Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
1st Session, 37th Parliament,
Volume 139, Issue 88
Thursday, February 7, 2002
The Honourable Dan Hays, Speaker
- The Late Honourable Heath Macquarrie
- The Late Honourable Melvin Perry Poirier
- Visitor in the Gallery
- SENATORS' STATEMENTS
- ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
- QUESTION PERIOD
- ORDERS OF THE DAY
THE SENATE
Thursday, February 7, 2002
The Senate met at 1:30 p.m., the Speaker in the Chair.
Prayers.
The Late Honourable Heath Macquarrie
Tributes
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I have always regretted that I never got to know Heath Macquarrie well until I came to this place just a few years before he retired from it. To say that he was by then a legendary figure in my party is something he did not like to hear. Certainly, he was one of its leading figures, blessed as he was with an intellectual honesty all too rare in the world of politics.
To support that, I want to quote his own words from a book he wrote, appropriately titled Red Tory Blues. In it, one finds a confession that I believe reveals the intellectual rigour that dominated his political career. He wrote:
I had emotionally and intellectually prepared myself to vote against the War Measures Act in the House of Commons. It is not the custom to take votes in caucus but my impression was that a substantial, if not overwhelming, majority were ready to vote against it. But with the deepening crisis, and the increasing assaults on our leaders, we felt overwhelmed by a sea of tumultuous and frightening events. I was no recent victim of insomnia, but on the night before the vote I slept not a wink. I was not troubled by the thought of being in a minority as I now read the party's changing attitude. I had been in such situations before. Nor was I unprepared to be criticized and misunderstood. That too was not unfamiliar to me. But what was the right thing to do? It seemed a very personal matter. I always felt there was something grandiose if not self-righteous about people who too readily display their conscience. But on the War Measures Act I felt that all I had learned and believed in over the years was somehow being tried and tested. My agonized uncertainty did not end until the vote was called. In the roll call I stood with all members of my party and supported the War Measures Act knowing in my head and heart that it was an improper and highly ignoble thing to do. In my thirty-four years on Parliament Hill, I have doubtless done many foolish things and said many more. But the only occasion on which I still consider I was fundamentally wrong was on this vote. The only worthy excuse I could advance was that I had avoided a rift in the caucus. Stanfield was sufficiently under attack without adding to his problems the charge of having a fractured caucus.
Looking back on those disturbing times I see few heroes.... Certainly I wasn't one.
This special trait, added to his oratorical skills, his warm personality, combined with his great concern for the welfare of his constituents, allowed him to be elected eight times to the House of Commons, a remarkable achievement by itself, but made even more remarkable as the PCs, during many of those years, did not always show the solidarity the public expects from a political party.
Heath was summoned to the Senate by the Right Honourable Joe Clark in 1979 and remained an active member of it until his retirement in 1994. His loyalty to the party during the Mulroney years was often tested but never broken. I recall once in caucus he made an impassioned speech against a particular piece of legislation and ended by saying, "You know, a lot of people think I have a prominent nose because of my enjoyment of a certain beverage. Well, that's all nonsense. I got it that way by having to hold it so often while voting for some of Mulroney's bills."
Others who had the good fortune to have known him longer and better than I all have their own anecdotes about this fine man and, hopefully, we may hear some choice ones today.
Certainly, the lasting memory I have of Heath is his constant interest in individual colleagues and their endeavours and projects. Even after retirement, he would occasionally drop a line of encouragement and support on a controversial position, and eloquently write long letters on topics of the day, always erudite, always thoughtful, as he did so with a forceful mind and a clear pen.
Honourable senators, it was a joy and a privilege to have him as an associate and as a friend.
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham: Honourable senators, over the past few years, Canada has lost a number of its finest patriots. I think of the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the remarkable spirit of Mordecai Richler, and now the inimitable Peter Gzowski, whose death has unleashed a tremendous spirit of national sadness and, I might add, a kind of groundswell of refusal to let him go.
However, no matter what their background or mission in life, all of these gentlemen were uniquely Canadian. They challenged us to examine our thoughts and values and identities as Canadians, and their ideals and dreams inspired us to believe in the magic of this special community as we never had before.
Throughout his wonderful life, Senator Heath Macquarrie brought that same kind of gentle and tolerant persuasion and patriotism, that same kind of caring, compassionate soul, that same kind of intellectual depth and continuing joy in the process of learning to the hearts of the many lives he touched, whether as parliamentarian or academic, as author or social activist and critic, or delegate to the United Nations General Assembly, where I had the delightful privilege of serving as one of his colleagues. On that occasion, he was mildly upset because the particular brand of that beverage to which Senator Lynch-Staunton referred was not so readily available in New York. Whether he was strolling the streets of his beloved Prince Edward Island and chatting with everyone he met or receiving the Grand Cordon Order of Al-Istiqlal from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Senator Macquarrie was always the same to everyone.
(1340)
While many of us recall the brilliant mind and the powerful orator in this chamber, I remember him best for his fundamental decency and humanity — that mischievous smile and twinkle in his eye that charmed and indeed melted everyone with whom he came in contact.
He once reviewed a book I had authored called Seeds of Freedom. While generally giving the effort his mild approval, he said he grew slightly weary of the expression "a level playing field" — this from a Red Tory whose credo during his entire public life was a level playing field for everyone, no matter where they lived.
Senator Macquarrie's fundamental decency was lodged solidly in the foundations of all of his work, no matter how analytical or research-oriented. I recall that Senator Macquarrie once remarked to me that he believed our eighth Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Robert Borden, was the chief architect of Canadian independence. Earlier this week, I sought out Senator Macquarrie's introduction to the Borden Memoirs to find out just why he thought so. I found not just the disciplined, rigorous mind of the first-rate historian at work, but the soul of a man of honour whose search for historical accuracy never interfered with his effective use of the broad brush of history to establish the parameters of our identity and the adventure of our great national dream.
Senator Macquarrie was 82 when he died. He had been educated by some of the giants of Canadian academia, including the historian Arthur Lower. Senator Macquarrie would often quote him fondly as he maintained his annual vigil to ensure that the Union Jack flag was flying on Parliament Hill every December 11, the anniversary of the adoption of the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Quoting Lower, he would say that if Canada had an independence day, it would and should be December 11.
Heath Macquarrie was a man of conscience, a renowned Red Tory who believed that, above all, the principal objective of government was the well-being of people. He argued this case with passion and great purposefulness, but always returned to the roots of this great country, showing through careful historical construct that Canada was always meant to be a federation of the heart.
Never, I believe, has the study of our history and an understanding of our values as Canadians been as important to our national psyche as in this post-September 11 world. Today, as we reflect upon the wonderful life of Senator Macquarrie and all the courageous patriots who have worked long days and nights to lay the foundations for a tolerant, compassionate and freedom- loving Canada, we remember the magic in our hearts. We are reminded of how hard we must work to ensure that the generations yet to come will treasure those ideals forever, because that magic is timeless.
Honourable senators, Senator Macquarrie has done more than his part to achieve those ideals. To his wife, Isabel, and all the members of his family, we extend an expression of appreciation for his life and our sorrow that he is no longer with us.
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, let me begin at the end of Heath Macquarrie's life and the manner of his leaving us. In the early 1990s, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He underwent treatment. For the next eight or ten years, his condition alternated between recovery and recurrence, the cycle all too familiar to the all too many who have endured it.
His spirit remained high, however. It was his habit to favour me, and I suppose others, with copies of his extensive correspondence. In January of the year 2000, he wrote:
At my eightieth birthday party in Charlottetown in September, a dear friend asked me about my health. I replied in more detail than needed or expected. I have had High Blood Pressure for over 50 years, diabetes for over 25, Prostate cancer about 10, Hiatal hernia for many years, have also had a TIA stroke, and am an insomniac...But thank God I feel pretty good every day.
In May of 2000, he wrote our Speaker, Senator Molgat:
I am living on borrowed time. After six or seven years holding prostate cancer in control the prognosis is not very good. I think I'll be able to have the summer in my beloved P.E.I. but it is likely to be my last.
Honourable senators, life is a mystery. Gil Molgat, as we know, was brought down by a sudden stroke seven months later. Heath Macquarrie was to live two more summers.
Last fall, it was clear that further treatment would be unavailing. The cycle ran out. He arranged for palliative care at home in Ottawa. In September, he wrote:
I am relieved to have this situation for what I must call my final days and which cannot be very long... But we shall try to make the best of things as we recall with gratitude livelier days of the past.
His last days, weeks and months are remarkable because they coincided so much with his entire adult life. As long as he could do so, he wrote his column for The Hill Times and for the Island papers. He stayed in touch with his eclectic circle of friends. Discussion at his bedside was of Prince Edward Island politics, the Senate, his international interests, especially the Middle East, and the Commonwealth Caribbean — "the Arabs and the Caribs," as he used to say. Almost to the very end, he remained fully engaged.
Heath Macquarrie's careers as teacher, scholar, writer and politician overlapped. He was somewhat unusual among Canadian parliamentarians in that he also made a significant contribution to the literature of Canadian politics. He edited and wrote the introduction to the diaries of Sir Robert Borden for the Carleton Library Series, as Senator Graham just mentioned. He authored The Conservative Party, published by McClelland and Stewart in 1965, and his own political memoir, Red Tory Blues, published by the University of Toronto Press in 1992. He was also co-author of Canada and the Third World, published by Macmillan Canada in 1976.
Is it possible for a person to be a strong Islander, a Canadian nationalist and an ardent internationalist? Macquarrie was all of those and a proud Scot as well. He worried publicly about aggressive provincialism in our country, but if anyone dared question the constitutional prerogatives of the great province of Prince Edward Island, Heath Macquarrie would soon set them straight.
He was elected eight times to the House of Commons and served there for 22 years. He did not attain cabinet rank because after his first six years in Mr. Diefenbaker's caucus, there was no Tory cabinet to belong to. He loved this upper house where he sat for 15 years. He loved the opportunities the Senate provided to devote himself more fully to his policy interests and to speak more freely, as he certainly did, on free trade, on the fixed link, to name just two issues on which he did not share my enthusiasm or that of other colleagues.
Later, accepting what had been done, he compared these issues to one of the great lost causes of our Scottish forbearers. He wrote:
While Bonnie Prince Charles has a romantic appeal for many Caledonians, the return of the Stuarts has no place in the thinking of even the most ardent Scottish nationalists.
Notwithstanding his reservations about free trade and the fixed link, "we are now presented with both," he said, "and must endure the reality of existence."
For his friends, among whom I have been proud to be counted for more than 40 years, the "reality of existence" will be much less interesting, less stimulating and certainly less convivial without him. We will greatly miss him. He has been an adornment to public life in this country and to both Houses of our Parliament.
(1350)
Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Honourable senators, I was saddened recently, as were many Prince Edward Islanders, to learn of the passing of one of my home province's greatest statesmen. A former senator and a long-time member of Parliament, Heath Macquarrie was a legend in Prince Edward Island. He was a man greatly admired for his skills as an orator, for his abilities as a politician, and his knowledge and appreciation of issues far beyond our national borders. He was, perhaps, most treasured as a sincere and genuine Islander whose heart never left his small home community of Victoria. Heath's friends and neighbours in that community have reflected in the last two weeks about how they would often see him strolling the streets of their small seaside village, fully adorned in his prized kilt and trademark tam.
Honourable senators, my home province has had its fair share of outstanding politicians through the years, but few reached the level of this former senator, both in terms of accomplishment and length of time served. As has been said, he was first elected as a member of Parliament in 1957 and re-elected seven times. He followed his lengthy career as a member of Parliament with an equally distinguished period of 15 years in the Senate. As I know many of my colleagues will attest, his command of the language often resulted in breathtaking oratories, especially captivating in style and in content.
Prior to his impressive career in public life, Heath was an academic of some renown, educated at Prince of Wales College, the University of Manitoba, the University of British Columbia and McGill University. He lectured at a number of universities in economics, political science and international relations.
In short, honourable colleagues, retired Senator Macquarrie was an outstanding Islander and a great Canadian. We are all much better for the time he spent in the service of our country. I know that I join all honourable senators in extending heartfelt condolences to his wife, Isabel, and to his children, Heather, Flora and Iain.
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, 32 years ago today, Senator Macquarrie and I had the great honour of attending a meeting in Egypt. The title of the meeting was Parliamentarians for Peace in the Middle East. We met with President Nasser. Eventually, Senator Macquarrie met extensively with President Sadat and Vice-President Mubarak, as I did, but at different times.
I would urge honourable senators to read the article in The Hill Times of Monday, January 7, 2002, under the pen of Mr. Bhupinder Liddar, the editor of the newspaper called The Diplomat.
In 1974, Mr. Trudeau gave me the great honour of being a full- time delegate at the United Nations for three months. It was the most tumultuous session that ever took place under the presidency of Algerian President Bouteflika, who disappeared and then came back as President of Algeria. The year that Chairman Arafat was invited by the United Nations, sadly, he was boycotted by the Western World, with the exception of myself. I stood up and did as the United Nations wanted us to do. I was never blamed by Mr. Trudeau, who was more than happy to leave me there. I always took that as an unwritten sign of approval. A lot of air hit the fan in the Liberal national caucus after such a gesture, but the only telephone call I received was from former Senator Macquarrie, as a sign of encouragement to keep defending the most unpopular causes of that time — and I am talking about 1974.
I have hundreds of handwritten pages from former Senator Heath Macquarrie. Senator Murray knows this better than I, but Senator Macquarrie did not like to use typewritten text — he liked to send written notes by fax. It took me some time to read them.
Once one came to know Senator Macquarrie, one realized that he was a man full of wisdom. One of his greatest assets to Parliament was his unbelievable understanding and interest in world affairs. He was one of the most prominent senators, along with Senator Murray and another senator — whose name I prefer not to mention at this time because he is still here. He worked on a famous report on Canada's relationship with the Middle East in the very early 1980s under the very able chairmanship of then Senator van Roggen, who honoured me by giving me the ninth draft, which senators shall see someday, showing the difficulties the members of that committee encountered. They agonized over the drafting of a report that was eventually and viciously denounced by two senators — one who left and one who is still here.
Senator Macquarrie never played footsie with his opinion on Middle East affairs, world affairs and this major issue that concerns us all. That was a major concern of his and of mine, even though I was much younger. Everything that has been done from 1970 up to now is about to hound us. Up to the very last week of his life, he kept talking about the forbidden subject, that is, Middle East policy and the understanding of it. It played a major role in his life because he was a mentor to many people.
Heath Macquarrie was a most knowledgeable person. He had the best solutions, but no one wanted to listen. We created — and I was honoured then and I am still honoured — the Canada-Arab parliamentary world, which was reinstituted three days ago under the chairmanship of Mr. Assadourian in the House of Commons. Heath and I were co-chairs who worked under great difficulty. He always said, "Of all the honours that I may have received, the one that I cherish the most is that position as honorary chair of the Canada-Arab world because it is so difficult to stand up for what one thinks is right." He never played footsie in his criticism of Arab leaders when the time required, nor in his multiple conversations with the various leaders that he met, such as Menachem Begin, Shimon Peres, Ben Gurion and Abba Eban, whom he considered to be one of the great people of our time.
(1400)
I was waiting to see if people would touch upon something that had been immensely major in his life. I regret, as he did up to the very last of his weeks, that colleagues here do not take more interest in a very explosive issue. That is his view, and people are still playing games. Senator Macquarrie stood for what he thought was right. He was a man of equilibrium. He would stop, or call or write me when he felt I had gone too far.
To young people who have interests in international affairs, if I were to suggest a mentor for courage in difficult times, I would mention Senator Macquarrie as one of the first.
Much has been said about how joyful and extraordinarily well informed he was, and I do not wish to pay too much homage, following Senator Lapointe's urgings. However, I think we in the Senate should not be afraid to stand up and take some of our precious time to pay tribute to a great man. I offer our most sincere condolences to his wife, Isabel, their three children, Heather, Flora and Iain, and their seven grandchildren.
He is waiting there in P.E.I., because one of his last wishes was to ask people to go to P.E.I., in a place that he loved so much. He swam in Victoria Harbour, where his ashes will be thrown. It is a reminder of his love for his province and his belief in justice for all, without exception. Perhaps it was his hope that the ashes will cross the ocean and bring some sense to people who are putting peace in the world in great danger.
I, personally, will miss Senator Macquarrie greatly, as a mentor, a knowledgeable person, a historian and a friend. I am sure many other people will miss his friendship that he was so happy to share with those around him.
My colleague and friend Senator Roche will not be speaking. It is risky because I may have gone too far, but I ask him to join in what I just said about Senator Macquarrie. I have a positive response, and I thank him for allowing me to add his name to what I just said about a dearly departed friend.
His spirit will remain as long as some of his friends are still around.
[Translation]
Hon. Pierre De Bané: Honourable senators, I should like to join my colleagues in paying tribute to the late Heath Macquarrie. It is obvious that this great man, with a multitude of careers — historian, intellectual, professor, parliamentarian and worthy representative of Prince Edward Island and the Maritimes — was a great Canadian.
I will focus today, if I may, on one aspect of the man that particularly affected me, because of my origins: how he suffered to see the sufferings of the Palestinian people, their tragic lives and the absolutely pitiful conditions under which they live. It is hard to overestimate their trials and tribulations.
How did this great Canadian, born on Prince Edward Island, come to be interested in the drama being lived by these millions of people and their tragic conditions? This further testifies to the greatness of Senator Macquarrie.
In the Middle East, whether it is an Israeli family or a Palestinian family that tragically loses a family member, the suffering is equivalent, equally intense. Yet when one looks at the general situation of these two peoples, the Palestinians are the ones living in abysmal misery.
Senator Macquarrie became a spokesman for the Palestinian people. He defended them with all his great heart and all his intellectual abilities.
I would like Mrs. Macquarrie, as well as her children and grandchildren, to know, today, that I will truly cherish the memory of this great Canadian parliamentarian, to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude.
[Later]
[English]
Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I shall be brief. I should like to join colleagues on both sides in paying tribute to our late colleague former Senator Heath Macquarrie. We all remember Senator Macquarrie with great esteem and respect his impressive study and knowledge of the Middle East, its people and its circumstances. His understanding of that part of the world was indeed impressive. His defence of the Palestinian people was noble. I sincerely believe that Senator Macquarrie will be remembered as a faithful friend to Palestinian, Arab, Caribbean, colonial and former colonial peoples alike.
Honourable senators, I join with all senators in this house today in offering my condolences and best wishes for the future to his wife and his family.
The Late Honourable Melvin Perry Poirier
Tributes
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I rise today to pay tribute to a former colleague, Senator Melvin Perry, who sometimes liked to call himself Perry Poirier. He served the people of Prince Edward Island with great dedication, both at home and here in the Senate chamber. Senator Perry was an educator by profession, and his career in education spanned 34 years, during which he served as principal of St. Louis School for 15 years.
[Translation]
Senator Perry had close ties to the Acadian community in his native province. He was a contributor to the French-language newspaper La Voix Acadienne and worked on the Canada Community agreement.
He showed great dedication to his community of St. Louis. Among other activities, he sat on the board of directors of the St. Louis history club and the St. Louis community school. In the Senate, Senator Perry eloquently gave his opinion on several bills. He played a major role during consideration of the clarity bill. He was a member of many Senate committees, including the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries.
[English]
We would like to offer our sincere condolences to his wife, Anita, and their children and grandchildren.
Hon. Eileen Rossiter: Honourable senators, I rise to say a few words in tribute to our departed friend Senator Perry Poirier. His loss was deeply felt in the area in which he lived, which was Palmer's Road in the western part of the Island. I am sure that his true legacy is the influence he had in shaping the minds of the thousands of students who went to his classes.
His great love for his francophone community, official bilingualism, and his pride in his Acadian ancestry are well known to all who met him.
His appointment to the Senate lasted slightly longer than a year, cut prematurely short by the terms of the Constitution Act. The broad range of his interests was reflected in the fact that he sat on no fewer than seven committees. How he could bring himself up to speed on short notice on such a wide range of issues is a mystery. I am sure the whips on both sides of this house would be more than happy to have many more like him.
(1410)
During his time in the chamber, we flew back and forth to P.E.I. at different times. That was when I came to know former Senator Perry and his wife, Anita. I extend my sincere condolences to Anita, their children and their grandchildren.
Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Honourable senators, many in my home province were saddened recently to learn of the passing of one of our former colleagues, Melvin Perry. Melvin came to this historic chamber carrying a heavy responsibility as he was the first person of Acadian descent from Prince Edward Island to be appointed to the Senate in the century.
He took that obligation very seriously. During his short term here, he served on five Senate committees and two joint committees. On behalf of the fishers and farmers of Prince Edward Island, he worked extremely hard on both the Fisheries Committee and the Agriculture and Forestry Committee.
In his community, Melvin will always be remembered as a first- class educator and as a steadfast promoter of his Acadian culture. In fact, there were times when he was able to combine the two, as evidenced by his involvement in the establishment of the French Immersion Program in Prince Edward Island schools. The late senator was an educator for 34 years, 15 of which he served as principal of St. Louis elementary school.
As a proud Acadian, he served on many committees and volunteered with a number of organizations that promoted and enhanced the Acadian culture. He was a member of the St. Thomas Aquinas Society, and he worked hard to found the French-language newspaper in our province. A man proud of his culture, a neighbour proud of his community, a teacher proud of his vocation — Melvin Perry was all of these things. He was also a man who loved his family.
I want to extend my deepest sympathy to Melvin's wife, Anita, their six children and their families.
[Translation]
Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, I should like to add a few words to the tributes paid to Senator Perry Poirier. Like all of us, I did not have enough time to get to know him well, but I did get to know him a little, because his seat was close to mine.
I will remember him as a warm, generous and gentle person, who was always ready to help and be there when he was needed. I called upon him on a number of occasions and he never hesitated one second to help me. He was very proud, and rightly so, to be the first Acadian senator from Prince Edward Island. His family must know that we too were very pleased to have him with us.
Honourable senators, I join others who have expressed their sympathy to his family.
[English]
Visitor in the Gallery
The Hon. the Speaker: Before I call for Senators' Statements, I would draw your attention to the presence in our gallery of Dr. Adalbert Th. Jegyud, Physician and Orthodox Catholic Chaplin at the Mount Sinai Hospital Centre, and a guest of the Honourable Senator Watt.
Welcome to the Senate.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Nobel Prize
One Hundredth Anniversary—Statement Endorsed by Laureates on State of World's Poor and Disenfranchised
Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, this is the one hundredth anniversary of the awarding of the Nobel Prize. While giving substantial consideration to the aftermath of September 11, I was interested to read a statement endorsed by many of the world's living Nobel Laureates. In a brief, succinct and terse statement by the brainchild of Canada's John Polanyi, himself a Nobel Laureate, they stated that the security of the world now hangs on environmental and social reform. Here we have 100 people who rose to the pinnacle of their careers agreeing that the most profound danger to world peace will not stem from irrational acts of states or individuals, but from legitimate demands of the world's dispossessed.
It was their concerted view that to stop what threatens the very essence of the planet, we must persist in the quest for united action to counter both global warming and a weaponized world. In other words, those twin goals will constitute vital components of stability as we all move to a wider degree of social justice that alone gives hope of peace.
Honourable senators, I call your attention to this important article because environmental and social reforms and the warning of those 100 Nobel Laureates should be kept in the minds of members of our standing committees when they review government legislation and conduct special studies. In that way, our recommendations can serve as a beacon to the world. The laureates said that most of the poor and disenfranchised in the world live a marginalized existence in equatorial climates and that global warming will affect their fragile ecologies more than it will affect ours.
Honourable senators, their statement concluded with the following: "To survive in the world we have transformed, we must learn to think in a new way. As never before, the future of each depends on the good of all."
The Late Peter Gzowski, C.C.
Tribute
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, I rise in tribute to the late, unforgettable, Peter Gzowski. My first fiery encounter with him was in 1956 on the campus of the University of Toronto. I was a law student active on many fronts, and Peter was the radical editor of Varsity, the University of Toronto's excellent and well-respected daily newspaper.
Peter was irascible, opinionated and brilliant. Rarely was he easy to convince. We clashed frequently and held heated debates in his office and on campus about almost everything. Yet we kept in touch. We shared a wide circle of friends and business partners. Later, in the 1960s when I was practising law in Toronto, he came to me with a mutual friend, Ken Lefolii, an equally inspired Canadian writer, editor and publisher with a magnificent idea to start up a new weekly magazine to be called "This City." The magazine was to focus with an elegant inner eye on the cultural and intellectual life of the city, the prism that the national media had neglected. The thesis was valid then and it is valid now. We agreed to combine to float the idea but failed to gain economic support or enthusiasm. This preoccupation with the inner city manifests itself today in the electronic and print media but, at the time, it was revolutionary.
(1420)
Peter and I shared a love of the printed word, but for me, Peter's great talent was his insatiable curiosity about the undiscovered Canada — his unquenchable curiosity about the unheralded Canada. His curiosity forced Canadians to become curious about themselves. For that, Canadians remain eternally in his debt, and he will not be readily forgotten. He will be missed as the ultimate Canadian catalyst. In a word, he was excellent. He relished and practised excellence. What better legacy can a man bequeath to his country than an unrequited curiosity and love of country.
Library of Parliament
Ceremony Launching Renovation Project
Hon. Laurier L. LaPierre: Honourable senators, on Monday, I had the pleasure of attending the special ceremony given by the Honourable Don Boudria to mark the beginning of the renovation project of the Library of Parliament. At that time, our Speaker, the Honourable Daniel Hays, gave a marvellous tribute to the library and to everyone who has been using it since time immemorial. It is the place where Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Edward Blake conversed about Canadian affairs in Latin. How civilization has passed us by.
Consequently, I should like to quote the magnificent words His Honour used in order to mark this important event, which was the closing of the big doors. The library will be closed for the next four years. One day, when Senator Day is back, he will tell me how I can, without offending any rule or anyone, put this speech in the record of the Senate, but I will have to wait for my mentor to tell me how to do it.
Speaker Hays said:
[Translation]
The Library of Parliament is closely linked to the history of our country. It has survived fires and floods, serving Canadian parliamentarians with great distinction for 126 years. Today, bearing the scars of this long and noble struggle, it is taking a well-deserved rest to be rejuvenated and restored to its former splendour.
I myself contemplate its imminent closing with a touch of sadness. But I am glad that the government is devoting the time, effort and resources necessary to ensure that, when our library again opens its doors in 2004, it will be better than ever and ready to welcome us back, here in this unique and splendid setting.
[English]
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Eleventh Report of Committee Presented
Hon. Richard H. Kroft, Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, presented the following report:
Thursday, February 7, 2002
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its
ELEVENTH REPORT
Your Committee recommends the adoption of Supplementary Estimates of $6,165,000 for the fiscal year 2001-2002.
This increase to the Statutory Appropriation results from the application of the provisions of Bill C-28.
Respectfully submitted
RICHARD H. KROFT
Chair
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?
Senator Kroft: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(g), I move that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration later this day.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): No.
The Hon. the Speaker: Leave is not granted. Does the honourable senator wish to rephrase his motion?
Sentor Kroft: In view of that, honourable senators, I would move that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to.
[Translation]
Official Languages
Sixth Report of Committee Tabled
Hon. Shirley Maheu: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the sixth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages concerning a resolution that the federal government provide funding to New Brunswick for the translation of municipal bylaws.
[English]
Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
Bill to Amend—Report of Committee
Hon. David Tkachuk, Deputy Chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, presented the following report:
Thursday, February 7, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce has the honour to present its
THIRTEENTH REPORT
Your Committee, to which was referred Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Friday, December 14, 2001, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
LEO KOLBER
Chairman
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?
On motion of Senator Tkachuk, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.
[Translation]
Scrutiny of Regulations
Fifth Report of Joint Committee Tabled
Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the fifth report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations dealing with the assessor's rules of procedure for certain pieces of legislation.
[English]
The Late Justice Willard Zebedee Estey, C.C., Q.C.
Notice of Inquiry
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, I give notice that on Tuesday, February 19, 2002, I will call the attention of the Senate to the life and times of the late Honourable Willard Zebedee (Bud) Estey, C.C., Q.C., B.A., LL.B., LL.M., LL.B.
QUESTION PERIOD
National Defence
War in Afghanistan—Assurance that Prisoners Turned Over to United States Not Face Capital Punishment
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask the minister to describe for this house the regime that is in place to govern the passage of prisoners in the war against terrorism from Canadian authorities to the authorities of other jurisdictions, in particular, with reference to assurances being sought before any turnover is made that the receiving jurisdiction will not seek the death penalty, consistent with Canadian values.
(1430)
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I thank Senator Kinsella for his question. As he knows, there are international legal agreements in place that govern the transfer of detainees. Should the detainees be arrested by Canadians, they will be transferred in accordance with those obligations. The honourable senator knows as well that international law, including the Geneva Convention, generally does not preclude the use of the death penalty. However, they do provide legal safeguards for the accused and they do preclude the use of the death penalty in specific cases with respect to minors and pregnant women.
Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, is the minister advising this house that Canadian domestic law will be overridden by any international instrument concerning the potential imposition of the death penalty?
Senator Carstairs: As I indicated to the honourable senator on Tuesday, I will seek further clarification. However, to my knowledge today, because we are dealing with a situation that takes place outside of Canada, it is not domestic law that pertains but the international legal requirements.
Senator Kinsella: Does the honourable minister not agree that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are agents of Canada and therefore would be subject to the National Defence Act of Canada? In regard to the law affecting the extradition of someone held by the Crown of Canada to a jurisdiction that imposes the death penalty, does she not agree that Canada has passed legislation stating that this cannot happen? Is it the policy of the Government of Canada that where the death penalty can be imposed, the Canadian value of not accepting that penalty will be the value that will be applied?
Senator Carstairs: As the honourable senator knows, the Canadian Armed Forces personnel who are in fact detaining individuals are not located in Canada, so domestic law does not apply. It is international law agreements that apply in this case. International law agreements — the most famous being the Geneva Conventions — allow for this transfer. They also indicate the way in which that transfer should take place. As I indicated earlier, they do not preclude the use of the death penalty.
Finance
Investment Market—Change in Limit of Foreign Ownership
Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Prime Minister of Canada, the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance have in the last number of weeks embarked on a promotion of Canada to foreign investors because of the drop in our Canadian dollar. They have been trying to convince New York investment houses and the world markets that if only they knew what we know in Canada, they would be buying our dollar.
Meanwhile, the investment house of Merrill Lynch has said that part of the reason for the fall of the dollar this past year — although not the whole reason — is that the government lifted restrictions on RSP foreign investment holdings to 30 per cent from 20 per cent, and it seems that Canadians are voting with their dollars and investing in everything but Canada.
Would the leader explain to this house why Canadian investors are doing the same as foreign investors? It seems that investors from Canada and the rest of the world are contradicting what the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are trying to say.
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I must say that I find the contradictions from the honourable senator on the other side a little difficult to deal with. On Tuesday, I thought he recommended that we should lift this investment policy entirely and that we should have 100 per cent open investment by Canadians in foreign companies. Now he seems to be saying that perhaps we have gone too far with a limit of 30 per cent. Perhaps the Honourable Senator Tkachuk can explain where he is coming from and then I can explain where I believe the Government of Canada is coming from.
Senator Tkachuk: Honourable senators, I would be happy to take the opportunity to explain. As far as I am concerned, we should have no restrictions on the amount of foreign content holdings. It is the Liberal Government of Canada that seems to be opposed to lifting the restrictions. When it is done suddenly, there is a pent-up demand for foreign investment. Automatically, dollars leave the country and foreign investments are purchased. If the restrictions were lifted, some normal balance would take place, as happens in most countries throughout the world, where it falls around 30 per cent of foreign to domestic investment, therefore, stopping this kind of jerking around that the Liberal government seems to favour.
My explanation, and the point that I was trying to make, is that the only reason people are purchasing RRSPs in Canadian stock, unfortunately, is because they are being forced to do so. When the opportunities are unleashed, Canadians go elsewhere. Meanwhile, our Prime Minister, our Governor of the Bank of Canada and our Minister of Finance are in New York telling people how wonderful it is to invest in Canada and that they would be buying Canadian dollars if only they knew what we know.
Honourable senators, Canadians are not buying Canadian dollars because our economy is weak due to the fact that the Liberal government has kept the dollar low to create employment and is playing around with our currency, which is now at a very dangerous level. That is the problem we have in this country and that is why our dollar is at 62 cents. As a matter of fact, since the Minister of Finance, the Governor and the Prime Minister have been out there promoting Canada, our dollar has dropped even further. Perhaps the leader could advise members of cabinet that maybe they should quit and things might get a little better, because the more the investment houses find out, the more they may sell.
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, I will begin by commenting on some of the honourable senator's statements. First, the Canadian economy is not weak. In relationship to the United States, it has been doing far better. Second, the Government of Canada is not playing with Canadian dollars — never has and never will — but we do have an international market and we have exposed our dollar to that international market. If the honourable senator thinks there was a jerk in investment policies when the limit on foreign investment went from 25 per cent to 30 per cent, I do not think he would want me to recommend to the government on his behalf that we go immediately from 30 per cent to 100 per cent.
International Trade
Renewal of Softwood Lumber Agreement—Breaking off of Discussions with United States
Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, my question is directed to the government leader in the Senate as well, and it relates to the softwood lumber issue. There is disturbing news that talks have broken off with the Americans on this issue. I have reiterated in this place on several occasions in the past that I am taken aback and disappointed that the government did not see this coming down the pike and that the Americans would take the actions they have against Canadian lumber.
In view of the fact that as a country we seem to have broken off talks as a country with the United States, could the minister enlighten the 20,000 unemployed workers in British Columbia, their families and their communities that have been so adversely affected by the huge tariff that has been put on our lumber and by the instability in the industry?
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, to be very clear, we have not broken off talks with the United States. We indicated that unless they were prepared to come forward with a proposal, then the meetings scheduled for this week would not take place. What is the point of meeting when we have clearly put proposals on the table — proposals that the provinces quite frankly have been bringing forward in a productive manner. There was no point in continuing with this meeting.
(1440)
The Minister of International Trade has clearly indicated that he is prepared to sit down at any time with the United States, provided that they are prepared to come with a counter proposal. The provincial premiers and ministers have agreed with Minister Pettigrew.
Senator St. Germain: Honourable senators, Minister Pettigrew said that there is no sense in having a meeting if the Americans are still not in a position to react to our constructive and ambitious proposals. The same minister said that he has an excellent rapport with the American appointee to the negotiations, the former Governor of Montana, Mr. Racicot, and now we see a total breakdown of discussions.
In my question to the honourable minister last Tuesday, I suggested that there might be a personality conflict or something that is problematic to a resolution of this issue. Perhaps we should be looking outside the circle that has been involved because this matter is getting worse.
On Tuesday I informed the Senate that I had spoken at a convention of truck loggers in January of this year. The Minister of Forests from British Columbia also addressed the group. The minister said then that he was expecting a counter-proposal from the United States within a day or so. We are no further down that road.
Honourable senators, I am concerned because this issue has such a large negative impact on British Columbians. It is not only affecting the wood workers, their families and communities, it is also affecting the ability of the provincial government to meet its expectations on health care, education and a litany of other responsibilities.
I am not trying to be partisan or sarcastic in suggesting that we go outside the circle that has been trying to resolve this matter and bring someone else who might move this file to the top of the pile in Washington.
Senator Carstairs: With the greatest of respect to Senator St. Germain, the difficulty is not between Minister Pettigrew and Mr. Racicot; the difficulty is with the industry in the United States.
Tom Stephens, the former CEO of MacMillan Bloedel and Riverwood International, wrote recently to Mr. Racicot saying:
I'm proud to be an American, but I'm embarrassed by my nation's policy on Canadian softwood lumber imports. Let's let the market decide whose sawmill can best serve the customer and not a bureaucracy inside the Beltway. Let's not kick our real friends in the shin while they protect our backsides.
The problem, frankly, is that proposals have been made by the Canadian federal and provincial governments, and more specifically by the Province of British Columbia, which province has deep concerns of an economic nature with respect to the softwood file, as expressed so eloquently by the honourable senator opposite. We are up against some members of the softwood industry in the United States who cannot come to an agreement on this subject.
Mr. Racicot must hammer this matter out in the United States and then return to us. Until such time as the Americans are willing to bring concrete proposals to the table, I will continue to agree with Minister Pettigrew that there is no point having a meeting that resolves nothing.
Senator St. Germain: Honourable senators, there is no question that the U.S. industry has been playing games, and they have been doing so for years. Until we entered into the last agreement under the Liberal government, we had always taken the full route, gone to court and never capitulated. We have now capitulated and we find ourselves in this position.
I say to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, to cabinet and to all honourable senators that we know the power of the President of the United States. He can do what he wants in this world, within reason. If he is not reacting, there is more to this than just a few industry people.
I know Mr. Stephens. He used to head up MacMillan Bloedel in British Columbia. The government is hiding behind the industry. In good faith I say that the government must go beyond the current parties involved. If you do not get to the White House, you will not resolve this matter. That is a proven fact. British Columbians are suffering as we go about this process.
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, it is also important for us to give consistent messages. On Tuesday, when we discussed this matter, we said that there was a two-track proposal. The honourable senator is now apparently advocating that we go through the courts — and I assume he means the WTO process, when last Tuesday he indicated that that was a useless avenue to pursue.
It is absolutely essential that we pursue both avenues to the best of our ability. However, there is no point holding meetings for which there will not be a resolution.
Senator St. Germain: Honourable senators, I said that the WTO route could be pursued. However, by the time we pursue this initiative in such a fashion, British Columbians will be in total economic despair. Historically, Canada has never capitulated to the Americans. We have taken these matters to the International Trade Commission and won our cases time and again.
Let us not confuse the situation. I know what I am speaking about as I have worked on this file. I was the member of Parliament when the shake and shingle industry, of which 90 per cent was in my riding in the Province of British Columbia, was hit with a 35 per cent tariff. I know what I am talking about on this file. I do not wish to confuse the situation; I wish to resolve it. I wish the government success. If the government fails, we fail.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I interrupt to draw attention to our rules regarding Question Period and it being an opportunity to put questions and receive answers, not a forum for debate. Having taken up most of our Question Period so far with this exchange, I felt it important to remind honourable senators.
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, I assure the honourable senator that it is the desire of the Government of Canada as much as it is his desire to resolve this difficulty. In order to do that, we are pursuing all avenues, whether the WTO route or direct negotiations with the United States. A resolution would be in the best interest of Canadians everywhere and, in particular, British Columbians.
Fisheries and Oceans
Burnt Church—Dispute over Fishery—Comments by Former Minister
Hon. Brenda M. Robertson: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate and is in regard to the fishing or non-fishing agreement in Burnt Church, New Brunswick. Recently, the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans made statements in relation to the Marshall case.
Although I congratulate former Minister of Fisheries Dhaliwal for his work in responding to the Marshall decision, which he inherited a month after assuming his portfolio in 1999, his recent boast that he solved the Marshall problem in the Maritimes has possibly undermined the work that remains to be done in reaching agreements with bands that have not signed interim agreements, including Burnt Church.
Very suddenly last week, the inshore fishery lost their greatest advocate, Mike Belliveau. He had been the Executive Secretary of the Maritime Fishermens' Union for years and a stabilizing force in that entire industry. Mike's funeral was just last week and just before his sudden demise, he said that matters had been made more difficult for the panel trying to find common ground between Burnt Church, the commercial fishermen and the surrounding communities and that there are still many issues outstanding that will require ongoing and painstaking work by all parties. Many of us in New Brunswick agree with Mike's statement. There was a great deal of worry expressed in the faces of the fishermen at Mike's funeral.
I should like to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate two things: First, could the former minister explain why he would make this offhanded boast; and, second, has the current minister been apprised of the damaging remarks and has he taken appropriate action to deal with the impression that the work has been completed? Comments such as these create more explosive circumstances than we need in our province.
(1450)
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I thank the honourable senator for her question. I had a number of discussions with the former Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Dhaliwal, with respect to the issue of the Marshall decision, as well as its implications. As honourable senators know, many of the bands have signed agreements, and the former minister is, I think, justifiably proud of the renewed economic activity that is taking place in many of the communities that have signed because of the new energy that has been provided to them.
I have never heard him boast that he has solved the entire problem. He has always indicated that some communities still need to get on board, but that he was very proud of those who had come on board and recognized that even for those there was still work to be done, not only with the Aboriginal fishers but the non-Aboriginal fishers, those who have been traditional members of the fishers' communities for many years.
I will contact the present Minister of Fisheries, to whom I have not spoken about this file, and pass on the concerns the honourable senator has expressed today, stating that not only is there much more work to be done with the communities that have signed but also with the non-Aboriginal fishers. Hopefully, everyone will work cooperatively on this.
Senator Robertson: Honourable senators, I appreciate the good work of the former Minister of Fisheries. Perhaps he was wrongly quoted in the paper, but I did read the article. I know that the inshore fishermen from and around the Burnt Church area have expressed their tension since that time. That was what Mike Belliveau was concerned about when he brought it to the attention of the press. I would appreciate this matter being cleared up.
International Trade
Shipbuilding Industry—Effect of European Free Trade Agreement
Hon. Brenda M. Robertson: Honourable senators, my next question concerns shipbuilding, fair trade and the European Free Trade Agreement, something about which we have heard a great deal in the last few months. My question relates to concerns of the shipbuilding and marine fabrication industries about the current European Free Trade Agreement negotiations.
As I understand it, under the current free trade proposal Canada's 25 per cent tariff on ships imported from Norway would be eliminated. Since Norway heavily subsidizes its shipbuilding and marine fabrication industries, eliminating the tariff would put Canadian industries at a severe competitive disadvantage which would result in thousands of jobs being lost in shipyards, vessel operations and the whole offshore support sector.
In view of representations by the united front of elected officials, industry and labour, including Irving Shipbuilding, could the minister, first, confirm that the government will support Canada's shipbuilding and marine industries with fair trade practices? Second, would the minister reassure Canadians living in the Atlantic region that their concerns are properly reflected in the current European Free Trade Agreement negotiations?
Before I take my seat, I would advise that I listened to the minister's response to a similar question in the other place, and I was of the opinion that his answer was very vague. I would appreciate a more specific response to my inquiry.
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am aware of the concerns of Atlantic members and senators regarding the marine industry, in particular with respect to the subsidies that are paid by the Norwegian government to their marine industry. We have been assured that an even playing field is what we hope to achieve. That would mean recognition that we must either all be paying the same subsidies or not paying any subsidies. There cannot be a benefit for one that does not accrue to the other.
Senator Robertson: Honourable senators, would the minister find out if there is some more specific information? I know where we are trying to go, but can the minister report soon as to whether there have been any specific and positive results regarding this negotiation?
Senator Carstairs: The minister is well aware of the situation. In caucus the members from the Atlantic have made him well aware of this particular issue. In addition, if there are any further negotiations or if there is any progress on the negotiations, I will let the honourable senator know.
[Translation]
Justice
Federal Court Decision—Maintenance of Established Linguistic Rights—Costs to Government
Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Leader in the Senate. During a speech made in Toronto recently, the Honourable Stéphane Dion said, and I quote:
— before considering any new investment for official languages, the costs entailed in implementing...the Blais decision had to be taken into account.
This statement made before the francophone members of the Ontario Bar Association provoked quite a reaction. In my reaction to the minister's speech, I said that it was important not to attach a dollar figure to fundamental rights.
Furthermore, Mr. Dion was told by the Minister of Finance, and I quote:
The $10 million bill for the Blais decision will have to be settled.
The federal government had a one-year period to correct its mistake. There are now some six weeks left before the deadline, March 23, 2002. Has the minister received the breakdown for the costs related to this downloading that was authorized by Parliament in 1996 regarding the Contraventions Act?
[English]
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I must report to the honourable senator that I do not have that breakdown. I was very interested in the speech that Mr. Dion gave to members of the Ontario bar. In reading it, I agreed with many of his statements, one of which was to the effect that if we must turn to litigation, then we must, but if we can avoid litigation, then we should, and try to reach positive solutions if possible.
Justice officials, along with their counterparts, are apparently focusing their efforts on reaching an agreement that is in compliance with the Federal Court decision. At this stage, I am told that it is impossible for us to give an approximate cost.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: Official language minority communities want answers and wonder what the government's true colours really are.
[English]
The Minister of Finance has announced that the government has money to pay down nearly $1.5 billion on the national debt this year. In addition, the minister has said that, with respect to the infrastructure program, he can draw directly on government credits and find $2 billion to fund that program. He has dropped the idea of a foundation. These two sums amount to $3.5 billion, which is the equivalent of three Olympic stadiums. That is a lot of money.
Can the leader tell me if the Minister of Finance could find in the kitty the monies to pay for the implementation of the decision of Judge Blais, as well as some extra funds for the minority language groups living in our situation, groups which are assimilating at a critical rate? We need action.
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, it is very clear that the government will do what it needs to do in compliance with the court decision. The reality is that we need to find out how we can meet those compliance requirements. It is unlikely that will happen by March 31, so to suggest that we could use money allocated for this fiscal year is impossible. At the end of the budgetary year on March 31, anything over and above what we have spent will go to pay off the debt.
(1500)
As to meeting our compliance requirements in the following year, that is what they are working towards, but we do not know the figures for the cost at this stage.
The Senate
United States National Missile Defence System—Status of Motion Recommending that the Government Not Support Development
Hon. Douglas Roche: Honourable senators, I put this question to the Leader of the Government very sincerely. Tomorrow is February 8, the first anniversary of Motion No. 3 on the Senate Order Paper. Motion No. 3 deals with the proposed U.S. missile defence system and Canada's possible involvement in it. The motion was amended to send the subject matter to committee. I support the amendment, but we cannot get a vote on the motion. Therefore, it sits cluttering up the Order Paper with no action being taken.
I was under the impression that in a democratic assembly, one puts forward proposals, which are given a decent time period for debate, and then a vote is taken. One wins or loses, but at least a decision is taken. That is what democracy is all about. I dare say the government leader shares this fundamental view of democracy.
My question is this: Does the Leader of the Government think that democracy and the reputation of the Senate is being served by taking no action on a matter of vital national importance that has been sitting in the Senate for one year?
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): I thank the honourable senator for his question. The motion that he has put before the chamber has to do with a missile defence system that has had no elaboration by the United States. If we were to support the motion that he has put before us, then we would send it to committee with virtually nothing to discuss because there is no proposal before us.
We can bring it to a vote, but that would prohibit the member from bringing that motion again in this session should the Americans come forward with a proposal. Once a matter has been decided, it cannot be decided again.
I would recommend to the honourable senator that rather than defeat his motion, we allow it to fall off the Order Paper. That means we have not dealt with it. Should the United States come up with a proposal, he would reintroduce his motion. At that point, we would have something to discuss, and all of us would be engaged. If the honourable senator wants to have a vote at the present time, I can tell him that our caucus has decided to vote against it. If he wishes it defeated, so be it.
Senator Roche: I hope the Leader of the Government will not mind my using the word "disingenuous" to characterize that response because this matter is of vital national and international importance. I thought that the purpose of a study was to examine all sides of the issue so that advice could then be given to the Government of Canada for its ultimate decision. Sufficient information has been released by the government of the United States on this matter. It sent a delegation to Ottawa. The matter is in play.
I am willing to live with a "no" vote, and I am also willing to accept her advice. I did offer to withdraw the motion at one stage so that a new motion with entirely neutral language could be introduced, but I was denied permission or leave to withdraw the motion.
I feel it is being left in limbo, and that is not doing the Senate any real service.
Senator Carstairs: If the honourable senator wishes to have the question put, we on this side will facilitate him. However, I have to tell him that the decision has been made that we vote against it, because we do not believe we have any ability to study an issue without significant information on the table.
National Defence
War in Afghanistan—Taking of Prisoners by Joint Task Force 2 Troops—Informing of Leader of the Government
Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, my question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Can the minister tell this chamber on what date she learned that members of Joint Task Force 2, JTF2 as it is known, took prisoners in Afghanistan?
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I learned about the incident at exactly the same meeting and at exactly the same time the Prime Minister learned of it.
Senator Stratton: Could the minister tell us who communicated it to her? Was it during Question Period in the House?
Senator Carstairs: It might have been a cabinet ministers' meeting, which already has been in the media, so I am not divulging anything. We were informed by the Minister of Defence that it had occurred.
Senator Stratton: Does the minister of the Crown and the only minister in the Senate receive copies of significant incident reports and/or situation reports from the Privy Council Office with regard to international military operations, and if not, why?
Senator Carstairs: No, I have not received it because I am not one of the ministers who would receive those reports. Those reports would go to the Minister of Defence and, in some cases, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. They would not come to the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Possibility of Golden Jubilee Commemorative Medal
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Is the government giving consideration to a Golden Jubilee medal to commemorate Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee, as did the government of the day 25 years ago to commemorate Her Majesty's Silver Jubilee?
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I cannot give the honourable senator that information, but I will seek such information. I know that a 50-cent piece will be distributed through our banking system in honour of the jubilee. Whether they will go further and strike a Golden Jubilee medal, I do not know, but I will seek that information, and I would support such a medal being produced.
[Translation]
Delayed Answer to Oral Question
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have a response to a question raised in the Senate on November 6, 2001, by Senator Tkachuk regarding finance, the minister's speechwriter and the contractual arrangement.
Finance
Minister's Speechwriter—Contractual Arrangement
(Response to question raised by Hon. David Tkachuk on November 6, 2001)
The $214,000 including GST quoted in the Ottawa Citizen is for a two-year contract, not one year.
Moreover, the dollar figure represents the maximum amount payable under the contract, not the amount actually paid. That means the work will be performed on an "as and when requested" basis, so in all likelihood the actual value will be lower than the estimated amount.
Mr. Lockhart's fee is $800 a day. This is in line with what other senior speechwriters charge for this highly specialized work.
Finally, the contract was open to competitive challenge.
[English]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Study on Matters Relating to Fishing Industry
Report of Fisheries Committee—Debate Continued
On the Order:
Resuming debate on consideration of the third report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries entitled: Aquaculture in Canada's Atlantic and Pacific Regions, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on June 29, 2001.—(Honourable Senator Mahovlich)
Hon. Joan Cook: Honourable senators, before standing this item, I ask leave to respond to a question raised in this place by the Honourable Pat Carney on December 11, 2001.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Cook: Honourable senators, in my speech of December 11 regarding the June 2001 report on aquaculture in Canada's Atlantic and Pacific regions, I noted that the B.C. government favoured lifting a moratorium placed in 1995 on the expansion of new salmon farms. Senator Carney said she was not aware of any public statement to that effect and asked where the information came from.
My response to that question is based on the following indicators. Hal Burton of the Seattle Times reported on September 2 why we should be concerned about eating salmon.
In the next few years, the British Columbia provincial government, which was elected in June on a "pro-growth" platform, is expected to lift the moratorium and increase the pace of development.
(1510)
Second, a press release by the Leggatt Inquiry into Salmon Farming in British Columbia on September 22 reported that the moratorium on new net cage fish farms in B.C. was imposed in 1995, but the B.C. government has indicated it intends to lift the moratorium once it is satisfied that the environmental concerns are addressed.
Finally, on August 28, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection issued a news release concerning its Salmon Farming Monitoring Report, stating:
The aquaculture industry has the potential to create more jobs and to give hope to coastal communities that need economic opportunity," said Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, John van Dongen. "We hope to achieve growth of this industry in a way that ensures strong environmental protection while also meeting the needs of people who seek prospects for the future.
[Translation]
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, this question stands in the name of Senator Mahovlich on the Order Paper. Is leave granted to allow it to continue to stand in the name of Senator Mahovlich?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Adjournment
Leave having been given to revert to Government Notices of Motions:
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(h), I move:
That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, February 19, 2002, at 2 p.m.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, is leave granted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.
The Senate adjourned until Tuesday, February 19, 2002, at 2 p.m.