Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
2nd Session, 37th Parliament,
Volume 140, Issue 17
Thursday, November 7, 2002
The Honourable Dan Hays, Speaker
Thursday, November 7, 2002
The Senate met at 1:30 p.m., the Speaker in the Chair.
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
I rise, today, to participate in tributes for a colleague who has been, for me,
a friend for many years.
I first met Nick Taylor in my classroom at St. Mary's Girls High School in
Calgary. He came to a parent-teacher interview — I being the teacher, he being
the parent of one Patrice Taylor. He did not want to know how Patrice was doing.
That was clear because Patrice was an "A'' student. He wanted to know who this
teacher was who actually admitted to being a Liberal.
From that point on, Nick and I participated actively in the Liberal Party in
Alberta. I became the vice-president of the party at exactly the same convention
at which Nick Taylor became the leader of the party. The following year, I
became the president of the party and, therefore, I was his president. In
between, he convinced me to run as a candidate.
Running as a Liberal candidate in Alberta in the mid-1970s was no easy feat
in the sense of the generous amount of money that was required, the number of
campaign workers one needed and whose efforts one could instill, and the support
that one would get on election day. However, as his vice-president, living in
the constituency in which he actually lived but where he was not running, I knew
that at least I had the votes of Nick, Peg and all of his adult children at that
particular time. I would not end up with zero votes. That was in the
constituency of Calgary—Elbow, now held by Premier Ralph Klein in the province
I ran for election. Senator Taylor ran in the constituency of
Calgary—Glenmore, which had been held by a Liberal who had crossed the floor and
then resigned. The campaign was interesting. I did not win. Nick did not win.
However, we continued our close friendship.
Eventually, in 1977, I moved to the province of Manitoba. Nick Taylor
continued to run for election in the province of Alberta — and continued to run
for election in the province of Alberta! I must say, most of them were not very
I am sure Nick does not remember, but he gave John and me a wedding present.
Peggy may not remember either. It was a statue of a monk. I never quite knew why
I was getting a statue of a monk for a wedding present, but I still have it. We
have a little plaque underneath it indicating that is was given to us by Nick
and Peg Taylor. It sits in our home to this day.
I have known Nick, his wife and family for a long time. Rather than simply
share personal reminiscences about Nick, it is important to talk about his
contributions. Some of us in this chamber are not aware of the fullness and
richness of Senator Taylor's participation, not just in public life, of which
honourable senators might be more familiar, but in his private life.
Senator Taylor is a leading figure in the Alberta business community, in real
estate, shipping and finance, and he has been president of several energy firms.
This expertise was much appreciated in Parliament given that he was Chair of the
Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. It
might have been presumed, since this is the flavour of the day, that because
Senator Taylor has been closely associated with the Alberta energy industry he
would be anti- Kyoto, anti-environment, and anti those things that many of us
believe are important for the future of this nation. To the contrary. Senator
Taylor has always been a forward thinker, a proud defender of Kyoto, a proud
defender of the protection of the environment, and a proud defender of what must
occur not only for his children but, I suspect, for his 15 grandchildren.
Senator Taylor is a geologist and a geophysicist by training, but politics
has been a very important part of his life, first as a school trustee for the
Calgary Separate School Board and then, later, as a provincial MLA and a leader
of the opposition.
Senator Taylor was first elected to the Alberta legislature in 1986, shortly
after I was elected to the Manitoba legislature in the province that I now
represent, so we continued our companionship. Nothing gave me greater pride than
when the Prime Minister asked him to come to this institution, where I was
already sitting, so that we could continue our years of friendship together.
As we all know, Senator Taylor is a master of repartee, quick off the mark.
Sometimes, those on the other side would appreciate him not being quite so quick
on the uptake on certain subjects, but that has not prevented him from
expressing, at all times, his very strong opinions on issues for which he has
strong opinions. Frankly, I do not know an issue about which Nick does not have
I should like to congratulate Senator Taylor and offer best wishes to his
wife, Peg, and to his nine children — Patrice, Jen, Terry, Cayt, Ian, Sheila,
Alison, Susan and Sarah — on a long and very happy retirement.
Hon. John Buchanan: Honourable senators, that is a very difficult act
to follow, but I shall. Senator Carstairs is a Nova Scotian, as am I. I only
wish that Nick Taylor were a Nova Scotian. If so, there might have been a few
changes on certain committees.
Prime Minister Chrétien has done some good things and some things that were
not so good. However, one of the excellent things he did was to appoint Nick
Taylor to the Senate. There is no question about that.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Buchanan: Nick Taylor: engineer, geologist, politician, leader
of the opposition, husband and father. It was a very smart move to appoint him
to the Senate. It was a very smart move on the part of the leadership of the
government and the Liberal Party here in the Senate to appoint him as deputy
chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural
Resources and then to appoint him as chairman. Those were excellent decisions
that I applaud.
Senator Taylor was one of the best committee chairmen we have had on the
Energy Committee. If Senator Carney were here, she would agree with that. There
is no doubt that Senator Taylor's background put him in an excellent position to
be chairman of that committee. His background absolutely ensured that the
committee, of which I have been a member for many years, would move in the right
There are some similarities between Senator Taylor and myself.
Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh!
Senator Stratton: Long winded.
Senator Buchanan: I heard that. Senator Stratton had better remember
that he helped me win my first election.
First, Senator Taylor was Leader of the Liberal Party of Alberta for 14
years; I was Leader of the Conservative Party of Nova Scotia for 19 years.
Senator Taylor was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta; I was a
member of the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia. Senator Taylor was Leader of
the Opposition in Alberta; I was Leader of the Opposition in Nova Scotia.
Unfortunately for Senator Taylor, that is where that similarity ended. I was
premier for 13 years, but he did not make it. I cannot say much about that
because, in Alberta, it would have been very difficult for Senator Taylor to be
In addition, Senator Taylor has nine children; I have five children. Senator
Taylor has 15 grandchildren; I have 9 grandchildren. However, I am younger than
Senator Taylor and I still have a ways to go.
Over the years that I have known Nick, he has been a very dear friend of Nova
Scotia and of Newfoundland and Labrador. He understands the situation in our
provinces with regard to energy. He understood why we fought to keep our coal
industry in Cape Breton. It is gone now, but as I said to Nick many times, it
will rise again. There is no doubt in my mind about that. It will rise again
because people like Nick understand the geology of the coal industry in Nova
Scotia, in particular in Cape Breton.
Senator Taylor has also been very helpful over the years in the discussions
that we have had in our committee and that I, personally, have had with him
about oil and gas exploration, production and development of the offshore
resources of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, as well as about the transmission of
our natural gas by pipeline.
I will miss the articles that Nick used to send me from newspapers and other
publications on issues affecting oil and gas production and development. He
recently sent me one about sulphur in the gas industry, in the United States.
I will certainly miss Senator Taylor's guidance on the Energy Committee.
However, now we have a new chairman who is a westerner and an Albertan, and he
has probably learned a lot. I hope he is listening.
Senator Banks: I am taking notes.
Senator Buchanan: Senator Banks has probably learned a lot from
Senator Taylor as Chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the
Environment and Natural Resources.
Nick, in addition to being our colleague in the Senate and on the Energy and
Environment Committee, more than anything, you have been and will continue to be
our dear personal friend, which may be more important than all the other things
May the road rise up to meet you; may the wind be always at your back; may
the gentle rains fall upon your fields; may the sun shine upon your countenance;
and may the good Lord hold you and your family in the palm of his hand, forever.
Congratulations and best wishes. God bless you!
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Hon. Joyce Fairbairn: Honourable senators, saying farewell to Senator
Nick Taylor represents a true loss for this chamber in terms of friendship,
wisdom, experience and a deep commitment to Canada and the democratic
institutions that govern this nation. For me, it is a profound personal loss as
well. Nick and I both hail from the deep south of Alberta, which is a bonding
experience in itself. He is from the little town of Bow Island, not so far from
One of the core attractions of the good senator is his human side. He is
forever young and he has the gift of making others feel that they, too, are
forever young. At this point in my life, that is just the kind of message I want
to hear. I will miss that profoundly, as well.
Senator Taylor is also an individual fuelled by eternal optimism and hope.
After listening to the Leader of the Government, honourable senators will
understand that these are qualities that have guided his lively path through
politics and life in the province of Alberta.
As an engineer and a geologist, Senator Taylor is steeped in the very history
of the industry of energy and national resources in his province, in his country
and, indeed, around the world. In addition to his love of public life, the
experience that has guided his contribution to the Senate has not focused only
on energy. Going back to his roots, he has also focused on the environment, on
agriculture, on rural development, on forestry and on banking.
Always his voice has been loud, his social activism strong and his sense of
humour legendary. Happily, Senator Taylor brought all of that with him when he
came to the Senate and into our party in Ottawa, along with all the skill,
stubbornness and fierce determination to fight for Alberta's causes, as well as
for Canada's well-being, for fairness, opportunity and peace for people around
the world who do not share our good fortune. This has sometimes meant going head
to head with quite a number of people; he has done it in the Senate and, when
necessary, he has done it in his Liberal caucuses. He leaves us with his
conscience and principles intact, and his friendships absolutely solid.
Senator Taylor has had great fun and satisfaction with politics along the
way. Senator Taylor would frown at the suggestion that he is virtually
indispensable, but I do not believe that the Liberal Party of Alberta would have
survived as a credible force without Senator Taylor as its leader through thick
and thin, mainly thin.
The legislature certainly got a blast of fresh air when Nick Taylor finally
strolled through its doors in 1986, as did the Senate when he strolled through
these doors a decade later. Senator Taylor arrived when I was the Leader of the
Government in the Senate. We were long-time friends.
While he pledged commitment, loyalty and support, in the past six years,
Senator Taylor has never backed away from criticism when he believed a policy
threatened the rights and the well-being of individual citizens, whatever their
province, whatever their region. I would be surprised — indeed, I would be most
alarmed — if he did not continue to speak out about the environment, agriculture
and rural issues, Aboriginal rights, national unity and world peace. We need to
hear that voice.
With Senator Taylor's departure, we are losing a powerful combination of
character, wisdom and common sense, outrageous at times, but forever
I thank you, Nick, for all the hours, the work, the kindness and the
laughter. You could not have stayed the course without your beloved Peg and the
wonderful family that the two of you built together. May you both continue to
enjoy the years ahead, frolicking with happiness and good spirits. We will miss
you. I will truly miss you.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Hon. Ethel Cochrane: Honourable senators, over the course of the last
six years, I have had the unique privilege to work alongside Senator Taylor in
this chamber and in the work of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the
Environment and Natural Resources. I say "unique'' because it is very rare to
find a parliamentarian who is so willing to openly speak his mind and stay true
to his personal beliefs, even when faced with opposition.
Senator Taylor has been a man of conviction; there can be no question about
that. He has never wavered in making difficult decisions or in expressing
himself. In an age of political correctness, Senator Taylor has served Canadians
by being a straight talker, a go-getter and an adventurer. He has proven, time
and time again, to be a conscientious independent thinker who has brought far
more than his scientific expertise to this chamber.
I am very pleased to have Senator Taylor's daughter, son-in-law and
grandchildren now living in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They came
from the great province of Alberta with a major oil company, and Newfoundland is
very pleased to have them. I understand that they are very happy to be there as
I join all honourable senators in thanking Senator Taylor for his
forthrightness and his passion. He has inspired his colleagues and has served
Canadians very well. To Senator Taylor and his wife Peg, I wish continued
success and exuberance in the many years to come.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Hon. Isobel Finnerty: Honourable senators, it is a great honour to pay
tribute to the Honourable Nick Taylor, my seatmate here since I came to the
Senate. Many years ago, I was in Alberta and I witnessed, first-hand, Senator
Taylor in action. At that time, I never believed it would be possible that we
would be seatmates in the Senate together.
I have learned an unbelievable amount from Senator Taylor in the last few
years. All honourable senators in this corner of the chamber know what a heckler
Senator Taylor is. Unfortunately for many, his verbal gems have never made it
into Hansard. The truth is that Senator Taylor has done most of the heckling for
both of us over here. Not everyone is gifted with the natural talent of being
able to develop such heckling into a fine art. Senator Taylor is indeed
exceptional in this category. I can firmly state that Senator Taylor has never
embarrassed me in all his time of heckling.
Some senators may not be aware that Senator Taylor has a particular interest
in fine literary writing and extraordinary investigative journalism, appearing
in a little-known Canadian periodical that goes by the name of Frank
magazine. As for me, I have been grateful that I have never had to buy an issue
of Frank. I do not believe that my colleagues Senators Milne or Chalifoux
have either. We have received a copy, thanks to the generosity of Nick Taylor.
The four of us have had many chuckles over the incredible half-truths that
regularly seem to appear in that rag.
Honourable senators, we will all miss Senator Taylor in the Senate. I do not
believe, however, that his retirement from the Senate will mean that we will
never hear about him again.
I wish Senator Taylor every happiness and best wishes as he faces new
challenges. I know there will be new challenges. To Peg and the family, you will
have him back and we will miss him.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson: Honourable senators, Senator Taylor was a
part of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. When he came
into the room, he always brightened it up. Even if you did not agree with him,
you had to like the guy.
Senator Taylor is probably the best example I know of the friendship that
exists in the Senate. He has been a wonderful guy to know. I will not carry on
too long here because it has all been said.
Senator Taylor will never retire; he will be off in Africa, or somewhere,
drilling for oil until he cannot do that any more.
I know all senators wish you and your family the very best, Nick. God bless
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I should like to join with
colleagues in wishing Senator Taylor a happy retirement, particularly because of
the many years that we have worked together for, sometimes, lost causes in our
home province. I look forward to continuing to work for many of those causes in
our province, including some of our political initiatives.
Senator Taylor, as has been observed, is well-known for his willingness to
speak on any subject. Senator Taylor speaks with the same passion when he is
wrong as when he is right. The trick is to determine what percentage of the time
he is wrong and what percentage of the time he is right. As time has passed, he
has increasingly become right on more and more occasions. I wish him well in his
I remember being a neighbour of the Taylors and becoming very aware of Nick's
passion for bagpipes. I hope his skill has improved. If it has not improved,
then this will be his chance to practise his bagpipes. I wish him well with that
Senator Taylor, you are leaving all too soon. This is a reminder to all
honourable senators that these are the good old days right now. All honourable
senators should enjoy them, just as we have enjoyed knowing you. I look forward
to continuing to work with you in Alberta on Alberta causes. My best to Peg and
Hon. Tommy Banks: Honourable senators, relatively speaking, I am the
new kid on the block here; however, I have had the privilege of knowing Senator
Taylor for more than 30 years. Honourable senators may believe that he will turn
75 next week, but I happen to know that he will turn 142. I have arrived at that
conclusion by adding up all the things he has done and all the time he has spent
on them, and it comes to 142 years. It is analogous to determining a lawyer's
age by adding up his or her billing hours.
I used to have the privilege of hosting a television show. In the late 1960s
or early 1970s, there was a political issue — the exact details of which I
forget at this time — and I remember asking the producer who we should invite to
be a guest on the show to speak to the issue from the obverse side. The producer
said that he knew of this holy terror in politics that he thought we should get
in. From that moment, I began to learn from Nick Taylor. In fact, I learned
something from him just 45 minutes ago in a meeting we both attended. I hope
that I will continue to learn from Nick.
The most wonderful thing that I have had the privilege of watching Nick do,
and he has perfected it to an art both in Alberta and here, is skewer someone
while simultaneously making them smile through the whole process. They smile all
the more broadly as the knife begins to turn. It is something that I hope we
will all learn to do some day.
Nick, the Senate will be the poorer for your leaving us, but Canada will not
be because I know that whatever you do the day after you leave here, it will be
of value to the country, and that that will continue. I also wish to thank you
for being my sponsor in this place. Senator Taylor was the first person I phoned
to give me that honour, which he did. For all the things I have learned from you
over those 30 some odd years, I thank you. Best wishes to you in your retirement
and best wishes to your family, who are with us today.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Hon. Serge Joyal: Senator Taylor, if you allow me, I will address you
in the other official language.
In the few years that you have been here, we have had the opportunity to
experience something very particular with you.
In the debates we participated in together, you demonstrated a very deep
understanding of the primary ethic of a senator. The primary ethic of a senator
is not to be in conflict of interest as far as contracts, favours and benefits
are concerned, and to apply judgment reflecting one's own knowledge and
experience in the exercise of this most noble of callings, which is to enact
legislation for the benefit of all Canadians.
You fulfilled your duties, while respecting one of the fundamental principles
of this chamber: independence. When bills were submitted to you, you examined
them with care, and expressed your opinions on them with a typically Albertan
flavour. Your position was based on your inner thoughts, on your conscience.
Sometimes — most of the time — you supported the government. Sometimes you
We have always held you in the greatest respect for your integrity and
honesty in the fulfilment of your duty as a legislator. We will always remember
you for that great virtue.
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, I have had the
distinct pleasure of Nick's company for over three decades. His infectious
smile, wit and spirit never flagged from the first moment I met him. I am sure,
when he leaves the Senate, it will never leave him.
I asked myself, as I listened to these magnificent tributes to Nick, how I
could describe him in one word. That word, I believe, is "maverick.'' For most
of his private and public life, Nick was a loner, a contrarian, a man unafraid
to stand against conventional wisdom. As you all know, Nick was a Liberal in
Alberta. For me, liberalism and Taylorism became synonymous with Alberta. In the
Senate, as Senator Joyal pointed out, he never succumbed to the instincts of the
herd, nor to the convention of loyalty above loyalty to his principles or to the
independence of the Senate itself. In a way, the Senate was established as a
maverick institution, and Nick has always been loyal to that tradition. Nick's
principles and practices have rode well because they always rode together. He
always followed his maverick instincts and always stood tall in the saddle on
his stirrups of principle. Nick, you have left your brand in the Senate and you
will not be easily forgotten.
On a personal note, when I introduced my clean water bill, it was Nick who
encouraged me when he agreed to take the bill to his committee to thoroughly
study it and unanimously endorse it. I thank you for that encouragement and I
wish you and your family all the best in the future.
Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, everything has been said, but I
must add that I will miss the fun of sitting near Nick in the Senate. I sat
beside him for the first short while. I learned quickly not to grab his
coattails to get him to sit down because it never worked.
However, I want to reassure honourable senators of the contrary, in case they
think he is actually retiring. No, Peggy, he will not be home with you too
often. Nick is already plotting and planning his next career. It will be in the
energy field, perhaps or perhaps not in Alberta, and it will help Canada meet
its Kyoto objectives.
Hon. Ione Christensen: Honourable senators, I cannot let my great
seatmate go without saying a fond thank you and goodbye to him. Having been
married to a geologist for over 45 years, I appreciate the candour and the
common sense that comes forth from that particular profession.
The first day I was introduced in the Senate, Nick came to me as we were
leaving and said: "Kid, just follow me every evening. I know where all the best
receptions are. You will never have to cook dinner all the time you are here.''
That was very good and practical advice.
Thank you very much, Nick, for your guidance in the last three years. To your
wife, Peg, I appreciated meeting with you in the Yukon. I wish you all the
happiness in the years to come.
Hon. Colin Kenny: Honourable senators, one of the disadvantages of
being last up is that everything has been said.
Nick, I have enjoyed you on the Energy Committee, for all of your time in the
Senate, for the leadership you provided there and the integrity that you showed.
People point to you as a model for how senators should be. You also have the
advantage of looking like one, which gives you an edge over many of the rest of
I knew I would like Nick right away, when he decided that the Energy
Committee would meet at 9:30. He said that he was an Albertan and that 9:30 here
was 7:30 his time, but it took him a while to get going.
For some reason, we fell into a habit of referring to Nick as the Lone
Ranger. I do not know why it fits, but it does. It is consistent with the other
elements of his character that people have referred to. I can tell the chamber
that his friends call him Kimosabe. If he likes you a lot, he might call you
Tonto. He has done that once in a while.
Nick, I want to say to you, adios. We will miss you here. However, I do get
to Alberta and plan to see you and Peg there. Lots of luck, and I will see you
Hon. Nicholas W. Taylor: Honourable senators, thank you very much for
your kind remarks. If I had known that I would be getting all these compliments,
I would have quit a year earlier.
Senator Carstairs, who led off, brought back many fond memories. I remember
the 1970s in Alberta. If there were any more than 10 people at anything having
to do with the Liberals, you thought it was a lynch mob. Senator Carstairs, I
and a number of others planted the seeds. As a matter of fact, I think Alberta
is the only province in the West with a Liberal-led opposition.
Senator Buchanan forgot to mention the fact that one of the similarities we
have is that we were both thrown out of Kim Campbell's house for singing at
three o'clock in the morning. Our different renditions of cowboy ballads did not
go over that well. I had thought that she might have forgotten that, but the
other day I sat beside her at dinner and she remembered it very well.
I thank Senators Fairbairn, Cochrane and Finnerty for their kind remarks. I
particularly appreciated Senator Gustafson's comments. He is another dryland
farmer from Saskatchewan who has encouraged me to get back into farming. I can
assure Senator Gustafson that, of all the things I might do when I get back
home, farming will not be one of them. I just do not have enough money to get
back into it.
I was interested in my seatmate's accusation about my having purchased issues
of Frank magazine. It is true — I have had copies of Frank
magazine. My assistant used to send them to me. Over the last year and a half, I
do not know how many issues of the magazine I have received. It must have been
about 14. I have never had a chance to read any of them. One of the advantages
of retiring is that I will now have time to read Frank.
I have served at all three levels of government, including the municipal
level. I have participated in 10 elections at all three levels of government. I
have won five and I have lost five. That is no hell for a politician. However,
it is a good average if you are a baseball player or a Liberal in Alberta.
I also want to say how much I will miss this place. I will not miss the nine
to ten hours I spend on the plane and in the airports to get here each week.
However, I will miss the contact with honourable senators. I have made a lot of
friends in the Senate. I think the political lines are less drawn now than they
have been in the past, although, occasionally, I have had strong words with some
people opposite, not to mention some people in my own caucus. Nevertheless, it
seems that the people who are here do a lot of thinking on the subject at hand.
I suppose that is because they are not as concerned about getting a headline in
the paper the next day in order to advance their careers. That is one of the
advantages of an appointed house. We say that this is the chamber of sober
second thought. However, I do not know if the people here are any more sober
than those in the legislatures.
In politics, none of us can go anywhere without the support of our families.
I would ask Peg to stand up and take a bow.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Taylor: I did not attempt to bring all nine children in today
because Jack Aubry is watching the budget. That would have frightened him to
My son, Ian, and his wife are also in the gallery. You can wave your hand,
One of my favourite political stories is about Peg. She was door knocking
with me, one evening, on separate floors in an apartment house. Near the end, at
about nine o'clock at night, she knocked on a door and heard the chain rattle.
The door opened a little bit and there was a sweet old grandmother with her
bonnet on and her teeth out. Peg said, "I'm calling for Nick Taylor.'' The
little old lady rustled the chain, opened the door and said to Peg, "Well,
dear, you can come on in and look around, but he's not here.''
It will be interesting to see how often I get back to Ottawa. Honourable
senators will see me occasionally up in the gallery.
It is not that bad reaching 75.
Senator Bryden: It sure beats the alternative!
Senator Taylor: I have not noticed that much difference. The other
day, I was talking to a friend of mine about turning 75. He asked me if I
noticed anything different. I said, "Well, sometimes I forget to pull my fly
up.'' He said, "Don't worry, Nick, it's when you forget to pull it down that
you're in trouble.''
Honourable senators, thank you again for having me here. I have enjoyed it
very much. Without a doubt, this is the most exclusive club in Canada. I think
it has a right to be since it is populated by such exclusive people.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
this year, the theme of Veterans' Week is "Remembering our past, preserving our
This morning, many of us attended a ceremony of remembrance here in the
Senate chamber. In attendance were decorated veterans, military personnel, young
cadets and a wonderful school choir. These are the Canadians who represent the
past, the present and the future of service to our country. We were very
privileged to have these guests of honour with us in our very special chamber.
Whenever we attend a Remembrance Day ceremony or whenever we have the
occasion to be with veterans, it brings back many memories. Like many, I have
lost family. In my case, I lost a member of our family whom I never knew, except
through memory. My Uncle Dick was lost in an explosion on the HMCS Ottawa
in 1941. However, Dick was really my father's eldest son and not his brother.
That is because Dick's father, my grandfather, was killed as a result of the
Halifax explosion in 1917. Dick was six months old at the time of the Halifax
explosion. Of course, my father, therefore, became his surrogate father as the
oldest member of the 10 children. When my grandmother — Dick and dad's mom —
died just three years later, my father became both father and mother to young
Dick died before I was born. However, what I remember as an integral part of
our home was a picture of Dick in his seaman's uniform surrounded by his medals.
That was Uncle Dick, dad's brother, who had given his life for our country.
Every year, honourable senators, we wear poppies to remember the lives lost
and the hopes unfulfilled in defence of our country's ideals. Despite the
immeasurable sacrifices that military service demands, we still ask our men,
women and children to make these personal sacrifices, because we all know there
is a toll to be paid, not just by those who serve, but by the members of their
family. Yet, we continue to ask them to join our Canadian Forces because we
firmly believe that their service will benefit countless other families and
countless other lives throughout the world.
While we may frequently appreciate how fortunate we are to be citizens of
this country, today is an opportunity to reflect on the exceptional type of
person it takes to defend and serve our country. Although we cannot offer our
military personnel past, present and future, sufficient recompense, we can offer
them our eternal gratitude and respect.
I was happy, particularly today, to see so many young people on the floor of
the Senate. For that, I thank His Honour because I know that he was such an
integral part of this morning's ceremony.
We must continue to remember and to foster, within our young people, the need
that they must remember. By inspiring them with memories, they will be inspired
to serve their country and the principles for which it stands.
Hon. Norman K. Atkins: Honourable senators, I should like to
congratulate the Speaker for the very special ceremony this morning. I think we
were all very taken by what a wonderful occasion it was, and I think His Honour
deserves much credit for that.
I am free, today, to stand in my place to speak because of the sacrifices
that Canadian women and men have made in foreign wars; World War I, World War
II, the Korean conflict, and in peacekeeping and peacemaking missions carried
out throughout the world.
The sacrifices of human lives made so others may live in peace and freedom
should never be forgotten, never be taken for granted by us who live on.
I, like many in this place, have had the experience of visiting battlefields
in Europe and Asia and laying wreaths at the foot of a cenotaph commemorating
Canadian war dead. There are few prouder moments one can have as a
representative of Canada than to see and hear from those who were liberated by
Canadians or the relatives of those now dead who fought in Europe along side our
The past deeds of our Armed Forces in battle or in peacekeeping must live on
with us as enduring symbols of what we, as Canadians, can do when freedom is
threatened. That is why we should congratulate the Chrétien government, and
especially the Ministry of Veterans Affairs, for recognizing the need for a
Canadian war museum through the symbolic gesture of a sod- turning ceremony
earlier this week at LeBreton Flats, in Ottawa.
It is unfortunate that the former Minister of Veterans Affairs, the late
Senator Ron Duhamel, did not live to see this event occur.
At this time, when we reflect on past victories and freedoms won, we cannot
ignore the world situation in which we now find ourselves. There are parts of
this world of ours where there is conflict, racism, hatred, and terrorism. There
are parts where the protection of human rights is unknown. There are parts where
freedom and democracy are unknown.
We, who enjoy the freedom gained for us by our predecessors, cannot ignore
our responsibilities to our fellow human beings throughout the world. We must be
ready when called upon to protect the values we have fought for.
My father, George Spicer Atkins, understood this when he was part of the 46th
Queen's Battery, Canadian Expeditionary Force, that fought at Vimy Ridge on
April 9, 1917. He was a commander of Post 120 of the Royal Canadian Legion in
New York. He was also an active member of the Canadian Maple Leaf Fund during
World War II. Also, my brother, George, Junior, was in the RCAF during World War
At this time of reflection and remembrance, let us not lose sight of the fact
we must remain ever vigilant to protect against tyranny and terrorism whenever
and wherever it may occur. We are the ones to whom the torch has been given by
those who died to protect our rights. Let us never fail those who have
sacrificed so much so that we may enjoy all that it means to be a Canadian.
Hon. Ethel Cochrane: Honourable senators, I, too, would like to
congratulate the Speaker on the organization of the reception we had here this
morning. I can assure you that the participants that were here and spoke to me
after were very grateful, and they will take back quite a few memories. I am
sure they will relay all those events to people they meet with.
I now rise in recognition of Remembrance Day. At this time each year, we
honour all those Canadians who have served in our military efforts at stations
all around the world in the name of peace and freedom.
For many of us, a reflection on Canada's many military contributions means
remembering the hard-fought battles that shaped 20th Century history. Almost two
million Canadians served in the war and peacekeeping missions around the world
in the last century alone. One hundred seventeen thousand of those great men and
women gave their lives in pursuit of these goals.
Today, however, the triumph and the losses of the Canadian military continue.
To date, Operation Apollo has seen 2000 Canadians deployed to the Arabian Sea
and other international locations in the battle against global terrorism.
Sadly, we remain painfully aware of the great price that is paid for peace.
This year, we have a new generation of military heroes to hold in our hearts on
November 11: Richard Green, Nathan Smith, Mark Léger, and Ainsworth Dyer. We
remain grateful to these men, as well as the eight others who were wounded in
the so- called friendly-fire incident.
At this time, honourable senators, we are also called to remember Canada's
distinguished reputation in worldwide peacekeeping organizations.
Indeed, Canada's presence on the international stage has been strengthened by
the strong reputation of our esteemed peacekeepers. Their contribution has been
phenomenal. Over the last four decades, more than 100,000 members of the
Canadian Forces have served in UN missions. Even in times of great risk, they
selflessly serve communities by disposing of land mines, delivering humanitarian
aid and protecting refugees.
Honourable senators, these are among the thoughts that I will take with me on
November 11 when I lay a wreath at the Stephenville cenotaph. Please join with
me in honouring all those who have served us so well in the past and in sending
our heartfelt thanks and prayers to all those who continue this legacy of
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Hon. Yves Morin: Honourable senators, this week has been declared
National Seniors' Safety Week.
This certainly does not apply to Senator Taylor, after what I have heard.
Each year, one of three Canadian seniors suffers a fall. Most occur at home.
Accidents on stairs account for 5,000 deaths each year.
The Institute of Aging, part of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research,
is responsible for research on the prevention of falls by the elderly. This
institute is under the able direction of Dr. Réjean Hébert, an internationally
renowned geriatrician and professor at the Université de Sherbrooke's Faculty of
This institute supports the research of Dr. Geoffey Fernie and Dr. Brian
Maki, from the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, who have designed a safer
stair railing. The LifeRail, as it is called, has an underarm design that does
not require the grip or arm strength of an ordinary rail.
This institute also supports the work of Dr. Stephen Rabinovitch and his team
at Simon Fraser University. These researchers are studying how the movements
people make to protect themselves during a fall change as they get older, to
help them develop exercise-based therapies to prevent hip fractures. This is
important research, as there are more than 25,000 hip fractures in Canada every
Honourable senators, on National Seniors Safety Week, we should not fall down
on the job of commending dedicated researchers who are working to keep our
seniors upright and injury free.
Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, this is the second
anniversary of resolution 1325. Today, on this Remembrance Day, the Canadian
Committee on Women, Peace and Security celebrated the second anniversary of
resolution 1325 on Parliament Hill. A week ago, the second anniversary of the
unanimous adoption of Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and
security was celebrated. This is the first Security Council resolution to deal
exclusively with women in situations of armed conflict. It establishes a
comprehensive agenda on women, peace and security by addressing issues such as
the need for full and equal participation of women in peace processes and
Canada has taken a leadership role in the implementation of resolution 1325.
With support from the Human Security Program at DFAIT, parliamentarians,
government officials and a broad cross-section of civil society has come
together to establish the Canadian Committee on Women, Peace and Security.
Honourable senators, I should like to take a moment to recognize the
contribution of the Honourable Lois Wilson. She had the foresight to create the
framework for the Canadian Committee on Women, Peace and Security. Under her
guardianship, the committee was able to address a number of issues that are
important to women affected by armed conflict.
Three subcommittees were created to expedite the work. The Capacity Building
Subcommittee was co-chaired by Carolyn Bennett, MP, and Christine Vincent. The
subcommittee generated a discussion paper on impediments to the participation of
women in peace support operations and is currently developing a roster of senior
level women with expertise to serve in such operations.
The Gender Training Subcommittee was co-chaired by Sue Barnes, MP, and Beth
Woroniuk. In early March, the subcommittee successfully piloted a Canadian
version of the Canada-United Kingdom developed gender and peace-building course
for a mixed military, NGO and government audience.
Finally, the Advocacy Subcommittee was co-chaired by Kathy Vandergrift and
myself. Over the past six months, the subcommittee held seven round tables
across the country with Afghan-Canadian women. A report entitled "A Stone in
the Water''. has been produced and was presented last week to Minister Graham.
Honourable senators, the Canadian Committee on Women, Peace and Security will
continue to work in the upcoming year to contribute to the critical task of
building sustainable peace for all.
Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the
next sitting of the Senate, I will move:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and
Technology have power to sit Wednesday, November 20, 2002 at 3:30 p.m., even
though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 95(4) be suspended in
Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, I move, with leave of the
Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(a):
That the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples be empowered, in
accordance with rule 95(3), to sit at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, November 19, 2002,
even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding one
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is leave granted to put
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Elizabeth Hubley: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 57(2), I
give notice that, on Wednesday, November 20, 2002:
I will call the attention of the Senate to the discriminatory and
negative perceptions and views of certain Opposition Members of Parliament
and national media towards Atlantic Canada, and Prince Edward Island
specifically, in relation to the circumstances surrounding the resignation
of the former Solicitor General of Canada, Mr. Lawrence MacAulay.
Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, yesterday in the Ottawa
Citizen, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bill Graham, reportedly hinted
that the military wing of the Shiite Muslim organization Hezbollah is about to
be added to Canada's list of terrorist organizations under legislation that
makes memberships in such groups punishable by 14 years in prison.
I was somewhat confused by that statement. Can the Leader of the Government
in the Senate please clarify for us how Canadian current policy is similar or
dissimilar to that of the United Kingdom with respect to the Hezbollah?
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): The honourable
senator asks for a comparison between the two countries. I will try to do the
best that I can.
The essence of the question is that there are two listings. The first listing
addresses the problem of terrorist financing pursuant to United Nations
regulations, and the External Security Organization, which is the military wing
of Hezbollah, is listed under this regulation. That regulation has been
respected in Canada as well as in the United Kingdom. That is the listing in
which both have done exactly the same thing. They have both listed the ESO as
the military wing of Hezbollah.
For the information of the honourable senator, that list that the United
Nations has created now includes 106 entities and 228 individuals, of which the
External Security Organization of Hezbollah is one. That is the exact
formulation used by both Canada and the United Kingdom.
Senator Tkachuk: Honourable senators, in a previous debate on October
23, 2002, the leader said:
Honourable senators, with the greatest of respect, the United Kingdom
knows about it —
— she was referring to another matter —
— which is why the United Kingdom and Canada have followed the same
policy with respect to Hezbollah. Both countries have listed the external
security organization of Hezbollah as a terrorist group.
The leader does say "the same policy.''
At present, can a Canadian citizen, or an immigrant living in Canada, but not
yet a citizen, be a member of the external military group in this country?
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, that is a very specific
question that I cannot answer at this time. I will have to provide an answer
because of the specific nature of the honourable senator's question.
Senator Tkachuk: Can the military arm of Hezbollah actually solicit,
and not necessarily keep, money and recruit membership in their organization in
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, as I indicated in response to
an earlier question, the list that has been proposed and developed by a United
Nations resolution does cover the issue of terrorist funding. The list includes
the External Security Organization, ESO, of Hezbollah, which is also included in
the Canadian list because we respect the United Nations resolutions.
In response to the specific nature of the honourable senator's question, it
is my understanding that they could not do that in Canada. However, I will have
to inquire further because I do not want to give the honourable senator any
misinformation. My understanding is that this regulation prohibits those exact
activities — solicit money and recruit members. Canada is a signatory to the UN
resolution. If additional information is available, I will obtain it for the
honourable senator as soon as possible.
Senator Tkachuk: Honourable senators, I have one further question. On
October 23, the Leader of the Government in the Senate said that we have the
same policy as has Great Britain. However, she is not sure whether one can be a
member of the ESO in Canada, although one cannot be a member of it in the United
States or in Great Britain. Could the honourable leader clarify this for the
I believe that one is able to recruit members to the ESO, which is the
military wing of Hezbollah, in this country, and that one is able to solicit
funds. I am not certain of that, however, because the information surrounding
the issue has been nebulous. In Great Britain, one cannot do any of those
things. They are forbidden. The honourable leader did say that Canada's policy
is the same as that of the United Kingdom, so I do not think I am wrong in my
comments. The Web site of Foreign Affairs is confusing, and it is difficult to
understand just what Canada's policy is on this issue.
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, I believe I have that
clarification for the honourable senator. Canada listed the Hezbollah External
Security Organization that we have referred to a number of times, which is the
military terrorist wing, on November 7, 2001, under Canada's UN Suppression of
Terrorism Regulations. Those regulations prohibit the provision of funds to or
the collection of funds for a listed organization and require the freezing of
the property of the listed organization.
Senator Tkachuk: However, it is not illegal to solicit money or be a
member of the ESO.
Senator Carstairs: As the honourable senator is aware, I took that
question under advisement, and I will provide a response at another time.
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, I have examined
today's issue of Quorum. On page 10, there is a reference to an article
in The Kingston Whig-Standard that refers to a former military attaché in
Canada who now lives in Kingston. The headline of today's article states that
Bill Graham is making a huge mistake. I wish to quote from the Quorum article so
that the Leader of the Government in the Senate may respond, after she has had
an opportunity to confer with Minister Graham. The article reads, in part, as
A former military attache who was once kidnapped in the Middle East by
members of the militant Hezbollah organization calls the Canadian
government's refusal to outlaw the entire group irresponsible and naive.
Retired Lt.- Col. Bob Chamberlain says Hezbollah is a terrorist organization
and Canada's decision to separate the group's military side from its social
and religious arm makes no sense.
The article continues with a quote from the former military attaché. He is
reported as having said:
The sooner we put them on the terrorist list the better. Hezbollah is a
terrorist group. In my opinion, Hezbollah is the same as the Taliban in
Afghanistan. And do we separate the different arms of the Taliban? No.
The article continues:
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has said that Hezbollah is
collecting money in Canada to finance activities in the Middle East.
Honourable senators, allow me to provide the adjunct that they do not make a
differentiation between the two. The article continues:
He says Graham is wrong if he thinks that money raised for one arm of
Hezbollah doesn't benefit the other.
Could the Leader of the Government in the Senate bring that to the minister's
attention? Perhaps this additional information will finally put to bed the whole
question of separating the various arms of Hezbollah, and outlaw them.
Senator Carstairs: I thank the honourable senator for his question. At
this time, the Government of Canada and the Government of the United Kingdom
have clearly separated Hezbollah into its External Security Organization, which
everyone recognizes as a military terrorist organization, and other
organizations that use the Hezbollah name that do not fit into that description,
including the 11 duly-elected members of Parliament in the country of Lebanon,
who use the term "Hezbollah.''
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I have a question for
the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I must preface it by saying that,
knowing the leader's family for as many years as I have, I appreciated the
sensitivity of her observations this morning. Honourable senators, it is with
great pleasure that I tell you that the Leader of the Government in the Senate
does indeed work very hard to answer questions.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Forrestall: She already has a ministerial inquiry underway
into the state of Prince Edward Island regiment's 22 or so elitist jeeps. I ask
her if she would be kind enough to request the vehicle maintenance logs for the
Prince Edward Island regiment's jeeps to be tabled in the house. I also request
any messages from the commanding officer of the regiment sent to brigade
headquarters. I am referring to messages about the condition of the jeeps over
the last six months and their impact on training. In that way, she and I will
not be under any illusions as to the condition of these jeeps and the state of
their capacity to assist in training programs.
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): I thank the
Honourable Senator Forrestall for his question. I would inform him that the
inquiry has been made on behalf of the honourable senator and that it is nearing
completion. I am hopeful that I will have the report when he returns after the
break. I will not hold that answer back. I will then follow up with the
acquisition of further information. I am certain the honourable senator was
extremely pleased with the announcement yesterday, that new vehicles will be
acquired for the military and that a rather substantive contract has been let. I
am sure that we are both hopeful that some of those vehicles will make their way
to Prince Edward Island.
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, more than that, I
hope that the wrecks being replaced will be kept off the main highways of
Just so that our fellow Nova Scotians at Shearwater are not under any
illusions, could the honourable leader tell the house if she, too, recognizes
the frustration of the Sea King air crews, now under attack by the minister,
which they have demonstrated by poking fun at the government's stalled Sea King
replacement program, as illustrated in their mock-up recruitment posters?
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
I saw some of those posters, and my concern echoes that of our honourable
colleague. We must always ensure that our military personnel fly only in
equipment that is safe at all times. I know that opinion is shared by the
Honourable Senator Forrestall. A total of $80 million has now been spent
upgrading the Sea Kings. They are safe, and those that fly on board them are
safe. That is the major issue here, that and their replacement. I know the
Honourable Minister McCallum is working on that issue as quickly as he can.
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, is it the view of the
government, again as spoken by the minister yesterday, that the aircrews are to
be blamed for the delay of the Sea King replacement, or was the minister on a
freelancing lark? A "yes'' or a "no'' is all that is required.
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): I did not see any
such comment by the Minister of Defence. I do not think it would be appropriate
to blame aircrews for a lack of movement on this particular file at the present
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Would it be the opinion of the Leader of
the Government in the Senate that nothing will happen in regard to the
replacement of the Sea King helicopters until such time as there is a new Prime
Minister in this country?
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
since I know the present Prime Minister will be in office until February 2004, I
would hope that the honourable senator is wrong and that this procurement policy
would proceed before that date.
Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, my question for the Leader
of the Government in the Senate has to do with immigration backlogs. At present,
within the Department of Immigration, there is a backlog of 17,000 applications
from potential immigrants who are married to Canadian citizens and are seeking
permanent residence status. The backlog has extended the waiting time for an
approval-in-principle letter from 90 days to at least eight months. The people
left waiting for this letter are in a tenuous situation. They are unable to get
work permits or health coverage. They are not able to go to school and, in most
cases, are not able to leave the country without putting their application in
What steps is the government taking to ensure that the approval process for
these immigrants returns to normal and their requests are dealt with in a more
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): As the honourable
senator knows, we have exceeded our target for immigration. There has been a
great number of applications, and those applications are being dealt with
appropriately. Additional resources have been given to Immigration in order to
meet those backlogs. The very fact that we exceeded our target is an indication
that great strides are being made in that department.
Senator Oliver: Honourable senators, my question was more specific. It
dealt with those 17,000 people who are now being placed in jeopardy because they
must wait not 90 days but eight months and who, during the waiting period, are
unable to do those things that other citizens of Canada can do. What is being
done about them?
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, they are a part of the
department's entire file. Their cases proceed in the required order. The
government is working as quickly as it can. We want immigrants in this country.
That is why we have exceeded our targets. However, there are many individuals
who wish to come to this country.
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable
senators, I have the honour to table a response to a question raised in the
Senate on October 9, 2002, by Senator Kinsella, regarding passports.
(Response to questions raised by Hon. Noël A. Kinsella on October 9,
There are 8,893,836 valid Canadian passports currently in circulation.
The only link between the size of the population and the number of passports
is the amount of applications processed that result in the number of
passports issued. (note: This total may not represent the absolute number of
Canadians currently holding passports because children were previously added
to a parent's passport; some were issued duplicate passports and some hold
diplomatic and regular passports).
The Government of Canada is committed to maintaining the Canadian
passport as one of the most secure travel documents in the world. Canada has
recently implemented tougher regulations with respect to the types of
passports and their issuance because it was discovered that earlier
passports were too easily copied. The new passports have state-of-the-art
features against fraud and increased information requirements from
applicants. The improvements include: digitally-printed and "embedded''
photographs; holograms; high-security, tamper-proof printing and "ghost''
photographs which only appear under ultraviolet light security measures.
Complete documentary evidence of citizenship must accompany each
application for a Canadian passport. That evidence includes a certificate of
Canadian citizenship granted or issued to the person under the Canadian
Citizenship Act. A person born in Canada must submit a birth certificate
issued by a province or territory or by a person authorized by a province to
issue such certificates. In Quebec, baptismal certificates, which were used
as evidence of Canadian citizenship in the past are no longer viable for
that purpose. All persons born in Quebec must submit a birth certificate
issued after January 1, 1994. The Director of Civil Status of the Government
of Quebec is now the only authority to register birth and issue birth
certificates in the province.
Regarding the matter of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) identity
check of a Girl Guide Leader applicant in Oromocto, New Brunswick, the RCMP
confirms that it continues to have the highest regard for the security of
the Canadian passport. The RCMP says what was done at their Oromocto
Detachment is standard practice. The only way to conduct a criminal history
check is through the submission of fingerprints. The passport may serve as
identification but is not suitable to provide an individual with a criminal
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, we have the pleasant duty,
today, to welcome visiting House of Commons pages. I should like to introduce
the first three pages who are visiting from the other place this week.
Isabelle Dufort is pursuing her studies at the Faculty of Social Sciences at
the University of Ottawa. She is majoring in international studies and modern
languages. Isabelle is from Orléans, in Ontario.
Faizel Gulamhusein of Burnaby, British Columbia, is pursuing his studies at
the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Ottawa. He is majoring in
political science and philosophy. Welcome.
Finally, Nicolas Lavoie, from Cornwall, Ontario, is pursuing his studies at
the Faculty of Arts at the University of Ottawa and is majoring in history.
Welcome, to you all.
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Jaffer, seconded
by the Honourable Senator Maheu, for the second reading of Bill C-10, to
amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, I listened carefully to the debate over Bill C-10. A number of
questions have arisen in my own mind about the bill, based on my understanding
of the interventions of honourable senators. As such, there are four points that
I should like to reflect upon.
The first area that I should like to reflect upon is the impact of this
legislation on the research community, whether the research community at
universities or the research community in the private sector. As honourable
senators know, animals are used in research. If it were not for the ability of
the researchers to conduct experimentation and testing with the aid of animals,
much of the progress that has been made in modern medicine would not have been
made. Therefore, honourable senators, it is my hope that, when this issue is
examined in detail, special attention will be given to ensure that the research
community in Canada is not placed in jeopardy by the proposed amendments to the
Criminal Code that the bill is making.
The second area of questioning in my mind is more philosophical. It relates
to the language used during the debate. Some have used phrases like "animal
rights.'' That raises a number of questions as to whether, philosophically,
animals have rights in the real sense of rights or, indeed, whether the phrase
is being used in an analogous sense or in a metaphorical sense. It seems to me,
honourable senators, that the proper subject of real rights is real people. That
flows logically from the nature of rights, which is a social concept that
requires evaluation, measuring against a norm or a criterion and the expression
of an ethical judgment, all of which are the kinds of clear activities of
I can understand human rights and can understand the importance of
psychological development in humans and that it is not a good thing for humans
to get into behavioural patterns of destroying the things of nature. There is
good sociology and good psychology around the proposition that things ought to
be allowed to grow and develop according to their appropriate nature. However,
the committee might want to examine in depth whether we are speaking of real
rights when speaking of animal rights.
My third concern arising from the debate relates to the objective of the
legislation. Bill C-10 is comprised of two parts, one of which deals with
firearms. However, honourable senators, I wish to focus for the moment on the
part of the bill that focuses on cruelty to animals.
Honourable senators, what is the objective of this proposed legislation? When
codifying provisions that are already in the Criminal Code dealing with the
prescription of conduct regarding cruelty to animals, what is the best way to
achieve the objective of not having humans being cruel to animals, or being
cruel to any living thing in nature for that matter?
I refer to my colleagues who conduct research at the university level. Based
on my observation, these researchers use animals in a controlled and highly
ethical manner. It is noteworthy that it is the research community itself that
has established, voluntarily, very specific ethical standards relating to
research that involves the use of animals.
Honourable senators, would it not be better for this kind of legislation to
promote education and standard-setting by the various communities that work with
animals, whether it be the hunting community, the veterinarian community, the
research community, or other communities that deal with animals? Would it not
have been better for this government to set up a regime wherein those people who
are working with animals would establish, through education, a high ethical
standard, rather than using the sledgehammer of the Criminal Code? The committee
might want to examine that question when considering the fundamental principle
of the bill.
My fourth point regards the stage at which we find ourselves in the
legislative process. Solid arguments have been advanced in this chamber from all
corners over the last number of days. The question was raised in yesterday's
interventions that perhaps this bill should be split. There are procedural
difficulties of doing that at second reading. The intervention of the Honourable
Senator Baker on that particular point was correct.
However, I submit for consideration by honourable senators another possible
technique. Given the serious questions on the substance of the bill at this
stage and the hesitation in the minds of many honourable senators about the
principle of the bill, there is a technique that would allow us to avoid that
question of principle while allowing the proposed legislation to progress. In
other words, honourable senators, the bill could be referred to the appropriate
committee prior to second reading. Honourable senators might wish to reflect
further on that suggestion.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
On motion of Senator Adams, debate adjourned.
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Morin, seconded
by the Honourable Senator Hubley, for an Address to Her Excellency the
Governor General in reply to her Speech from the Throne at the Opening of
the Second Session of the Thirty-seventh Parliament. (7th day of resuming
Hon. Gérald-A. Beaudoin: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise
today in reply to the September 30, 2002, Speech from the Throne.
The foundation of federalism in our country is the sharing of jurisdictions
between the federal and provincial governments. There are quite a few federal
states in the world, including Canada. Any federation experiences periods of
centralization and decentralization. This is unavoidable, and it is true for
I would like to say a few words on the federal spending power in Canada. The
federal spending power in Canada was recognized by the courts in 1937. The
federal government can spend money in its own jurisdictions, and also in
provincial jurisdictions. However, according to the Privy Council, it cannot
legislate in provincial jurisdictions. The spending power can help maintain a
financial balance in a federation. That power is there to stay, and this is a
I am also pleased about the equalization process provided for in section 36
of the Constitution Act, 1982. This is something unique to our country. The
spending power plays a great role in our country. It is necessary. Incidentally,
so far, no province has challenged that power in a court of law. However, Quebec
has always been vigilant to keep its legislative prerogatives intact. This is
necessary to preserve the federation's balance.
I detect a kind of a constant in the Speech from the Throne. In this regard,
I can list a few elements: health care, poor families and social assistance,
securities, the new urban strategy, and minority-language education so as to
double, within 10 years, the number of bilingual high school graduates. These
issues are largely a provincial matter.
It goes without saying that the federal spending power will have to be taken
into consideration in reaching certain objectives outlined in the Speech from
the Throne. The provinces have a lot to say on this issue, and they will have to
negotiate. I wish to draw the attention of my colleagues to the negotiations
that will soon keep us busy. This is part of our constitutional history.
One of the first issues that will capture our attention will be health care.
There are several items on health care in the Constitution. The provincial
legislatures have exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to establishing,
maintaining and administering hospitals. The federal Parliament has exclusive
authority over quarantine and marine hospitals.
The provincial legislatures therefore have the power to organize a hospital
system, establish systems to cover health insurance and hospital insurance.
Administering the medical profession and health sciences falls under
provincial jurisdiction pursuant to sections 92(13) and 92(7) of the
Constitution Act, 1867. The provinces can, obviously, regulate the nursing and
pharmacy professions. The provinces may also legislate generally, on matters of
hygiene, medical research, medical schools and institutes. Rest homes, asylums,
care for mental health patients and persons with disabilities also come under
the provinces' responsibilities. The right to strike in the medical and hospital
sectors is also a provincial matter. Other items come into play with section
92(7) on occasion to provide further and partial support to provincial
jurisdiction in the area of health: section 92(13), already mentioned, and
section 92(16) in particular; also sections 92(6) and 92(2) in addition to
sections 93 and 95. In other words, provincial jurisdiction in the area of
health is considerable.
The federal power may also legislate in certain areas of health, under its
ancillary power. As such, its legislation will be valid if the health provisions
are necessarily attached to its particular areas of jurisdiction. An example of
this would be inmates, members of the military, immigrants and veterans. One
very important federal authority in health is certainly the federal spending
power, which I mentioned earlier. Ottawa and the provinces have been negotiating
matters of health for a long, long time. This must continue.
The Speech from the Throne touches on other subjects. It deals with
securities. This was a provincial responsibility to begin with. The Supreme
Court of Canada had the opportunity to reaffirm this in the Global Securities
judgment in 2000.
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the British Columbia Securities
Commission could also gather information from securities regulators outside of
British Columbia. This was based on paragraph 141(1)(b) the Securities
Act, which contains two objectives: guaranteeing cooperation with other
jurisdictions and identifying misdemeanours committed in other jurisdictions by
brokers registered in British Columbia.
The pith and substance of section 141(1)(b) of the Securities Act is
the effective regulation of domestic securities, which falls within provincial
authority under section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The
interprovincial aspects of the Securities Act are purely ancillary and part of
the commission's mandate, which is to obtain reciprocal cooperation and uncover
securities violations abroad.
Of course, if the federal government wants to interfere with securities, it
may fall back on its authority in criminal law to prevent and punish fraud.
The new urban strategy was another subject covered in the Speech from the
Throne. It concerns cities, of course, and involves a new ten-year
infrastructure program. As we know, cities and municipalities are an exclusive
provincial jurisdiction. This principle was once again reaffirmed by the Quebec
Court of Appeal in Westmount v. Attorney General of Quebec, and
permission to appeal this judgment was denied by the Supreme Court of Canada.
According to the Speech from the Throne, the federal government's interference
in urban affairs will be in partnership with the provinces and municipalities.
Minority-language education, with a goal of doubling within ten years the
number of bilingual high school graduates, is no doubt a lofty and commendable
objective. Again, an agreement will have to be entered into with the province,
because education is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
During the 19th century, confessional schooling rights and double taxation
were the main focus of attention. Nowadays, in Quebec, the language of
instruction is at the forefront.
These are, honourable senators, a few of the issues addressed in the Speech
from the Throne that attracted my attention and are likely to raise questions
for anyone who considers respect for the Constitution an important principle.
I have always said that the existing division of powers is basically
appropriate. I hope that we can preserve this division and continue to negotiate
and act in partnership with the provinces in the areas I discussed in my speech
Hon. George Baker: Will the honourable senator permit a question?
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Will you accept a
question, Senator Beaudoin?
Senator Beaudoin: Yes.
Senator Baker: Honourable senators, I thoroughly enjoyed the
honourable senator's analysis of federal-provincial responsibilities. I think
that the three main subjects he covered, namely securities, health, and
education, are distinguishable.
As far as securities are concerned, provincial regulation is recognized under
the Securities Act of the province. There is also the federal Winding-up and
Restructuring Act. An investigation would start under the provincial Securities
Act. Each Securities Act provides the mechanism for investigations, either by
the regulators, the Superintendents of Insurance, or by the Minister of Justice
in the province. These things sometimes happen in consort with the appointment
of a receiver under the federal Winding-up and Restructuring Act or a
liquidator. It is clear that one is provincial and one is federal. Both duties
In health and post-secondary education, the responsibilities were
distinguishable to a certain degree prior to the mid 1970s. The federal
government paid a percentage of the cost of medicare. Under the federal Hospital
Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, the federal government paid 55 per cent
of the cost of running hospitals. An amount for post-secondary education was
paid in relation to the expenditures in the provinces. All of a sudden, all of
the provincial governments met in a federal- provincial conference and said that
they wanted block funding. The federal government's response was to give them a
lump sum of money and it did away with the agreements that existed in federal
My question to the honourable senator is as follows: Does he believe from
looking at this that perhaps that is where the future lies as far as getting the
federal government back into the proper percentage funding of health and
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I am sorry to
interrupt, Senator Beaudoin, but I must advise that your time has expired. You
will have to ask for leave.
Senator Beaudoin: May I have leave to respond?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Beaudoin: My point is this: Because this country is large and
not all of the provinces are rich like Alberta, for example, spending is
entrenched in our Constitution, and that is a good thing. It is there, and it
will stay there.
However, as a jurist, I cannot but say that, in 1937, the judicial committee
of the Privy Council said clearly that we should not invade the provincial
domains with legislation. No one disagreed with the funding. I think that the
federal authority is in a position to be able to adequately use the spending
power, and I am in favour of that. It is good for the equilibrium of our
federation. However, if the federal government legislates in this area, that
would be another story.
The honourable senator referred to securities and winding up. If I am not
mistaken, he also referred indirectly to bankruptcy. It is clear that bankruptcy
is a federal matter. I referred to fraud in business, and there is no doubt that
that is a criminal matter.
If I were to pass on some words of counsel, I would advise the federal
government to use the spending power it has adequately and wisely. However, I
would emphasize that it must respect the beautiful federation that we have. In
my opinion, the division of powers in Canada is the best in the world. I have
never seen a Constitution that is so clear in the field of the division of
powers. However, I would add the caution that the federal government should not
legislate in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It must respect the division of
I am in favour of the spending power, but when dealing with education, health
care and other areas that come under provincial jurisdiction, we must negotiate.
This is the story of our federation.
Canada probably holds the best record in the world for federal- provincial
negotiations. Not all federations meet many times each month, but that is what
we do, and I approve of that.
Before we go further, honourable senators, I would suggest that we wait until
we see the proposed legislation. The honourable senator is on the Legal
Committee and he will know that the purpose of that committee is to ensure that
any bill is respectful of the division of powers. We always determine that the
bills that are referred to our committee are respectful of the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. If a bill meets those criteria, we will vote for it.
I cannot be more precise because we do not have before us the proposed
legislation that the federal authority will produce. The federal authority may
invoke the spending power, but it must respect the Constitution.
Hon. Roch Bolduc: Honourable senators, the Speech from the Throne
describes the sad state Canada was in a decade ago, that is under a previous
government, and then goes on to tell us that today life is good because of the
valiant efforts made by the government in power since 1993. This, of course,
needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
As if the Liberal government were responsible for the general prosperity that
reigned in North America until the summer of 2000. Everyone knows, or should,
that the economic growth of our neighbours to the south during the 1990s, as a
result of technological development, is what increased the demand for our
products and revived the economy in this country. That, coupled with our
taxation system, which penalizes the ordinary taxpayer very much, meant that
while we were getting out from under the budget deficit, Canadians' standard of
living was not improving. It is only recently that the tax cuts that have been
demanded for so long have finally had some slight positive influence on
taxpayers' net incomes.
Things may seem to be going better, but surprise, surprise! There are still
problems referred to in the government's Throne Speech and it is going to attack
them with the same vigour it has for the past 50 years, particularly since these
problems have been around since the post-war period and are still not resolved,
despite the billions of dollars that have been put into their resolution by the
The government lists a litany of good intentions, injecting money into all
sectors for Canadians of all ages, from babies and students up to workers in all
categories: scientists, researchers, immigrants, military personnel, sports
people, medical personnel, farmers. I could go on and on.
Public funds to Aboriginal people are being increased, as well as to those
with housing problems or with drug problems. The government will take an
interest in the administrators of overly greedy companies, in smart regulation —
that is something new, before it was not! — smart borders — even our border will
be smarter! — in cities, in official languages, in ethical guidelines for
parliamentarians, and in one more Public Service reform.
The government is not short on good intentions. This reminds me of CIDA. We
want to help everyone, but since resources are limited, we have to make choices
and target the real priorities if we really want some positive results.
The government has a hard time targeting its multiple actions. It wants
everything, everywhere, all the time. This is reflective of a collective action
that results in attempts to satisfy various interest groups by yielding to the
demands of successive coalitions, which often pursue contradictory objectives.
The outcome of this is that changes to the status quo always make winners and
losers, and the art of leading consists in hiding the real impact of the
decisions made. For example, the government may lower taxes on the one hand, but
on the other hand it increases contributions to the pension plan, with the
result that taxpayers cannot figure out all the changes on their paycheques.
While I do not doubt the government's good intentions, I have no illusion
about the mixed results of its actions. The government — which should be more
cautious after all the negative impacts on the performance of its programs — is
once again about to improve safety in the country, eradicate poverty, sign the
Kyoto Protocol, reform the health care system, invest more in research, promote
apprenticeship, increase its assistance to Aboriginal people and fund urban
infrastructure for ten years. All this with a balanced budget, even though we
still do not know the cost of all these new initiatives.
The government seems to believe in miracles more than I do. Fifty years of
observing the political and administrative process have left me scratching my
head. Anyway, we shall see. I note, however, that, for a number of years now, we
have been witnessing broken promises that have resulted in much frustration and
cynicism, which explains in part the unwillingness of many to participate and
even to vote.
The tax cuts contained in Budget 2000 are not enough to give Canada the
impetus it needs in a very competitive world. This means that direct foreign
investments will be few and far between, which will have a negative impact on
productivity growth, because if we sell these investments, we lose the free
technology that came with them. This also means that, logically, our investments
abroad will increase. That is the case in Canada.
Contrary to common belief, more businesses are bought abroad by Canadians
than are bought here by foreigners. This does not do the Canadian dollar much
good. We cannot subject the Canadian economy to a higher cost structure and
expect strong growth at the same time, particularly where the rate of
productivity is concerned.
Still, there is room for progress on payroll taxes, corporate capital taxes
and tax on pensions. The Auditor General went as far as to accuse the government
of stealing from contributors to the Employment Insurance fund. How can we
restore investor confidence in view of what some business leaders did, leaving
with their pockets full of money and emptying those of their employees and
The government is very good at selling 10-year dreams, as it did with
municipal infrastructure, which does not come under its jurisdiction. But where
will the promising gestures be in 2003? The Prime Minister engages in activism,
and the Minister of Finance puts on the brakes. This discordant duo is headed
for more pulling and tugging than anything else. Meanwhile, the provinces are
complaining that the federal government is not doing its share in health care,
and the Canadians Forces are under-equipped according to the same minister.
The debate on the Speech from the Throne being a good forum for voicing
preconceived ideas on a variety of issues, I would like to say a word on the
Senate, which has been the subject of excellent speeches by a number of
honourable senators, including the Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable John
Lynch- Staunton, and Senator Austin. I know that Senator Joyal is about to offer
us his own thoughts to follow up on the introduction he gave us a while back.
In my opinion, the Senate of the 21st century will not acquire the legitimacy
it needs unless senators are selected differently. Today's democratic demands
will never be satisfied unless they are elected. Since our regime has a systemic
tendency toward the centralization of powers in the hands of the executive, and
the head of the executive in particular, this election must take place outside
the party framework, since the parties have a centralizing effect themselves in
a British-style regime. The Senate would be the ideal place in a centralized
regime, to avoid abuse of power, if we can set it up outside partisan politics.
Since the Senate is supposed to be a "countervailing power'' to the House, to
all intents and purposes, an election formula similar to the one adopted by
France or Germany strikes me as essential.
The way I see it, there would be senators elected by local elites, in an
election in which candidates would come from these same regions, that is the
equivalent of two or three Quebec ridings. It would be an indirect election,
outside party lines, inexpensively run, and requiring but a few meetings. This
election would create representation made up of persons from a variety of
backgrounds whose careers and reputations, and stature within the region, would
get them to Ottawa. They would no longer be elected because of connections with
the traditional party machines.
We would have here, in our federal system, true regional representatives,
with no ties to the parties in the House of Commons. This does not mean that the
senators would not be politicians. Independent opinions could be expressed more
freely on the quality of legislation. I am still surprised, and I find it
unfortunate, that the government does not approve clear amendments to issues
that seem simple to solve. Senator Murray must remember the amendment proposed
to the act creating the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, to hire staff based
on merit, in order to ensure their competence and objectivity. If we had had a
different system than the one we have today, my proposed amendment would have
passed. Discussions could give rise to an authentic political formula that would
lead to compromise. The debate could produce unique initiatives.
The adverse effects of Canadian federalism, which is currently hampered by
the federal spending power that results in power struggles between the provinces
and a centralized federal power, would be tempered by more diversified regional
voices, given the different situations even within the provinces. Finally, this
arm of the federal Parliament could play a greater role in Canada's foreign
In democracy in the 21st century, we must not leave the traditional
prerogatives of the Crown intact when it comes to international relations which,
nowadays, have numerous and considerable effects on domestic policies. For
example, the important treaties that Canada wants to sign should be discussed in
more detail in the Senate. Decisions related to our participation in armed
conflicts should also be referred to the Senate. When we send soldiers to war,
representatives of the people must have their say.
Finally, CIDA, which spends over $2 billion a year, should have a statutory
foundation that is debated in the Senate, which would provide a framework for
its international development activities.
These, honourable senators, are some of my thoughts for this debate on reform
to our institution, to enhance its role in the necessary balance of political
Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, I am pleased to respond
to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne on Canada's continuing
commitment to diversity.
As is the case with a number of other senators in this chamber, I first came
to this place in the fall of 2001 during the last session of Parliament. It was
not a Speech from the Throne that set the tone for my first months here; rather,
it was the horrible events that had taken place in New York, Washington and
Pennsylvania only days before I was sworn into the Senate.
Canadians were justifiably afraid and called on their government to respond
by examining issues of security, safety and counterterrorism. I was able to
participate in much of the debate on these issues directly as a member of the
Special Senate Committee on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill. As both a
refugee from Africa and a Muslim Canadian, I feel I was able to contribute a
unique perspective to the debate on Bill C-36, a perspective that many Canadians
who are members of minorities share. While I do not believe Canadians will ever
be able to look at things entirely the same after September 11, our minds have
gradually been able to return to other matters that are important to us.
The Speech from the Throne offers a concrete opportunity to return the focus
of the government to all the issues that matter to Canadians; for me, it
presents the first opportunity to work with a fresh policy agenda.
The Speech from the Throne contained a number of new initiatives that are
worthy of our attention and support, some of which have already been brought to
our attention by other senators in the course of this debate.
I should like to focus on some points that I feel are particularly important,
specifically the government's commitment to lower the barriers to the
recognition of foreign credentials, to implement targeted strategies, to reduce
the problems faced by new immigrants to Canada and to make training available in
both official languages to the children of immigrant families. These points
reflect an ongoing commitment of Canada's government to diversity and
multiculturalism in our country.
It has often been said that Canada is a nation of immigrants. I speak from
personal experience when I say that Canada and Canadians embrace different
people and cultures like no other county. Canada provides not only a place for
individuals to live, but also the space to practise their own religion and
culture freely while still welcoming them into the Canadian community as equal
partners. However, many of those who immigrate to Canada seeking opportunities
for themselves and their families continue to face barriers to the recognition
of their credentials because they studied or worked in foreign countries. In
some cases, these difficulties have been caused by a simple lack of
understanding on how education and employment standards in other countries
compare to those of Canada.
In the Speech from the Throne, the Canadian government has committed itself
to break down the barriers to recognition of foreign credentials and allow
skilled foreign workers to join the Canadian workforce more quickly. This will
allow individuals and families to realize the opportunities that originally drew
them to Canada and to integrate into the Canadian workforce more quickly.
Honourable senators, I am very familiar with the source of problems that
these sorts of barriers can pose. I was one of the many Ugandan Asians forced to
leave Idi Amin's terror just 30 years ago, and I faced many barriers to the
recognition of my credentials when I arrived in Canada as a refugee.
When Idi Amin took away all my possessions, he did not break my spirit. When
Idi Amin made me stateless, he did not break my spirit; but when the Law Society
of British Columbia told me I could not practise law, my spirit was broken.
I began working at the firm of Dohm, Macdonald Russell and Kawarski as a
junior secretary. Thomas Dohm, a partner in the firm and a former Supreme Court
justice, asked me why I, a London-trained lawyer, was working as a secretary.
After I explained my situation to him, he fought on my behalf, and I have been
practising law in British Columbia since 1978. I have been living my dream.
Since then, I have met thousands of individuals across the country who are
not able to live their dreams. They are unable to realize their dreams because
of barriers to the recognition of skills and credentials earned in foreign
countries. These people do not have Thomas Dohm to fight on their behalf.
By including a commitment in the Speech from the Throne to reduce the
barriers to the recognition of foreign credentials, the government has given
many Canadians a chance to realize their dreams. However, it is not only those
who are coming to Canada who will benefit from the removal of these barriers,
but all of Canada.
Our last census has shown that the Canadian population is aging, creating a
need for more skilled workers to replace those who are now leaving or will soon
be leaving the workforce. This is also why it is necessary to ensure that Canada
becomes a destination of choice for foreign students with diverse skills. The
increased efforts to bring these young, talented individuals to Canada will
ensure that the foundation of Canada's knowledge- based economy remains sound
for years to come.
However, it is not only the recognition of credentials that can pose problems
for those who come to Canada from abroad. There are also any number of other
problems that can interfere with one's ability to live and work in a new
country. These could include language barriers, culture shock, or the general
uneasy feeling of being an outsider in a new land.
One of the things that makes Canada great is that we pursue the integration
of communities rather than the assimilation of individuals. This country is not
a melting pot; rather, we have a country rich in diversity in which people can
remain a part of their own communities while still participating fully in the
larger society of Canada. We believe in integration of communities.
Our Constitution guarantees through our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that
all Canadians should be treated equally. All of us here agree with that
principle, but it is a much easier promise to make than it is to keep.
Barriers to full participation in Canadian society still exist. That is why I
am so happy to hear that the government has committed itself to targeted
strategies to reduce the barriers faced by immigrants to Canada. Continued
harmony between the diverse groups of Canadian society is essential for our
continued growth as a country. The Canada we want is both prosperous and
Of course, when we speak of the future, our thoughts naturally turn toward
our children. For many of those who come to Canada from other countries, it is
at least as important that their children find opportunities as it is that they
find them themselves. However, children also face barriers to full integration
in Canadian society. Even though it may be easier for them to adapt to a new
culture in some cases, other more mundane barriers can exist. These are, most of
all, linguistic barriers.
Canada's diversity is highlighted by its bilingualism, and it is important
that children of immigrant families be given an opportunity to learn both French
and English so that they can both realize the greatest opportunities that our
great country has to offer and have the broadest number of careers available and
become fully part of Canadian society.
With Canada's aging population, the children of immigrant families need to be
given the greatest possible opportunity to become members of the Canadian labour
force. That is important for their own sake and for the sake of Canada's
continued economic prosperity.
Ultimately, it is the things that have not changed in the Speech from the
Throne that mean the most — the Government of Canada's on going commitment to
harmony, diversity and multiculturalism. The Government of Canada understands
the role that new Canadians have played and will play in the future of Canada
and recognizes the benefit of making Canada the destination of choice for
I applaud the Government of Canada, and especially the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, the Honourable Denis Coderre, for making it a
priority in the Speech from the Throne to remove these barriers.
I look forward to seeing how these policies are implemented.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is the house ready for
Hon. Senators: Question!
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure,
honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
Motion agreed to, on division, and Address in Reply to the Speech from the
On motion of the Honourable Senator Robichaud, ordered that the Address be
engrossed and presented to Her Excellency the Governor General by the Honourable
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C.,
seconded by the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C.:
That the documents entitled: "Proposals to amend the Parliament of
Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner) and other Acts as a consequence'' and
"Proposals to amend the Rules of the Senate and the Standing Orders of the
House of Commons to implement the 1997 Milliken-Oliver Report,'' tabled in
the Senate on October 23, 2002, be referred to the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is the house ready for
On motion of Senator Kinsella, for Senator Oliver, debate adjourned.
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the second report of the Standing
Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (committee meetings
during adjournments of the Senate) presented in the Senate on November 6,
2002.—(Honourable Senator Milne).
Hon. Lorna Milne moved the adoption of the report.
She said: Honourable senators, allow me to provide some explanation, before
we proceed further, to ensure that honourable senators have it clearly in their
mind what this motion does. Rule 95(3) requires that committees obtain an order
of the Senate should they wish to meet during adjournments of the Senate that
would exceed a week. Assuming that the Senate will not be sitting next week and
that it will follow its usual sitting schedule, a strict interpretation of this
rule would mean that any committee wishing to meet between the time of
adjournment today until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, November 19, would require an order
of the Senate. Your committee does not believe that this interpretation of the
rule reflects the current understanding of the Senate committee sitting
The purpose of this second report is to ensure that, when the Senate adjourns
for more than a week, a committee may meet on any working day of a week during
which the Senate is sitting. Of course, any committee wishing to meet outside
its regular time slot would still require the approval of the whips.
I hope honourable senators will support the adoption of this report in order
to allow our committees to function in a reasonable fashion.
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I was present at yesterday's
meeting of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedure and the Rights of
Parliament, and I am glad to confirm the intent of this report as just explained
to us by the chairman, Senator Milne.
There is, however, a problem, as the honourable senator is aware, with the
wording of the report. Some of us have been into the dictionary since the report
was presented yesterday and find that the use of the word "weekday'' in the
English version could mean any day except Sunday.
In the French version, the report uses the expression "n'importe quel jour
de la semaine.''
That could imply any day of the week, including Saturday and Sunday. I
believe the honourable senator will accept the following amendment, which
reflects what she has just said to us and which I know reflects the discussions
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I move that the French
version of the report be amended as follows:
Au deuxième paragraphe, ajouter les mots "du lundi au vendredi'' après
les mots "n'importe quel jour de la semaine.''
That the English version of the Report be amended as follows: in the
second paragraph by adding the words "Monday to Friday'' after the words
"on any weekday.''
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is the house ready for the question?
Hon. Senators: Question!
The Hon. the Speaker: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Milne,
seconded by the Honourable Senator Carstairs, that this report, as amended, be
adopted now. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and report as amended adopted.
Hon. Peter A. Stollery: On a point of order, honourable senators, I
did not want to have my point of order upset the report by Senator Milne, but I
just want to be clear in my own mind.
Honourable senators, as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I gave
notice, yesterday, that I would move a motion today. As I understand it, and I
want to be clear about this, the adoption of this report means that the motion
standing in my name does not have to be moved. Is that correct or not? I want to
be clear about that, because members of my committee will be naturally
Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, is this outside the normal
meeting time of the committee?
Senator Stollery: Honourable senators, for some years now, the
Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs has met on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
If there is a problem, the committee will meet on Mondays. There is nothing new
about this block of times.
I am having difficulty providing a straightforward answer because for the
last two or three years we have been using Mondays as one of our fallback
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I hope the chairman of the
committee will agree with my interpretation, since we are joined in the motion
that was just passed. Senator Stollery's notice of motion reads:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs be empowered...to
sit at 6 p.m., on Monday, November 18, 2002, even though the Senate may then
be adjourned for a period exceeding one week.
That is precisely the kind of motion we are trying to render unnecessary by
the Rules Committee report that has just been rendered. My short answer is
"yes,'' he can proceed to have his proposed motion stricken from the Order
Paper and not proceeded with.
Senator Stollery: That is how I understood it. However, I am delighted
that Senator Murray has made it clear. I am assuming that we are all of the same
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, on the point of order, this clarification of the rule will obviate the
real problem that the rules try to obviate, namely, that meetings of committees
will not take place when senators are not available, particularly those senators
who are members of a given committee.
The schedule that we have for regular meetings and time slots is very
carefully put together to avoid conflicts of scheduling for honourable senators.
When meetings take place outside the regular schedule, some means of
communication must be maintained so that the senators, who are members of those
committees and who know whether they have conflicts or not, are well informed.
Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, it is my understanding that the
passing of this report would negate the necessity for quite a few of the motions
on the Order Paper. In particular, I would refer to Senator Stollery's motion,
No. 58, Senator Fraser's motion, No. 59, Senator Losier-Cool's motion, No. 61,
and Senator Murray's motion, No. 62.
The Hon. the Speaker: Does any other senator wish to comment on
Senator Stollery's point of order?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable
senators, to paraphrase Senator Kinsella, some means of communication should be
maintained when committees meet at a time outside their regular schedule. The
members of each party must consult their whip to ensure that they can meet, that
enough senators are available and, of course, that there is a meeting room
The Hon. the Speaker: The Honourable Senator Stollery's question has
been answered by Senator Murray. Do you seek an order to have the motions
recited by Senator Milne withdrawn?
Senator Stratton: Honourable senators, I tabled a motion similar to
that today for the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
Senator Murray: We are proceeding on the assumption that the Senate
will be sitting during the week of November 18. Would the Deputy Leader of the
Government confirm that by bringing forward his motion now?
Senator Robichaud: Honourable senators, I would simply ask that my
honourable colleague be patient, and the information will be made available to
him in due course.
The Hon. the Speaker: To answer the question of Senator Stratton, his
motion has been withdrawn, with leave.
One of the house leaders should deal with this. Do you wish an order of the
house to withdraw the motions recited by Senator Milne?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Day, seconded by
the Honourable Senator Baker:
That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be
authorized to adjourn from place to place within and outside Canada for the
purpose of pursuing its study.—(Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C.).
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
everyone is extremely proud of our Senate committees. They do an excellent job,
and I happen to believe that they are at the very heart of our institution. It
is in light of this that I decided to intervene on this motion today because I
believe we all have a responsibility to preserve the reputation of our
committees and their capacity to do good work. I should like to indicate that I
have three major concerns with this motion.
My first concern is with the scope of the motion itself. Passing this motion
would allow this committee to travel anywhere at any time as many times as it
wants for the duration of this session. Honourable senators, the committee
chairs have carefully not included travel in their orders of reference. The
reason for that is that there is an understanding that travel must be funded by
the Internal Economy Committee, and that travel would then be included as part
of the funding for the entire reference to that committee. Having a separate and
independent travel motion, it seems to me, is inappropriate in that we have no
funding for this particular travel motion.
When I read the comments made by honourable senators, it seemed to me that
what they were asking for was not unlimited travel, but travel in one particular
instance, that is, a trip to Colorado Springs on December 1 or thereabout. That
is not what this motion reads. I must indicate that I have grave concerns with
I also have concerns about the cost implications. I heard that there were to
be no costs with respect to this particular study. That seems to me to be not
entirely the case. It would seem that there would be some costs for meals,
incidentals or other expenses that senators would wish to bill to this
committee. In conversations with the chair of this committee, he indicated there
would be costs associated with this particular trip. The costs may not be high.
They may be very low. However, honourable senators, it is the principle that is
important here. We are talking about authorizing the use of public funds, which
we do through the Internal Economy Committee, and this request is not in the
form of a report from the Internal Economy Committee. That causes me concern.
I must say that my greatest concern relates to the independence of Senate
Honourable senators, I think we would all agree that the Senate is not a
department of the government. Indeed, the Senate is an independent House of
Parliament. As such, it has an important role in holding government departments
accountable. That is its function. It would be difficult for anyone to take a
Senate committee seriously if it pretended to conduct a dispassionate,
independent review of a department of the Government of Canada while, at the
same time, accepting offers of free travel from that very same department.
I know that some may not think this is a perfectly reasonable analogy, but I
do. Can honourable senators imagine what people would think if the Banking
Committee which is presently studying bank mergers accepted free travel across
this country on the private plane of the Royal Bank? To me, this would cause a
serious erosion of our sense of independence as members of this chamber. It can
be argued that the Department of National Defence is a government department,
and we are part of the government, so it is not the same thing. I am afraid,
honourable senators, I do not share that view. To maintain our integrity, we
should pay the cost of our own travel so that it is seen to be above-board and
that we are totally independent.
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
for that reason, I move that the question before the Senate be referred to the
Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?
Hon. Tommy Banks: Honourable senators, in referring to the substance
of the leader's motion, I wish to take a moment to clarify something that I said
yesterday, to which the leader referred.
In yesterday's debate, speaking of the proposed trip to which the leader has
referred and the matter which the committee wishes to study, I said:
That is a clear and present question before us on our deliberations
having to do with matters that the Minister of Defence, among others, has
asked us to look at. It is at his invitation, as Senator Day has said, that
we wish to make this trip. It may cost us a lunch out of our pockets or
something like that. The point I wish to reinforce is that the
transportation costs and the accommodation costs of this visit will in no
way be a cost of or to the Senate.
Honourable senators, I misspoke yesterday. I spoke out of place because I
took too great a liberty when I suggested that members had determined that they
would pay those incidental expenses out of their own pockets, in that I had not
spoken to all members of the committee. While I do believe that most, if not
all, of those incidental expenses would be undertaken gladly by the members of
the committee, it was presumptuous of me to say so.
Further, I have determined that there may be some additional small expenses,
as the honourable leader has correctly pointed out. If we were to go as
individual senators to that place, as opposed to going as a committee, then all
of those incidental expenses could be paid properly by senators from their own
resources. However, it is the committee's wish that it should travel to Colorado
Springs as a committee. Therefore, the clerk would need to accompany us.
Otherwise, it would not be the committee that was travelling. The clerk's
expenses would be paid from the budget of the committee.
As the leader has correctly said, the expenses, if any, would be nominal
because we would be staying in barracks and we would be eating in messes. In the
past, there have been circumstances in which those kinds of trips have been at
no cost whatever to the people who have made them. I now find that there are,
depending on the specific arrangements made and the number of people involved,
occasional nominal charges for accommodation, in the order of $10 to $20 a day.
I have determined that, in the worst-case scenario, and I am taking greater
care than I did yesterday, the aggregate costs to the committee would not exceed
the magnitude of $5,000.
Honourable senators, the honourable leader has raised a question of propriety
and potential conflict that she wishes to be determined by the Rules Committee.
As I may not be able to appear before that committee, let me provide the benefit
of an argument to consider. I would refer to the fact that many times in the
past, most specifically with respect to a 1993 trip of that same committee to
that same place, the trip was made on military aircraft. Members of the other
place fly, not infrequently, to that same place on military aircraft and have
not had a conflict of interest in doing so.
I should also like to report to you a discussion that the honourable leader
and I have had in regards to her analogy of the Royal Bank flying members of the
Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce around the country on
the examination of bank mergers. In my opinion, that would be palpably and
clearly inappropriate and wrong, a clear conflict of interest. However, the
Royal Bank is not a public institution. The Canadian Forces is a public
Honourable senators, I shall provide another analogy, which I have provided
to the honourable leader, an analogy that is at least as appropriate as the
Royal Bank comparison. The offices that we occupy are operated and owned, for
all intents and purposes, by the Department of Public Works and Government
Services. As far as I know, there is no payment of rent by the Senate from its
budgets for the offices that we occupy.
Senator Kinsella: It is owned by the people of Canada.
Senator Banks: I do not think that anyone would suggest to the
Honourable Senator Murray that the committee he presently chairs, when
considering the business of the Department of Public Works and Government
Services and making policy recommendations to that department, is in the pocket
of the Department of Public Works and Government Services because we occupy free
offices that they own and operate. The Senate has never been seen to be in the
pocket of the Department of Public Works and Government Services or of any other
department that it has, from time to time examined.
I must also point out that if it is true that travelling on DND vehicles of
any kind and eating DND food of any kind is in fact a conflict of interest that
places the findings of the committee at risk as to its propriety, then we have
already blown it by a thousand miles. The National Security and Defence
Committee rode on DND buses from Ottawa to the special services establishment
during the last Parliament. That committee ate in messes 50 times during the
course of its deliberations during the last Parliament. I do not think that
anyone would suggest that, having eaten DND's food and travelled on their buses
both within and without DND establishments, the deliberations and findings of
that committee have been tainted.
I would hope that when considering this question the Rules Committee would
also consider what I regard as a corollary. If the travel to Colorado Springs is
in conflict of interest, we had better build into our budget a substantial rent
payment to ensure that when the National Finance Committee meets to consider the
business of the Department of Public Works and Government Services we can be
seen to be completely objective.
Hon. Colin Kenny: Honourable senators, I must say that I find the
reasoning by the honourable leader to be curious. The implication that our
committee would be in conflict because it might travel on a government aircraft
to Colorado Springs can be addressed in any number of ways.
First and foremost, the very fact that the committee was prepared to come and
stand in public and describe what it was doing has a serious implication for
conflict. Given that the committee is declaring what it would be doing, this
allows for people to examine the behaviour of committee members following the
trip to determine whether anyone has been bought by the air ride. Judge us by
our reports. Do not suggest that we will be bought by an airplane ride.
The leader has publicly described trips she has taken at the expense of the
State of Israel, and no one in this chamber would suggest that she was bought or
that there was a conflict of interest because she went to Israel at that
country's expense. We know she is an honourable person, and we know that she was
not bought by the flight.
To suggest that we would have our opinion altered by the flight to Colorado
Springs, when we have publicly announced in this chamber that we would be going
on that flight, is an impossibility. The best defence against a possible
interpretation of conflict is declaring it. We are saying that this is how we
will go about conducting the business of the committee. Judge us by what we
We are not sneaking off on an airplane owned by the Royal Bank to fix a deal
with somebody. We stood up in the chamber in an effort to be forthright. We
stood up in the chamber, and we described how we were doing our committee
Our reports, by any measure, have not been patsies as far as the Department
of National Defence is concerned.
No one can accuse us of being influenced by the department, whether they
invite us down to Colorado Springs or whether we go over to the headquarters.
There is a long tradition of parliamentarians using DND aircraft. There used to
be a regular shuttle to Lahr that was taken by members of both Houses. We have
already had reference to the joint special committee on the future of Canada's
defence policy of 1993, which was not compromised by being flown on Department
of National Defence aircraft or staying in Department of National Defence
facilities. I spent a week in Bosnia, sleeping at the expense of the Department
of National Defence. The accommodation happened to be a tent. My week was not
bought by staying in the tent.
I deeply resent the suggestion that we might have a conflict here. That is
not how this committee has been behaving. We have been behaving in an honourable
way and to suggest we have been behaving otherwise is totally inappropriate. I
expect the Leader of the Government to withdraw that statement. The idea that we
should send something off to the Rules Committee when we have been behaving in
an honourable fashion just appals me.
Senator Carstairs: Would the honourable senator accept a question?
Senator Kenny: Absolutely.
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, I was careful in my choice of
words. At no time did I talk about a conflict of interest. Nowhere in my
presentation did I speak about a conflict of interest. I spoke clearly about the
independence of Senate committees. Does the honourable senator not see a
difference between conflict of interest and independence?
Senator Kenny: Honourable senators, the independence of the committee
is judged by the reports that it produces, and the honourable senator was
suggesting that our independence would be influenced by the flight. The flight
will not influence anyone's independence, any more than the independence of the
special committee in 1993, or your independence on your flight to Israel, or the
independence of anyone else who is using government facilities that are there
for general use. The independence of the committee is not at all in danger if we
are standing up and declaring it publicly. It is not a question of us sneaking
off. Yes, I understand what the leader's question is and my answer is "no.''
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, with great respect, I think
the chairman of the committee is overreacting by taking as some kind of personal
reflection the comments of the Leader of the Government on this matter. I
listened to her very carefully, and I do not think there is any cause to
interpret her remarks as a personal reflection on anyone or as a reflection on
In my humble opinion, what we have heard from her is an entirely proper
exercise of her authority and her leadership of the Senate. I happen to agree
with her fully on the first two points she makes about the motion. First,
whether intentionally or not, the motion is open-ended. She has made that point
and she is right.
I know the Honourable Senator Kenny's answer to that is we could not invoke
the open-endedness of the matter without going to the Internal Economy Committee
to get money for other trips. I know what he and other chairmen say when they
get to Internal Economy. They say, "The Senate has already approved it, so give
us the money because we have to go.''
Senator Kenny: It is not true.
Senator Murray: It is true in a great many cases that once the Senate
has approved a motion of that kind, the chairman of the committee in question
attempts to confront the Internal Economy Committee with a fait accompli,
suggesting to them that they have no choice but to come up with the money for
travel or whatever the expense may be.
On the second point she made, I guess I have covered that as well. It is not,
as Senator Banks pointed out, a great deal of money. There is, however, a
principle to be observed here. Due process is important. I have always asserted
and continue to assert that good results cannot come from bad procedure.
On the third point, the appropriateness of the committee accepting free
transportation and hospitality from the Armed Forces, that is a matter on which
I am sure there will be various opinions. It is only proper they be canvassed in
the committee to which the Leader of the Government has suggested we refer this
motion. That is appropriate. If the Leader of the Government has erred, she has
erred on the side of prudence, caution and the reputation of the Senate, and I
say good for her.
Senator Kenny: Will the honourable senator accept a question?
Senator Murray: If my colleague wishes to ask me about my frequent
flyer points on the Challenger aircraft, yes.
Senator Kenny: I will lighten up.
The honourable senator's comment about chairs going to the Internal Economy
Committee suggesting that they have motions from the chamber is one that I have
not experienced. I have been a member of the Internal Economy Committee on and
off for more than 16 years. Senator Murray has had similar experience on the
Internal Economy Committee, and I would be happy if he would name an instance
where a chair has come before it in this sort of scenario. Which chair? Which
committee? When did it happen? I have never heard of that happening.
Senator Murray: Honourable senators, I wish I could name a chair and a
committee, but it has happened so frequently in my experience. Committees have
come looking for a budget and have said, "We have a mandate from the Senate.
The Senate wants us to do this, now produce the money for our trip.'' In my
interpretation of what has happened and happens in the Internal Economy
Committee, it is an almost weekly occurrence there.
Senator Kenny: If it has happened so frequently, perhaps the
honourable senator would undertake to advise the chamber of when and how. I hear
it mooted about, but I have never seen a chair actually come out and say it. I
have heard people use it in a theoretical argument here, as the honourable
senator is doing now, but not citing chapter and verse on it. It has not
happened chapter and verse in my experience, so I am curious whether we are
sitting on the same committee.
Senator Murray: Honourable senators, not to put too fine a point on
it, but we were confronted with this situation on certain security matters
relating to this place, not very long ago. When the budget was put before us, we
were told that the matter had been before the committee on several occasions,
the committee had approved the matter and therefore we should come up with the
That is not quite the same thing, I agree. However, if the honourable senator
were to examine those meetings of the committee over a period of years in
respect of which there may be a public transcript available, he will definitely
find such references, perhaps not in so many words, but clearly enough to read
between the lines. That is the argument that is frequently made: "We have a
mandate. Come and give us the money.''
Senator Kenny: With respect, honourable senators, it is difficult to
read between the lines. Either someone asked for it or they did not.
Senator Murray: That is exactly the argument; they are made all the
Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, what I am about to say has
nothing to do with the integrity of senators. One of the things that has
impressed me most profoundly since I came to this place is the extraordinary
dedication to the public interest of the members of this chamber on both sides
of the house.
Having said that, it has long been my view, publicly expressed on many
occasions, that it is inappropriate for members of either House of Parliament to
take sponsored trips of any kind. It is not so much because it will affect their
judgment, although it might, as because in some cases it has the effect of
affecting the public's appreciation of and trust in the independence of our
I was quite sorry that the ethics package did not address this matter in a
more authoritative way and did not just simply ban, outright, sponsored travel.
Be that as it may, my most serious problem with the motion proposed for the
Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence is one of the other
elements raised by the Leader of the Government; that is, as Senator Murray has
noted, the open-ended nature of this motion. I believe I understand the reasons
advanced as to why an open- ended motion seemed appropriate. Nonetheless, this
is not an appropriate way for us to go about the management of public funds. To
say that any committee can choose to travel where and when it chooses for the
duration of Parliament is not an appropriate way for us to act as custodians of
public money. Therefore, I support the leader's motion.
Senator Banks: Would the honourable senator accept a question?
Senator Fraser: Certainly.
Senator Banks: I absolutely agree with the honourable senator in the
normal sense of sponsored travel. However, in this instance, if the Standing
Senate Committee on National Security and Defence has determined that, in order
to answer certain questions it must visit a military base, then I would point
out that the only way the members of the committee could have access to that
base would be on a military vehicle. On the occasion of our visit to the special
services establishment, no public vehicles were permitted to enter the area.
Short of taking in suitcases full of peanut butter sandwiches, how could that
sponsored travel be consistent with the view that there ought not, in any
circumstances, be any activity which is seen to be in any sense related to
sponsored travel? It would be literally impossible. The result would be that the
Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence could never visit a
Senator Fraser: There are usually ways around these things, senator.
This is a more complex issue, as is often the case, than it appears at first
blush, which is why I think it would be appropriate for the Standing Committee
on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament to look at this issue. I would
observe, however, as I sometimes recall here, that I spent many years as a
journalist. Journalists are required to cover many stories, and it is in the
public interest for them to cover those stories. Those can sometimes only be
covered by travelling on military aircraft to military sites or on election
campaigns, for example, on the leader's tour. It is very simple: They pay. The
defence department provides an estimate of the cost of the trip and the
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, the situation as I see it is the one wherein the Standing Senate
Committee on National Security and Defence has laid before us a clear objective
of visiting this particular military installation. The timeline for that, if I
have understood it correctly, is that the trip would take place on December 1. I
agree with Senator Murray in his analysis of the situation that there may be
some technical problems with the motion and its scope.
I am somewhat concerned with the hesitation to use Canadian Forces aircraft.
The last funeral of a senator I went to was on a Canadian Forces aircraft.
Neither the deceased nor myself felt conflicted. Perhaps there is a solution to
this. If the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedure and the Rights of Parliament
were to be seized of this matter in order to clear up the issue of the scope, it
could report back by November 21, for example, and that would leave sufficient
time to make arrangements, should it report back with a narrowing of the scope
and with recommendations. It may allow a larger number of our colleagues to
participate in the debate and provide more data for the debate.
Consequently, I would move, in amendment, that the following words be added:
And, that the Committee report back to the Senate on this matter no later
than November 21, 2002.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it is moved by the
Honourable Senator Kinsella, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton:
That the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Carstairs be
amended by adding the words:
That the Committee report back to the Senate on this matter no later than
November 21, 2002.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion in amendment agreed to.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is the house ready for the
question on the motion, as amended?
It was moved by the Honourable Senator Carstairs, seconded by the Honourable
That the question be referred to the Standing Committee on Rules,
Procedures and the Rights of Parliament; and
That the committee report to the Senate no later than November 21.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators to adopt the motion, as amended?
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
On Motion No. 59:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be
empowered, in accordance with rule 95(3), to sit at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday,
November 19, 2002, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period
exceeding one week.
Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, in light of the adoption of the
Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament second
report, I seek leave to have this motion dropped from the Order Paper.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Hon. Tommy Banks, pursuant to notice of November 6, 2002, moved:
That the Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural
Resources be authorized to examine and report on emerging issues related to
(a) The current state and future direction of production,
distribution, consumption, trade, security and sustainability of
Canada's energy resources;
(b) Environmental challenges facing Canada including responses
to global climate change, air pollution, biodiversity and ecological
(c) Sustainable development and management of renewable and
non-renewable natural resources including water, minerals, soils, flora
(d) Canada's international treaty obligations affecting
energy, the environment and natural resources and their influence on
Canada's economic and social development; and,
That the Committee report to the Senate from time to time, no later than
February 28, 2005, and that the Committee retain until March 31, 2005, all
powers necessary to publicize its findings.
Motion agreed to.
On Motion No. 61:
That, pursuant to rule 95(3), the Standing Senate Committee on Official
Languages have permission to meet at 4 p.m. on Monday, November 18, 2002,
for the purpose of discussing its future business, even though the Senate
may then be adjourned for a period exceeding one week.
Hon. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Honourable senators, with leave of the
Senate, I ask that this motion be withdrawn.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is leave granted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
On Motion No. 62:
That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be empowered, in
accordance with rule 95(3), to sit at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, November 19,
2002, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, on the assumption that the
Senate will be sitting during the week of November 18, I ask leave to withdraw
The Hon. the Speaker: I am not sure we can accede to conditional
requests for leave.
Senator Murray: I ask for leave to withdraw the motion, in full
confidence that the Deputy Leader of the Government will move the adjournment
and that the rest of the Senate will agree to his motion.
The Hon. the Speaker: I do not think that is a condition.
Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Leave having been given to revert to Notices of Motions:
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Deputy Leader of the Government): 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,
November 19, 2002 at 2 p.m.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.
The Senate adjourned until Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 2 p.m.