Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
1st Session, 38th Parliament,
Volume 142, Issue 20
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
The Honourable Daniel Hays, Speaker
- SENATORS' STATEMENTS
- ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
- QUESTION PERIOD
THE SENATE
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
The Senate met at 2 p.m., the Speaker in the chair.
Prayers.
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Canada-United States Relations
Visit by President
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise to welcome, on behalf of the Conservative opposition senators, the President of the United States to Canada, to Ottawa and to Parliament Hill.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Kinsella: The President's presence in our nation's capital today is an event that has been widely anticipated, and I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of Canadians are pleased that the President is here with us, notwithstanding the contrary views regarding particular issues of the day.
Our nations, honourable senators, have a common heritage, common origins, common values, a common outlook and a common border. We are inextricably bound together with our neighbours by these commonalities. By and large, the relationship between Canada and the United States has been one of respect and friendship. In fact, it has been a familial relationship.
Indeed, when the President visits Halifax, he will meet some of our family members who live on both sides of the border along the Atlantic coast. He will hear Maritimers speak affectionately of their cousins who live in the bordering states.
This is not to say that we do not have differences, because we do. Our nations have developed in different ways and, like siblings, at times we have had serious disagreements. For example, in the early days there was that little matter of a minor war comprising of a few border raids — although there are none here with a clear recollection of those times. Fortunately, such vigorous disagreements seem to have been put well behind us as the relationship has grown and matured.
Honourable senators, throughout the common history of Canada and the United States, military and defence issues and our mutual security interests have been a key element of our relationship. Such matters continue to be at the forefront of discussions, and our common desire to ensure the safety of all within our borders means that these subjects will always be on the front burner.
Trade disputes over the years, some of which I regret to say are ongoing, have been headline news, but for the most part, the trade between our nations has been vast and mutually beneficial. Canada remains the largest trading partner with our good neighbour to the south. Honourable senators, in the grand scheme of things, these are the irritants that arise in any close relationships. While the relationship has waxed and waned under different prime ministers, Canadians have worked hard, and will continue to do so, to resolve differences and ensure that minor problems do not become major problems.
In the spirit of our continuing friendship and on the occasion of his first official visit to our country, I wish to say to the President of the United States that he will always be welcome in Canada.
The Spread of Democracy
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, today President Bush visits Canada. We welcome President Bush, his wife and his senior advisers to our nation's capital. As Co-chair of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group, now the largest interparliamentary group in Parliament, it is my hope that Canada will actively engage President Bush and the Bush doctrine, which I call "Manifest Democracy."
Senators will recall that, in 1947 in Toronto, the then Minister of External Affairs, Louis St. Laurent, defined the principles and practices of Canada's foreign policy based on these words: "freedom, liberty and democracy." Mr. St. Laurent and his then Deputy Minister, Mr. Pearson, were not confused by political debate or shifting political opinion within or outside Canada when it came to Canada's strategic interests.
In 1947, the UN was gridlocked. It was Mr. St. Laurent who convinced a reluctant Mr. King that Canada should take the lead in constructing and joining a transatlantic coalition of democracies to enhance our collective security called NATO. Mr. St. Laurent had learned well from the lessons of history — the sad experience of the League of Nations and the causes of World War II. Mr. St. Laurent believed in the democratic dialectic. Neither Mr. St. Laurent nor Mr. Pearson were confused. They understood that democracies did not make war with democracies.
Before the shock of 9/11, it seemed the 21st century voices for a democratic dialectic were muted. The origins of the Helsinki Process were forgotten. It was the Helsinki Process, in 1974, that laid the groundwork for democratic change in Europe. The Berlin Wall collapsed following the popular democratic movement of Solidarity in Poland and the "Velvet" revolution in the Czech Republic. The drive toward human rights and expanding democracies slowed at the turn of the century. Yet, the appetite for democracy once tasted cannot be easily satisfied. With the "Rose" revolution in Georgia, and now the "Orange" revolution in the Ukraine, democracy is on the march again.
The Bush doctrine of manifest democracy provoked by September 11, 2001, continues to gain support by raising the banner of freedom, liberty and free markets. Public sentiment for democracy is rising not only in the East, in Georgia and now Ukraine, but across Eurasia, in Afghanistan and seeping into the dialectics of the Middle East as well as, painfully, in Iraq.
(1410)
My hope is that Canada will regain its principal place as an active protagonist and creative partner for democracy, liberty and freedom and as a forceful agent in the spread of free trade and free markets around the globe.
Canada owns a capacious toolbox of democratic instruments and best practices that can quickly and cost-efficiently be deployed to help build the infrastructure of democracy — independent parliamentary commissions; parliamentary practices, including checks and balances; separation of powers; policing; independent judging and free trade agreements.
We hope that Prime Minister Martin and Canada will actively re-engage with President Bush and America, as we did after World War II, in a collective effort to spread democracy, free trade and free markets around the world.
Canada-United States Relations
Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Honourable senators, I, too, should like to welcome the President of the United States to Canada today. There is no doubt that good personal relations with the President of the United States are crucial. Indeed, Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan stressed this point on Canada AM today. This has not always been so, and the best expert on this is former Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Allan Gotlieb, who wrote an excellent lecture series called Romanticism and Realism in Canada's Foreign Policy, released November 3, 2004. I recommend the 47-page lecture to honourable senators for reading and would like to put some of his comments on the record.
In his lecture, Mr. Gotlieb deals with the state of Canada-U.S. relations when former Prime Minister Mulroney took office. He describes the brass-knuckle realism and the feel-good idealism under former Prime Minister Trudeau. The contradictions in the style, substance and expression of his foreign policy could not be resolved, and under Mr. Trudeau the symptoms of bipolarism grew ever more prominent.
When Mr. Mulroney took office, his principal priority in foreign affairs was refurbishing relations with the United States, which he made part of his campaign platform.
Trudeau's nationalist policies, in particular the National Energy Program, NEP, and the Foreign Investment Review Agency, FIRA, were viewed as helpful to neither the Canadian economy nor Canada-U.S. relations. The Liberal leader's tendency to find moral equivalence between the two superpowers, particularly at a time when Ronald Reagan was declaring the Soviet Union an evil empire, was deeply resented in the White House.
As Mr. Gotlieb stated, the goals of Mulroney's foreign policy were thus grounded in a clear view of the national interest from which he never wavered in his two terms as Prime Minister. The bedrock reality principle was that the United States was a friend and ally and not a power against which one sought counterweights. It was a foreign policy that he would direct himself. Within weeks of taking office, Mr. Mulroney went to Washington to meet former President Reagan against the unanimous counsel of his advisers in Ottawa. This set the stage for the reality-based style and substance of his leadership. He immersed himself not only in designing the grand strategy but also in most specific tactical considerations, especially as related to Congress.
Mulroney's shift from multilateralism to bilateralism in relation to the United States was a historic departure from past practices. From the outset of its post-war role, Canada had been a vigorous advocate of lowering tariffs and other barriers to trade through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT. The conclusion that a continental arrangement with the United States was the best way to obtain increased access to American markets, marked a major breach in Canada's traditional preference for multilateral solutions. In 1965, Canada entered into the bilateral Auto Pact with the United States. However, it was limited to a single sector of the economy and was a clear exception to our multilateral orientation.
Assisted by the support of the MacDonald commission for a Canada-U.S. free trade agreement and by the positive effects of the Auto Pact, the Mulroney government pursued continental free trade to a successful conclusion. Conducting high-level personal diplomacy, Mr. Mulroney achieved his other two objectives as well: an acid rain accord with George Bush Sr. and an agreement with Ronald Reagan on the passage of U.S. vessels through our Arctic waters, providing increased recognition of Canada's claim to sovereignty.
An idealistic and, most would say, commendable streak was visible in Mr. Mulroney's vigorous but unsuccessful attempt to persuade Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to support sanctions against South Africa.
Honourable senators, Mr. Allan Gotlieb, who was appointed by the previous government, then laid out the situation that Mr. Chrétien created in Canada-United States relations, and in my view, it underlines the horrific job that Mr. Martin is faced with as he attempts to restore those good relations.
Quorum
Twenty-fifth Anniversary
Hon. Terry M. Mercer: Honourable senators, I should like to take this opportunity to read to you some interesting headlines that I read in Quorum: "Pledge on Reforms to Highlight House Opening Today"; "Cabinet Plans Major Spending Cuts"; "Liberals Probe Their Heritage"; "Grits to Make Tories Pay for Patronage Talk"; and "Angry Tory Candidates Become MPs With a Mission." The date of that Quorum was October 9, 1979.
Quorum recently celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary. On November 4, I attended a reception where I learned many interesting facts, but I also had the pleasure of meeting the four editors of Quorum. I congratulate Ms. Linda MacLean and Ms. Trina Powell who have been with Quorum for its entire 25-year history. Ms. Jeanette Marrett and Ms. Louise Therrien have been with Quorum for three years, but I fully expect that they will reach the 25-year mark.
The amount of time served by these editors each day is astonishing. When Parliament is in session, each day from Monday to Friday, these four arrive at work at 5 a.m. to read 40 newspapers in paper and electronic format. They select the news that might be of interest to parliamentarians and they edit it. The weekday edition contains 44 pages and the Monday edition contains 50 pages.
We often forget that there are hundreds of employees in Parliament who serve important functions and serve them well. At the same time, we do not often realize the vital importance of institutions such as Quorum. We all recognize the outstanding service they provide when we read Quorum each day.
Honourable senators, I am sure you join me in congratulating Quorum on its twenty-fifth anniversary and the editors who serve it.
Expenditures on Public Buildings, Residences and Institutions
Hon. Sharon Carstairs: Honourable senators, we all recognize that we currently have a minority government. In my view, that does not necessarily result in poor or bad government. However, several things have occurred recently that lead me to believe that Canadians may be suffering from poor government.
Canadians seem reluctant to honour their history. We interpret certain projects and budgets as partisan in nature. I believe we should rethink that attitude.
For years, we have been discussing the deteriorating conditions of the West Block and the Centre Block. As someone who sat for a number of years on the Parliament Buildings Advisory Committee under the excellent leadership of the Honourable John Fraser, P.C., I know what work needs to be done and that further delay will exacerbate the problems. We are not renovating the West Block as we should, and this process is essential if we are to renovate the Centre Block. The prime minister's residence needs significant upgrades but we hear from some politicians that the present Prime Minister should wear a sweater if he feels cold. The residence belongs to the Government of Canada. The resident is the duly elected prime minister, no matter what political stripe he or she advocates. It is wrong to entertain guests from Canada or from other countries in a facility where plastic wrap is required on the sun porch walls during the winter months.
(1420)
However, it was a decision last week to cut the budget of the Governor General that has raised my ire. I do not know the Governor General well, and I have never travelled with the vice-regal couple. I also admit to having had some reservations about her appointment five years ago. However, as a Canadian, I have never been prouder of a vice-regal couple than I have been of Their Excellencies. Their travel from coast to coast to coast, their decisions to spend their holidays with our troops abroad, their speeches, which always make me proud to be a Canadian, and their foreign travel, in which Canada shows itself in the best possible light, have given me a sense of pride in this country, which I think we all need.
Like every other country in the world, we need symbols. We need to applaud these symbols, not denigrate them. The Public Accounts Committee in the other place has not done itself proud with this petty work. The statements by members of the committee after their disgraceful behaviour reminded me of schoolyard bullies. I did not like bullies when I taught school and I do not like them now. We need to mature as Canadians, to take pride in our institutions, and some parliamentarians simply need to grow up.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Organization of American States
Meeting of Thirty-fourth Regular Session of General Assembly, June 6-8, 2004—Report Tabled
Hon. Dan Hays: Honourable senators, I ask for leave to table the report of the Thirty-fourth Regular Session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, held from June 6 to June 8, 2004, in Quito, Ecuador.
Hon. Percy Downe (The Hon. the Acting Speaker): Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Election in Ukraine
First Round—Report of Observer Tabled
Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 28(4,), and with leave of the Senate, I am pleased to table a report on the first round of the presidential election in Ukraine. I authored this report based on my trip to Ukraine from October 26, 2004 to November 4, 2004, as an election observer for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the OSCE.
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
Committee of Selection
Third Report of Committee Presented
Hon. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool, Chair of the Committee of Selection, presented the following report:
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
The Committee of Selection has the honour to present its
THIRD REPORT
Your Committee recommends a change of membership to the following committee:
Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages
The Honourable Senator Murray is named as a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
Respectfully submitted,
ROSE-MARIE LOSIER-COOL
Chair
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?
On motion of Senator Losier-Cool, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.
[English]
Business of the Senate
Adjournment
Hon. Bill Rompkey (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(h), I move:
That no later than 3 p.m. today, if the business of the Senate has not been completed, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings to adjourn the Senate.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.
[Translation]
Department of Canadian Heritage Act
Parks Canada Agency Act
Bill to Amend—First Reading
The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-7, to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.
Bill read first time.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?
On motion of Senator Gill, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.
[English]
Federal Nominations Bill
First Reading
Hon. Terry Stratton (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) presented Bill S-20, to provide for increased transparency and objectivity in the selection of suitable individuals to be named to certain high public positions.
Bill read first time.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?
On motion of Senator Stratton, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.
[Translation]
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Refer Documents from Study on Bill S-6 in Previous Session to Study on Bill S-11
Hon. Lise Bacon: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I shall move:
That the papers and evidence received and taken by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs during its study of Bill S-6, to amend the Criminal Code (lottery schemes), in the Third Session of the Thirty-seventh Parliament be referred to the committee for its study of Bill S-11, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (lottery schemes).
[English]
Foreign Affairs
Committee Authorized to Meet During Sittings of the Senate
Hon. Peter A. Stollery: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I shall move:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs have power to sit at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, December 7, 2004, even though the Senate may be then sitting, and that rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.
I have a second notice to give, honourable senators, which has just come up. I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I shall move:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs have power to sit at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, December 1, even though the Senate may be then sitting, and that rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.
[Later]
Honourable senators, I should like, with leave, to move the first motion now.
The Hon. the Speaker: Under Notices of Motions, is leave granted for Senator Stollery to put his motion now?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Hon. Terry Stratton (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, this is getting a little confusing.
The Hon. the Speaker: We are on the issue of whether leave is granted.
Senator Stratton: I would ask for clarification. The honourable senator gave two notices of motion for tomorrow and now wishes to move them today. Can he give us a reason?
Senator Stollery: Honourable senators, if there is confusion, it is because the situation is confusing. I only received information an hour or so ago.
Originally, I introduced a notice of motion requesting permission to sit Tuesday next during the Senate sitting because the Minister for CIDA will be appearing. Then I introduced another notice of motion for the Foreign Affairs Committee to hear important witnesses tomorrow. I had intended to move both motions tomorrow, but in light of the circumstances, I wish to move them now.
Senator Stratton: Thank you.
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, in the past I have objected to this procedure because we cannot be in two places at the same time. However, I was informed a moment ago that today is an exceptional occasion. I say, with strong reservation, that I will not object.
Honourable senators will remember past interventions on my part, so I will avoid repeating myself. My argument has been the same over the years. Our first duty is to the chamber. There are items on the Order Paper in which I am interested, but because they are low on the list, I have no objection. If they were high on the list, I would have to object to the honourable senator's motions. I will consider his requests an exception in the event we are asked to grant the same privilege in the future.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I take it that leave is granted for both motions.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Hon. the Speaker: Having dealt with the questions that were conditions of leave, we can now deal with the motions in the order in which Senator Stollery gave notice.
It was moved by the Honourable Senator Stollery, seconded by the Honourable Senator Poy:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs have power to sit at 5 p.m. on Tuesday December 7, 2004, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.
The Hon. the Speaker: Further, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Stollery, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pépin:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs have power to sit at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, December 1, 2004, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.
Human Rights
Committee Authorized to Meet During Sitting of the Senate
Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate, I move:
That the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights be authorized to sit at 4 p.m., Tuesday, December 7, 2004, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.
(1430)
Business of the Senate
Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, the Human Rights Committee sits on Mondays. In light of the fact that the minister has been accommodating and we want to complete part of our study before Christmas, we will hold our next meeting on Tuesday. I wish to inform all committee members who have to travel long distances that they need not be here Monday unless the Senate is sitting.
Honourable senators, I was attempting to find Senator Prud'homme, but he was not in the chamber. Now that he is in his seat, I should like to wish him happy birthday, as I am sure we all would.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
QUESTION PERIOD
Heritage
Children of Mowachaht and Muchalaht First Nations—Request to Fund Visit to Ottawa for Opening of Yuquot Exhibit
Hon. Pat Carney: Honourable senators, my question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I can advise him that we have a temporary reprieve in our quest for the funds to bring five Aboriginal youths from the Mowachaht and Muchalaht First Nations of Gold River to participate in the opening ceremonies in the Encounters at Yuquot exhibit at the Canadian Museum of Civilization following the refusal by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Liza Frulla, to fund the youth group. The band advised me today that the opening has been delayed because the exhibit will not be installed in time for the opening date next week of December 11 and it is now scheduled for January 21. Unfortunately the Senate will not be sitting then.
Our request for modest funding of under $10,000 to bring this Aboriginal youth group to Ottawa has included the helpful offices of Senator Austin, who is the senior political minister for B.C.; the Honourable David Emerson, the junior political minister for B.C.; and the Honourable Liza Frulla, the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Today I accosted the President of the Treasury Board, the Honourable Reg Alcock, on Wellington Street. His office later phoned me with a suggestion. I have written Senator George Furey, Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, about the use of travel points. I am also in constant contact with John Duncan, Member of Parliament for Vancouver Island North.
Everyone has been very helpful, but to date there has been no funding, which is around $8,000. Does the government leader have any further information on this file to offer? We do have a little extra time, but we have to bring those children to Ottawa.
Hon. Jack Austin (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I commend Senator Carney for her diligence in this matter. I did make inquiries and was told that in fact the Yuquot community had never applied for funding and that the first "application" is in the form of a letter from Senator Carney; they applied through her. Unfortunately, I do not have the precise date of that application, but I understand it was dated sometime in October.
The short answer is that I have been pressing Minister Frulla's office to review the matter, and she has told me personally that she will do so.
Senator Carney: Honourable senators, that is very encouraging. Senator Austin and I have been engaged in a verbal historic exchange on the importance of the Yuquot exhibit. Senator Austin and I cannot agree. We know it is historic but we cannot agree on the history. He is rooting for the Spanish and I am rooting for the British. He maintains that the Spanish explorer Juan Pérez was the first to discover Nootka Sound. I can volley back that he never set foot in Nootka Sound. He anchored off Estevan Point, which is that fist of land south of Nootka and is very shallow. Captain Cook actually went into Nootka Sound. The name Nootka — and I have mentioned this before — means "come around." I will file a senator's statement on this clarification for the record, but I want to spare honourable senators this fascinating exchange on the Spanish and British exploration of the Pacific Northwest, although I would love to continue it and may do so.
Will the honourable leader undertake to take the lead on the Yuquot file for the next few weeks to ensure that the funding is put in place?
Senator Austin: Honourable senators, on the immediate question of Senator Carney, I cannot undertake that the funding will be put in place, but I will keep a watching brief over the consideration being given by the Department of Canadian Heritage.
On the question of history, what I did say in the Senate was that although the Spanish were unable to land because of weather, that did not intimidate the tribes that rowed out to meet them. Trading was done. In fact, Captain Cook discovered two Spanish silver spoons when he came four years later. If the honourable senator does not mind, we can consider this historical discussion a draw.
(1440)
Senator Carney: Honourable senators, I do have a personal stake because one of the Spanish explorers, who was referenced by Senator Austin, Captain Narvaez, while on his way up Vancouver Island to Queen Charlotte Islands, discovered my island home of Saturna. The island is named after his tiny schooner, the Santa Saturnina.
However, I am willing to consider this historical discussion a draw, subject to my statement in the Senate. I thank the leader for his assistance on this file.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I rise to draw attention to our rules, specifically that Question Period is an opportunity to put a question with a short preamble and to answer a question with a short preamble. The subject to which we have been listening is ideally suited to be a Notice of Inquiry.
Citizenship and Immigration
Allegations of Political Interference by Minister—Investigation by Ethics Commissioner—Response by Leader of the Government
Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Last week, while I was asking a question with regard to Ernst Zundel, I received the following response from the Leader of the Government in this place:
With respect to the honourable senator's remark regarding the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, political commentary is expected, I suppose. My honourable friend may be aware that the minister has referred the matter to the Ethics Commissioner, who is responsible for the behaviour of public office-holders, including ministers, under the Prime Minister's code of conduct. The minister has said that she wants the report of the Ethics Commissioner to be made public.
I would urge that remarks relating to the event, which is now before the Ethics Commissioner, be reserved until the facts are known. I am sure Senator Tkachuk would not want his remarks to run ahead of the facts.
I followed the proceedings of the other place on the same day during its Question Period and, in fact, the government was answering questions, as it is their duty, with regard to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
For example, when Stephen Harper, the Leader of the Official Opposition, queried Minister Sgro's judgment on filling jobs in the exotic dance business, he received a response from Minister Sgro. When he followed up, he received further answers from another minister, Anne McLellan, currently the Deputy Prime Minister.
With the chorus of voices answering questions in the other place, my question here is: On what authority can the Leader of the Government tell this chamber, and an honourable member of it, that he does not think it appropriate to answer questions or discuss a matter before the Ethics Commissioner? I should note that the Senate Hansard does not reflect the exchange exactly as it took place last Thursday, but it is as exact as I recall it. However, others will recall the leader's verbal response.
Hon. Jack Austin (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am sorry, but may I ask Senator Tkachuk in what way Hansard does not reflect what took place in the chamber?
Senator Tkachuk: Honourable senators, the leader told me that he did not think it appropriate to answer questions or discuss the matter. I want to know under what authority he said that.
Senator Austin: The honourable senator is not saying the record was in some way tampered with.
Senator Tkachuk: I did not say that.
Senator Austin: You are not saying it.
I do not believe that there is any call for me to justify the way in which I answer questions on behalf of the government in this chamber. Those in the other place may choose to answer questions in a different way and, obviously, the minister herself can answer on her own behalf. However, I am answering here for the ministry, and I have to ensure that my answers are accurate and reflect my own judgment of what is appropriate in the circumstances.
Senator Tkachuk: Honourable senators, be that as it may, the leader can answer questions any way he wants to in this chamber, but what he said was that he would not answer questions because the matter was in front of the Ethics Commissioner. That is what I am trying to get at.
Senator Austin: Honourable senators, Senator Kinsella in that same exchange raised the question of principle, and I dealt with that question in answering Senator Kinsella. There is nothing in the answers that I have given that indicate other than what in my view is a correct way for this matter to proceed.
Senator Tkachuk: Honourable senators, in that case, I will ask a supplementary question.
Allegations of Political Interference by Minister—Investigation by Ethics Commissioner—Comments by Prime Minister
Hon. David Tkachuk: Yesterday, in the other House, the Prime Minister was taking questions on this matter of political interference by a minister, and I found his remarks a little confusing. First, in response to a question, the Prime Minister said, and this is a translation since he spoke in French:
Mr. Speaker, as was said last week, there is a program, and there are soundings taken of industry to see if there is a need for workers. In the meantime, the program to which the Leader of the Opposition is referring is under examination; this is an exemption the department does not intend to continue.
I have never heard the expression "soundings," and I am wondering if the Prime Minister meant to say "feelers are taken of the industry, in this case, exotic dancers." Then, continuing to use the word "soundings," the Prime Minister in responding to further questioning, said:
Mr. Speaker, first of all, the department does soundings. There is no official program. It does soundings of areas where people are needed. It is no longer doing those soundings. It is over. That was a decision that has been taken.
That was Hansard of November 29, 2004.
My questions for the Leader of the Government are: What did the Prime Minister mean by "soundings"? Was it "feelers" he was talking about? Is there or is there not a program to fill the exotic dancer requirement in Canada through the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?
Hon. Jack Austin (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, my concern is whether it is appropriate under our rules for proceedings in the other place to be read into our proceedings.
Senator Tkachuk: I am just asking the Leader of the Government for clarification.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, a point of order would be out of order at this time. However, the chair can be asked to clarify matters relating to our proceedings. Rule 46, which I believe is the operative rule the senator has in mind when asking his question, states:
The content of a speech made in the House of Commons in the current session may be summarized, but it is out of order to quote from such a speech unless it be a speech of a Minister of the Crown in relation to government policy. A Senator may always quote from a speech made in a previous session.
Relative to where we are, that is my response to our proceedings. I will allow the matter to proceed.
Senator Austin, I believe you were about to respond.
Senator Austin: Honourable senators, I would ask for further clarification. What is the definition of "speech"? Any statement made in the chamber is, by definition, I would allege, a speech.
The Hon. the Speaker: I believe we are now getting into a point of order. I will ask for the point of order to be brought forward at the appropriate time.
Senator Tkachuk: Honourable senators, I am not sure what happened here. First, the leader did not want to answer the question because the matter is before the Ethics Commissioner. Now when I ask a question he does not answer it. Then the Speaker stood and questioned my question by saying that he thought the leader was raising a point of order, which he has no right to do.
All I want to do is ask a question. That is what we do here in Question Period. I ask the question; the leader gives the answer. If he does not want to give the answer, he can say that. If that is how he wants to behave, he can go right ahead, but I am entitled to ask the question.
My question is, and I will repeat it: What did the Prime Minister mean by "soundings"? What was he talking about? Is there not a program, or was there a program, to fill the exotic dancer requirement in Canada through the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?
Senator Austin: Honourable senators, I will not interpret the Prime Minister's words or get into definitional questions. I will answer the last question asked by Senator Tkachuk by saying that Canada has a program to allow persons to come into Canada to be employed in categories in which there is a shortage of those particular skills. So far as I am aware, the exotic dancers who were admitted into Canada were admitted because there was a shortage of such skilled people in Canada.
Canada-United States Relations
Visit by President—Agenda of Discussions—Decriminalization of Marijuana—Effect on Cross-border Trade
Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, my question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
In view of the fact that there is great concern in the business and transportation communities with regard to the decriminalization of the possession of smaller amounts of marijuana, was that an issue that the government put on the agenda for discussion with President Bush today?
(1450)
Hon. Jack Austin (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am not aware of whether the question of the decriminalization of marijuana in Canada was on the agenda for discussion.
Senator St. Germain: Honourable senators, does the minister not think that, in view of the fact that trade is such an important issue and that cross-border issues are so integral to the well-being of the economy of our country, that it is something that should be raised and discussed at this particular point in time?
I understand that the Prime Minister has clearly stated that this is an issue that Canada does not feel it must discuss. However, it is like me living next door to my neighbour; I do not have to discuss matters with him but, if I aggravate him, it is not a good situation. Does the leader not think that the President should be advised of the intentions of the government to introduce this type of legislation?
Senator Austin: Honourable senators, I am quite satisfied that the Embassy of the United States carefully tracks our parliamentary process and is aware of the proposed legislation introduced in the other place.
With respect to the agenda, though, I do not know if the specific item is on the bilateral agenda. I do know that I have strenuously advised that time be taken to raise the softwood lumber and BSE issues that are aggravating large numbers of Canadian producers in this country.
Senator St. Germain: Honourable senators, I think the minister is playing with words. He knows that I have stood here and questioned him on the subjects of BSE and softwood lumber. Those subjects are not the issue. The issue is that, if we take this arbitrary position on the decriminalization of marijuana, these other issues will be greatly jeopardized. The minister knows that if border controls are further tightened, cross-border issues will be exacerbated.
It is incorrect to say that I am not concerned about BSE and softwood lumber. That is why I ask the question of the minister: If these subjects have not been broached, could they be raised?
Senator Austin: Honourable senators, I do not believe that I said anything in my answer that reflected on Senator St. Germain not being concerned about either the softwood lumber or the BSE issue. I simply said that those issues have priority because they concern the immediate economic position of so many Canadians.
I am fully willing to admit that the honourable senator has been totally occupied with the problems of our softwood lumber producers and has made skillful representations with respect to them.
The agenda of President Bush and Prime Minister Martin will be discussed in communiqués following their meetings. No doubt tomorrow we will have an opportunity to examine that agenda carefully.
Social Development
Elimination of Child Poverty
Hon. Wilbert J. Keon: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate on the subject of child poverty.
Fifteen years ago, on November 24, 1989, the other place unanimously passed a motion to eliminate child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. Despite a strong economy and year after year of federal budget surpluses, our country is still a long way from eradicating child poverty.
A report from Campaign 2000 states that, in 2002, the child poverty rate went up for the first time since 1996. One in six Canadian children — over 1 million altogether — now lives below the poverty line. Almost half of these children live in a family where at least one parent has a full-time job. Why, with seven budget surpluses in a row, has the government allowed Canada's child poverty rate to increase?
Hon. Jack Austin (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I take this question as a representation. I will certainly provide a response that details the economic and social programs that deal with child poverty. I will ensure that the answer deals fully with the statistics that relate to the issue. As the honourable senator knows, this is not the kind of question that I could answer in a moment or two here.
Senator Keon: Honourable senators, the United Nations has pointed out Canada's failings toward its children. In 2000, the UN ranked Canada's child poverty rate as 17 out of the 23 wealthiest OECD countries. The UN report deemed that ranking a sharp fall from grace as far as Canada was concerned.
On his recent tour, the Prime Minister dealt with poverty in underdeveloped countries. My question is: Will the government be taking steps to provide leadership to the world in dealing with child poverty?
Senator Austin: Honourable senators, I wish to assure honourable senators that we have put in place a number of programs that focus on dealing with child poverty in the underdeveloped or developing world. Again, I will add to my response an answer that outlines those programs, the efforts we are making, and the nature of the funds that we are placing in those programs.
Whatever effort is made, it is not enough to fully accomplish the cessation of child poverty. This is an endemic situation that is complicated by all sorts of issues: cultural, social, economic and political. It is a most complex issue. Nonetheless, in our international program, it is a dedicated sector of our work.
In domestic terms, the Senate is well aware that the government intends to move forward with an aggressive program in child care in Canada and to focus particularly on areas that make child care available and affordable to lower income communities in this country.
Foreign Affairs
China and Tibet—Representations to Commute Death Sentence of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche
Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, on December 2, 2002, a court in the Kardze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture of Sichuan Province in China sentenced to death Tenzin Delek Rinpoche and Lobsang Dhondup for alleged political offences.
Mr. Dhondup was executed on January 26, 2003.
The death sentence for Tenzin Delek Rinpoche was suspended for two years, which suspension expires this Thursday, December 2. I understand that representations have been made to our government to plead with China to commute the death sentence and to call for a new trial.
Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate have any knowledge to share about where this file may be?
Hon. Jack Austin (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I was not previously informed of this issue by Senator Di Nino, but I will make an inquiry. I understand the urgency, and I will try to provide some answer by tomorrow.
Senator Di Nino: Honourable senators, I thank the leader for that. I hope that I can speak on behalf of all honourable senators in urging the leader to urge his colleagues to intercede to stop these senseless and barbaric executions.
Senator Austin: Honourable senators, may I ask that Delayed Answers be called so that Senator Rompkey can provide information that was previously requested?
The Hon. the Speaker: It is three o'clock, honourable senators. Is it your wish that we not see the clock for the purpose of dealing with Delayed Answers?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Delayed Answers to Oral Questions
Hon. Bill Rompkey (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have the honour of presenting responses to four delayed answers to oral question posed in the Senate.
The first response is to an oral question raised by Senator St. Germain on November 16, 2004, in regard to Innu suicide in Newfoundland and Labrador. The second and third are in response to oral questions raised in the Senate on November 16, 2004, by Senator Keon in regard to Innu suicide in Newfoundland and Labrador. The fourth is in response to an oral question raised in the Senate by Senator Spivak on November 16, 2004, in regard to advertising to reduce tobacco use.
Health
Newfoundland and Labrador—Innu Suicide Rate—Prevention Workshops
(Response to question raised by Hon. Gerry St. Germain on November 16, 2004)
Innu and Inuit suicides are an urgent and complex matter. The Government of Canada supports community healing and is working with the Innu communities to provide programs that reduce risk factors and increase protective factors.
One-on-one counselling services are available in both Innu communities through the family support workers, addictions counsellors and the health centres.
In addition, the Labrador Health Secretariat in Goose Bay has a psychologist and mental health and addictions staff who work closely with the health centres in both Innu communities to address suicide prevention, solvent abuse, and other social issues.
The social problems that we're working with the Innu to address have developed over several decades. There have been encouraging results and many individual successes but healing will take time.
(Response to questions raised by Hon. Wilbert J. Keon on November 16, 2004)
As the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information study suggests, suicide is caused by multiple factors and no simple solution exists.
The Government of Canada is working with the Innu communities to provide programs that reduce risk factors and increase protective factors.
Health Canada has been working with the Innu community of Natuashish to respond to recent suicides.
Health Canada's efforts are focused on: training workers; conducting suicide prevention sessions; facilitating linkages to other communities with similar experiences; helping the community develop suicide response plans and community response teams; and preparing for a suicide prevention conference in January 2005.
The statistics in the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information study are attempted suicides. The Government of Canada is working with the province and the Innu communities on activities to help prevent these attempted suicides from becoming completed suicides.
Minister Dosanjh met with former chief of Natuashish, Simeon Tshakapesh, in St. John's on September 21, 2004 regarding his concerns. Subsequently, a member of the Minister's staff contacted Mr. Tshakapesh to follow-up.
In response to recent suicides, Health Canada has been working closely with the community of Natuashish to implement an immediate action plan that focusses on training workers; conducting suicide prevention sessions; facilitating linkages to other communities with similar experiences; helping the community develop suicide response plans and community response teams; and preparing for a suicide prevention conference in January 2005.
Specifics on suicide prevention activities:
- There were no cancellations of suicide prevention workshops.
- ASSIST training for suicide prevention was given in Goose Bay in early June. Ten people from Natuashish participated including the health director and mental health counsellors.
- 60 students in Natuashish recently attended a workshop with Health Canada staff on suicide prevention.
- Representatives from both Innu communities will be attending a training session on First Nations and Inuit suicide prevention in Montreal this month.
- Health Canada is currently working with community leaders from both Sheshatshiu and Natuashish on a suicide awareness conference being planned for January. The conference will focus on the celebration of life as well as provide community members with information on suicide prevention and the services available in the community.
Advertising to Reduce Tobacco Use
(Response to question raised by Hon. Mira Spivak on November 16, 2004)
We are confident that as new measures aimed at strengthening the management of the government's advertising activities are introduced, tobacco control advertising funding will be re-established.
As you know, the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy is showing results. A momentum has been established and this momentum must be sustained in order for goals to be met. We know that social marketing initiatives tend to generate change after two to five years of sustained messaging, so sustained funding is critical.
Given the pressures of emerging Government of Canada priorities, Health Canada has had to internally reallocate some of its funding. It would be preferable to maintain or even increase funding to all our initiatives, however reality means we need to make some difficult choices. We have a responsibility to look at the bigger picture to ensure that all priorities are adequately met.
The Senate adjourned until Wednesday, December 1, 2004 at 1:30 p.m.