguin, a teacher by training. She was considered one of the most steadfast pillars of the local, national and international francophone community.

Francophone Ontario, especially, has lost a leader, and Canada is mourning the passing of a strong woman, who had a hand in French-language education from the Maritimes to the Prairies.

I knew Jeannine Séguin and I honour her today for her devotion to the francophone cause. She chaired the Association des enseignants franco-ontariens, the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada.

She distinguished herself through her great determination, her perseverance and her exceptional sense of the workings of politics. She devoted her life to education, promoting Canadian unity and the development of French-language educational institutions. This year has seen the departure of two great defenders of the Ontario francophone community.

In the spring, we lost Omer Deslauriers. This man, like Jeannine Séguin, distinguished himself through his involvement in making education and health services accessible to Ontario francophones.

We mourn today two people who have left their mark on our community.

[English]

Tenth Anniversary of Pledge to Eradicate Child Poverty

Hon. Erminie J. Cohen: Honourable senators, 10 years ago today, on November 24, 1989, an all-party resolution was passed in the other place to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. Instead of being eliminated, child poverty has increased by 60 per cent in the last decade. Approximately 460,000 more children are in desperate need. Our efforts to eradicate child poverty have been deplorable.

Last night I attended a silent vigil at the Eternal Flame to mourn the failure of Canada's Parliament to meet its promised commitment to poor children. I speak today, honourable senators, on behalf of those hundreds of thousands of children across this rich land who continue to live in poverty, go to school hungry and live in substandard housing. They depended on the government to keep Parliament's word and fulfil their promise, but the promise was broken.

In the past decade, high unemployment was cited as one of the major causes for the growing number of children with needs. Still, as unemployment rates began to drop, child poverty continued to rise. Why? Most of the new jobs created are low-wage, part-time or contract jobs that offer limited benefits or none at all. With 50 per cent of all marriages ending in divorce, many single mothers are struggling to make ends meet. In New Brunswick, a single mother with one child receives $739 a month in social assistance. Out of these meagre funds she is expected to feed, clothe and shelter both herself and her child.

Poor children awaken every morning to face the same bleak reality. How can they focus on learning when their living conditions are so poor? They are robbed of a carefree childhood. We see evidence of anxiety, poor health, anti-social behaviour and delayed vocabulary development. This is unacceptable in a country that prides itself on a superior standard of living. The rate of poverty in Canada is almost a scandal.

In the past decade, honourable senators, the government has drastically reduced funding to the provinces for the basic necessities — dollars that provided for social services, decent housing, health care and education. EI reform has been hardest on women whose qualifications for benefits hit an all-time low last year. Deficits were eliminated at the expense of social programs. In fact, our national policies have all but abandoned our children in recent years.

As we approach a new millennium, I implore the government to deliver on a promise to our children that never should have been broken. We have a glimmer of hope with the $6 million recently announced for social housing. Let us add more dollars to that amount to be spent on long-term investments, income support and services for children to alleviate homelessness and to revisit employment insurance in the form of loosening the requirements and expanding the numbers who qualify. Let us take a hard look at federal leadership in relation to the provinces in the delivery of social programs. Discussion should not be about federal and provincial powers and who does what, but about what governments can do together to help people in need, lest we forget that the children of today will be the leaders and taxpayers of tomorrow. They deserve much better. We owe it to them and we owe it to Canada.

(1340)

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Legal and Constitutional Affairs

First Report of Committee Tabled

Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 104 of the Rules of the Senate, I have the honour to table the first report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which deals with the expenses incurred by the committee during the First Session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament.

(For text of report see today's Journals of the Senate.)

Aboriginal Peoples

First Report of Committee Tabled

Hon. Charlie Watt: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 104 of the Rules of the Senate, I have the honour to table the first report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, which deals with the expenses incurred by the committee during the First Session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament.

(For text of report see today's Journals of the Senate.)

Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

First Report of Committee Tabled

Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 104 of the Rules of the Senate, I have the honour to table the first report of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, which deals with the expenses incurred by the committee during the First Session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament.

(For text of report see today's Journals of the Senate.)

Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders

First Report of Committee Tabled

Hon. Jack Austin: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 104 of the Rules of the Senate, I have the honour to table the first report of the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders, which deals with the expenses incurred by the committee during the First Session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament.

(For text of report see today's Journals of the Senate.)

Second Report of Committee Presented

Hon. Jack Austin, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders, presented the following report:

Wednesday, November 24, 1999
The Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders has the honour to present its
SECOND REPORT
Your Committee, in accordance with rule 108, and upon the request of its sponsor, the Honourable Senator Taylor, recommends the suspension of rule 106 in connection with a proposed private bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Act of incorporation of the Board of Elders of the Canadian District of the Moravian Church in America."
Respectfully submitted,
JACK AUSTIN

Chairman

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

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

Third Report of Committee Presented

Hon. Jack Austin, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders, presented the following report:

Wednesday, November 24, 1999
The Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders has the honour to present its
THIRD REPORT
Your Committee, which was authorized by the Senate on October 13, 1999 to examine the question of privilege raised by the Honourable Senator Kinsella concerning a witness who appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry requests that, notwithstanding rule 92(2), it be empowered to hold its meetings in camera for the purpose of hearing witnesses.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK AUSTIN

Chairman

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

Senator Austin: With leave, now.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): No.

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

National Finance

First Report of Committee Tabled

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 104 of the Rules of the Senate, I have the honour to table the first report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, which deals with the expenses incurred by the committee during the First Session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament.

(For text of report see today's Journals of the Senate.)

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Bill

Notice of Motion to Instruct the Standing Committee to which the Bill is Referred to Divide Bill into Two Bills

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I give notice that tomorrow, Thursday, November 25, 1999, I will move:

That it be an instruction to the standing Senate committee to which Bill C-6 will be referred that they have the power to divide Bill C-6, An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used, or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act, into two Bills; the first consisting of Part 1 and schedule 1 with Titles and a coming into force clause and the second consisting of the remainder of the Bill and schedules 2 and 3 with Titles; that any proceedings on the second Bill may stand postponed until after the consideration of the first Bill; that either Bill may be reported to the Senate as soon as it is considered; and that, notwithstanding the usual practice, the Senate give this instruction at any time while the Bill is before the Senate, even after committee consideration of the Bill has commenced.

Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Engage Services

Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, I give notice that on Thursday, November 25, 1999, I will move:

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

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Permit Electronic Coverage

Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, I give notice that on Thursday, November 25, 1999, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs be authorized to permit coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings.

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Meet During Sittings of the Senate

Hon. Michael Kirby: Honourable senators, I give notice that on Thursday next, November 25, 1999, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology have power to sit while the Senate is sitting on Monday, November 29, Tuesday, November 30, and Wednesday, December 1, 1999, and that rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.

Banking, Trade and Commerce

Committee Authorized to Meet During Sitting of the Senate

Hon. Leo E. Kolber: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(a), I move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce have power to sit at 3:30 p.m. today, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, may I ask the chairman why the committee must sit today? Leave has been granted, but may we find out why this is so important?

Senator Kolber: The Banking Committee is starting today a study on the capital gains problems in this country, and we have very little time in which to complete the study, as we wish to finish a preliminary report before the end of the year.

(1350)

Professor Reuven Brenner has written one of the seminal pieces on the subject and, with short notice, he has been able to come to Ottawa to appear before our committee. If we are to do our job, we believe we should start our study quickly.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I do not object to that, but perhaps chairmen who want their committees to sit while the Senate is sitting could give us more warning than the one we are getting now. It puts us and the witnesses in an embarrassing position. The work of senators is primarily to be in this chamber. The schedule of committees is to be honoured, as was laid out before senators took on their new jobs as chairmen and deputy chairmen and members.

We on this side — unless there is an urgency, and I will accept that this may be one — will not be too sympathetic to giving leave, thus taking senators away from the chamber, where they should be while the Senate is sitting.

Senator Kolber: Honourable senators, I have no doubt that our first responsibility is to be in the chamber. We also have a responsibility to get the work done. There are few days left in which to do that work. I have been told, as chairman, that this is our time slot, namely, 3:30 p.m. on Wednesdays. If that is to be changed, I would appreciate knowing beforehand because it puts us in a bind with respect to your problem and with getting witnesses to appear, who are coming and giving of their time. For the most part, these witnesses are well-known experts in their field.

Honourable senators, I am in your hands. If the honourable senator opposite wishes to meet with our leadership to change the committee's time slot, so be it. If he does not wish us to do our work, so be it. However, if we are to do our work, we should at least have a chance to get at it.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, if the chairman has problems with the time slots, we could accommodate him by giving him a slot on Monday or Friday, or any evening during the week.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Matters Related to Mandate

Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, I give notice that tomorrow, Thursday, November 25, 1999, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment, and Natural Resources, in accordance with rule 86(1)(p), be authorized to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to energy, the environment, and natural resources generally in Canada; and
That the Committee report to the Senate no later than March 31, 2000.

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Engage Services and Travel

Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, I give notice that tomorrow, Thursday, November 25, 1999, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment, and Natural Resources have power to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical, and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of its examination and consideration of such bills, subject matters of bills and estimates as are referred to it; and
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within and outside Canada for the purpose of such studies.

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Permit Electronic Coverage

Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, I give notice that tomorrow, Thursday, November 25, 1999, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be empowered to permit coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings.

Census Records

Presentation of Petition

Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present a petition, with 190 signatures, from the Ontario Genealogical Society, petitioning the following:

...your petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation to preserve the Post 1901 Census Records, remove them to the National Archives and make these, as well as future Census Records, available to the public after 92 years as is presently consistent with the many provisions of privacy legislation and time limits now in force.

QUESTION PERIOD

Foreign Affairs

Increase in Capital Expenditures in Supplementary Estimates (A)—Possible Opening of New Embassies

Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

We had the distinct pleasure of meeting with representatives of the Treasury Board earlier this week to review the Supplementary Estimates (A). In part, we discussed appropriations to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Have we opened any new embassies or consulates around the world, or are we in the process of doing so? I understand that we are building a new embassy in Berlin due to the change in location of the capital of Germany from Bonn to Berlin.

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, as the honourable senator would appreciate, I do not have that information at hand. However, I will undertake to speak to the minister and provide the information to the honourable senator and to this chamber, if not tomorrow, early next week.

Senator Stratton: I would appreciate that very much.

The reason, in part, for asking this question is that capital expenditures for Foreign Affairs in the original budget Estimates were $87,690,000. The new appropriation is $43,875,000, for a total of $131,565,000. In other words, the appropriation has increased by approximately 50 per cent since the original budget.

I understand the embassy in Berlin costs approximately $71 million and that the costs have escalated. However, that still leaves $60 million unaccounted for in the sense that we do not know where those costs arise. We have asked officials from the Treasury Board for a response in that regard. It may be more appropriate for the honourable leader to go to Treasury Board, obtain that information from them and table it here in this place, because I am curious as to where we are spending this $60 million.

Senator Tkachuk: That makes a real nice residence.

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I will make inquiries on behalf of the honourable senator and bring back to this chamber any information I am able to obtain.

Justice

Cost of Gun Registration Program—Responsibility of Minister

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, at the same meeting yesterday morning, Mr. Neville of the Treasury Board gave evidence on the Supplementary Estimates (A), specifically regarding the gun registration program. I asked him a number of questions about why an extra $35 million was needed when $40 million had been allocated in the original Estimates. Mr. Neville then calculated the cost of the gun registration program since 1995. Even I was shocked at the amount, which was $309 million.

The government should know that this outrageous amount is what many parliamentarians and people opposed to the gun registration program were telling the government in 1994 and 1995 — namely, that its Estimates were far too low and that the program would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. We were all pooh-poohed by the government and told that we did not know what we were talking about.

The minister, Mr. Rock, said that the amount would be only $85 million, which would take us to the end of the registration program, from 1995 to 2001. The figure is now $309 million, with no end in sight. The other question I asked was: Who is responsible for this situation? Mr. Neville said that the minister is responsible.

(1400)

Does the Leader of the Government share the view that Minister Rock is responsible for this tremendous miscalculation that is costing Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I take a slightly different interpretation of the response which was received from the senior official. However, a minister is responsible for everything within the realm of his department, and that is the theory upon which our democracy operates.

Senator Forrestall: Why does he not accept that responsibility, then?

Senator Boudreau: I realize that difficulties have been identified with respect to the registration process.

Senator Tkachuk: They were identified three years ago.

Senator Boudreau: In fact, a review was done this past May and recommendations were made to improve the operation. Three quarters of all of the recommended service improvements have been implemented. We are now seeing an increased efficiency in the processing of applications.

The numbers I have indicate that 8,500 licences are being processed and 35,000 guns are being registered per month. That does not specifically address the honourable senator's item, but it does indicate that a review of the process has taken place, improvements have been implemented and the system appears to be working.

Senator Tkachuk: Honourable senators, this is what always happens. I asked the officials: Who is responsible for this tremendous miscalculation? The officials said it is the minister. I come here and ask the Leader of the Government who is responsible and he says that, of course, the minister is always responsible, but we had all these problems. No one is ever responsible because if he were responsible, he would resign.

Senator Forrestall: Hear, hear!

Senator Tkachuk: He has either deceived us or he was incredibly incompetent. He cannot have it both ways. If he does not resign, he says, "I am not responsible." Who is responsible in the bureaucracy? We have a right to know, just in case they promote the guy to Deputy Minister of Finance or Secretary of the Treasury Board. That is possible, too.

Perhaps the minister could inform us, if the minister is responsible, as he says, and he makes this tremendous mistake, what price should he pay? Why has he not resigned? If he is not responsible, who in the bureaucracy is responsible? Perhaps the minister should launch a formal investigation to inform parliamentarians of who did this.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I understand the honourable senator's concerns regarding the over-expenditures of this particular program. I will certainly convey that concern to the minister, along with the honourable senator's inquiries. If there is any further information that I can provide to the honourable senator, I certainly will.

Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, I have a supplementary question. The original estimate was $85 million and it is now estimated to be $301 million. Surely, the government now has an idea of what the overall cost will be. Will it be $600 million, $800 million, $1 billion? Could you not tell this chamber the final estimated costs?

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I will certainly raise the matter with the minister responsible and provide any new information that is available to this chamber.

[Translation]

Intergovernmental Affairs

Quebec—Possible Conditions of Referendum—Impact of Government Initiative

Hon. Jean-Claude Rivest: Honourable senators, while Canadians are worrying about economic and social issues, the Government of Canada has chosen, with one of its nice little improvisations, to artificially move the referendum question to the top of the agenda. This impacts considerably on Quebec. Economic and social issues are shunted aside as a result, and the referendum is again being discussed.

Why has the Government of Canada decided at this point to bring this issue again to the forefront of Canadian politics?

[English]

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, if the Canadian government feels that it is appropriate to express its view on an issue as fundamental as this one, then clarity is an absolute necessity. Clarity is required both with respect to the nature of the question and with respect to the result that is required to proceed.

As to the best time to bring this issue forward publicly and give a clear position, no one time is preferable to another since the issue is not immediately before us. Perhaps the government and the Prime Minister feel that this is an appropriate time, when we are not in the heat of battle, to provide the Government of Canada's views on these very important issues.

[Translation]

Senator Rivest: Honourable senators, in the short term, and I do not know whether the minister is aware of this, the Prime Minister of Canada's initiative to raise this issue at this time seems unfortunately to be working in favour of the sovereignist option in Quebec. I do not know how the Canadian government perceives his initiative. There is much being said about a clear question. Are the minister and the Government of Canada aware that their initiative — seemingly a unilateral one — far from adding to the cohesion of federalist forces in Quebec, is instead unfortunately adding to the confusion of those who need to defend the Canadian option in Quebec? In the National Assembly this afternoon, Quebec Liberal Party Leader Jean Charest dissociated himself publicly from the initiative taken by the Prime Minister of Canada.

Does the government think this unilateral approach to the referendum debate is good for Canadian unity? Would it not be preferable for the Government of Canada, the Government of Quebec and those of all the other provinces to show an attitude of open-mindedness and understanding in order to convince Quebecers to choose the Canadian option? Some Quebecers who are half-heartedly in favour of sovereignty would no doubt prefer the Canadian option. They must not be given arguments to the contrary.

If a referendum were held in Quebec now, we would have the Parti Québécois on one side and Jean Chrétien on the other. Jean Charest and the Quebec Liberal Party would not really know which side to take. By formally raising the referendum issue without consulting the main spokesmen for the federalist forces in Quebec, namely the Liberal Party of Quebec, are we helping Canadian unity? By proceeding unilaterally, we are destabilizing the Quebec Liberal Party and the federalist forces in Quebec. I hope that this unfortunate incident will be forgotten by January or February 2000.

Could the minister convince his cabinet colleagues, and particularly the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, to avoid taking actions that play into the hands of the separatists promoting Quebec's sovereignty? Could the minister try to encourage his colleagues to work in a positive and normal fashion with Quebec federalists to strengthen the federalist option in that province, instead of weakening it, as was unfortunately the case this week?

[English]

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, it is clear that the Prime Minister views this issue as important and fundamental to the future of the country. His view with respect to referenda and separation is beyond question.

The federal government and the Prime Minister are clearly of the view that, if there is never another referendum in Quebec, that will be all to the benefit of the people of Canada, including the people of Quebec. On this point, our colleague in Quebec, Jean Charest, is in full agreement, as I suspect we all are. On that fundamental issue, there is no disagreement.

(1410)

Out of respect for the people of Quebec who would vote in a possible future referendum, we would have a role to play to ensure that the question is clear. It is important that we express that view, and I think it is the opinion of the Prime Minister that that view must be expressed.

There are those who would say that the Government of Canada should be a bystander, a voyeur, in any referendum process in Quebec, regardless of how confusing the question might be or how questionable the result. The Prime Minister does not take that view, the Government of Canada does not take that view, and I personally do not take that view. I do not think many people in the Senate take that view.

We must be very sensitive to issues such as those the senator raised. We must also ensure that the people of Quebec are respected with regard to both the question and their decision. However, that does not mean that the Government of Canada cannot take a clear view and a clear position on the issue.

[Translation]

Senator Rivest: Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate suggesting that during the 1980 referendum, the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau was a mere bystander?

[English]

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, there are people in Quebec, including some very partisan separatists, who would have the Government of Canada express no view in this matter but simply stand to the side. The Prime Minister of Canada is not prepared to do that, and personally, I am glad that he is not prepared to do that.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton, Leader of the Opposition: Honourable senators, we are trying to determine to what extent the Government of Canada expects to involve itself in a referendum process in Quebec. We have received mixed signals. Should the government be unhappy with the question prepared and approved by the National Assembly, will it superimpose its own question? The word "clarity" comes up repeatedly. In the final analysis, who will determine which question meets the test of clarity? Will it be the Government of Canada or the National Assembly of Quebec?

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the Supreme Court, in its very wise decision, indicated that there is a role in the process for the Government of Canada.

Last evening, I had the opportunity to hear the comments the Prime Minister made yesterday during Question Period in the other place. He has made the point very clearly, as I have attempted to do here, albeit less eloquently. We will, as a government, express a view with respect to clarity, and that view may be expressed in a number of ways.

Discussions are ongoing, as the Prime Minister indicated, and I am sure that when he is ready, his views, on behalf of the Government of Canada, will be known in more detail. At that time, I will be happy to provide more detail than I am able to give today.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, I remind the minister that it was not a judgment or decision of the Supreme Court but an opinion, and that no directives were given to any government. The Supreme Court was asked to rule on three questions referred to it by the Government of Canada. I also remind the minister that the Province of Quebec refused to appear before the Supreme Court and that a lawyer was appointed by the court to represent the province.

Three answers were given, "No, no, no." Unfortunately, in my opinion, the Supreme Court went far beyond the reference and decided to establish certain guidelines regarding whatever the question and answer might be. In my opinion, that, sadly, gave legitimacy to the separation process. Thanks to the Supreme Court, for the first time it became legitimate to discuss the possibility of separation, because the court established guidelines and rules for how the referendum process should be carried out and what should happen should the result be against Canada. I believe that that went beyond the mandate of the Supreme Court.

In any event, why does the Government of Canada not tell us what question it would find acceptable, tell the Government of Quebec that the response to this question is the only response to which it will give credibility, and then let Quebecers decide? What is the question that the Government of Canada believes should be asked of Quebecers?

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, if it ever comes to this, I assume that the question will be initiated by the Quebec National Assembly. I do not anticipate that the Government of Canada will be interested in creating a question for submission to the people of Quebec on the issue of separation.

With respect to the Supreme Court decision, that is a matter of opinion. The Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton has given his opinion of the comments made by the Supreme Court. I think that many believe that those comments have been very useful and have indicated the type of involvement the people of Canada want their government to have in any process that may arise in the future. It is hoped that such a process will never arise. For the benefit of the people of Quebec and all of Canada, may there never be another referendum question.

The Economy

Purchase of Major Companies by United States Firms—Government Policy

Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Last year, the government turned down the proposed merger of Canada's leading banks. We now know that this political decision has done irreparable damage to the Canadian economy. This government has failed to produce a white paper or legislation that will free our leading financial institutions of regulatory burden to permit them to compete internationally.

In today's Financial Post, Peter Godsoe, the highly respected Chairman and CEO of ScotiaBank, expresses deep concerns for the future of Canada's major corporations. Mr. Godsoe said that our large, widely held companies must compete with the best of the Americas and that we must have public policies that do not penalize them but encourage them to be competitive externally.

Will the honourable Leader of the Government tell us what plan this government has for a public policy debate that will ensure that some of our leading major companies can stay in Canada and not be bought up by American companies?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with the emergence of the global economy, there has been an increased flow of investment into Canadian companies from the United States. There has been a corresponding flow of substantial investment by Canadians into American firms. Investment flows both ways across the border. I cannot put my hands on the figures immediately, but I undertake to provide them to the honourable senator when I can get them. There are some who are very concerned about American investment in particular sectors of our economy. Other sectors of our economy would be very glad to have investment from any source. I refer in particular to businesses in my and the Honourable Senator Oliver's native province.

Senator Oliver: Honourable senators, last week, former Alberta premier and well-respected corporate director Peter Lougheed warned Canadians that our economic sovereignty is being eroded by the devalued dollar and high taxes. There are other reports in our newspapers that some senior ministers in the government fear that the Prime Minister is blocking debate on the future of our economy. Mr. Godsoe has asked the government if it will commence a national policy debate on the role of our large companies. Will the Leader of the Government initiate such a debate?

(1420)

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the Prime Minister is available on a daily basis in the other place for questioning on this topic. As well, there is an opportunity for debate in that context, as there is here for that matter.

With respect to the question concerning increased U.S. investment in Canadian companies, in some instances it may be a matter of concern, while in others it is quite considerably a matter of opportunity. For areas of the country and specific sectors of our economy that have not had investment from any source in the past, increased American investment is most welcome.

Intergovernmental Affairs

Quebec—Possible Approach to Introduction of Conditions of Referendum

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, my question is supplementary to those concerning the intentions of the government with regard to possible future referenda in Quebec.

It is clear from what the leader has said, along with statements made by the Prime Minister and Mr. Dion, that some action is planned by the government. How does the government intend to proceed? Will it be by way of a bill, by way of a resolution, or by way of a simple policy statement?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, it is clear that some action is being seriously contemplated by the government. Indeed, the Prime Minister indicated last evening in a public interview, which I had the opportunity to see, that some action with respect to the federal government's view on the issue of clarity might be done any number of ways. The three that the Prime Minister mentioned in his response were by way of legislation, by resolution, or through a public policy statement put forward by either the Prime Minister or some other senior government member. The Prime Minister indicated that the discussion was ongoing and that he was not in a position to indicate at this time how the government might contemplate making its views known. I can add no more to what the Prime Minister said.

Quebec—Possible Conditions of Referendum— Involvement of Other Provinces

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, my second question concerns what the minister referred to as the "ongoing discussions". Specifically, I should like to know whether these ongoing discussions involve the provinces. In the Supreme Court's response to the reference of the government there was reference to all the partners to Confederation. Am I right in assuming that, in the view of the government, all the partners includes 10 provinces and the federal government?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the specific reference that the Prime Minister made was to discussions which were occurring among his colleagues and himself. To what extent there were further discussions, if any, I am not aware at the moment.

In fact, yesterday, I indicated that it would not surprise me if provinces, as well, were interested in expressing their views on issues of clarity. However, that is pure speculation on my part at this point. I cannot give a specific answer to the honourable senator's question.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, the 30-minute Question Period is now over. Is leave granted to continue?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[English]

National Defence

1994 White Paper—Government Policy

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I wish to clarify whether or not the defence white paper of 1994 remains the definitive statement and position of the present government on matters of defence. If that view has changed, has there been any notice given to Parliament or any formal consultation with the public?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I believe the honourable senator asked me the same question yesterday afternoon. I indicated to him at that time that it would be helpful if he indicated a specific area of concern as to whether or not that policy had changed. Then I might be able to get the honourable senator a response very quickly.

Replacement of Sea King Helicopters

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I should like to ask a general question, then, of the minister. Has there been any policy change? I am concerned about helicopters.

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, as we discussed previously, this program is the top priority for the Minister of National Defence. Certainly, it is an initiative that I support and encourage. I hope that we will be able to say something positive in the near future.

Senator Forrestall: Honourable senators, yesterday, in the other place, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence had this to say with regard to the matter:

It is on the minister's desk, and it is up to him to make a decision.

You tell us that it is a priority. Why will the minister not make a decision? Is it because there has been a change in Defence policy? The minister's policy briefing in this respect sets forth very clearly the timetable for the replacement of the shipborne Sea Kings. Which is it? Why has a decision not been made, if the statement of requirement is a priority and is on the minister's desk for initialling? An office has been set up to deal with the matter. I should like to know what it costs to maintain an office that is doing nothing. It is like maintaining an old railway coach in case someone wants to go for a ride in it once a year. What is the answer?

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I appreciate the concern of the honourable senator on this issue.

Senator Forrestall: No, I do not think you do.

Senator Boudreau: On a regular basis, I convey his representations to the honourable minister, who reassures me, on each occasion I do so, that it remains his top priority. Hopefully, we will be able to respond with a positive result in the near future.

Senator Forrestall: Honourable senators, November 4 was when I last asked a question with respect to this matter. The Sea King's life expectancy ends in 2005. It will be eight years before they are replaced, leaving us a three-year gap with no helicopters. There are a number of options. I am curious as to whether or not the government will send our ships to sea without helicopters. Will they borrow some helicopters from the United States navy? Will the department start yet another upgrade — God forbid — on the Sea King that could possibly put ships and crews in peril? What will the government do and when does it intend to make an announcement about it?

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the minister is well aware of all the alternatives, including the ones that the honourable senator has mentioned. Hopefully, the matter will be brought forward as quickly as possible. That is as good and complete an answer as I can give the honourable senator at this time.

Closing of CFB Cornwallis—Removal of Memorial Windows from St. George's Chapel

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: Honourable senators, last week I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question concerning the removal of the stained glass windows from the chapel at Cornwallis. He responded by saying that there were more people in the capital city of Nova Scotia and, therefore, it would be better that the windows be maintained where more people can see them.

At that time, I was not able to pursue the matter any further. However, I am offended by that excuse. Based on that logic, does that mean that all moveable treasures from the non-urban regions of Nova Scotia should be moved to Halifax? If we were to follow that logic to the end, perhaps we should move the Evangeline statue from Grand Pré over to Halifax where more people would see it.

(1430)

The Honourable Senator Boudreau, who has now moved to Halifax, should know that it is offensive to all non-Haligonians to suggest that the stained glass windows should be moved to Halifax from Cornwallis because there are more people in Halifax.

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, my answer was not cast in quite such stark tones as the honourable senator indicated.

As I understand it, the facility in which the windows were previously located was virtually unused almost all year, used perhaps on only one or two occasions throughout the year. It was not a question of the volume of people going through; it was a question of taking the windows from a facility which was being used sporadically to a facility which was being used regularly.

Senator Comeau: Honourable senators, I have a final supplementary question. I know the minister is receiving quite a bit of information from veterans who went through Cornwallis and who paid for the windows with respect to the undertaking that was made to them by the Department of National Defence, that the windows would be returned once the facility was put in place. I do hope that the minister will look at this issue seriously. Although he may be considering running in a Halifax seat in the next election — Halifax West, I hear — he should not let this cloud his good judgment.

Much as I love the city of Halifax, one of the nicest cities in all of Canada, I still suggest that the non-urban areas of Nova Scotia cannot afford to lose their local treasures.

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I would disagree with the honourable senator on one item and agree with him on another. On the question of Halifax being one of the most beautiful cities in Canada, I would disagree. I regard it as the most beautiful city in the world.

Senator Kinsella: Why? What is wrong with Ottawa?

Senator Boudreau: With respect to the general principle over which the honourable senator expresses concern, I do not think we want to see any wholesale movement of the heritage of Nova Scotia into a central area, so I will re-examine this issue.

Senator Forrestall: Have you found the pews yet, minister?

Senator Boudreau: I must also put on the record a denial that I have selected any seat for future contest.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Bill

Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kirby, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lewis, for the second reading of Bill C-6, to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act.

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-6. As my comments unfold, honourable senators will see that they are not a formal presentation on the bill.

This is a bill that has been on the Order Paper for some time and has been the subject of some very good debate. I congratulate the sponsor of the bill, Senator Kirby, as well as Senators Murray, Finestone, Oliver and Keon for their important contributions to the Senate's understanding of the bill. From their speeches, I heard general support for the bill, with, however, some expressions of concern, highlighted in particular by a notice of motion given earlier today by Senator Murray.

I should like to speak mostly with respect to the process involved in dealing with Bill C-6. Speaking as Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, I must say that we are very anxious to see this bill go to committee. I personally have received a number of representations — as I am sure have all honourable senators — from potential witnesses who wish to appear before the committee, some of whom have concerns about the legislation in its present form and would like an opportunity to be heard with respect to what they think could be done to improve the bill. As I mentioned earlier, some honourable senators who have debated the bill have expressed similar concerns. To get the bill to committee is the objective that I seek in my role as deputy leader, so that these witnesses can be heard and we can get on with the business of dealing with this legislation.

However, I am sensitive to the need to accommodate debate on the legislation, and now we have a notice of motion with respect to dividing the bill. We have even had comments from Senator Finestone on our side as to consideration of an amendment to the bill.

I have been in discussions with my counterpart, Senator Kinsella, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as rule 38 invites us to do, with the objective of trying to reach an agreement on how this bill should be dealt with in the context of the concerns expressed by honourable senators. The suggestion has been made by my counterpart that, perhaps, the best way to conclude an agreement on how to deal with this bill would be for me to make my points before the chamber today so that my proposal is completely transparent to all senators. Then, if other honourable senators wish to comment on what I will propose, fine. I will then invite Senator Kinsella, either by questions to me or by using his time for comments on the bill, to make his comments on the proposal so that all honourable senators will know what is happening and why.

Bill C-6 is at second reading stage, and it seems important to the opposition that it remain there until such time as some matters of amendment have had a full and fair opportunity to be considered. I put it to them that that would be better done with the benefit of the committee's work in considering the bill.

What I am about to suggest is not a motion but a proposal for a possible motion. If deemed appropriate, leave can be obtained from honourable senators. This is how I would suggest we deal with this bill.

Before I make the suggestion, however, in order for the mover and the principal speaker for the opposition to speak, they will have to obtain leave. Speaking as Deputy Leader of the Government, I am prepared to give that leave to facilitate this attempt to have an agreement reached on the floor of the Senate. I should mention as well that this is not the first time that a proposal of this type has been put forward during my time here. I know that Senator Frith and Senator Doody, when they were both deputy leaders of their respective parties, followed this procedure on occasion. It is not something that I expect to do often. Therefore, this is an attempt to move the bill forward in a way that will give the Senate the necessary flexibility to deal with concerns about the bill.

Honourable senators, I will propose, following our discussion, that the subject matter of Bill C-6 be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, with the instruction that it be reported back on December 2, 1999; that it be reported back in two reports, one dealing with Part 1 of the bill and the other with Parts 2 to 5 of the bill; that completion of debate on second reading will follow; and that any further committee consideration of this bill be carried out in Committee of the Whole.

(1440)

I am not moving that motion at this time. While this is not in the ordinary course of the Senate carrying out its work, it is close to the ordinary course for us and is not a variation that we should be concerned with on either side. However, this is something that I will invite my counterpart, Senator Kinsella, to comment upon, either by way of question to me or by way of speech, and then I shall take advantage of my opportunity to question him.

We may hear from other honourable senators on this matter, in particular Senator Kirby and Senator Murray. At the conclusion of this discussion or debate, I will then ask for leave to put forward a motion, the nature of which I have outlined in the context of my remarks.

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, as the Honourable Senator Hays has noted, having already spoken on the bill, I would require leave to respond now to the proposal.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Murray: Honourable senators, I thank the Deputy Leader of the Government for his comments and for his proposal. As he has correctly stated, there is general support in this chamber for the principle and purpose of this bill. However, there are problems, which some of us have alluded to in our speeches at second reading.

What I have to say now I can say very briefly, and I say it without prejudice to the notice of motion I placed before you earlier today. It is a matter of indifference to me whether we refer the bill or, as the honourable senator has suggested, the subject matter of the bill to the committee this week. If Senator Hays believes that doing so will properly expedite consideration of the bill and, especially, consideration of some of the problems that have been raised, then I would give that my full support.

That being said, I am not clear on one point. Did the deputy leader suggest a reporting date for the committee?

Senator Hays: Honourable senators, the proposed motion refers to a reporting date of December 2, 1999. It also makes a reference to further consideration of this bill being carried out in Committee of the Whole.

Senator Murray: That is what I was afraid I heard. Let me explain.

Senator Kirby, the chairman of the committee, invited me yesterday to attend a meeting of the steering committee with himself and Senators Carstairs and LeBreton. At that meeting we reviewed a list of potential witnesses — that is, people who have indicated a desire to appear before the committee to express their views on the bill. As I think the chairman of the committee would confirm, it is a long list indeed. I expressed the view at that meeting that I was more interested in — if I may put it this way — quality rather than quantity. My concern was that the main points of view be placed on the table and be explored in depth. It occurred to me that it may not be necessary to hear as many witnesses as have expressed a desire to appear. However, it would be Senator Kirby's disagreeable duty to persuade people that they did not need to be heard. This is always difficult.

My point is that trying to complete the work of the committee on the subject matter of the bill by December 2 would be a travesty and would properly subject the Senate and the committee to considerable criticism.

Honourable senators, others may wish to speak to this matter. I have no objection whatsoever, in principle, to sending the subject matter of the bill to the committee now and having the Committee of the Whole look at the bill when the report comes back to this chamber.

The government is concerned about the progress of this legislation. However, if the government can be persuaded to accept an amendment that would solve the problems that have been raised here, notably in the health care sector, then I would want us to deal with that amendment and get it out of the Senate and to the House of Commons in good time for them to deal with it before their adjournment on December 17.

Honourable senators, those are the parameters of the situation as I see them. The chairman or other members of the committee may wish to speak at this time.

Hon. Michael Kirby: Honourable senators, I, too, will need leave to speak, since speaking to this matter in the normal course would have the effect of closing debate, and it is not my intention to close second reading debate.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Kirby: Honourable senators, as usual, perhaps because Senator Murray and I were both previously chiefs of staff to Maritime premiers, I find myself in complete agreement with everything he has said. Regional affinity is much stronger than party affinity in some cases.

The reality is that many witnesses have asked to appear before the committee. Whether the subject matter of the bill is referred to Committee of the Whole or to the Social Affairs Committee, with the understanding that my committee would come back with two reports, is immaterial to me. We are happy to do either.

As Senator Murray has correctly pointed out, not only have many witnesses asked to appear, it is clear that there is significant disagreement among large portions of the health care sector, not just the professions. The professions themselves are divided, as are a number of health organizations.

When Senator Murray talks about wanting to do something more in depth rather than breadth — if I can use that analogy — I believe he means that there is a clear need to make sure we understand exactly the issue with respect to health care, and I agree with him.

In the proposed motion outlined by Senator Hays, it is clear that as to a definitive reporting date, the essential thing is that we proceed with our work expeditiously. In light of that, earlier today I moved a notice of motion that the committee — and this picks up on a point Senator Lynch-Staunton made earlier — be authorized to sit on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, regardless of whether the Senate is then sitting, the reason being that there are many witnesses. We would need to sit starting at noon on Monday and proceed into the evening, repeating the same schedule on Tuesday and Wednesday. That was the rationale behind my notice of motion.

Like Senator Murray, I believe we must proceed to deal with this issue expeditiously. As he says, if the committee appeared to be coming to the conclusion that an amendment to the bill was warranted, like him, I feel it would be important that this chamber get the bill back to the other place in time for them to deal with it before the Christmas recess.

On balance, I am in agreement with Senator Murray. I have no difficulty with the essence of Senator Hays' proposed motion, as long as we take the date out and come to an understanding, either in writing or an understanding in this place, that the committee would proceed with the bill expeditiously and deal with it in an efficient manner.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I am happy to speak to Bill C-6, and I will limit my remarks to process rather than content.

I believe we have canvassed and have identified a model that meets the mutual agreement of the government side and the opposition side in the chamber. I think that we should refer today the subject matter of the bill to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. The understanding is that the committee would proceed with its work forthwith, and proceed expeditiously, providing every opportunity to hear from those witnesses it deems necessary.

(1450)

As a result of the issue that has been raised in debate — the suggestion that perhaps the committee would consider providing one report, with two parts, or two separate reports — it would not matter. The committee would canvass the views of its members and express an opinion based on those views. We would then have a discrete report, or part of a report, dealing with Part 1 of the bill and another discrete section dealing with Parts 2 to 5. Of course, we would proceed expeditiously with any recommendations that the committee, in its judgment, would wish to bring back to the house, at which time we would decide whether or not we wanted to send it to a different committee or back to that committee for further study.

We are cognizant of the parliamentary timetable involving the other house. I can speak on behalf of the opposition side that there would be no obstruction in terms of communicating to the other place that a good report and a good decision had been taken by this chamber.

In terms of our procedure, I would be happy to move a motion, while I have the floor, unless any other honourable senator wishes to speak on this matter.

Senator Hays: Honourable senators, perhaps I should make a comment as to the willingness on our side to vary the motion to delete the reporting back date and, at the same time, to delete reference to the Committee of the Whole.

Having heard Honourable Senators Murray and Kinsella, I am satisfied that those points are not a necessity for us. Accordingly, I would agree to the motion that I have now circulated being put without reference to them. If that is what Senator Kinsella has in mind, I would not object and would support such a motion.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise on a matter of clarification, because I must admit that I am a little confused as to what, exactly, we are being asked to do.

As I read the proposed motion, it is to send the subject matter, prior to the end of second reading, to the committee, which will then report back in two reports, one dealing with Part 1 and one dealing with Parts 2 to 5.

How will the witnesses that Senator Kirby has told us are anxious to speak to the bill help the committee on the subject matter? I do not understand how all these witnesses who have a particular axe to grind on Part 1 or Part 2, or whatever clause it is, will be helpful in the purpose of referring the subject matter back to the committee. I do not know what we are trying to achieve here.

I do not want to muddy the waters, but it would seem to me that we should be doing this in two parts. In the first phase, if we want to refer the subject matter, let the technical experts, or those who can guide us from a technical point of view, be witnesses and then report back. The second phase would be for the witnesses to appear on the bill itself.

I sense that we will marry the two, subject matter and bill, and I do not know what will come out of it. If we go into Committee of the Whole, will the witnesses who appeared before the committee on the subject matter be asked to come back before Committee of the Whole to speak to the bill itself? I should like to have clarification on the procedure and the process that we are being asked to follow. Is this matter heading in the direction that the government intends it to?

Senator Hays: Honourable senators, perhaps I could answer that. I am a novice in these matters, but I had some of the same concerns that were expressed by the honourable senator.

There are technical aspects to this process. If the bill is to remain at second reading stage, then it should remain on the Order Paper. For it to remain on the Order Paper, the bill must stay here. However, all matters of substance, that is, the subject matter of the bill, can be referred to the committee, which can do its work as effectively as if it had the bill itself, because the subject matter is before it.

To keep the bill on the Order Paper, it needs to be kept here. Also, if the bill is here, debate on Senator Murray's motion could proceed; if the bill were not here, that would not be possible.

It may well be that Senator Murray's intentions are not to proceed with debate on his notice of motion until the bill comes back, in which case we could send the bill to the committee. The motion has been put the way it is to ensure that the committee has all means at its disposal to study all aspects of the bill, namely, the subject matter of the bill, while the bill still remains at second reading stage, to accommodate what my understanding is of the concern on the other side, and that is that there is reservation about splitting the bill and that has not been resolved. This is a way to have the bill considered without compromising that procedural right.

We have a majority on this side, but you have tools on your side. The whole purpose of this proposal is to try to reach a solution under rule 38 as opposed to rule 39. It appears that it is going very well. I would hope that we could expect a motion. I do not think that the bill or its study is compromised in any way by having the subject matter before the committee as opposed to the bill, for the reasons that I stated.

Senator Murray: Honourable senators, if I may, the formulation of sending the subject matter of a bill to committee is identical to that used in the good old days when pre-study was permitted in this chamber. Obviously, we were not able procedurally to send a bill to committee before we received a bill from the House of Commons. Nevertheless, once the bill was tabled in the House of Commons, to facilitate its consideration in the Senate we would send the subject matter to the appropriate committee. That committee would hear witnesses just as if the bill were before it. That committee would report to the Senate.

We were then at complete liberty, if we wished, once we received the bill, to send it back to committee and hear further witnesses. More often than not, when the bill arrived, we had obtained satisfaction from the government undertakings about amendments, and so forth, before the bill left the House of Commons. The committee stage frequently turned out to be pro forma, but the formulation that we are using here, which Senator Hays proposed to use reporting the subject matter, is a time-honoured one in the Senate.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, I have never heard of the Senate doing a pre-study of a bill that has already been passed in the House of Commons.

Senator Murray: No, but there are precedents, quite a few of them, for what Senator Hays is proposing.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Senator Hays has proposed that the subject matter go to committee and the bill stay here.

Senator Murray: Right, and there are precedents for that.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Does that mean that the witnesses who come before the committee are limited to the subject matter, or can they sneak in a copy of the bill anyway?

Senator Murray: No, they are not limited in that respect.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: It is all a facade, is that what you are saying?

Senator Murray: It is a procedural device.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I do not know who is best served by it. Why are we going through this two-stage effort when, in effect, it will be the one effort?

If I am the only who does not understand, I will end my participation right now.

(1500)

I do not understand why the subject matter of a bill before the Senate is being sent to a committee to hear witnesses who will talk about the subject matter when they really want to talk about the bill. Can they talk about the bill even if it is not before the committee? I do not understand that part of the procedure.

Senator Forrestall: It is the same bill.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Why not send the bill, then, and get it over with? I am not here to help the government. I am here simply to understand the procedure and to facilitate it.

Senator Hays: Honourable senators, the procedural device is being used to accommodate the concerns of Senator Murray.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is good enough for me, then.

Senator Hays: We could send the subject matter of the bill, but it would be better to give the bill second reading and send it as we normally do. We have been in communication with the sponsor of the bill and the principal speaker on the other side, Senator Murray. We have arrived at this proposal, which is essentially an agreement, done in a transparent way on the floor of the Senate as opposed to presenting honourable senators with a fait accompli which, undoubtedly, would have raised, aside from Senator Lynch-Staunton's question, a large number of other questions.

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, from time to time, a bit of creativity is always helpful. The Honourable Senator Hays has attempted to contribute a bit to the creativity. However, we thought it would be wise to have our discussion in the chamber so that everyone may understand exactly what we are doing. One of the great advantages of this approach, of course, is that if there are serious and honest views held on both sides of the chamber as to whether or not there is more than one principle contained in this bill, then we can have the substance explicated through the testimony adduced from witnesses. In this way, we can receive advice from the committee before we actually vote on the principle of the bill.

Indeed, one hypothesis is that if the committee were to recommend that we split the bill, it would help to solve the problem. If the committee were to come back with amendments, it might solve the problem. Many opportunities lie before the committee. This is a creative way of dealing with the matter. Perhaps Senator Hays would now like to move his motion.

Subject Matter Referred to Committee

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, notwithstanding rule 58(1)(e), I move:

That the subject matter of Bill C-6, An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act, be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology; and
That it be reported back in two reports: one dealing with Part 1 of the Bill and the other Parts 2-5 of the Bill and completion of debate on second reading to follow.

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

Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, I wish to ask a question for the purpose of clarification. I have no intentions of holding up this matter. Does this require a unanimous vote or simply a majority vote?

Senator Hays: Honourable senators, "leave" anticipates unanimity. Any one senator here could stop this process by refusing to grant me leave to move the motion. In effect, it requires unanimity.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Committee Authorized to Meet During Sitting of the Senate

Hon. Michael Kirby: Honourable senators, with leave, I should like to revert to the rubric Notices of Motions. In light of the motion which has just been passed, I seek leave of the Senate to permit the committee to meet today at 3:30, purely for purposes of discussing the witness list. We could then begin to hear witnesses tomorrow at our regular time, which is eleven o'clock. I think the committee will want to have a bit of discussion so that we can lay out a witness schedule. I should like to do that at our regular sitting time, which it at 3:30 today.

Therefore, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(a), I move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology have power to sit at 3:30 p.m. today, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I rise to make a small point. I believe the honourable senator rose and asked for leave to revert to Notices of Motions. Before leave was given to revert to Notices of Motions, he then proceeded to make his motion. I have no problem with granting Senator Kirby leave in both instances. However, we should be aware that it was a two-stage process that should have been followed.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, this is the second time today we have given leave for a committee to sit while the Senate is sitting. May I suggest that on Wednesday, when there are so many committees intending to meet at 3:30 or as soon as the Senate rises, whichever is earliest, that we not sit beyond 3:30? Then, we would not have these embarrassing exceptions. Otherwise, before we know it, some senators will be here in the chamber at four or five o'clock while other senators are busy at their committee meetings, and this place will not be as active in debate as it should be.

I leave that with the government as a suggestion. We should abide by the schedule on Wednesdays and compromise by saying that at 3:30 or 4:00 p.m. we will adjourn no matter where we are on the Order Paper.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

Income Tax Conventions Implementation Bill, 1999

Second Reading

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C. (L'Acadie-Acadia), for the second reading of Bill S-3, to implement an agreement, conventions and protocols between Canada and Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Algeria, Bulgaria, Portugal, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Japan and Luxembourg for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I am quite disappointed that the sponsor of the bill is not here again today to deal with this bill. Yesterday, I listened carefully as Senator Lynch-Staunton spoke to Bill S-3. He opened an interesting and important area of inquiry.

(1510)

It speaks to the matter of the human rights record of one of the countries that would be party to this treaty, namely Uzbekistan. It seems to me, honourable senators, that the serious question that should be in the mind of each honourable senator is whether we, as a country, want to send a signal and get the attention of authorities in Uzbekistan, in terms of their human rights record.

Senator Lynch-Staunton quoted from two reports of Human Rights Watch, which spoke of documented human rights violations, and also advised us that our own Department of Foreign Affairs has a number of documents relating to the unacceptable human rights record in that country.

Honourable senators, notwithstanding our stated foreign policy of constructive engagement, which we have had an opportunity to speak on from time to time in this chamber, we are dealing in this instance with a bilateral relationship. It seems to me that, if constructive engagement is to mean anything, it would mean a great deal if we said to a country, "Sorry, we are not prepared to sign a treaty with you because of your domestic human rights record." That would be exactly why we would exclude that particular country from Bill S-3.

Honourable senators, the matter of gross and consistent patterns of human rights violations is not something that we, as a free and democratic society, ought ever to take lightly. As honourable senators know, resolution 1503 of the United Nations speaks directly to the matter of gross and consistent patterns of human rights violations and the obligation on all members of the international community to take positive steps and to lend their direct support for the elimination of such patterns of consistent and gross violations of human rights.

Honourable senators, this is a classic opportunity for Canada to make a very pronounced and honourable statement. We can say that we are not holding up the treaties with respect to several of the countries that are contained in the bill but only with respect to this particular country, because of the particular, verified, gross and consistent patterns of human rights violations. That will allow us to say that we do not wish to enter into a treaty with that country.

Honourable senators, we can focus on the Vienna conventions that deal with international treaty implementation or on some of the specific international human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These are all treaties that Canada, along with many other nations around the world, has entered into, adopted, embraced and implemented, and we should pay heed to the human rights contained in those treaties.

Honourable senators, I thank Senator Lynch-Staunton for drawing to our attention the fact that the Government of Canada is proposing we enter into a treaty with that particular country under the same rubric of treaty law as the human rights treaties that we have entered into. Therefore, honourable senators, I think that it is terribly important for this chamber to make a statement. We can decide whether we want to move an amendment to the bill at second reading, prior to sending it to committee, or whether it would be a wiser course of action, now that we have raised this and it is in the record of the chamber, to send the bill to committee. The honourable senators on the committee could seize upon this issue and ensure that officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and other witnesses would speak directly to this matter that has been apprehended by our colleague Senator Lynch-Staunton.

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, I have a question for the honourable senator. I did not have the liberty of listening to or reading Senator Lynch-Staunton's speech, but the principle he evokes is quite interesting. We have had an exchange about this from time to time, not only here but in other fora. He is focusing on one country. Is the honourable senator suggesting that, as a condition precedent to passing a bilateral taxation measure, we should, as they do in the United States from time to time, do a human rights review of each country that is a party to that particular agreement?

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, I thank Senator Grafstein for that question. As the first part of my response, I can say that I have no difficulty with that model of human rights vigilance. The experience in a lot of countries, including the United States, which attempted particularly under the Carter regime to do that, has not been as satisfactory as one would have hoped. I reluctantly accept the doctrine of constructive engagement. My reluctance arises because I do not see the public administrative glove to which the hand belongs. I do not see, in the protocols that govern the conduct of our trade officials or our foreign officers, anything that says that they must indicate and document in their monthly or annual reports the occasions on which they raised human rights questions so that there will be some kind of a public administrative verification that constructive engagement actually does work.

While I think the principle is acceptable theoretically, I do not see it as having universal application. In this particular instance, we have a specific tax treaty. It is a bilateral matter. This bill has grouped many countries, but unfortunately, there is one country with a record of human rights that has brought this issue to the forefront.

The second part of my answer is that I am certainly of the view that I would want us to be surgical and very focused in dealing with these bilateral treaties. I would look at the domestic human rights record of each country as a matter of course, and I would make a judgment in terms of whether I want to do business of this nature with them or whether, indeed, as a foreign policy instrument, I would want to use these kinds of measures to get their attention.

Senator Grafstein: As the honourable senator knows, the United States has a model, which we have not adopted — although it seems the new foreign minister is moving in that direction with his new policy of human security — of making an assessment, year by year, for every country, sometimes regionally, of gross violations of human rights. They are published regularly by the State Department and they are debated in both Houses in the United States. We have chosen not to follow that model. We have assiduously chosen not to engage in linkage. I do not know which side of the coin I would ultimately favour in light of the new policy of human security that has been articulated by the minister responsible for external affairs and echoed by the Prime Minister. However, if we are to engage in this matter, it would be better to have a debate here, as a general policy, and permit all honourable senators to conclude as to where they are going, as opposed to picking on one country in a particular bill. I look at the face of this bill for the first time and I see that there are one or two, perhaps three, other countries, based on newspaper reports — and I want to be very careful here — where one can probably make the same claim, which is a systematic pattern of gross violation of human rights.

(1520)

I commend the honourable senator opposite for raising this matter. I prefer his comment as to whether or not, before we undertake any form of "ad hocery," we should participate in this debate and look at this as a systemic issue as it applies to legislation of this nature, generally speaking. I would then be more comfortable that we are working within a framework, as opposed to working through inspiration.

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, I thank the honourable senator and could not but agree with many of the propositions he lays before us in this healthy debate.

One response that comes to mind in answer to the honourable senator's question is that, on the one hand, it is necessary to respond vigorously to ill-will violations of human rights. If you are apprehending this issue in a very clear manner, then you move to respond to that direct ill-will human rights violation. On the systemic or institutional or historical type of discrimination, I agree with you wholeheartedly. There must be a more thoughtful and broad-based policy. All international politics get drawn into it, including trade and self-interest dynamics. Yet, every case of human rights violations need not wait for amelioration of the human rights environment to remove that poison environment to a systemic or institutionalized kind of response. There are cases where you can apprehend and deal directly with it.

In the national interest, I do not feel that we need this treaty; however, it is a nice thing to have. It is good to have treaties with a variety of countries. However, it would be very much an attention-getting act if the Parliament of Canada were to say that it would exclude a certain country. No doubt there have been discussions at the officials' level before the bill reached this stage and they would be asking why. They would also look at our debate and our discussion this afternoon and realize that Canadians are serious about human rights standards.

Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, I should like to add to what my colleague Senator Kinsella has said. I associate myself with his remarks. I am also intrigued by Senator Grafstein's suggestion that we should take a look at this point. I concur with him. Honourable senators, I believe we should look at this matter. If you look at some of my other comments about relations that we have with other countries, they would certainly support my concerns.

I raised a question yesterday — which is how we got involved in this debate, I believe — about the appropriate committee to send this bill to — the Banking Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee. Yesterday's discussion fits well with the discussion we are having today because we are talking about a bilateral relationship with a number of different states.

We have similar agreements, protocols and conventions with nearly every state in the world. Senator Kinsella indicated that dealing with the state that is the subject of this debate offends his sense of appropriateness, in that it is a state that has a record of human rights abuses. However, I believe Senator Kinsella would agree with me that there are literally dozens of countries that have a similar record of human rights abuses. I imagine that we have signed 150 or 200 conventions or protocols, which represents nearly every state in the world.

I would also like to ensure that we understand that we are not just talking about signing an agreement. We are talking about signing an agreement where we exchange information about corporations and individuals and the affairs of Canadians with some of these foreign countries. That concerns me because, frankly, I do not trust some of these states to keep that information in confidence. If I am doing business with one of these states, as with Talisman in Sudan right now, I would have to accept the risk that some of the information that my country would be sharing about me and my company with the Sudanese government may not be as protected in privacy as it would be under the laws of some other countries in the world. That is another aspect that we should examine more closely.

I raised that question yesterday because several months ago we dealt with a similar bill at the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, where we raised these same questions we are asking today. I feel that we never received answers to those questions.

Honourable senators, I am not playing tricks; I have no hidden agenda. I would suggest that the appropriate committee to which to send this bill is the Foreign Affairs Committee. We can pick up on the comments made by Senators Lynch-Staunton, Kinsella and Grafstein and continue to engage the departmental officials in the questions that we asked the last time we dealt with a similar piece of legislation.

Hon. Lois M. Wilson: Honourable senators, I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition raised this issue. It is part of the emerging debate about where human rights belongs on the agenda of Canada. The issue of Uzbekistan was raised, as well as Sudan and other areas. There seems to be an ad hoc manner of responding to these concerns. I am of the opinion that one cannot apply a one-size-fits-all general policy to all countries. Sometimes sanctions are applied; sometimes constructive engagement. There may be different strategies for different countries.

I am of the opinion that the Senate needs a forum to explore these issues. Perhaps the Foreign Affairs Committee is the relevant forum in which to explore these issues, rather than the Banking Committee. They must be explored, either here in full debate or in committee. I hope the committee to which this bill is sent spends some serious time on this matter and brings it back to this chamber.

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I do not wish to interfere with any other senator who wishes to speak on this matter, but we on the government side would like to see this bill go to committee. It is introduced here; it then has to go to the House for approval. I suppose that would make an amendment relatively easy, in that, if it were amended with the deletion of, for instance, Uzbekistan, it is not a matter of coming back.

(1530)

In speaking to the bill, I appreciate the debate that has taken place, as it has highlighted an important matter. That important matter should be addressed in the committee.

The Department of Foreign Affairs has a role in these treaties, but so does the Department of Finance or Revenue Canada in terms of this being a tax treaty. If what has been stated in debate is correct, and I have no reason to believe it is not, why would we negotiate a tax treaty with any country that has an offensive human rights record? Why would we maintain a treaty arrangement with that country? Those questions are best answered by the officials who negotiated and entered into the treaty.

In terms of Senator Di Nino's concern as to which committee this should be referred, I have asked for some information on the practice. Clearly, it could go to either the Banking Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Foreign Affairs Committee deals with treaties and international agreements, and the Banking Committee deals with taxation matters. This treaty is principally, I believe, a taxation matter. That is why the suggestion is made that it be referred to the Banking Committee.

When it has completed its work, the Banking Committee may well refer this bill to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Given what I have heard today in this debate, this bill will not be pushed through committee without many important questions being asked. That is the place, I submit, for those questions to be put.

Accordingly, I conclude the debate on this item by asking that Bill S-3 be given second reading, following which I will make the appropriate motion to refer it to committee.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and bill read second time.

Referred to Committee

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

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I move that Bill S-3 be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.

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

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I should like to point out that the last tax treaty we received, Bill S-16, went to the Foreign Affairs Committee. That bill dealt with Vietnam, Croatia and Chile. The Foreign Affairs Committee made interesting recommendations regarding privacy, the ability of the signatory countries to implement successfully the parts of the treaty, and other recommendations. It would be a shame if the continuity of the report of the committee were broken by sending similar legislation to another committee. I would urge the deputy leader to reconsider and move that this bill go to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Senator Hays: Honourable senators, in terms of precedent, two income tax conventions in the Thirty-fifth Parliament, Bill C-105 and Bill S-2, were both dealt with by the Banking Committee. In the Second Session of the Thirty-fifth Parliament, we dealt with a tax treaty, Bill C-37. It was also referred to the Senate Banking Committee. In the First Session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament, Bill C-10, a tax treaty, was referred to the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee and Bill S-16 was referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Other senators may have a better institutional memory than I on this subject, but to be truthful, I was told that Bill S-16 was sent to the Foreign Affairs Committee because of the heavy workload of the Banking Committee. That is why I suggest that the majority of bills, with the exception of Bill S-16, were sent to the Banking Committee.

Honourable senators, if the Banking Committee is doing its job, it will be able to draw out any problem of the nature that honourable senators have raised in debate on Bill S-3. If necessary, committee members can make a recommendation that the bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee for further study.

I do emphasize, once again, that this is a Senate bill. It is not a bill received from the House of Commons. We have some extra flexibility in that regard. I see the traditional reference of tax treaties to the Banking Committee as useful in that taxation is an important aspect of this bill. It is the most important aspect of this bill, except that human rights becomes an issue if we do not want to deal with a country because of their human rights record.

One country has been named and others will be mentioned as we get into debate on this topic. However, the proper way to deal with this matter is to address the tax considerations first and then, if necessary, deal with the other matter in the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, I do not think the issue of which committee the bill is referred to is that important. However, because the bill deals principally with bilateral relations between two countries, the Foreign Affairs Committee would be a more appropriate body to review this information.

Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the Government would agree to recommend that the committee deal with the issues that have been raised in the chamber as far as the human rights issues are concerned as well as the issues of confidentiality and privacy when sharing information with some of these states. In my opinion, these issues were not properly responded to the last time that we dealt with this matter.

Honourable senators in this chamber all understand the task. Either committee could do the job and respond to the questions we have raised.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, if the debate yesterday and today is to be taken seriously, then these international human rights questions must dominate our debate at second reading. Unfortunately, the sponsor of the bill, who led off the debate on the principle of the bill, does not even bother to come to discuss the new issues and provide us direction. I learned about the debate over the past few days.

I did obtain a report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs dated May 28, 1998. Senator Lynch-Staunton referred to it. The committee dealt with Bill S-16, a similar type of bill.

In the sixth report of that committee, the committee members indicated that they had two specific concerns. First, they proposed that, in advance of the Government of Canada presenting similar legislation in the future, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade assure the Senate that it has conducted pre-screening of signatory countries in its institutional capacity to implement successfully the provisions of the relevant agreements and conventions. That is a principle with which our Foreign Affairs Committee has been seized. That committee might very well see an opportunity to put into the bill a provision which speaks directly to compliance with human rights. I think that would be exciting and forward-looking. This is part of the thrust of our debate here at second reading. The Foreign Affairs Committee has seized itself with similar action on a similar treaty.

(1540)

I agree with Senator Hays on the tax part of it, because the second recommendation had to do with tax officials in the two countries having the appropriate tax data systems in place, and also with protection of privacy.

In this case, it makes a great deal of sense to refer this particular bill to the Foreign Affairs Committee under the circumstances of the real debate that took place in this chamber. I would even move an amendment, if appropriate, unless Senator Hays wants to change his mind.

Senator Hays: Honourable senators, I would suggest that the bill go to the Banking Committee first, which could deal with the principal thrust of the treaty. It can then be considered by the Foreign Affairs Committee if that is the wish of the Senate. We cannot refer the bill to two committees at the same time; however, I do not see any reason why we could not deal with it sequentially. Some valid points have been raised. I do not have any problem with the Foreign Affairs Committee looking at it, but it may well be that the pre-screening has been done. It may well be that there is a reason to include this country or some of the countries.

Senator Di Nino: Do you want to bet a lunch?

Senator Hays: I am not a wagering person. The bill was given second reading, and I had asked that it be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. I have no problem in amending that motion so the bill can be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, following which it be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs for further review. I believe I can amend my motion with leave.

Senator Kinsella: With leave, you can.

Senator Hays: I would suggest we add the rider "provided the Banking Committee makes that recommendation." I would make the motion in that form.

Hon. Lois M. Wilson: Honourable senators, I would be pleased to see the bill go to the Banking Committee provided the deputy leader advises them of the debate around this issue and the history that has come out of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Then, when they look at it, they will know that these issues have been raised and can refer them to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Is there some assurance that that will be done?

Senator Hays: One relies on one's Senate colleagues to read Hansard. I suppose it is possible that some do not do it as faithfully as one would hope. I am not sure I can give the honourable senator an undertaking that would satisfy her request. I undertake to do what I can to ensure that the chairman of the Banking Committee is asked to read the debate today. Hopefully, he will read it. I would encourage the honourable senator to perhaps have a discussion with him.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable Senator Hays, is it your motion that we refer the bill to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and then to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs?

Senator Hays: If recommended by the Banking Committee. Is that in order?

Senator Kinsella: That part is out of order. It must be an order of the Senate.

Senator Hays: I will go along with my earlier recommendation. I therefore move, with leave of the Senate and pursuant to rule 30:

That the Bill be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and, upon completion of their review, to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

[Translation]

Question of Privilege

Hon. Lise Bacon: Honourable senators, I have given notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege with respect to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.

As you are undoubtedly aware, honourable senators, this standing committee was authorized to consider the restructuring of Canada's airline industry, pursuant to the Order of Reference of October 14, 1999.

Pursuant to that order, the committee is to submit its report before December 15, 1999. With myself as chair, the committee has held eight public hearings, during which it has heard 53 witnesses. Last week, we interrupted our public hearings and began consideration of drafts of the report. We are now at the third draft.

We have been very careful to avoid any publicity with respect to our deliberations. All drafts were marked "draft" and "confidential". During our meeting to consider the first draft, I took care to distribute copies only to those senators present, and I collected them at the end of the meeting. When it came time to consider the second draft, I sent a copy to each senator on the committee the day before we met. This meeting took place yesterday morning. Copies were also distributed to the assistants of the senators present. This time, unlike the previous meeting, I did not retrieve copies of the second draft of our report, trusting to the honesty of senators and their assistants and wanting to give them more time to consider the report's contents.

Yesterday evening, just hours after the committee met, I learned that a Canadian Press journalist had a copy of the second draft of our report in his possession. In its morning edition, Le Soleil, a Quebec City newspaper, has published an article by this same CP journalist in which one may read the following:

In a report to be tabled in the Senate tomorrow, members of the Upper Chamber, both Liberal and Conservative, have reached agreement to authorize American air carriers to service various Canadian destinations...

Referring to the Transport and Communications Committee, the journalist goes on:

It has also reached the conclusion that the limit imposed upon the percentage of control of a Canadian air carrier by foreign interests ought to be raised to 49 per cent of voting shares, as opposed to the current 25 per cent .... What is more, the federal legislation limiting to 10 per cent the percentage of Air Canada shares that can be held by a single shareholder ought to be amended to 33.3 per cent.

As for The Toronto Star, it also published an article today which reads as follows:

[English]

The Senate committee, close to completing its report, is expected to propose raising the single investor limit in Air Canada stock to 33.3 per cent from 10 per cent, and the foreign ownership limit to 49 per cent from 25 per cent, sources said.

[Translation]

I am prepared, if required, to table a copy of the Quorum reproducing the two articles.

Honourable senators, this leak adversely affects the work presently underway in the Transport and Communications Committee. Although the information given in the media today is based on a draft report that has not been finalized, it may well colour the perception the public will have of our final report. As I have said, our report is not finished. There are still a number of points to be discussed. Unfortunately, the leak, and the reactions there will be to it, might hinder serene and informed reflection by the committee members.

Above and beyond the damage to the committee of which I have the honour to chair, a leak like this is prejudicial to the work of all Senate committees. The confidentiality of our discussions is at stake and, by that very fact, the ability of senators to freely debate the matters referred to us. In order to fulfil our mandate properly, we must have the certainty that the work we are doing in camera remains confidential.

I would like to remind you of citation 877.1 at page 241 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, 6th edition, which provides:

No act done at any committee should be divulged before it has been reported to the House.

The citation also provides the following:

The publication of proceedings of committees conducted with closed doors or of reports of committees before they are available to Members will, however, constitute a breach of privilege.

It is surprising that such a thing should happen in the Senate, a responsible and transparent institution, which makes its activities public. It is therefore unacceptable for someone to have to feel the need to divulge to the media documents that will in any case be made public once final decisions have been reached.

Unfortunately, this leak combines with other similar events that have occurred recently in our institution. On September 14, Senator Andreychuk raised the question of privilege, which she reintroduced on October 13, on the subject of a leak that occurred in the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. I hope we will be able to bring things under control in time to put a stop to these incidents, which threaten the credibility of our institution.

Within the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications there has always been an atmosphere of respect and collegiality. I have an immense respect for the members of the committee. This is why I am so surprised that such a thing could occur. I have no idea how this leak could occur. I do not know if it was intentional, accidental or through negligence. However, there was a leak, and it constitutes in my opinion a breach of Senate privilege. I ask you to rule accordingly. I will then be able to move the following motion:

That the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders for investigation.

[English]

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I support the motion which is presently before us. A check of our side has produced all of the reports; therefore, we know where our copies are. That is not a comment on anything. Senator Bacon has suggested that it could have been inadvertent, a deliberate leak or carelessness.

What is important here is that the matter, with the attached level of priority that it deserves, be referred to the committee so there can be no question that propriety will be served. Whether we get to the end of it or not is not nearly as important as the potential danger. Among other things, we are dealing in the report with the level of individual ownership and the level of foreign ownership in Canadian Airlines. That could lead to speculation that would be injurious not only to the airline industry and investors themselves but, above all, to the confidence that Canadians place in the processes of this institution.

To that end, I would commend the chair for having brought the matter to this stage. We seek general support for her motion that would see the matter considered further by the appropriate committee.

[Translation]

Hon. Serge Joyal: Honourable senators, I agree with the comments made by Senators Bacon and Forestall. I have the privilege of participating in the work of the Standing Senate Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders. The issue raised by Senator Bacon is, in a way, already before our committee, since Senator Andreychuk raised a similar point some time ago. There is a bug in the system. If such situations keep occurring over a short period of time, it is certainly because some people in our group — we do not know who — do not have a clear idea of their responsibilities.

Let me draw your attention to how another parliament, that is the British Parliament, deals with such issues. I am referring to two decisions made by the British House of Commons, which suspended for 10 days without pay a member who had released a committee report before the committee had authorized such disclosure. Again, that member of Parliament was suspended for 10 days without pay.

In another case that was reported, two members of Parliament were sanctioned in October by the committee of the British House of Commons: the member who asked for the report and the member who gave it. Both were fined and suspended for reasonable periods of time. They also had to rise and apologize to their fellow members in the British House of Commons.

This issue is taken extremely seriously in our parliamentary system and in our traditions. The reason is simple, as explained by Senator Bacon, and I am quoting the British committee:

[English]

(1600)

It is at that stage that outside involvement with the conclusions of the report might be attempted. If there were any suspicion that such a practice existed, the standing of our whole select committee system could be questioned.

[Translation]

None of our committees will be able to do its work and report in this house in a productive and responsible manner if, at the important and crucial stage of drafting reports, drafts of these reports begin floating around left, right and centre, to coin a phrase.

It is therefore extremely important, and I am looking at my colleague Senator DeWare, who is on the Standing Senate Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders, that the matters raised by both Senator Andreychuk and Senator Bacon be considered by the committee. We could thus agree not only on the ethic that we would all undertake to follow but also, unfortunately, on the system of sanctions that we must perhaps implement in order to ensure that incidents of this nature do not recur.

It is with this in mind, honourable senators, that I would like to support the remarks made by Senators Bacon and Forrestall.

[English]

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I should like to add a few words. It is unfortunate that we have a second example of a matter of privilege arising on almost identical facts. I am referring, of course, to the question of privilege before the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders raised by Senator Andreychuk.

I should like to add that it seems fairly straightforward, based on that precedent where, in deciding whether or not there was a prima facie case of privilege, the Speaker cited Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, 6th Edition, page 241, citation 877, which states:

No act done at any committee shall be divulged before it has been reported to the House.

It further states:

The publication of proceedings of committees conducted with closed doors or of reports of committees before they are available to Members will, however, constitute a breach of privilege.

Accordingly, Your Honour, it would seem fairly straightforward, and I, too, would urge your consideration of this matter as a prima facie case, making it appropriate for a reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders.

Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, I, too, wish to speak in support of the motion of Senator Bacon. I would simply like to make the point that I made when Senator Andreychuk raised her similar case, that, while it is clear in my view that a serious abuse has occurred here, the abuse consists of the leak of the information. The problem is not that a free press, having come into possession of information about the workings of government, published that information. The culprit lies at the source and not in the publication.

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I should like to add a very few words to the debate. We should be crystal clear on what precisely the debate is about. This particular debate is to persuade the Speaker that there is a prima facie case of a breach of privilege, therein for the Speaker to grant the issue priority over all other debate in the chamber.

This debate is not to determine whether there was an actual contempt or whether there should be a sanction or a punitive measure applied to anyone who has so conducted themselves. The real issue before us is to ask the Senate Speaker to give just and judicious consideration and to grant the matter a high precedence in respect of the Senate's deliberations.

In support of what Senator Bacon has said, I welcome her initiative and I thank her for laying out the facts. What she has done essentially is to uphold the fact that, first, committees should be able to do their work with the full assurance that they can obey the different references that are given to them from the Senate chamber; and, second, that each committee would be able to obey its reference and report back to the Senate, at which time the entire public and every other senator would be made aware and would be in possession of the information. In other words, the contents of draft reports should not be disclosed to the so-called media, or to the so-called public, prior to any disclosure to senators and the Senate chamber itself.

Needless to say, this issue seems to be an abiding one, a burgeoning one, and obviously one that is compelling our attention. I note that, on September 14, Senator Andreychuk raised a similar question. I believe I spoke in that debate. Again, on October 13, Senator Andreychuk reintroduced the same subject matter and again I joined her with ready support.

The real question before us, honourable senators, is whether there is prima facie, first blush evidence of a breach of privilege. I would say to Her Honour that there is wide support in the chamber for such a finding.

[Translation]

Speaker's Ruling

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, if no other senator wishes to speak, I will give my ruling. I wish to thank Senator Bacon and all honourable senators who took part in the debate.

I recall Senator Molgat being asked to rule on a similar question in September. I therefore accept the question of privilege raised by Senator Bacon.

Referred to standing committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and orders

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Therefore, honourable senators, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Bacon, seconded by the Honourable Senator Maheu:

That the question of privilege concerning the leak of the second draft of the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications on the reorganization of Canada's air industry in Le Soleil and the Toronto Star of November 24, 1999 be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

[English]

Religious Freedom in China in Relation to United Nations International Covenants

Inquiry—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Lois M. Wilson rose pursuant to notice of November 17, 1999:

That she will call the attention of the Senate to religious freedom in China, in relation to the UN international covenants.

She said: Honourable senators, from October 23 to November 5 of this year, a seven-person delegation, organized by the Canadian Council of Churches, with assistance from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, explored the ongoing challenges faced by Chinese partners in their expression of religious practice in China. Representing the mainline Christian churches in Canada, the delegates drew extensively on their 100-year institutional history with Chinese partners for this exploration of the protection of religious freedom in China. China recognizes five official religions: Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, Protestantism, and Catholicism. A possible future engagement could include an inter-faith Canadian delegation meeting inter-faith partners in China, and an engagement in Tibet.

The delegation went in the spirit of constructive engagement, with a view to sharing insights on how laws on freedom of religion could reflect the international obligations of the two United Nations human rights covenants that China is considering ratifying. The delegation understood itself as one of a number of bilateral engagements being undertaken between Canada and China, and complementing the needs assessment mission sent to China by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson. That offers a comprehensive program of technical cooperation in the administration of justice, legislative reform and other areas of human rights.

During the two-week period, the delegation visited six cities and held discussions with a wide variety of church and government personnel, including China's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the Religious Affairs Bureau.

The Western press reports mainly stories of religious persecution in China, and the arbitrary arrests, detentions and human rights abuses as seen through our eyes. The arrests of persons on religious grounds is reported without any explanation other than "they broke the Chinese law," and it is widely perceived by Canadians as a violation of religious freedom and of human rights.

(1610)

Without a shadow of a doubt, some of those are accurate. That is the dark side to the life of religious communities in China. However, nothing is ever said of what the laws and regulations on religions say, why they were put in place and why there are penalties for breaking them.

The constitution of the People's Republic of China comes out of a history of Confucianism, Marxist revolution and the need for control, stability and order in governance for a country that boasts 1.3 billion people, a history and context very different from our own. The delegation was never in a city that had less than 10 million people.

The constitution guarantees the freedom of citizens to belief or non-belief, and it protects normal religious activities. However, it does not guarantee the freedom of religious believers to manifest or practise that belief, nor does it define "normal religious activities", except to say that no one may use religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order. This grey area is responsible for some of the Chinese curtailment of religious freedom that we hear about in the West, and, because of its ambiguity, can be abused by those who administer the regulations, particularly in areas very remote from Beijing.

The constitution also makes it clear that religious bodies are not subject to any foreign domination. This arises out of China's suspicion of the intentions of the international religious community, at whose hands its sovereignty has suffered in the past. The highly privatized orientation of religious groups originating in Los Angeles or Taiwan, wanting to preach individual salvation only in a country that highly prizes collectivity are viewed as foreign interference.

China does not want a repetition of the slogan of yesteryear, "One more Christian, one less Chinese." Now the slogan is, "Love of country; love of Church, without foreign interference."

Two sets of regulations ensure that religion does not become a source of destabilization or a threat to national security. The regulations come out of an understanding of freedom as having to do with collective rights, whereas, in the West, the emphasis is more on individual rights. It is required that every centre of religious activity register with the government and meet six criteria: a place of worship, a trained leader, a certain number of believers, a governing committee, a legal source of income, and a name for a meeting place.

It is important to note that every social group in China is required to register with the government, not only religious groups. This is again in keeping with the emphasis on collective rights. The problem is that there is a thin line that separates regulation from control. We saw no evidence of a widespread, intentional policy to persecute religious groups, either because China thinks religions will gradually fade away or because religions are carefully contained within the fabric of Chinese society. Indeed, the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences commented that Christians make good Chinese citizens.

Our Protestant Church partners have fashioned the China Christian Council, a post-denominational church where older people refer to themselves as a former Presbyterian, a former Anglican, and so on. It is fully Chinese in its origins in the Three Self Patriotic Movement, as is its governance, its financing, and its theology. Partners see the regulations as protection for their activities and a guarantee against interference from non-believing Chinese, such as happened during the Cultural Revolution. As a result of this protection, the Protestant churches in China are experiencing phenomenal growth, and their biggest problem is how to train enough able leadership to meet the demand. We met one young woman, for example, who, having received three months training, is now in charge of the spiritual direction of 1,000 people. Although a minority in China, Christians in China far outnumber Christians in Canada.

The situation for Catholics is different. Registered Catholic churches are known as the Patriotic Church, and support government policies, such as the one-child policy. This has negative implications for the recruitment of priests, since few families would allow their one male child to enter a system that precludes the passing down of the family name, yet, "Fully Chinese; fully Catholic" could be their slogan. Others, who remain loyal to the Vatican, are unregistered and suffer the same penalties as unregistered Protestants, but all Catholics recognize the authority of the Vatican, albeit to varying degrees, and this is sometimes winked at by religious affairs personnel.

Those who, by choice or circumstance, meet and worship in unregistered venues may do so for several reasons: believers' allegiance to outside authorities or influence; objection to being confined to one meeting place; refusal of the authority of the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association or the Chinese Christian Council; or the acceptance of heterodox teaching and practices that could threaten public order.

Then there are the cults. China is well aware of cults in Canada, and at the Academy of Social Sciences, a professor asked us about the cult known as "the Toronto blessing" that operates near the Pearson airport, of which you may have heard. None of us had ever visited it firsthand, and so we had to rely on hearsay to respond.

China promulgated a law on cults on the last day of our visit. Without exception, our partners, as well as the government, viewed Falun Gong as a destabilizing and harmful, foreign-influenced organization. They also saw it as flourishing among the uneducated, vulnerable Chinese who may still be isolated from modernization and the benefits of modern medicine.

Our delegation took no position on the teachings of Falun Gong. In our meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, I raised several concerns on behalf of Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs. The first is that Canadians were deeply concerned about ongoing arrests, detentions, ill-treatment and abuse of Falun Gong practitioners who appeared to publicly exhibit exemplary non-violent behaviour in their ongoing demonstrations. Because the constitution guarantees citizens the right to believe or not to believe, the perception in Canada is that the constitution is not being honoured. When and how will "normal religious activity" be clearly defined? The second is whether the implementation of the new law on cults will be retroactive. The third is with respect to what guarantees the international community has that those arrested will be brought to fair and open trials. What implications do the two United Nations covenants, signed by China in 1997 and 1998 but not yet ratified, have on the treatment of the Falun Gong?

These questions, as well as many others that I do not have time to raise in this short inquiry, remain unsatisfactorily answered to date but provide an ongoing agenda for our continuing collaboration with China on religious freedom in the light of the international covenants. We expect that delegations and exchanges on matters of faith, religious liberty, and the implementation of religious policy, in keeping with international covenants, will continue. We think it a more productive approach than a confrontational one. We hope to receive a delegation of officials from the Religious Affairs Bureau to Canada to deepen our mutual understanding of church-state relations and to clarify for them the mystery of why Canada has no need for a religious affairs bureau. We also expect to receive a delegation of scholars from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, who, in concert with our academics, can deepen our mutual understanding of religion in secular society.

On motion of Senator Wilson, for Senator Austin, debate adjourned.

(1620)

Aboriginal Peoples

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples—Committee Authorized to Study Recommendations Respecting Aboriginal Governance and to Apply Papers and Evidence of Previous Session to Current Study

Hon. Charlie Watt, pursuant to notice of November 23, 1999, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples be authorized to examine and report on the recommendations of the Royal Commission Report on Aboriginal Peoples (Sessional Paper No. 2/35-508) respecting Aboriginal governance and, in particular, seek the comments of Aboriginal peoples and of other interested parties on:

1. the new structural relationships required between Aboriginal Peoples and the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government and between the various Aboriginal communities themselves;
2. the mechanisms of implementing such new structural relationships; and
3. the models of Aboriginal self-government required to respond to the needs of Aboriginal Peoples and to complement these new structural relationships;

That the papers and evidence received and taken on the subject and the work accomplished by the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples during the first session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That the Committee submit its final report no later than December 16, 1999, and that the Committee retain all powers necessary to publicize the findings of the Committee contained in the final report until December 24, 1999; 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.

Motion agreed to.

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Committee Authorized to Permit Electronic Coverage

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government), for Senator Kirby, pursuant to notice of November 18, 1999, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be empowered to permit coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings.

Hon. Eymard G. Corbin: Honourable senators, I have a question on Motion No. 11. Is that a permanent authorization, one that will allow the committee to televise all its work, as they choose to do, or for a specific purpose only?

Senator Hays: My understanding, Senator Corbin, is that it is a motion whereby the Senate approves the transmittal, by electronic media, for all of the proceedings of the committee, not just with respect to a particular study, until prorogation.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

Committee Authorized to Engage Services

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government, for Senator Kirby, pursuant to notice of November 18, 1999, moved:

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

Motion agreed to.

[Translation]

Agriculture and Forestry

Committee Authorized to Study Present State and Future of Agriculture

Hon. Fernand Robichaud, for Senator Fairbairn, pursuant to notice of November 23, 1999, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry be authorized to examine the present state and the future of agriculture in Canada; and
That the Committee report no later than June 29, 2001.

Motion agreed to.

Committee Authorized to Study Present State and Future of Forestry

Hon. Fernand Robichaud, for Senator Fairbairn, pursuant to notice of November 23, 1999, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry be authorized to examine the present state and the future of forestry in Canada; and
That the Committee report no later than June 29, 2001.

Motion agreed to.

Committee Authorized to Engage Services and Travel

Hon. Fernand Robichaud, for Senator Fairbairn, pursuant to notice of November 23, 1999, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry have power to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of its examination and consideration of such bills, subject matters of bills and estimates as are referred to it; and
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within and outside Canada for the purpose of such studies.

Motion agreed to.

Committee Authorized to Permit Electronic Coverage

Hon. Fernand Robichaud, for Senator Fairbairn, pursuant to notice of November 23, 1999, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry be empowered to permit coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings.

Motion agreed to.

The Senate adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

2nd Session, 36th Parliament, Volume 138, Issue 11

Wednesday, November 24, 1999 The Honourable Rose-Marie Losier-Cool, Speaker pro tempore

Table of Contents

THE SENATE

Wednesday, November 24, 1999

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Question of Privilege

Notice

The Late Jeannine Séguin The Late Omer Deslauriers

Tributes

Tenth Anniversary of Pledge to Eradicate Child Poverty

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Legal and Constitutional Affairs

First Report of Committee Tabled

Aboriginal Peoples

First Report of Committee Tabled

Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

First Report of Committee Tabled

Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders

First Report of Committee Tabled

Second Report of Committee Presented

Third Report of Committee Presented

National Finance

First Report of Committee Tabled

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Bill

Notice of Motion to Instruct the Standing Committee to which the Bill is Referred to Divide Bill into Two Bills

Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Engage Services

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Permit Electronic Coverage

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Meet During Sittings of the Senate

Banking, Trade and Commerce

Committee Authorized to Meet During Sitting of the Senate

Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Matters Related to Mandate

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Engage Services and Travel

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Permit Electronic Coverage

Census Records

Presentation of Petition

QUESTION PERIOD

Foreign Affairs

Increase in Capital Expenditures in Supplementary Estimates (A)—Possible Opening of New Embassies

Justice

Cost of Gun Registration Program—Responsibility of Minister

Intergovernmental Affairs

Quebec—Possible Conditions of Referendum—Impact of Government Initiative

The Economy

Purchase of Major Companies by United States Firms—Government Policy

Intergovernmental Affairs

Quebec—Possible Approach to Introduction of Conditions of Referendum

Quebec—Possible Conditions of Referendum— Involvement of Other Provinces

National Defence

1994 White Paper—Government Policy

Replacement of Sea King Helicopters

Closing of CFB Cornwallis—Removal of Memorial Windows from St. George's Chapel

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Bill

Second Reading—Debate Continued

Subject Matter Referred to Committee

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Committee Authorized to Meet During Sitting of the Senate

Income Tax Conventions Implementation Bill, 1999

Second Reading

Referred to Committee

Question of Privilege

Speaker's Ruling

Referred to standing committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and orders

Religious Freedom in China in Relation to United Nations International Covenants

Inquiry—Debate Adjourned

Aboriginal Peoples

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples—Committee Authorized to Study Recommendations Respecting Aboriginal Governance and to Apply Papers and Evidence of Previous Session to Current Study

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Committee Authorized to Permit Electronic Coverage

Committee Authorized to Engage Services

Agriculture and Forestry

Committee Authorized to Study Present State and Future of Agriculture

Committee Authorized to Study Present State and Future of Forestry

Committee Authorized to Engage Services and Travel

2nd Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 138, Issue 11

Wednesday, November 24, 1999
The Honourable Rose-Marie Losier-Cool, Speaker pro tempore