Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

2nd Session, 35th Parliament,
Volume 135, Issue 37

Thursday, September 26, 1996
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker

---

• SENATORS' STATEMENTS
  • Telecommunications
    • Prohibition of Negative Option Billing in Cable TV Industry
• ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
  • Canada Elections Act
    • Bill to Amend-Report of Committee
• QUESTION PERIOD
  • Literacy
    • OECD International Survey-Standards Among Francophones Outside of Quebec-Government Position
    • Participation of Private Sector in Programs
  • Justice
    • Investigation Into Sale of Airbus Aircraft to Air Canada-Grounds for Preferring Indictments-Government Position
  • Employment Insurance
    • Changes to System by Way of Regulation-Effect on New Brunswick Fishermen-Government Position
    • Changes to System by way of Regulation-Request for Parliamentary Debate
    • Cost of Campaign by Minister of Human Resources to Promote Changes to Legislation-Request for Particulars
    • Date of Regulations Coming Into Force-Government Position
  • Infrastructure Program
    • Possible Continuation of Program to await Evaluation Report of Auditor General-Government Position
  • Transport
    • Pearson Airport Agreements-Recent Position of Prime Minister on Contracts-Government Position
• ORDERS OF THE DAY
  • Judges Act
    • Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Debate Continued
  • Appropriation Bill No. 2, 1996-97
    • Second Reading
  • Newfoundland
    • Changes to Term 17 of Constitution-Consideration of Report-Debate adjourned
  • Excise Tax Act
    • Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Debate Adjourned
  • Palliative Care in Canada
    • Inquiry Debated
  • Adjournment

THE SENATE )

Thursday, September 26, 1996

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

Prayers.

[Translation]

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Telecommunications

Prohibition of Negative Option Billing in Cable TV Industry

Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier: Honourable senators, we will be asked to consider a bill introduced by the honourable member for Sarnia-Lambton and passed by the House of Commons, the purpose of which is to ban negative option billing by cable distributors.

This practice caused a public outcry early in 1995, when cable distributors added new specialized channels and billed the cost to subscribers without prior authorization.

The intentions of the honourable member for Sarnia-Lambton, which are to prevent any recurrence of this practice, are entirely praiseworthy. However, I would like to warn my honourable colleagues that the impact of such a measure on francophone communities outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec would be as disastrous as the practice the bill is attempting to abolish.

The bill would affect the distribution of, access to and even the economic viability of Canadian specialized services. For instance, the future distribution outside Quebec of French-language services such as RDI and TV5 will be affected. Consider the struggle that was necessary to obtain these special services, which today are very well received.

The requirement that each subscriber must be canvassed individually will not encourage the distribution of new services. In its present form, this bill would put so many restrictions on distribution methods that access to and the economic viability of these new services may be compromised even before broadcasting begins.

My point is that we do not ban an undesirable practice by introducing another that is equally undesirable. I therefore urge you to consider your role as senators and protectors of minorities and to consider all the consequences before making your decision.

---

[English]

(1410)

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Canada Elections Act

Bill to Amend-Report of Committee

Hon. Sharon Carstairs, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented the following report:

Thursday, September 26, 1996

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its

FOURTEENTH REPORT

Your Committee, to which was referred Bill C-243, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (reimbursement of election expenses), has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, May 28, 1996, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

SHARON CARSTAIRS
Chair

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

On motion of Senator Taylor, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.

---

[Translation]

QUESTION PERIOD

Literacy

OECD International Survey-Standards Among Francophones Outside of Quebec-Government Position

Hon. Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It concerns literacy programs for francophones.

In the recently released results of the international survey on adult literacy, it is reported that 58 per cent of francophones in Canada have difficulty reading job application forms, pay stubs, bus timetables and road maps.

In light of this, what French-language literacy program is the minister responsible for literacy prepared to create for Canada, particularly for the regions in which there are francophones, and more particularly francophones outside Quebec?

[English]

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, it is true that the recent Canadian report that grew out of the international study of the OECD as reported on the Internet indicated that, in the province of Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, there were difficulties in reading the various parts of that test. I should like to remind my honourable friend that those difficulties are not exclusive to her province.

Young people have had access to and are achieving in the education systems in Quebec and in francophone communities throughout Canada. When the study is broken into groups, the disparity disappears. They are on the same level of achievement as other young people in Canada, English-speaking and French-speaking.

One of the difficulties lies with historical traditions in certain parts of the country where access to higher levels of education for certain generations was not a common practice. As a result, that part of the population lifts some of those numbers to what are unacceptably high levels.

In terms of my responsibility, there is a great deal of cooperation between the federal government and the Province of Quebec in building for francophones, on the ground where they work and where they live, the best possible training programs and projects. Resources are always limited, but by combining those resources, we have been achieving positive results in the province of Quebec and in provinces such as New Brunswick, Ontario and Alberta, where programs are being put together directly for francophone communities.

Honourable senators, this is certainly a priority in my mind. It would be a priority as well for my colleague Mr. Young, the Minister of Human Resources Development. Those numbers will begin to shift because of the strength of the achievement, particularly in the younger ages of Quebecers and francophones in other parts of Canada.

[Translation]

Senator Lavoie-Roux: Honourable senators, I thank the minister for her remarks. My concern right now is this: The leader accentuated the fact that she was getting a good level of cooperation from Quebec. As a result, she is able to set up programs in that province. My concern is with francophones outside Quebec. What level of cooperation are you getting from other provinces? They all have a French-speaking minority.

Are they open to these programs? We know that this is not always the case, even when it comes to regular education, from grade one to grade eleven. Do you get a good level of cooperation or - as is too often the case - do you close your eyes when things are not right with respect to regular education, even though, under the Constitution, provinces must provide schooling in French to their French-speaking population?

For instance, two days ago, the leader applauded, probably rightly so, the opening of a learning centre in Prince Edward Island. There are at least 6,000 francophones in that province; there might be more if so many of them had not been assimilated, but let us stick to the current population. Could you describe the mandate of this new literacy centre as it applies to francophones? How many French-speaking trainers are there and which beginner computer courses will be given in French? They have to be given not one but several tools.

[English]

(1420)

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, the answer is yes, there is cooperation within all of the provinces for these programs. I would be pleased to obtain information from the literacy secretariat that would indicate the kinds of projects and programs that are taking place in various parts of the country.

The literacy program in Prince Edward Island was located in a small community. As my honourable friend points out, the instructors and the trainers were working in cooperation not only with the education system - and, in every province that is the driving force - but also with this literacy program. The trainers and the computers for those adults who were having difficulty in learning basic fundamentals were located on the first floor of a little building. Upstairs, there was located machinery that was among the most sophisticated, technologically, for learning that I have seen anywhere in Canada. What was being offered at that location was computer outreach training that was linked into Le Collège Acadie in Nova Scotia. These adults and young people were able to sit with the most up-to-date technology and interact with instructors from that college in Nova Scotia, and the arrangement was that they would be eligible to receive diplomas from that college in Nova Scotia.

In the small island of Prince Edward Island, I found one of the most vibrant literacy projects of all of the ones that I had examined. It was a completely francophone operation and the spirit, the enthusiasm and the excellence were quite moving.

[Translation]

Senator Lavoie-Roux: Should I conclude, from what the minister is saying, that all teachers are francophones and that all computer-based material made available to them is in French?

[English]

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, certainly the instructors and the volunteers that I met were from the francophone community - and honourable senators must be aware that many of these projects are motivated by volunteer teachers and trainers. The equipment that they had was compatible with French instruction within that small institution, and could be linked up to larger centres.

I would be pleased to try to obtain more information for my honourable friend concerning the variety of programs that are being offered. Not enough are being made available but, on the whole issue of literacy, it is never enough. Nevertheless, we are trying to focus on this problem, among others.

[Translation]

Participation of Private Sector in Programs

Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier: Honourable senators, my supplementary question is this: Could the minister tell us whether the private sector is actively participating in these literacy programs?

I know that, in Ottawa, La magie des lettres is a program that has been around for several years. It has benefitted from a $50,000 contribution from the Club Richelieu in Ottawa to buy certain equipment, such as software, computers and so on.

Is the private sector really on board? It has the obligation to participate with us in developing the skills of people at work. These are not young people. They are middle-aged people who cannot read at a functional level.

[English]

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the example that the honourable senator mentions is a good one. One of the most sought-after and - fortunately in the last few years - active partnerships occurring in literacy projects all across the country is the involvement of the private sector, which is supporting literacy programs both in French and in English. We cannot tackle this problem in a meaningful way without that kind of partnership. This is something that we are working very hard at promoting, and with great success in many areas of the country. Obviously, the program in Ottawa shows that kind of participation. Anything that my honourable friend can do to encourage other organizations and private sector groups to join the fray, the better.

I have said in this house many times that this is not an issue that can ever be solved, or progress achieved, by one sector or one level of government. This is an issue that involves all of us. It also involves organizations such as service clubs and volunteer associations within communities. It is community based and family based, and we, as government, are part of the partnership.

Justice

Investigation into sale of airbus aircraft to air canada-grounds for preferring indictments-government position

Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, my question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It concerns whether or not the RCMP have yet received from Switzerland the information concerning the contents of certain bank accounts that they had requested from that country.

In view of the way in which an indictment was thrown at a particular Canadian - who just happened to be a former Prime Minister but who could have been any Canadian, judging by the way in which the Liberals have operated lately - can we be informed as to whether or not they have yet received this information?

It is now one year since this matter arose. Why has the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General not made this information public, or at least tried to deal with this case in the spirit of dealing with a Canadian in a proper fashion, regardless of who he is?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I cannot answer the honourable senator's question. That is not knowledge that I have, nor should I have.

My honourable friend knows that the process on this issue is before the courts. A date has been set for trial, and I am not in a position to comment on the progress of that matter.

Senator St. Germain: Honourable senators, I do not think the trial has been set with regard to the indictment. We should keep this straight. The trial date that has been set involves a libel suit that has been brought against the government. There is a big difference between a trial on an preferred indictment and one on a lawsuit that has been brought against the government for the reckless manner - in my opinion and that of several other Canadians - in which a fellow Canadian has been treated.

(1430)

Does the leader stand by her position that this particular issue is not politically motivated by the PMOs, the Chrétiens, the Goldenbergs, the Grays and the Rocks of this world in light of what the Minister of Justice said on Global television on August 8, "Don't forget, the lawsuit is the effort by Brian Mulroney to get taxpayers' dollars?" That is a disgraceful statement to make when a libel suit is before the courts.

Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate stand by her position that this process is not politically motivated?

Senator Fairbairn: Absolutely, Senator St. Germain.

Senator St. Germain: Honourable senators, on what grounds can the leader say "absolutely" when the Minister of Justice makes a statement like that?

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, my honourable friend and I differ on the interpretation of the statement. I know that my honourable friend does not accept my interpretation any more than I accept his. Nonetheless, the case to which he refers, as I have repeated many times in this house, is not politically motivated.

[Translation]

Employment Insurance

Changes to System by Way of Regulation-Effect on New Brunswick Fishermen-Government Position

Hon. Jean-Maurice Simard: Honourable senators, my question deals with the regulations associated with Bill C-12, which, if nothing is done soon, will come into effect three weeks after they were tabled in Parliament on September 19.

What does the government intend to do? What will the Leader of the Government in the Senate do to ensure that the House of Commons and the Senate consider these regulations and their impact on 27,000 Canadians, including 21,000 fishermen in the Atlantic provinces? Two thousand five hundred people in New Brunswick will be affected by them.

[English]

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, as my honourable friend knows, I am collecting material on that subject for Senator Comeau as a result of his questions earlier in the week. However, I will again make the point I made yesterday: The regulations which engendered so much comment are not the regulations which surfaced in the last few days. Those regulations have been in circulation since early July, when the Minister of Human Resources Development sent out letters and information kits to parliamentarians and people in the industry.

With regard to further discussion, the bill was debated with some vigour in a Senate committee and in this chamber. Senators have the opportunity through the rules of this house to bring the matter forward for debate, if they wish. However, that information was available throughout the study of this legislation.

Changes to System by Way of Regulation-Request for Parliamentary Debate

Hon Jean-Maurice Simard: Honourable senators, the minister is trying to weasel out of this subject. She said at the beginning of her answer that this question was raised by my colleague two days ago. Well, the Senate and all Canadians have not heard the last of this matter. This is just the beginning.

Many analyses of these regulations indicate that they go beyond the spirit and letter of Bill C-12. It is not good enough to say that they have been circulated and that consultation has taken place since July or August. The fact of the matter is that Canadians have had enough of these so-called consultations. Since September 19, we have had a bunch of regulations which will penalize and punish Atlantic Canadians, including 27,000 fishermen.

As I said, it is not enough that the bill was circulated and that there was consultation on the regulations. The fact is that there is a procedure in Parliament whereby if 30 MPs sign a petition indicating that they want a debate, that debate can take place. The government holds at least 30 seats in Atlantic Canada. The government must make up its mind to have a debate, and those regulations should not come into force until a serious debate has taken place.

Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate undertake to pressure the government and her colleagues in the Senate to hold this debate in the House of Commons and the Senate? What does that government have to hide? Why is the government scared to discuss the cuts that will cost Atlantic Canada $33 billion? Why is it scared to travel to debate this issue, as we requested last spring? Why is the government scared to discuss these regulations at this time?

Hon Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I do not think being scared enters into this matter at all. There has been a great deal of discussion and debate on these issues, which are very difficult and painful ones. However, I am not in a position to dictate procedure to the House of Commons any more than the House of Commons dictates procedure to us.

I have enormous respect for my honourable friend's ability to debate, in a most vigorous, aggressive and eloquent style, issues which are of deep concern to him. One of the attributes of the Senate is that there is the opportunity for every senator to initiate a discussion here. That opportunity is certainly open to my honourable friend.

Senator Simard: Honourable senators, if we take from the minister's response all the compliments she paid me, there is nothing left. Again, she has not answered my question.

(1440)

Will the Leader of the Government try to convince her colleagues in this house, and those in the other place, with regard to this point? In that way, these regulations can then be debated openly in the house, or in a parliamentary committee with the people responsible for the implementation of this legislation. I refer to members of the House of Commons and to senators who are paid to discuss in this house or in committee these subjects that are important to our region.

Cost of Campaign by Minister of Human Resources to Promote Changes to Legislation-Request for Particulars

Hon. Jean-Maurice Simard: Honourable senators, I wish to ask a second question of the Leader of the Government. In the spring, the famous Doug Young, Minister of Human Resources, announced on many occasions that he was prepared to spend $2 million to sell his Bill C-12 to Canadians. How much has it cost so far for this promotion? How much has it cost to publicize the campaign with respect to this bill?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with regard to Senator Simard's second question, I will try to find an answer for him. There has been extensive communication on this bill.

As to the honourable senator's first question, I must say again that we are here as senators, with our responsibilities in our own chamber. Those in the House of Commons have their responsibilities in their own chamber. I am not in a position -

Senator Simard: You are a member of that government, madam. You are a cabinet minister in that government. I ask you to assume your responsibility!

Senator Fairbairn: I do not believe that it is in keeping with my responsibilities in this house to be dictating and intruding into the activities of colleagues in the House of Commons, no matter to which party they belong.

As far as this house is concerned, we have a rubric on our Order Paper entitled, "Inquiries" under which Senator Simard could stand up today and launch a debate on this subject.

Date of Regulations Coming Into Force-Government Position

Hon. Mabel M. DeWare: Honourable senators, my question is a supplementary question to that of Senator Simard, and is likewise addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does she realize that the regulations in question come into force next Thursday? That does not give us very much time.

Infrastructure Program

Possible Continuation of Program to Await Evaluation Report of Auditor General-Government Position

Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, my question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Earlier today, officials in the Auditor General's lock-up confirmed that a study on the Infrastructure Program is now under way, and it is likely that the results of that study will be included in the Auditor General's November report. While many of us on this side would prefer that there not be a new infrastructure program, a view that is apparently shared by the Minister of Finance, there is considerable pressure from many on the government side for a second program. Will the government promise or commit that no new program will be announced until the Auditor General has reported on the first program?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, as the honourable senator may know, an evaluation of the first program has been done and has already been released. It is an interesting document.

On the question of a possible second infrastructure program, because of the impact of the initial program, there was a very vigorous discussion among first ministers last June, as well as at the National Conference of Canadian Municipalities in Calgary last July, concerning the possibility of not duplicating the first program but in some way extending it, or having a more targeted version of it in the future. This is a subject that is of great interest not just to people on Parliament Hill but to people in the provinces and in the municipalities. It is something that, undoubtedly, will continue to be discussed in the weeks ahead as ministers from across Canada meet with each other on a variety of issues.

As to whether or not anything should be in abeyance pending the next Auditor General's report in November, I believe that these kinds of discussions will be ongoing, since they are not, at this moment, at any stage of conclusion. Those discussions are, in effect, an exchange of ideas on extracting the best examples of what has been done, and deciding whether or not there are areas that could be targeted for the future. Underlying all this, of course, is the reality which faces every government in this country; that is, the question of restraint on resources. That is very much a component of these discussions.

Senator Stratton: Honourable senators, I sense from the response of the Leader of the Government that in all likelihood there will be a continuation of the Infrastructure Program.

Senator Fairbairn: No, no.

Senator Stratton: I am not trying to put words into the mouth of the honourable senator, but that is the sense I am getting.

She is also saying that it will be more targeted, something with which I completely agree. May I assume that the targeted program would be for road, sewer and water programs rather than for hockey rinks and community clubs, to name but two examples?

Senator Fairbairn: Those are two examples, honourable senators. If people are searching for others, they might think of examples in the field of technology. There was some of that in the first program, although not as much as had been hoped.

I know my honourable friend does not wish to put words into my mouth. I am certainly not indicating to him that there will be an "Infrastructure II" program. Certainly, when the ministers of finance meet in October, this subject will probably be discussed. They will be assessing the evaluation report that has been put out because there are good things in it, and big questions in it.

Basically, it seems to me that the conclusion was that the Infrastructure Program had fundamentally achieved its two objectives: that is, to create jobs and to improve infrastructure in communities across Canada.

A second version of the program is under discussion. There are probably many useful ideas in areas of need which my honourable friend could contribute that, perhaps, were not as fulsomely addressed by the first program.

Transport

Pearson Airport Agreements-Recent Position of Prime Minister on Contracts-Government Position

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It concerns the Prime Minister's view on contracts, the rule of law and the Churchill Falls story involving the problem between the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland. The Prime Minister was asked what his views were concerning the validity of the contract between the two provinces. The Prime Minister said:

I'm a lawyer and I've been Minister of Justice and you can pass a lot of laws. You put a title and you put a line: contract no. 50 is abrogated. And you sign and you vote.

In response to a question that he was asked in the other place on September 24 by the member for Calgary North, the Prime Minister said something very interesting. He said this:

There is no doubt that the rule of law exists for everybody in Canada, but sometimes, when circumstances change, people sit down and review the complex problem they face, and try to find a solution.

In referring to Minister McLellan, who had answered a question on the subject previously, the Prime Minister said:

The minister has said that there is a contract at this time, and we must respect the contract which is the rule of law in Canada. This is not a new issue. It was debated a long time ago. I believe the minister gave a very good answer today and yesterday.

(1450)

I should like to ask the Leader of the Government whether, after the election of 1993, the government took the advice of their own Prime Minister with regard to contracts and, because circumstances had changed, sat down with the people from Pearson airport to review the complex problem they faced to find a solution?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I believe that what the Prime Minister was referring to in his comments in the House of Commons was the -

Senator Berntson: Rule of law.

Senator Fairbairn: - the Newfoundland and Labrador agreement with Quebec of some years ago.

As far as the Pearson airport issue is concerned, there has been perhaps more words exchanged on this one subject in the Senate than anything else in recent years. My honourable friend knows that that issue was discussed during the election campaign, and following the campaign certain action was taken. That issue has still not been concluded, and that is all I have to say.

Senator Tkachuk: I do not know about the senators opposite.

The Hon. the Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt, but the time for Question Period is over.

Senator Tkachuk: Honourable senators, I have a fairly short supplementary question. I am not just asking about a contract in 1993 or a contract between Quebec and Newfoundland. I am asking about something which I think is really important for the Prime Minister to know: What is a contract, and what is his view of what is a contract? What is his concept of the rule of law?

Judging by the comments of Senator St. Germain, I do not think the Minister of Justice has a clue about the rule of law. I do not think the Prime Minister understands the rule of law, and I am not sure that the Leader of the Government understands the rule of law.

The Prime Minister said, and I will repeat it:

There is no doubt that the rule of law exists for everybody in Canada, but sometimes, when circumstances change, people sit down and review the complex problem they face and try to find a solution.

The minister has said that there is a contract at this time and we must respect the contract according to the rule of law in Canada.

I am asking the Leader of the Government whether the Prime Minister took his own advice and sat down after the election of 1993, when obviously circumstances had changed, and had a discussion with the people from Pearson airport to see whether they could resolve their conflicts?

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, twice now I have listened carefully to my honourable friend quote the Prime Minister, and his quotation is certainly valid. However, there is a quantum leap between the circumstances to which he was referring and the issue of the Pearson airport, and that is why it has been such a thorny question in this house now for several years.

---

[Translation]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Judges Act

Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the honourable Senator Bryden, seconded by the honourable Senator Roux, for the second reading of Bill C-42, to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, I have decided to speak on this bill at the second reading stage because it seems to me that this bill contains a provision that flies in the face of a basic principle that underlies existing legislation concerning so-called "federal" judges in Canada.

This is an omnibus bill. For the most part, the provisions contained in the bill are, in my opinion, totally appropriate. There is one, however, to which I would like to call your attention, namely clause 5 of the bill.

The first sentence of clause 5 caught my eye:

Notwithstanding section 55 of the Judges Act, this amendment provides that federal judges -

that is to say the judges of the Superior Court of each province, the Federal Court of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Tax Court of Canada and the Court Martial of Canada -

- will be authorized to take leave from their judicial functions to participate in other activities, if the bill is passed as it stands.

Honourable senators, this provision violates one of the basic principles of the current act. This principle is stated in section 55 of the act, which is fairly short and reads as follows:

No judge shall, either directly or indirectly, for himself of others, engage in any occupation or business other than his judicial duties, but every judge shall devote himself exclusively to those judicial duties.

This is a short but very precise section. Bill C-42 seeks to change this principle. I cannot support such an amendment.

The current Judges Act is so precise as regards judicial independence in Canada that it even sets financial limits on the reimbursement of judges' expenses. Let me elaborate.

Over the years, some provinces had decided to grant federal judges fulfilling judicial duties in their territory a lump sum, a magistrate's allowance. At one time, some provinces gave as much as $6,000 per year. Over the years, the amount was reduced, and the Judges Act now includes a provision limiting to $3,000 the allowance that a province can pay to a judge.

I draw your attention to this detail to show you that it was, and still is, Parliament's intention to ensure the greatest possible autonomy and independence for federal judges.

Honourable senators, Bill C-42 seeks to set aside this principle which, in my opinion, is a basic one. We will be able to review it at length in committee and to ask government officials why such an amendment is necessary.

I felt it appropriate, since we are looking at the principle underlying the bill, to alert you to this situation and to show you that the government may have very good intentions and may want to allow our judges to work outside Canada for international organizations and get paid by these organizations, without any limit to such remuneration. Again, we are moving away from the principle contained in the current act, which is precise and to the point in setting a limit of $3,000. When our judges go to work abroad, they may be paid amounts of $200,000, $300,000, $400,000. There will be no limit.

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: They will no longer be interested in rendering judgments.

Senator Nolin: They may not be in a conflict of interest situation, but it will appear to be so.

We almost had a government resolution asking us to remove a Quebec superior court judge. For all kinds of good reasons that are personal to him, Judge Bienvenue decided to resign. We would have come to the conclusion that, independently of the facts surrounding this case, the perception of Judge Bienvenue's attitude was contrary to his position as a judge and we certainly would have accepted the government's resolution.

I draw a parallel with Judge Bienvenue's story because the Canadian perception of the independence of the federal judiciary is fundamental. We must not allow a situation where Canadians might question the integrity of the Canadian judiciary.

I have to say something about Madam Justice Arbour. She is a federal judge who, until recently, practised in the province of Ontario. The government decided to allow her to work outside the country, in contravention of section 55.

In no way do I question Madam Justice Arbour's qualifications, but I do question the government's attitude. This decision was made in contravention of an existing statute of the Parliament of Canada. Bill C-42 has not been adopted yet; therefore, the government has acted in contravention of a Canadian statute. This is simply unacceptable.

I thought it was appropriate to mention that. We cannot circumvent our laws in the name of efficiency.

Let us amend our laws in due course, but let us not go beyond important powers. The law is there to be respected. Everybody is talking about the rule of law. God knows, we, on this side, have been talking about it for at least three years. What does it mean? It means that everybody is equal under the law, even the government.

On motion of Senator Cools, debate adjourned.

[English]

Appropriation Bill No. 2, 1996-97

Second Reading

Leave having been given to revert to Order No. 1, Government Business:

Hon. Pierre De Bané moved second reading of Bill C-56, granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1997.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I welcome the opportunity to speak to you today on the subject of full supply of the Estimates for fiscal year 1996-97. This year the Main Estimates total $157 billion, a reduction of $7.2 billion compared to the 1995-96 Main Estimates.

Of the $157 billion, $111.7 billion, or 71 per cent, represents statutory payments authorized by Parliament in previous years. The government is seeking approval to spend the remaining $45.3 billion for programs that rely on annual appropriations.

In the end, it is 29 per cent of government expenditures which have to be voted on by the two Houses, for 71 per cent are already governed by statute.

[English]

The government has maintained its resolve to reduce program spending. In 1996-97, program spending, including public debt, amounted to $109 billion, or $5.4 billion less than the 1995-96 Main Estimates. This is an important achievement. It demonstrates that the government's program review continues to have a significant impact on the level of program expenditure requirements. If we examine the composition of spending, it is evident that most sectors of government show a decrease in planned program spending compared to 1995-96 levels.

In the Estimates, we categorize all program spending in 10 sectors. Expenditures on social programs represent the largest component of program spending at 46 per cent.

[Translation]

Major social sector transfers to individuals which include veterans' pensions and allowances, unemployment insurance and seniors' benefits, constitute 34 per cent of this amount. The remaining 12 per cent is allocated to social programs directed primarily at employment, health and housing initiatives, programs that benefit aboriginal peoples, and immigration and citizenship programs.

Direct program expenditures for 1996-97 in the social sector are $13.2 billion, or 2.4 per cent less than in 1995-96. Reductions in direct program expenditures in the social area have been facilitated by clarification of core mandates of the social program departments, a key element of the program review process.

[English]

The heritage and cultural program sector is important to all of us. It supports the growth and development of Canadian culture and life, the nation's linguistic duality, its diverse multicultural heritage, and the preservation of parks and historic sites. Expenditures in this sector amount to $2.5 billion in 1996-97, or approximately 5 per cent of the total direct program spending.

The Main Estimates in this sector of heritage and cultural programming have also decreased. For example, planned spending for the Department of Canadian Heritage in 1996-97 will decline by 4.4 per cent relative to the 1995-96 level.

[Translation]

Many are aware of the significant changes occurring in the natural resource program sector. This sector, which accounts for 5 per cent of direct program spending, supports sustainable development to maximize economic benefits while protecting and enhancing the quality of our environment.

Costs are also being reduced in the natural resource programs by addressing overlap and duplication. Consolidation of activities, such as the merging of the Canadian Coast Guard fleet with that of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, delivers services more efficiently to clients.

[English]

In the industrial, regional and scientific technological sector program, orientation has been altered significantly. Our objective in this sector is to foster economic growth and job creation through measures which stimulate private sector investment across Canada, encourage regional development, and promote a stronger scientific and technological capability in Canada. Program expenditures of $3.6 billion will shift from direct business subsidies to more active business support measures. The focus of real federal regional agencies will be on community-based economic development, and on improving access by small and medium-sized enterprises to commercial financing. Any remaining direct contribution programs will be fully repayable.

[Translation]

As a result of the major restructuring initiatives which are under way in the transportation sector, transportation funding programs will receive $400 million less in 1996-97 than in 1995-96. Program expenditures of $1.9 billion will be redirected from operating and subsidizing specific elements of the transportation infrastructure to focusing on policy development and ensuring standards for safety and security. Furthermore, commercialization of many services is being implemented to increase effectiveness in the transportation sector and to enhance responsiveness to local needs.

The general government services sector includes departments and agencies which provide central services in support of operations of government. It also includes, under the Department of Finance, transfer payments to the provinces and territories, which are paid pursuant to the federal-provincial transfer payments program.

[English]

Although transfer payments are not part of the direct program expenditures which have been the focus of my remarks, these transfer payments to the other levels of government, like social sector transfer payments to persons described earlier, are part of the total program spending. Major transfers to all levels of government include: the Canada Health and Social Transfers, transfers to territorial governments, fiscal equalization payments and other major transfers such as statutory subsidies and grants in lieu of taxes to municipalities. In 1996-97 major transfers to other levels of government will total approximately $29.1 billion.

[Translation]

To return to direct program expenditures, the government services sector has rethought the way it delivers services in order to increase efficiency and cost-effectiveness. For example, the Department of Public Works and Government Services contains three special operating agencies: the Canada Communication Group, Consulting and Audit Canada and the Translation Bureau, which are financed on a revenue-dependent basis. The net spending of the Department of Public Works and Government Services will decrease by $98 million in 1996-97 as the department continues to explore ways to streamline operations and reduce costs.

I would like to conclude my remarks by noting that the government will continue to use innovative approaches, new technologies and organizational reforms because of the positive results it is achieving in all sectors. The government is improving efficiency, reducing costs and making programs more responsive to the needs of Canadians, while reflecting the Canadian taxpayers' ability to pay.

[English]

If any honourable senator requires additional information, I would be pleased to try to provide it.

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, Bill C-56, granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the purpose of the public service, has been well described by Senator De Bané with respect to what the government intends to do with the cash it will receive. However, I am sure he will not tell you what the government has not done with the cash that it has already and will continue to receive.

The government has made certain philosophical decisions in their budgeting process. First, they have decided to reduce the deficit by transferring the debt to the provinces through a reduction in the expenditures on what they call the CHST by 40 per cent, while reducing expenditures on the operating costs of government by no more than 3 per cent.

The government has also created some 40 new taxes by implication, or what I would call "forgone revenue," i.e. taking away the people's money by saying that they cannot deduct something, such as lowering the amount of money a person can put into an RRSP, or by increasing gas taxes, or by imposing user fees in parks and for almost all government services that are offered today to the Canadian people.

They have also adopted a philosophy that governments can create jobs by government spending. Their infrastructure program is an example of that. After three years of this infrastructure program, which the Prime Minister promised would create jobs, we still have a 9.5-per-cent unemployment rate - the longest term for such a rate since the 1930s.

Rather than creating jobs by creating a climate for investment and a climate which encourages consumer spending, they have chosen a route which has been discredited for 20 years, both here in Canada and in countries which have adopted these left-wing, socialist policies over the last century.

(1520)

The name of the Unemployment Insurance Fund has been changed to the Employment Insurance Fund, which is a misnomer if I have ever heard one. This may be the government's way to create jobs, however, it does not help the hundreds of thousands of families in Canada who are looking for work with no hope and no belief that they will obtain the jobs and thereby the money they need to put bread on the table.

The infrastructure program is once again being revived, to create jobs which were supposed to be created in 1993. The Minister of Finance has some hesitancy about it. However, I can see why the members of Parliament on the Liberal side want this program to continue, because it is the biggest patronage boondoggle this country has ever seen. With an election coming up next year, Liberals wish to obtain a slush fund for all of their ridings to use before the next election. This is a cruel way to fool the Canadian people into believing that this particular spending program will create the economic engine that will allow their children to find jobs when they graduate from university or allow them to keep the very jobs that they fear they will lose.

The $6-billion infrastructure program is designed to meet the needs of local governments. That was the government's stated intention in its fact sheet called "Canada's Infrastructure Works," issued in December of 1995. The money intended for badly needed upgrades to sewers, roads and water works has not always gone where it is supposed to, however. The Ottawa Citizen has reported that tennis courts, lawn mowers and stainless steel toilets have all qualified under the same program.

Under the guise of the infrastructure program, they have spent $78 million on a new convention centre in Quebec City; $14 million in Shawinigan, in Jean Chrétien's riding alone; $20 million on the Calgary Saddledome; $9.6 million for the Cirque du Soleil training centre in Quebec; $7.7 million on a student centre at the College of Cape Breton; $14 million on playgrounds and sports fields in Edmonton; $1.5 million renovating an arena in Red Deer; $6 million on monkeys and educational pavilions at the Granby Zoo; and $7.6 million on bocci courts in North York. They have spent money on resurfacing tennis courts in Stony Plain, Alberta. They have even spent money on cemeteries. Bad decisions mean waste.

The unemployment rate has not dropped one point after $6 billion was spent by the federal, provincial and municipal governments on programs that people do not need or want. Yet the government says that they will create jobs, if we only repeat the entire process.

They have also made bad decisions by cancelling over $900 million with regard to the EH-101 contracts. They were told in 1993 that many of the ancient Sea King helicopters should be retired, that some were almost 40 years old. An all-party committee has insisted these machines be replaced immediately and that the government make this program a critical priority because young men and women are flying these helicopters on the coasts of Canada. The Government of Canada, by its neglect of its commitment to the military, is jeopardizing lives.

The government is also spending $12 million to build an office complex in Sault Ste. Marie, the riding of the Minister of Indian Affairs, Ron Irwin. The move is designed to save $500,000 a year but the Minister of Public Works, David Dingwall, admits he is not sure how. Sault Ste. Marie has the highest commercial vacancy rate in the country, according to The Toronto Star of February 14, 1995.

While the members opposite may congratulate themselves on what they see as good budgeting and deficit cutting, we shall see the results of their program before the next election, through a high unemployment rate and an increased strain on health care and education in all provinces in Canada. Rancour will develop between the provinces and the federal government because of the problems they have created, and there are no solutions in sight.

Honourable senators, I want to end by saying that the federal government has little to be proud of in the budget of 1996. They will have even less to be proud of in the budget of 1997. I promise you that they will not be the party in government delivering the budget in the spring of 1998.

Motion agreed to and bill read second time.

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

On motion of Senator Rompkey, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.

Newfoundland

Changes to Term 17 of Constitution-Consideration of Report-Debate adjourned

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the thirteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (respecting Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada set out in the Schedule to the Newfoundland Act), deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on July 17, 1996.

Hon. Bill Rompkey: Honourable senators, it is a pleasure to rise to once again speak on this particular issue and to move the adoption of the report.

As honourable senators will know, we held hearings on this issue in July. I think they were full and complete hearings. I think everyone who wanted to be heard was heard. I congratulate the chair, Senator Carstairs, on the way in which she conducted those hearings.

The process of constitutional amendment began with a royal commission in Newfoundland and Labrador that recommended changes to the system of education there. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, after attempts to negotiate a change with the churches and after that series of motions failed, then decided to seek a constitutional amendment to give them the authority to bring about the proposed changes. Although it was not required by law, the previous government held a referendum to assess the feelings of the people. That referendum was duly held, and 54 per cent of those voting voted in favour of the proposed changes.

(1530)

It is worth noting, honourable senators, that that percentage was larger than the percentage voting in favour of joining Canada. Only 52 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians voted to join Canada. Approximately 54 per cent voted to approve this resolution. In the referendum held in 1949, 52 per cent were in agreement. That was a larger percentage of the popular vote than Mackenzie King had received in any of his elections, and that is how Mr. Pickersgill managed to persuade him to agree to the percentage in that particular referendum.

Before the Wells government could act, an election took place. The new premier, Brian Tobin, with the proposed changes as part of his platform, was elected with an overwhelming majority. Subsequently, his government placed the amendment before the legislature. On the second vote held on the issue, the legislature was unanimous in its approval. Subsequently, the House of Commons passed the amendment with a majority. That led to the debate in this chamber and the hearings conducted in July. We are here today to debate the report of the committee.

Honourable senators, this is an emotional issue. Certainly, it is for me; I believe that it is for many people. There are strong feelings on both sides of the issue, and there are strongly held views. Some of those views have been expressed in this chamber and they will continue to be expressed. I encourage all honourable senators who have strong feelings on this matter to air them.

What is our responsibility now, as senators? While we are by no means a rubber stamp, we were told during the committee hearings that if we declined to accept the judgments of the duly elected bodies, the flaws in both the amendment and the procedure leading to the amendment must be significant.

We must bear in mind the traditional duties of the Senate within the federal system. First, we are here as a protector of minority rights. I wish to quote from Dr. Kathy Brock, a constitutional expert who the committee heard. She described this role as follows:

In considering minority rights, the Senate must determine whether rights are being denied, what protections are being put in place if the rights are being changed, and whether the offsetting values are sufficiently important to change those rights.

If a minority group is claiming that it is being oppressed or adversely affected, you must ask whose interests are being served. You must bear in mind as well that the protection of minority rights is very important, but must not be detrimental to the rights of other minorities, particularly those who may not have an equal voice.

We heard testimony that, as the protector of minorities, we must assess what rights are being affected and what protections there are for minorities. What is being taken away? For one thing, the constitutional right of seven Christian denominations in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador to draw, on a per capita basis, on public funds for capital purposes.

When I spoke earlier in this chamber, I related my own experiences as a superintendent of education in Labrador. If I wanted to build a new school, I did not go to the government of Newfoundland for permission; I went to the denominational education committee. Since 1927 when that law was passed, and before we joined Canada - and that same law has been perpetuated ever since - the seven accredited Christian denominations in Newfoundland and Labrador have had the right, constitutionally guaranteed, to a per capita draw on the public purse for capital purposes. That right does not exist anywhere else in the country, and that right is, arguably, greater than that of the elected representatives.

The power of the churches is being diminished. There is no question that the power of the churches is being diminished and the power of the legislature is being enhanced. However, that simply puts the legislature of Newfoundland on the same footing as every other legislature in Canada with respect to the administration of education. Nevertheless, that particular right of those churches will be taken away.

Senator Doody: They have already agreed to that.

Senator Rompkey: Let us ask then what rights remain. According to the law, all schools will be denominational schools. The seven accredited Christian denominations will have the guaranteed right to ensure that their particular faith is taught in all schools.

The Roman Catholic and the Pentecostal witnesses who appeared before us expressed a concern that interdenominational schools which operated under the proposed Term 17 would not be interdenominational schools. As the Catholic Education Council put it:

In these new interdenominational schools there would be no constitutional right to imbue the school with a Christian ambience.

However, the language of the new Term 17 is clear. It says:

- schools established, maintained and operated with public funds shall be denominational schools, and any class -

That means the seven accredited, registered Christian denominations. Term 17 goes on to state:

- having rights under this Term as it read on January 1, 1995... shall continue to have the right to provide for religious education, activities and observances for children of that class in those schools.

That is, in interdenominational schools, there will be constitutionally guaranteed rights: the right to Christian observances and Christian teaching in the schools by the seven accredited denominations.

Will the rights of the Pentecostals, the Roman Catholics and others be affected? Yes, but they will continue to have extensive, constitutionally guaranteed rights to provide religious education in the public schools, which the Supreme Court has ruled is the core of denominational rights. They will have more rights under the new Term 17 than similar churches will have anywhere else in Canada.

The proposed Term 17 would also provide a right to unidenominational schools, the right of churches to have their own schools - that is, the right of Roman Catholics to have Roman Catholic schools and the right of Pentecostals to have Pentecostal schools. That is contained in the Constitution itself. There would be a right to continue to have those schools.

We had a great deal of discussion over the wording of this right. Some witnesses and some senators said that, as drafted, the right might be more illusory than real because it will be:

- subject to provincial legislation that is uniformly applicable to all schools specifying conditions for the establishment or continued operation of schools.

That is the quotation from the law.

In the dissenting opinion, some senators on the committee proposed deleting those words and replacing them with the phrase "where numbers warrant". I understand the appeal of this change, but I cannot agree with it. In committee, we learned that this same amendment was proposed in the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly, and rejected. The two leaders of the opposition parties represented in the House of Assembly - that is, the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party - came to testify before our committee. Each one of them disagreed with this proposed change, as did the Minister of Education. He told us that this change could frustrate their efforts to go ahead with the reforms that they want to achieve. He said:

This issue is the crux of the matter. It dominated debate in the legislature in Newfoundland and Labrador, and amendments were moved and defeated. There is no doubt about that. If an amendment were to remove the clause "subject to provincial legislation that is uniformly applicable to all schools specifying conditions for the establishment or continued operation of schools," then we need not have gone through this exercise in the province -

The Minister of Education went on to say:

- we need not have troubled the legislature with it; we need not have gone through a referendum; we need not have gone to the House of Commons; and we need not be having these hearings. This is the crux of the matter. It would be dishonest for anyone to suggest anything other than that.

(1540)

Indeed, honourable senators, that is the crux of the matter. Do the elected representatives have the right to govern and to set and establish laws and regulations?

As drafted, the provincial legislation would have to be uniformly applicable to all schools. No legislature could single out one or more religious minority for special or discriminatory treatment. They would have to be all treated the same, and the guarantee would be entrenched in the Constitution. Yes, minority rights would be affected by the adoption of the new Term 17, but no religious minority would be oppressed by the change.

Another issue raised concerning the drafting of the proposed Term 17 related to the rights of protected minorities with respect to unidenominational schools. As drafted, they would have the same rights as exist with respect to interdenominational schools, that is, the right to provide for religious education, activities and observances in the schools, and also the further right to direct the teaching of aspects of the curriculum affecting religious beliefs, student admission policy and the assignment and dismissal of teachers. Certain witnesses proposed changing right "to direct" these matters to the right "to determine and direct."

On the committee, we heard contradictory testimony about the relative meaning of "determine and direct." A lawyer, Mr. Ian Binnie, expressed his view that linguistically adding "determine and direct" does not add very much except to pander to lawyers' love of saying in several words what ordinary people say in one word.

I must say, honourable senators, that on this issue I was impressed most of all by the testimony of Mr. Loyola Sullivan, Leader of the Official Opposition, the Conservative Party, in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Sullivan appeared before us not only as the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the Conservative Party but also as a parent of three children in the Newfoundland school system, as a Roman Catholic and as a former teacher in the Roman Catholic school system of Newfoundland and Labrador. He told us that he supports passage of the proposed Term 17 and, indeed, the Conservative caucus in the province has chosen unanimously to support its passage. He said:

In our caucus, we looked at the substance and tried to avoid speculation as to what may happen. We tried to deal with what was presented. I feel that there is provision for all schools in this province to have religious education, observance and events. There is provision for unidenominational schools, subject of course to provincial legislation. That would be a sticky point. We wanted to see that. However, on balance, we made our decision based upon the total presentation and did not feel that we should delay any process just because we have not seen the particulars -

He went on to say:

I look at this decision based on what will be best for the children of our province in tough financial times, with declining enrolments. We want to deliver the best possible education without stripping away certain religious rights or practices that have developed in our school system over the years. That was the gist of our discussion. We debated this at great length in caucus; I discussed it personally. I have been part of the system for 20 years. I had three kids in the system. I served as our education critic, although I am now in a different capacity. I have looked at this from numerous angles and numerous perspectives -

Our caucus feels that we should proceed and that it is in our best interests. We cannot be blinded by other factors. We must look at the goal, where we need to be and what we need to do, and not become deterred. As much as some people might like to let political or other events influence their final decision, it is important that we not stray from the course because our children will suffer as a result.

Here in Ottawa, honourable senators, there has been much discussion about the referendum that was held in Newfoundland and Labrador on the proposed revision to Term 17 and on what import it should have as indicating the views and wishes of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Sullivan was very instructive on this point as well. He told us that the real issue was not the referendum but the 1996 general election in the province. He said:

The denominations and the general public had the opportunity during the election campaign to challenge the government's position on Term 17 and make the matter a major issue of contention. They did not. There was in the election campaign no strong movement to have the Term 17 resolution rescinded. In returning the government to office with a new mandate, the people of this province, in effect, approved the government's Term 17 amendment strategy.

He told us that constitutional change to Term 17:

- never became an issue in my district, which was probably a 97 per cent Roman Catholic district. I may have had two or three calls or representations in the last three years in my district overall.

The Senate is the protector of the rights of minorities, but it is also the protector of the rights of the provinces. Those of us who sit here feel that we are here to protect provincial rights, their interests, their problems, their potential.

One constitutional expert from whom we heard, Dr. Cathy Brock, told our committee:

A key role of the Senate has also been to protect the provinces from the nationalizing effects of the federal government in terms of the House of Commons and its legislative initiatives and, since 1982, in terms of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Charter. The Senate is the guardian of provincial diversity within our political system.

In my opinion, honourable senators, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want this amendment to proceed. Yes, the amendment would affect the rights of certain religious minorities, but any constitutional amendment must affect someone's rights. However, if the Constitution is to be a living, flexible instrument that can adapt to changing circumstances and time, it cannot be sufficient to say that someone's rights are affected and therefore the change is not acceptable. That is not what our Constitution provides. It is up to us to examine the proposed change to decide whether a minority would be adequately protected under the proposed amendment even though it will be different. Rights do not exist in a vacuum.

The Hon. the Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the honourable senator, but his 15-minute time period has expired.

Is leave granted for the honourable senator to proceed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Rompkey: Thank you, honourable senators.

Rights do not exist in a vacuum. All rights exist in the context of other rights. When we have to balance all of those competing rights, not only the rights of protected religious minorities, but the rights of children and the rights of parents, we have to be aware of all of those rights. We have to be cognizant of them, protect them, make allowances for them and strike a balance between them.

Finally, a number of people have expressed concern that passing this amendment could adversely affect religious minorities elsewhere in Canada. Term 17, like the Newfoundland and Labrador education system, is unique in Canada. I think it can be said without contradiction that there is no other education system anywhere in the country that is analogous to the system that we have and have had in our province. It is completely and absolutely different.

The constitutional provisions, therefore, are also distinct. The Minister of Justice, the Honourable Allan Rock, told the committee:

Precedents, to have value, require like facts or similar, if not identical, principles. It would be very difficult to find a future circumstance elsewhere in Canada that would replicate the principles and circumstances that prevail in this instance.

Honourable senators, if we cannot change the law in Newfoundland as the Constitution provides, in a situation that affects us only and where the issue is clearly a provincial responsibility, that is, education, then we are hostages to Confederation, and the Constitution does not work for us.

(1550)

We are all very much aware of the economic difficulties facing Newfoundland and Labrador. It would be a tragedy, I think, if attempts to reform our education system were held hostage to the fear of potential constitutional implications for other provinces.

The people of Newfoundland have spoken. Their elected representatives have spoken, not just once but several times, including sending their leaders to testify before our committee. The committee - or at least a majority of it - was satisfied that the proposed Term 17 would balance and protect the rights of religious minorities. Those rights will be changed, but they will be protected.

It is time, then, honourable senators, to let the province move forward with the reforms that they desire.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella: Would the honourable senator answer a couple of questions?

Senator Rompkey: Certainly.

Senator Kinsella: Senator Rompkey, are you saying that it is your view that the Pentecostal community of Newfoundland and Labrador is in agreement that their present rights to run their schools may be abrogated by this process? Are they in agreement with this? Is that what you are telling us?

Senator Rompkey: In my opinion, the majority of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador want this change to go ahead. I do not think anyone can tell us for sure, honourable senators, what exactly is the feeling of the majority of Pentecostal people in our province.

Senator Doody: Did you not attend the committee meetings?

Senator Rompkey: People spoke in the committee meetings, but were all Pentecostals at the committee meetings?

Senator Doody: Is everyone from Newfoundland in this chamber right now?

Senator Rompkey: If your position is that certain people speak for all of the people in a particular denomination, you are perfectly entitled to your view. I would like to see the Pentecostal people polled. That could have been done in the referendum, because the churches were offered a denominational breakdown of the vote in the referendum, but that never came to pass. If we had had that, we would know what the majority of the Pentecostal people in Newfoundland and Labrador think. However, in the absence of that, I do not think any of us has a numerical value to put on the situation. I believe that the majority of people in all denominations in my province want this change to go ahead.

Senator Kinsella: Senator Rompkey, is it not true that the Roman Catholic Archbishop James MacDonald appeared before the committee and told the committee explicitly that the Roman Catholic Church in Newfoundland and Labrador is opposed to the abrogation of a right that is protected by the Constitution, namely the right for the Roman Catholic Church to run Roman Catholic schools, and that the Roman Catholic Church, as he stated, is opposed to the loss of that right which they have had since the time of union of Newfoundland with the rest of Canada? It is protected by the Constitution; placed beyond the reach of the Constitution. Is it not true that we have a clear statement from the Roman Catholic Archbishop saying that that is the position of the Roman Catholic Church?

Senator Rompkey: That is true, we had that statement from the archbishop. I have also heard from other Roman Catholic people in my province, whose opinion I respect, that the archbishop does not speak for them, and that they want this change to go ahead.

I say again that we have no absolute, categorical proof of what the majority of Roman Catholics in Newfoundland and Labrador want. We would have it if there had been a breakdown of the referendum results, but in the absence of that, we do not have any indication at all. The archbishop has a right to his point of view, but I believe other Catholics have a similar right to their points of view. I have listened to them, and I say again that I, myself, am satisfied that the majority of people from all denominations in my province want this change to go ahead.

Hon. C. William Doody: Honourable senators, I have a short question for my honourable friend, after which I will take the adjournment of debate, if I may.

Senator Rompkey made much of the system of allocation of capital funds when he was in a position of authority in the education system. He had to go to a denominational authority to get permission to improve or build, and so on. That is absolutely accurate, but I think Senator Rompkey will agree that legislation passed recently in the House of Assembly, and agreed to by all denominations, has established a construction board which will allocate funds on the basis of need rather than on a per capita basis, and that the denominations will no longer control those funds. Many of these things have already been done and accomplished. There is no constitutional change needed to effect most of these improvements in the system. Would the honourable senator not agree with that?

Senator Rompkey: It is perfectly true that such a board was indeed contemplated, and may be effective.

Senator Doody: It has already been enacted but not proclaimed.

Senator Rompkey: The latest that I hear from the Government of Newfoundland is that there still has not been the measure of agreement that they would like to see.

Senator Doody: That is true.

Senator Rompkey: That is my information. In the absence of that agreement, it seems to me that they would want to proceed with the constitutional amendment, and so do I.

Senator Doody: Senator Rompkey is correct. The board has been established and there has been agreement on it and on numerous other areas, but the government is still not happy. Ninety per cent of the recommendations in the Williams report has been agreed to by the denominations, and the government is still not happy. It wants total control, and it will get total control when it gets the constitutional amendment. We will need to see what happens in the next little while.

In the meantime, I will take the adjournment of the debate.

Hon. Michel Cogger: Would Senator Doody allow me a question before he takes the adjournment?

Senator Doody: Certainly.

Senator Cogger: Senator Rompkey, in June of this year, in another one of your scintillating speeches, you said on this very question:

I hope we can convince a majority of senators to vote for this legislation because I consider it very important. In fact, I consider it urgent.

When you spoke those words back in June, we were debating a motion by Senator Murray to refer the matter to committee. Let us remember that the matter had been referred to us from the House of Commons after having sat in the PCO for six months. At that time, as I recall, after much debate, a compromise was reached that we would refer the matter to committee, and allow the committee to travel to Newfoundland by July 17, which the committee did. As a matter of fact, members of the committee on our side indicated, at the time that the report was filed, that they were prepared to be recalled to consider the matter.

This matter now, which you do consider to be urgent, has been sitting gathering dust for two and a half months, since July 17. Can you tell us, or can your leadership inform us as to when we can expect to dispose of the matter and be called upon to pass judgment upon it?

I might remind you, Senator Rompkey, that I believe there is a perception out there, particularly in your home province, that the Senate is dragging its feet and doing nothing, which we on our side certainly resent because that is certainly not the case. Would Senator Graham perhaps answer the question?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Or Senator Carstairs.

Senator Cogger: It is a shame that the Leader of the Government in the Senate has walked out of the chamber.

Senator Rompkey: I do not know how it works in the Senate, but in the House of Commons we did not refer to people who were absent and not in the chamber. That is the practice we followed in the House of Commons. If you want me to identify the Conservatives who are absent today, I will be glad to do that.

(1600)

I cannot speak for the leadership as to when the vote will be called. That will be a matter of negotiation between the two sides, as it always is.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: The sooner the better.

Senator Berntson: Let us have it tomorrow.

Senator Rompkey: Whenever it is called, I will vote in favour of the amendment.

Senator Cogger: Because it is a matter which the honourable senator seems to take very much to heart - in fact, he seems to be the leading spokesperson from his side with regard to it - would he undertake to discuss my question with his leadership and ask them to provide us with the answer? Perhaps the answer could be provided the next time we meet. In that way, we, and the good people of Newfoundland, would know when this matter can be disposed of. It has been sitting on Parliament Hill in one form or another since November of 1995.

Senator Corbin: Are you suggesting closure?

Senator Rompkey: It has not been sitting in the Senate since 1995. I will discuss the matter with the Leader of the Government, as I always do.

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government): As a matter of fact, if it is the desire of Senator Cogger, we could bring it to a vote right now.

Senator Rompkey: Yes!

Senator Graham: A number of senators on both sides have indicated an interest in speaking to this very important matter. We intend to give them all an opportunity to do so.

Senator Cogger: Honourable senators, on June 13 there was concern expressed that your side of the house would move too quickly on the matter. The Honourable Senator Graham said:

Honourable senators, there is agreement that the committee will be given ample time to make a complete examination, hear witnesses as they so deem, and not to use the hammer at any time before it is required with regard to reporting on July 17.

That was the case. There were no hammer blows.

On motion of Senator Doody, debate adjourned.

Excise Tax Act

Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Debate Adjourned

Hon. Consiglio Di Nino moved the second reading of Bill S-11, to amend the Excise Tax Act.

He said: Honourable senators, it is my honour to commence the second reading debate on Bill S-11 which would exclude reading material from the application of the goods and services tax. I expect that this initiative will receive wide approval from senators on both sides of this chamber. I am basing my expectations on the reported comments of both Liberals and Conservatives over the past six years.

In general terms, the government has failed to live up to many, if not most, of the commitments the Prime Minister and other Liberal candidates made on the campaign trail three years ago. The Liberal government's specific failure and specific refusal to honour its long-held pledge to abolish the GST is part and parcel of my speech.

My interest today is with part of that Liberal pledge to get rid of the GST, specifically the promise by members of the Liberal Party to eliminate the GST on reading material. To help the Liberals keep their promise, I have introduced Bill S-11 to amend the Excise Tax Act, which would exclude reading material from application of the goods and services tax.

Currently, books are exempt from the provincial sales tax in every province in Canada. Magazines and newspaper subscriptions, as well as newsstand sales, are, in most provinces, also exempt from provincial sales tax. At least they were until recently. Now, under the proposed harmonized federal-provincial tax in three Atlantic provinces, books will take on a 15-per-cent combined federal-provincial surcharge.

The PCs have been forthright and consistent on this matter for at least six years. Many of you have probably forgotten that in October 1990 Prime Minister Mulroney was asked by a student from Burnaby South High School:

Why would the GST be applied on school textbooks and the Bible and the Koran?

The Prime Minister replied:

Of all the criticism I have heard, this worries me the most. When the tax has been applied across the board for a while, the government will want to look at its impact, perhaps review it and revise it later after it has been put in place.

Our own Senator Murray reminded us during the debate in 1990 that had the Liberals accepted the invitation of pre-study we might have been able to deal with this issue at that time. I recall vividly, despite all the heckling, the din and the Liberal unhelpfulness, Senator Murray's reply to the Liberal's crocodile tears. He said that if the Liberals had not abandoned the technique of pre-study, we may have had an opportunity to look at possible improvements in the entire bill, but that the Liberals abandoned that practice in favour of confrontation. I should like to add that the Liberals also abandoned parliamentary practices in favour of rudeness, delay and political grandstanding.

Since then, the Progressive Conservative concern over this matter has been expressed numerous times. In August 1993, the Honourable Jean Charest, the then Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, was hailed in the Montreal Gazette as leading a campaign to remove the GST from reading material.

More recently, during the week of February 14, 1995, Senator DeWare asked if Senator Fairbairn would confirm that the government would live up to its promise to remove any federal taxation from reading material. The minister, two years into her mandate, refused a direct answer, saying only, "We are still working with the provinces."

Clearly, given that response, the Liberal government has not demonstrated that it is willing to make the literary programs and policies supportive of literacy a priority in order to prepare Canada for the 21st century.

Just last month at the PC policy convention in Winnipeg, Elsie Wayne, MP for Saint John, placed on the record a resolution to remove the GST from books.

I invite all honourable senators to cast their minds back again some six years to 1990 when members of the party opposite were busy debasing the reputation of this chamber with their opposition antics. How they ranted and raved and claimed to be outraged, "Only Tories could implement such a tax," they said. "Wait until we get into government. Then you will see. The GST will be gone so fast it will make your heads spin." Almost three years have passed and we are still waiting. Sadly, the only thing spinning is this government - it is spinning its wheels, spinning stories trying to convince Canadians the Liberals never promised to scrap the GST.

Who recalls the wit and wisdom of the Liberals on this issue at that time? Senator Hébert had much to say on the topic of the GST. Senator Hébert, who is a loyal friend of Prime Minister Chrétien, I understand, went on for 18 hours, I believe. We are not privy to his wit and wisdom on this issue any longer. I suppose that is to be expected.

Remember Senator Kirby's efforts on this matter. Next to Senator Hébert, his five hours were a mere bagatelle - a footnote. Of course, there was the present Leader of the Government in the Senate who spoke for more than 16 hours on this topic. Those were the days when the Liberals actually behaved as if they believed in something.

Honourable senators, I do not intend to recite the whole litany of charges involved and the wild accusations we heard during 1990 from the Liberals. It is tempting, mind you, if for no other reason than to show the length to which the Liberal Party and people such as Sheila Copps and Mary Clancy will go in order to gain some public attention. However, I think several examples are necessary in order to refresh our memories and to remind us of the position taken by the Liberal Party of Canada and so many of its stellar candidates currently running for cover where it concerns the issue of taxation on reading materials.

Those of you who were present in the Senate at that time will recall, perhaps, Senator Perrault's remarks to the effect that the GST was reactionary. He said that it was "laden with inequities and an attack on the poor and single mothers." "To tax books," he said, "is to impose ignorance."

(1610)

Then, of course, there was Senator MacEachen. He sent out a press release which stated:

Of all the things that are wrong with the GST, surely a tax on reading stands out as the most regressive and offensive cultural and educational measure ever introduced by a government.

Who could forget my friend Senator Hébert's predictions about the "catastrophic effect" that the tax would have on the book industry? The GST, he told us:

- will deal a fatal blow to the book industry.

Let's not forget that a bookstore is not simply a plain business. It is an arts centre. It is a meeting place where ideas are exchanged, where literary discussions are held, where the mind is aroused.

Fine words indeed, soul stirring even, and all the more so because Senator Hébert believed what he was saying. He was not simply being partisan; he was being passionate about something he cared about. I congratulate him for his honesty and his willingness to stand and be heard when he felt the issue demanded it.

Senator Hébert was not alone. He was joined by Senator Fairbairn, who said the GST was "as hurtful as it is unnecessary."

Senator Kinsella: Who said that?

Senator Di Nino: Senator Fairbairn. "How could the Conservative government even consider taxing reading materials," she asked? These materials were:

- crucial to learning, to knowledge, to education and to spiritual fulfilment, which in turn are activities fundamental to Canada's ability not just to compete but to survive in the 21st century.

She did not stop there. She quoted from university students opposed to taxing books. She told us that over one-third of Canadians were functionally illiterate. She claimed that the GST would make reading materials more inaccessible. She told us that the tax was a blow to the poor and to senior citizens. The GST, she said:

- will make it harder for those Canadians who are least equipped to meet tomorrow's educational challenges.

Honourable senators, I do not necessarily agree with all of Senator Fairbairn's comments; however, as with her colleague Senator Hébert, I admire her for standing up and defending something in which she believes. We are all aware of her concern and dedication to the issue of literacy in this country. I expect in response to my written question that she will be providing this chamber with information her department has on the GST and literacy. I do not question the minister's motivation because I believe her heart is in the right place.

Honourable senators, the Liberals have been in office now for almost three years, yet the GST on reading material is still with us. Have Liberal senators opposite spoken to the Prime Minister? How many of the Liberal members of the House, how many of the Liberal cabinet ministers, have urged Mr. Chrétien to speak to Canadians straight from the heart, to look them in the eye and tell them that the present Liberal government has no intention of ever getting rid of the GST on reading material? I wonder.

This whole GST thing reminds me of a man by the name of Earl Kemp. He was at one time the Governor of Louisiana. One day his aides asked him what they should tell the public about the growing list of campaign promises that were not being kept. "It is simple," the governor said. "Just tell them I lied." At least he was honest.

Surely Mr. Chrétien would not want such stories to be told about him in the future. He tells us his is an honest government, one with integrity to spare. I have no doubt the honourable senators opposite would agree with him. Perhaps then, led by Senator Fairbairn, they can make a public commitment to speak to the Prime Minister and to insist that he keep his promise to Canadians and support our effort to abolish the GST on reading material.

At the same time, they may like to explain to us why, after so much rhetoric and criticism, they have all fallen mute on the subject since the last election. It seems to me, and I gladly stand open to correction, that Senator Fairbairn and her colleagues have not said or done anything positive on this issue, not one positive thing or positive act of leadership since 1993.

Before Sheila Copps had to resign, I asked someone to look through the index of our Debates for references to Liberals and the GST on reading material since 1993. In fact, I asked for references to Liberals on the GST period. They came up empty-handed - not one reference, none. I found this hard to believe given the passion displayed by some of our colleagues opposite over this issue, so I asked around. No one had heard or could remember anything - not one instance when the Liberals had raised the issue of taxing reading materials.

I had a look at the newspapers. Surely there would be letters to the editors or references to speeches or something. All I could find was one article. It was in one of the local papers dated November 25, 1993, and it quoted Senator Fairbairn, the first federal Minister with Special Responsibility for Literacy, saying books should be exempted from taxation. According to the article, she said she will be forceful and loud in pushing that view in cabinet.

You will notice in passing that the senator was barely a month in government and already she was backtracking on her earlier promises. Now she was talking about exempting books only. What happened to reading material, the same reading material she told us was so crucial to learning, to knowledge, to spiritual fulfilment?

I would be interested to know just exactly what the government and the Prime Minister have done over the past three years to push this issue. I have looked hard for evidence of "forceful and loud" talk on their part in favour of abolishing the GST on books, and I must confess I have not found anything - not a hint, not a rumour, nothing.

During the debate, they may tell us that the issue is being studied. Perhaps they will tell us that it is a complicated issue. Perhaps they will tell us about provincial intransigence. Perhaps one of their MPs will call the Premier of Ontario ignorant. I was shocked to read what the Liberal MP from Restigouche-Chaleur said about the Honourable Mike Harris. Was Mr. Arseneault reflecting the opinion of the Ontario Liberal MPs, of Minister Collenette, of Minister Eggleton and others, of the 90 some odd Liberal silent majority from Ontario? He said if Mr. Harris -

- is too darn dumb to see a good deal, that is his problem, if he is not intelligent enough to see a good deal in front of his eyes to save the constituents of Ontario up to $1-billion or maybe upward to $2-billion, it is not my problem if he is not intelligent enough.

He was talking about the harmonization of the GST.

Perhaps they will say it would not be fair to exempt only books and not other things. Perhaps they will say it was a slip of the tongue and start a series of by-elections. Canadians have heard too many of such political answers from this government in the past three years. Canadians have seen enough of gratuitous Liberal by-elections. What Canadians want and need, I think, is a little honesty. Canadians need and expect some straight answers from this government of presumed integrity.

I do not believe that my honourable colleagues' past criticism and their past comments on this issue are meaningless. Surely it cannot be true that Mr. Chrétien, Mr. Martin, Ms Copps and so many others never really had any intention of supporting the abolition of the GST. However, there is a perception out there that we are being hoodwinked. I have been asked to explain the Liberal silence on this question. Perhaps the Minister with Special Responsibility for Literacy has already been asked this question. Perhaps the Minister with Special Responsibility for Literacy has questioned the resolve of her Prime Minister and her Deputy Prime Minister who encouraged her just a short time ago to stand in this place and make a 16-hour speech.

And what about Senator Hébert, who has never to my knowledge been accused of being a shrinking violet? Why has he apparently lost his voice? Surely such a minor issue as party solidarity would not stop him from speaking out. Why have we not heard from him criticizing the government or calling on his old friend Mr. Chrétien to honour his election pledge to abolish the GST, or at least the GST on reading material? Did power change him like it changed Sheila Copps? Where is his kazoo now?

Why indeed? Clearly the Liberal Party is opposed to this tax. If I recall correctly, it was the summer of 1992 at a Liberal Party convention where delegates unanimously adopted a priority resolution to the effect that:

- a Liberal government would re-affirm the historic principles embodied in tax-free status for the printed word and remove the Goods and Services Tax on reading materials.

Mr. Chrétien followed up on this by sending a letter to the Don't Tax Reading Coalition committing himself and the Liberal Party to abolishing the GST on books and other reading material if they won the next election.

During that election, Liberal candidates in all parts of the country promised the same thing, and they promised not to delay but to axe this thing right away. Let me read to you a line from the Liberal Party newspaper called The Toronto Star dated July 28, 1993. We call it the Red Star in Toronto.

The Liberals have said that they will scrap the GST -

and

- have vowed to begin by immediately removing the tax on reading materials -

if elected. It seems to me you cannot get much clearer than that.

Moreover, according to the Executive Director of the Association of Canadian Publishers, at least seven or eight Liberal candidates who later became cabinet ministers endorsed removing the tax on reading materials. Let me quote a few of them.

(1620)

Art Eggleton said:

Today the case against the taxing of reading is stronger than ever.

Sheila Copps, our famous friend, said:

Food is not taxed because it is a necessity. So are books. They are needed for young minds to grow.

Brian Tobin said:

It is a violation of the concept of the freedom of speech to tax the written word, to tax the ability of people to communicate with each other.

There are many others.

So clearly, honourable senators, it can be said, honestly and without equivocation or evasion, that the Liberal Party of Canada ran on an anti-GST platform. "Vote for us and we will abolish the tax on reading materials," they said.

Since then, they have reneged on their promise openly, cynically, shamelessly. They have done so with the full consent of honourable senators opposite. This begs the question: Can the Liberals be believed? Can they be trusted? Do they have integrity? Do they have a plan to get rid of the GST on reading material?

How many members of caucus spoke out when the press quoted "a Liberal official who asked not to be named" that the tax on reading would remain because it would be unfair to limit the options of the government committee set up to study the GST? Which of our Liberal friends objected? Who among the Liberals and who among Liberal cabinet ministers was forceful and loud in opposition to this blatant move to sweep a major campaign promise under the rug? Which minister informed their colleagues at the cabinet table that their actions were improper, indefensible, dishonest and contrary to what the Liberal Party had campaigned on and promised the Canadian people?

Most of you will recall that our former colleague Senator Frith introduced a bill in January 1993 to abolish tax on reading materials. Following the elections, he was quoted as saying that he was quite prepared to reintroduce the bill if the Liberal government failed to take steps to fulfil its promise. Well, the government has failed to take steps to fulfil its promise.

Senator Frith is no longer with us in this chamber but that should not discourage any honourable colleague from showing leadership. Why have Liberals in the House of Commons not proposed a similar bill? Given the commitment and the past position of the Liberal Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and various other cabinet ministers on this issue, why have they not done what they said they would do?

The finance minister says it is a question of priorities and that Canadians cannot afford $140 million that the tax brings in from books. Can we really believe that the government cannot find the $140 million needed? Does the Liberal government understand spending priorities? What about the $6-billion infrastructure program better known as "the Liberal slush fund"? The money intended for badly needed upgrades to sewers, roads and waterworks did not always go where it was supposed to.

I will not repeat all of the things said by my colleague a few moments ago about this issue. Suffice it to say that, at the end of the day, the money was spent on many, many useless things - monkey cages and the like, tennis courts, lawn mowers, stainless steel toilets and bocci courts.

Remember, the Finance Minister said we cannot afford $140 million. What about the waste of money in the Sault? Sault Ste. Marie has the highest commercial vacancy rate in this country. The government borrowed $12 million to build an office complex in Minister Ron Irwin's riding. This is supposed to save us $500,000 a year. Maybe we should send him a thank-you card. The Liberal Public Works minister has admitted that he does not know how. The Liberals turned down the option to purchase and renovate an existing building which currently houses the federal Department of Human Resources, work which would have saved us $5 million.

That is in Sault Ste. Marie, a nice city in Ontario. You should visit it.

You will all remember that the Liberals delayed the purchase of the new shipboard helicopters. As they delay and procrastinate and show that they are expert at inaction, millions of dollars are spent repairing ancient machines and breaking EH-101 contracts, and worst of all, they are putting at risk Canada's men and women in uniform.

The Ottawa Sun reports that it goes to show how little thought went into Jean Chrétien's decision to cancel the PC's proposed EH-101 helicopter plan without an alternative at hand. In addition, the Liberal purchase of badly needed armoured vehicles to protect our peacekeepers will be another waste of money and put at risk more of our men and women in the Armed Forces. This is because, as The Globe and Mail reported in May of this year:

The new carriers, the first of which won't be delivered until 1998, will be vulnerable to relatively light weapons of the kind commonly found in medium-intensity conflicts.

This is what we will ask our men and women to use.

Furthermore, Canada's defence minister okayed an upgrading, at a cost of $79 million, to Canada's CF-5 fighter aircraft fleet. After spending $79 million, they put them in a hangar and put the fleet up for sale.

Perhaps we should suggest to the finance minister that he take away Sheila Copps' credit card. She has dropped quite a bit of dough since her triumphant return to public life. First, it was the half-million dollars to redeem herself. Then we got $23 million on flags, against which, by the way, she was warned as being propaganda; and $20 million or so on a "We love Sheila Copps" propaganda office.

I could go on but I do not want to embarrass my Liberal colleagues any more. Mr. Martin should be able to find $140 million needed for giving a hand to publishers, industry workers, educators and students. However, if he cannot find $140 million from all the scatter-brained ideas I have already listed, I can give him lots more.

Honourable senators, I have taken the liberty of introducing Bill S-11 in light of the absence of Liberal leadership. The reason why the Liberal government is refusing to live up to its promise to abolish the GST on reading material really remains a mystery. However, we do know one thing which is also known by a growing number of our fellow citizens: Too many Canadians were led to believe that Liberals were an honest party.

During the past election, the Liberal Party of Canada corrupted voters with false hope. You remember Prime Minister Chrétien; the first words out of his mouth on the first day of the election campaign were, "Let's bring back the good old days." Too many Canadians believed him. What they got instead were the Liberals' old ways and Mr. Chrétien's old days.

Mr. Chrétien made irresponsible promises, but he was not alone. All of the Liberals made promises to the electorate - such as the helicopters, Pearson airport, the GST and bocci ball - that they could not keep or could not keep well. Irresponsible promises are not good politics, as Mr. Chrétien will surely find out.

I am reminded of an old saying:

The righteous promise little and perform much, but the wicked promise much and perform little.

If the Red Book is any indication, any gauge, then the present Liberal government is wicked indeed.

Today the ball is clearly in the government's court. The Liberal party promised Canadians it would scrap the GST on reading materials. Senators Fairbairn, Kirby, Hébert and others stood in this chamber and expressed support for such a policy. Liberals in the House - including Copps, Eggleton, Peterson, Mills, Godfrey, Terrana, Zed - to name just a few - together have failed to honour their pledge as another of Mr. Chrétien's many promises disappears into thin air.

The Liberal Party of Canada owes Canadians an apology. The people of this country deserve better than his embarrassed silence and crude attempts to bluster and "mixed-metaphor" his way out of his election promises.

The people of this country deserve better than being subjected to Sheila Copps' slips of the tongue. If the Liberals had the courage of their convictions, they would say so publicly.

Senator Taylor: That is nasty.

Senator Di Nino: The honourable senator will have lots of time to ask questions.

I have no doubt that this matter is a complicated one. I do not presume to have all the answers to many questions that will arise during the debate on Bill S-11. I am convinced that, with the helpful vigilance of all of our learned colleagues and our committee system, and with all of the various views and positions of the stakeholders, we can arrive at a more complete understanding of the issues and the bill's practical implications.

Among others, I believe we should hear from the Movement for Canadian Literacy, the Canadian School Boards Association, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, presidents of universities, students, the Canadian Library Association and the good people at Frontier College, to name just a few. Representatives of the Association of Canadian Publishers have indicated that the harmonized sales tax will eliminate Canadian jobs. The various sectors of the printing and publishing industries will suffer layoffs directly attributed to the Liberal government's slight of hand.

(1630)

According to the Canadian Bankers Association, the publishing and printing industry represents the fourth largest industrial employer in the country, larger than the mining, oil and gas sectors. The Canadian Library Association is of the opinion, and it is an opinion I share, that the development of skills and knowledge is not confined to the classroom. Reading is an investment in knowledge. Canada's human infrastructure requires an investment from the federal government. Only by investing in our human capital, our brain power, will the long-term quality of life of all Canadians be improved.

By reneging on their promise to remove the tax on reading material, the Liberal government has discouraged investment in Canada. This absence of leadership, this inaction on the part of the Prime Minister and his deputies will ultimately damage both our human capital and our competitiveness as a nation.

The Canadian Council of Teachers of English and the Canadian School Boards Association have written to Liberal parliamentarians on many occasions. Their representatives even appeared before a Liberal-dominated committee of the House of Commons to tell them that, according to Statistics Canada, less affluent households spend a larger percentage of income on reading material than higher income households. Given the wealth of research proving that the greatest single factor in the development of literacy skills and love of learning among children is the presence of reading material in the home, what will the Liberals do? What is Mr. Chrétien's plan?

I do not want to dwell on the unhappy, untoward and unwarranted remarks made by my Liberal colleagues some six years ago. Dwelling on the broken promises of Prime Minister Chrétien and Deputy Prime Minister Copps serves no useful purpose at this point. I want all honourable colleagues to move beyond rhetoric that has been both pervasive and divisive in previous debates on this issue.

I call on all honourable senators to support this bill in principle so that a measure of great import to so many Canadians can receive a fair and just study. I thank all honourable senators for their interest in this issue and look forward to their comments and learned dissertations on the national concern of Canadian illiteracy.

On motion of Senator Corbin, debate adjourned.

Palliative Care in Canada

Inquiry Debated

On the Order:

Resuming the debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Carstairs, calling the attention of the Senate to the state of palliative care services in Canada.-(Honourable Senator Corbin).

Hon. Eymard G. Corbin: Honourable senators I do not intend to speak on this inquiry, despite what I said earlier. I would rather reserve my comments on this topic for a further debate which will be soon. Either we can close the debate, if honourable senators agree, or have another senator stand it in his name.

The Hon. the Speaker: If no other honourable senators wishes to speak, the inquiry will be deemed debated.

Adjournment

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

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

That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, October 1, 1996, at two o'clock in the afternoon.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

The Senate adjourned until Tuesday, October 1, 1996, at 2 p.m.

---