Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
2nd Session, 35th Parliament,
Volume 135, Issue 55
Thursday, November 28, 1996
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker
- THE SENATE
- SENATORS' STATEMENTS
- ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
- QUESTION PERIOD
- ORDERS OF THE DAY
THE SENAT)
Thursday, November 28, 1996
The Senate met at 2:00 p.m., the Speaker in the Chair.Prayers.
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Vanier Cup
Best Wishes to St. Francis Xavier in Varsity Football Game
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, today, Canadian universities are being called upon to be many things for many people while, at the same time, government funding is being reduced. With today's global competition and the technological revolution well under way, we Canadians are becoming more and more aware that our prospects for success in the new economy are very much dependent on the nature of our human resources and the quality of our skills that we project into the global marketplace. We only have to think of the fact that the number of university graduates with jobs in Canada has increased by more than 500,000 since 1990, with the number of jobs held by people without university degrees declining by over 200,000. We know that universities have to produce excellence as never before and must rank up there with the best throughout the world in order that our country remain high on the global productivity list.Is that a far cry from the Vanier Cup football game to be held this Saturday at the SkyDome in Toronto? Not really. Is that a way of bootlegging the mention of two great universities, in the East my own St. Francis Xavier and, in the West, the much respected University of Saskatchewan? Of course it is, because varsity football is still one of the greatest means of teaching excellence through sport on campuses throughout the country.
The young athletes whom we will watch on Saturday are the best of the West, the Huskies from the University of Saskatchewan, and the best of the East, my own favorite, but not favoured, X-Men. This will be an example of amateur sport in its purest, most exciting form. These are athletes who have learned about tight coordination and perseverance in the face of physical pain, and the systematic execution of plays, which has fostered a deep sense of team work in all of them - the realization and understanding that the team is more important than the sum of its parts.
We will see young people who have learned about decision-making and time management - all about moulding a functioning machine from the chaos of training camp. They have learned all about the endurance it takes in dealing with our harsh climate.
I thought about that in Halifax a couple of weekends ago as 60-kilometre-per-hour winds swept through St. Mary's Husky stadium, a game at which we were all hoarse after watching John Stevens' X-Men defeat the University of Ottawa Gee Gees in a stunning 13-5 upset. Some people in the nation's capital, even some Ottawa alumni on Parliament Hill, are still reeling from the shock of that defeat.
No doubt, coach Brian Towriss out in Saskatchewan has thought the same things about endurance and the rigours of the Canadian climate as the extreme cold in that province, this week, has driven his Huskies into the campus field house because they could not get a footing on the rock-hard ground covered with a three-inch layer of snow.
Both teams arrived in the Queen City yesterday. Certainly, by tomorrow, "Toronto-the-good" will be "Toronto-the-better," with such a new and renewed infusion of genuine football fever following the wonderful Grey Cup snow bowl festivities of last weekend.
Honourable senators, it is not stretching the imagination too far to envision some of the players involved in this Saturday's engagement as the Team Canadas of tomorrow.
The big question for all of us today is how do we back winning programs and excellence overall in our colleges and universities at a time of reduced public spending. Five years ago, I spoke at a huge rally on the St. F.X. campus in support of a major initiative, much of it directed at the university alumni, to rescue the varsity football program. Those who contributed in any way to the success of that effort have reason to be very proud.
(1410)
University fundraising in the private sector has become much more important over the last decade. That football game on Saturday will mean as much to the alumni, east and west, who help to maintain their universities as centres of excellence as it will, in some ways, to the young athletes on the field. As well, the spectators in the bleachers or at home watching on television have an opportunity to identify with the athletic achievements they see on the field.
For many alumni, that football game will be a time of remembering collegiality and bonding, times when lifetime friendships were made and commitments to the future sworn, times of learning and idealism, times of lustre and crackle and colour in all of our lives.
For the alumni, so essential to the future of universities and colleges across this country, it means a legacy renewed. It means times they want to pass on to new generations. Over the decades, it means a determination as Canadians to see our country remain one of the finest in the world. It means a recognition that the excellence of our colleges and universities are the bridges to that future.
We wish them all well.
The Economy
Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, on November 7, 1996, Senator Austin did a little bragging about the performance of the Canadian economy in the last few years under this Liberal government. He talked about the great job the government has done on reducing the deficit.What he did not say was that the Chrétien government has achieved this reduction in large measure by transferring the load to the provinces, and by a huge tax grab in employment insurance premiums - I believe some $10 billion, and growing fast. They are raking in much more than the system needs. He spoke of the record high levels of business confidence, but did not mention the record high levels of business failures and bankruptcies. He spoke proudly of the low interest rates and low inflation without giving credit to the previous government, which was totally responsible for achieving these admirable goals.
Senator Austin also said:
Also to be noted is that the unemployment rate is in the range of 9.5 per cent, which is well above the economists' notion of a full employment level.
Honourable colleagues, I hope all of those Canadians who cannot pay their rents or mortgages, all of those Canadians who cannot properly feed their families, were listening. They will take great comfort in Senator Austin's words.
The truth of the matter is that this government, which was elected on the promise of "jobs, jobs, jobs," has "governed" this country up to the highest levels of unemployment for the longest period of time since the 1930s' Depression. Especially disturbing is youth unemployment, which the Conference Board of Canada estimates to be at 25 per cent.
Senator Simard: They should resign immediately.
Senator Di Nino: Senator Austin also refers to "the remarkable growth in Canada's exports to the United States and around the world." His statement about record levels of exports and trade is correct. What he again fails to mention is that his party strongly opposed the trade liberalization and trade agreements that the previous government put in place, which resulted in these record levels of exports and which ensure jobs and prosperity for thousands and thousands of Canadians. Do honourable senators remember their promise to rip up the FTA and NAFTA?
Honourable colleagues, Senator Austin promises to return to these issues at a future time. As will I, honourable colleagues, if only to once again set the record straight.
The Senate
Media Image of Independent Members
Hon. Marcel Prud'Homme: Honourable senators, yesterday we had a very interesting debate on education in Newfoundland. As reported today in The Globe and Mail by Susan Delacourt:Coincidentally, 35 Liberal senators voted against Progressive Conservative changes to the Newfoundland amendment.
The province's plans needed to be approved without change by the Senate by Nov. 30 -
That is this Saturday, which is a great day because it is Sir Winston Churchill's birthday, and also mine.
- to become part of the Constitution.
I am not offended, but I am surprised that such a responsible paper would report:
Last night, 43 Conservative senators and four Liberals voted instead to modify the measure.
I counted quite closely, and it was 41 Conservatives and two independents. I do not wish to speak on behalf of Senator Pitfield, but he and I voted against this proposal. Nowhere in this newspaper article does it say that the independents joined the Conservatives, although I did not join anyone but simply voted as I thought I should. However, to indicate that it was 43 Conservative senators is wrong, and I think it should be corrected for history: The numbers were 41 Conservatives, two independents, and four Liberals.
What also surprised me was that the Canadian Press, in their report, made the same mistake. I suppose if I were to make that kind of mistake as a senator, I would be very severely criticized.
In the name of accuracy, I wished to draw that to the attention of honourable senators.
Vanier Cup
Best Wishes to Saskatchewan Huskies in Varsity Football Game
Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, I could not let Senator Graham be the only senator to speak about the Vanier Cup. This coming Saturday, in my usual tradition, I will be a little partisan. I have nothing nice to say about the X-Men. However, the history of the Siberian Husky is rich in Canadian tradition. The dog, I think, personifies this team. It is loyal, hard-working, and able to withstand the harshest elements that Mother Nature can manufacture. They will find it a breeze in the wimpish atmosphere of the SkyDome, where football is played on a rug.Our Huskies from Saskatchewan, led by outstanding CIAU quarterback Brent Schneider, will spend the first quarter, I believe, getting used to the balmy surroundings of this new environment before they unleash the dogs on the unsuspecting St. F.X., and it will need a miracle from St. Francis himself for them to score even one touchdown.
This year, the semi-finalist UBC Thunderbirds and the Guelph Gryphons got eaten up by the green and white, and were outscored by a total score of 70 to 25.
Being a Catholic myself, I find it difficult to wish a bad score on a football team from a university named after a saint; worse yet, being a Conservative appointed by Brian Mulroney, who graduated from St. F.X. makes it even more difficult. But fall they will in Toronto on Saturday, November 30, to the dogs of winter, the U of S Huskies.
Honourable senators, on behalf of all of us here who feel as I do, I wish the best of luck to coach Brian Towriss of the Huskies, and to his team and his coaching staff, and to the X-Men, I say, "Fight gallantly; be brave," and to those of you who support them, I say, "Pray now."
[Translation]
Conference on the Future of Children
Hon. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Honourable senators, I want to say a few words about the Conference on the Future of Children held from November 24 to November 27 at the Château Laurier in Ottawa.The conference was an unqualified success, attracting more than 1,000 delegates from Canada, and raised a number of points that deserve to be studied in depth. Such conferences are essential to the proper functioning, improvement and reform of our child-and family-support systems.
(1420)
On this occasion, a number of passionate children's rights advocates received special recognition for their dedication to this cause. Today, I would emphasize the contribution made by our honourable colleague Senator Landon Pearson, who was the honourary Chair at this conference. She was honoured for her excellent work in this field.
For many years, Senator Pearson has been fighting hard to have children treated as full-fledged citizens and to have their rights recognized and respected throughout the world. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Senator Pearson sincerely on her magnificent work. Her dedication to and compassion for children are worthy of a woman of great vision. She deserves our admiration and gratitude.
[English]
Atomic Energy of Canada
Sale of CANDU Reactors to China-Concerns about Environment and Human Rights Issues
Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, in signing an agreement with China for the sale of two CANDU reactors, the Government of Canada is prepared to circumvent the Environmental Assessment Act. It is prepared to ignore human rights violations in China, and it is prepared to lend $1.5 billion of the Canadian taxpayers' money, the largest international loan in Canadian history, to prop up a nuclear industry that has not sold a reactor in North America since 1978.This action is breathtaking in its audacity, stunning in its casual dismissal of Canadian law to clinch a deal, and coolly contemptuous of both the violation of human rights in China and the threat of nuclear proliferation to countries like Iraq and Iran that deal with China.
The United States will not sell nuclear reactors to China, in part because of its legitimate fear of nuclear proliferation, but also because China does not accept third-party liability, leaving any country, including Canada, vulnerable when accidents occur. It has been reported in The Nucleonic Week, which of course I read faithfully, that the Chinese have refused to accept Canadian training that would give operators of these two reactors the knowledge to run them as safely as possible.
It must be painful for Canadians concerned with human rights to see television pictures of the Prime Minister with Li Peng, the man who ordered the army at Tiananmen Square to attack defenceless students whose only crime was to ask their government to discuss democracy.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, a law proclaimed just two years ago, requires a review of projects outside Canada when they are financed with Canadian taxpayers' dollars. The rights of Canadians to obtain information and to make written comment when their money is spent are cornerstones of this act. Sections 21 to 24 of the act allow for public comment and require that a report on environmental impact be made public.
An advisory committee, which the government struck to advise on regulations for review of projects outside Canada, recommended a streamlined process, but said that provisions for public access and comment should be retained. The committee included the president of the Canadian Nuclear Association, the president of the Consulting Engineers of Canada, and the vice-president of the Canadian Exporters Association. However, on November 6, the cabinet approved a regulation excluding projects outside Canada from the basic requirements for public disclosure of an environmental assessment and for public comment.
Legal arguments will probably be advanced by Canadian environmental groups in a court challenge that the CEAA did apply to this project before the November 6 regulation and that the government may have triggered this act in assigning $1.5 billion of the Canada Account to finance this sale, as well as through its prolonged courting of the Chinese. The new regulation cannot be applied retroactively. Furthermore, under section 11 of the act, which is applicable even under the new regulation, a preliminary screening of the project is required before irrevocable decisions are made. There is no evidence to date that a screening was conducted before this week's signing of the agreement.
Finally, in removing basic rights found in an act of Parliament, cabinet may well have exceeded its regulation-making authority and, therefore, the regulation may be ultra vires.
Two days ago, the Minister of Natural Resources ridiculed the notion of Canada's imposing our standards on China. I presume she meant our democratic standards, but, with respect, she was wrong. China has imposed its standards on us. Perhaps she has also forgotten two portions of the CEAA preamble, which say that Canada is committed to environmental leadership nationally and internationally and make specific reference to public review and comment.
It is manifestly untrue, if one reads the act, that the CEAA was not meant to apply to foreign projects. We should know, as we were there when the Honourable Jean Charest brought this act in.
A definitive moment in Canadian history? Maybe. Human rights have been sold for a song. Shanghaied! And the price? Two Canadian CANDU reactors. As Royce Frith used to say, "To be continued."
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Expo 2005
Unanimous Support Extended to
Calgary in its Bid
to Hold World Fair in Alberta's Centennial Year
Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(i), I move,
seconded by Senator Ghitter:
That the Senate unanimously support the bid by Canada to host Expo 2005 in Calgary from May to October, 2005, the centennial year of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, it is with considerable pride that I move this motion today in support of Calgary's bid on behalf of all of Canada to hold this world fair in the province of Alberta during its centennial year, along with the centennial year of the province of its neighbour, Saskatchewan. All senators will remember that, just before the break, we had meetings, in Calgary and in Ottawa, with representatives from the Bureau of International Expositions. They were seeking to find out whether Canada and Canadians were behind this bid. The House of Commons has passed unanimously a resolution, and with the passage of this resolution by the Senate of Canada, we will have told the world that the Canadian Parliament and all those in it representing Canadians from coast to coast to coast are fully behind the project.
Canada and Calgary showed the world during the Olympics how we can greet people from every country with generosity, friendship and good cheer. There is a standard there which will be met and surpassed by Calgarians, with support of people all across this country in the year 2005.
I thank senators. I thank my colleague from Calgary, Alberta, Senator Ghitter, for seconding this motion. All of us together must do everything possible wherever we travel in this country or around the world to raise the names of Canada and Calgary 2005 so that we will have the opportunity of opening our hearts and our great city of Calgary to visitors from every country on the planet.
Hon. Ron Ghitter: Honourable senators, I welcome the opportunity to second the motion of the Honourable the Leader of the Government. I wear my Expo 2005 button proudly. Many of my colleagues have received one, and I hope all wear it with as much pride as I wear mine.
I rise as a usually humble Calgarian. Humility is a part of our nature. We do not have any football teams or hockey teams of which we can boast this year, but maybe that will happen soon.
I congratulate the Honourable Leader of the Government. I know the work she has put into supporting this very important proposal. I congratulate the Government of Canada for their support. I congratulate the government of the province of Alberta and the leadership in the city of Calgary, from the mayor to the many volunteers who have worked so hard to bring this venture forward.
I must also say that the chairman, Jack Perraton, has worked very hard with many volunteers and with the support of our mayor to bring this matter to this stage.
(1430)
If Canada is successful in this bid, it will have far-reaching impact. It will mean that over 4 million visitors will come to Canada to visit our country, and my city in particular.
The theme of the exposition is, "The Land, Our Common Ground." This theme is intended to celebrate our ties to the land and explore balanced solutions for living on our planet throughout the coming millennium. This theme presents many opportunities and challenges.
I can assure honourable senators that the city of Calgary is ready for this task. Our volunteer sector has been fuelled for many years by the 22,000 volunteers that each year come forward to help make the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede such a marvelous success. We are also proud of the highly successful, best ever winter Olympic Games. We are looking forward to making Expo 2005 the best in the history of this particular world fair.
In Calgary, we boast a wonderful city. I say that in all humility, of course. We boast an incredible environment, although today, I am told, there are a couple feet of snow on the ground. However, that will not happen in May of 2005.
There is much work to be done, and we are not there yet. The decision is yet to be made. We recall the anguish of the city of Toronto, which tried valiantly on two occasions to obtain the award of this fair at their location but did not get it. We know that we face stiff opposition from Nagoya, Japan, in accomplishing our ends.
That is why today's motion is of such importance. As Senator Fairbairn has said, at every opportunity, we must illustrate the commitment of Canadians to this bid throughout this land. Of course, the unanimous support of this Senate is another important symbol of this commitment. I know that we can count on the unanimous support of this chamber, and the individual support of all senators, for the successful promotion of this bid.
I am confident that we will succeed, and I look forward to the opportunity of welcoming all of you in the month of May, 2005, for the opening of what will be a tremendous and successful Canadian experience.
[Translation]
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, it was whispered in my ear yesterday that this motion would probably be brought forward today. I should have liked it to be moved and seconded by independent senators so as to make it really unanimous. At any rate, today is today. I would just like to assure you that, while I may be sitting as an independent senator, I agree with my good friend Senator Ghitter and with the Leader of the Government in the Senate. There is indeed unanimous hope in the Senate that Calgary will host this great event. Calgary is a city that I know very well; I have also made many speeches there. This may come as a surprise to you, but it is nonetheless true: I love Calgary.
I can remember another great event that took place in Calgary. In fact, I am surprised no one mentioned it. It was at theJune 1990 Liberal leadership convention that my great friend from college, the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, was elected.
[English]
Calgary is more than prepared to make everyone feel very happy. I know that the people of Calgary are well known for their hospitality and understand well the sensitivity of Canadians. Judging by the events of 1990, when they went the extra mile to be gentle and ready to accommodate people who spoke only French, I know that Calgary is in a position to definitely make this an all-Canadian event. We subscribe to the joy of Senators Fairbairn and Ghitter, who proposed that this motion today be unanimous. I want to join in this unanimity, and I know they will succeed.
If I can be helpful in any countries that I visit, I will do anything I can to ensure that this great event takes place in Calgary in 2005.
Hon. Jean B. Forest: Honourable senators, as colleagues from the West will know, Edmonton and Calgary have an extremely competitive relationship. We have our fun over football and over hockey, but as I said last week in Calgary, when Calgary wins the football game, I am not above donning a Stetson and red sweater when going to the Grey Cup. This year, it was almost Edmonton's.
I should like to say that when it comes to something outside the province, Edmonton and Calgary stick together. Calgary supported Edmonton in its Universiad and in the Commonwealth Games, and Edmontonians are all behind you in regard to Expo 2005.
Motion agreed to.
Adjournment
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 59(1)(h), I move:That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday next, December 3, 1996, attwo o'clock in the afternoon.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Meet During Sitting of the Senate
Hon. Sharon Carstairs: Honourable senators, I give notice that on Tuesday next, December 3, 1996, I will move:That the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs have power to sit at 3:15 p.m. on Wednesday, December 4, 1996, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.
Energy
Sable Island Natural Gas-Examination of production, transmission, distribution and environmental factors by Committee-Notice of Motion
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I give notice that on Tuesday next, December 3, 1996, I shall move:That the question of the production, transmission, distribution and environmental factors relating to Sable Island Gas be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources for their consideration and report.
QUESTION PERIOD
Greater Toronto Area
Absence of Federal Members of Parliament from Recent Metropolitan Toronto Council Meeting-Government Position
Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, recently the Intergovernmental Affairs Committee of the Metropolitan Toronto Council invited the Greater Toronto Area federal members to a meeting to discuss issues of importance to the GTA, which, by the way, contains some 40 ridings, all but one of which are held by Liberal members.My question to the minister is: Could the minister enlighten us as to why only two members of that caucus attended this important meeting, particularly since the meeting was scheduled during a week when the House of Commons was not sitting?
(1440)
Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I cannot give my honourable friend an answer to that question. However, I will seek one for him.
I should tell my honourable friend that the government, and the ministers within the government, as he would know, pay a great deal of attention to the great city of Toronto, and it certainly is a place in Canada for which I have great affection and admiration.
Senator Di Nino: I am once again delighted that the minister herself shows such interest. I believe her.
Honourable senators, I should also like to inform you that the minister responsible for the GTA is the member for Windsor West. The member for Windsor West has been assigned responsibility for looking after the affairs of the GTA region, which, as I said before, contains some 40 ridings, approximately 37 of which - depending on where you draw the lines - are held by Liberals, some of whom are cabinet ministers.
Is there not one minister from amongst this large number of members from the GTA who is capable of this task, or is this just another example of the current government caucus's lack of respect for this area, which plays such a critical role in Canada's social, economic and cultural life?
Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, the minister to whom the honourable senator was referring, the Honourable Herb Gray, is the senior minister for the province of Ontario. In that sense, he carries responsibilities for the entire province. I think my honourable friend would understand that Mr. Gray has been fighting - I might say, thank God, successfully - a valiant battle against cancer in the last several months. I do not think there has been for decades a member of either House of Parliament who has devoted more attention and more care to every assignment that he has been given than the Honourable Herb Gray. I hope that my honourable friend understands that Mr. Gray's devotion to duty for his province, for his city, and for the city of Toronto and the Greater Toronto area, is second to none.
In his absence, he was assisted by others in the Toronto area, and indeed by all of the members of Parliament who have been elected by the people of Toronto, and who do every day - although perhaps not on the occasion to which my friend is referring - a very dedicated and fine job for that great city.
Honourable senators, I really do wish to say that, in my 34 years on Parliament Hill, I have not known a public figure to devote more care and attention to his own responsibilities and to those of this country than the Honourable Herb Gray.
Senator Di Nino: Honourable senators, I want to clarify this point because it is very important: My comments were not directed at Minister Gray's ability, Minister Gray's commitment or Minister Gray's contribution to Canada, which has been great. Madam Minister, my question was: Must we go outside the Metro area in order to find someone capable enough to do that job? Are none of the members of that large caucus, some 35 to 43 members, depending on where you draw the line, including half a dozen ministers, capable of performing that task?
Senator Fairbairn: Of course they are, and they do so, every day.
Correctional Services
Parole of Dangerous Offenders-Concerns for Public Safety-Government Policy
Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, my question today is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It relates to the minister that she has been bragging about. Perhaps she might focus on the particular problem that I wish to raise.For the third time, the Auditor General has sounded the alarm on public safety as a result of weakness in Canada's parole system. Today, the focus is on the process followed by Correctional Services Canada in making release recommendations to the National Parole Board. The Auditor General has identified a number of concerns, including undertrained and overworked case management officers, frequent failures to prepare case work before offenders' first parole eligibility dates, and lack of federal-provincial cooperation.
Honourable senators, it is only a matter of time before an offender will be released on parole only to murder, maim or molest again, as we have seen in recent times with the unfortunate case in British Columbia.
My question is: When will this government make public safety the primary concern of Correctional Services Canada?
Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the government is very conscious of the comments of the Auditor General in this area - and no one is more conscious of them than Mr. Gray himself. There has been, without question, difficulty in getting vital information through the maze of Canada's jurisdictional divisions to the various levels where it belongs, in terms of making the best possible decisions for the safety of Canadian citizens.
I understand that Mr. Gray has appointed a qualified individual, who is knowledgeable on the difficulties, and who will work on a better system that will protect Canadians in a more effective way than our system has in the past.
This is a serious issue. The government takes it seriously, and Mr. Gray in particular takes it seriously - for the very reasons that my honourable friend has indicated, whether they exist in the province of British Columbia or elsewhere in this country.
Senator St. Germain: Honourable senators, I hope the government takes this issue seriously, in view of the fact that the Auditor General has pointed out this problem for the third time - not the first time or second time, but the third time. The government is, in effect, harassing people with a gun registry that will affect the lives of our aboriginal people quite negatively, and, at the same time, files like this exist that are not being attended to, that are blatant, that have been pointed out. I ask the minister: Is this not contradictory? We have the Justice Minister trying to change the entire world and impinging on the rights of law-abiding citizens by imposing a tax on them - unnecessarily, in the minds of many Canadians - and yet the government fails to deal with this sort of situation. It makes me wonder where their priorities are, and whether they are not just preparing for the next election, as opposed to dealing with the root of the problem, which allowed a killer who was out on parole to go into a suntanning establishment in Surrey, British Columbia, and drag out a young girl and kill her. I ask you: Why are we not doing something about this? I believe, as do many other Canadians, that we are just playing politics rather than dealing with the root causes of the problem.
Senator Fairbairn: Not at all, senator.
Honourable senators, there is a two-tier approach to this sort of situation, one which is taken through the Correctional Service, the other which has been taken by the Minister of Justice in trying to protect the very safety of the people to whom my friend refers by providing Canada with a gun law that will protect lives everywhere in this country.
In the case of the Correctional Service, if my honourable friend reads the Auditor General's report, he will understand that there are other levels of jurisdiction in relation to this important and difficult question. It does not simply rest with the Correctional Service of Canada. The Correctional Service and the National Parole Board depend on other levels to provide them with the information they need to make value judgments. There is unquestionably a gap, and that gap must be corrected. It has been reported more than once, and the current Solicitor General intends to do just that.
(1450)
National Defence
Case of Lieutenant Marsaw of the Navy-Possibility of Appointment of Mediator-Request for Response
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Will she give us some indication of what she might have been able to do in response to my questions to her yesterday about a very serious situation in Halifax?Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have nothing to report to my honourable friend today. I can tell him that I transmitted his concerns to the Minister of National Defence through his office. The minister, as my honourable friend is aware, is travelling in Western Canada at the moment.
I received the same kind of concern today from Senator Moore. He is also tremendously concerned about this issue and is working to get our messages to where they belong. I can only say that I am doing everything I can, as I know is Senator Moore. Any information that I get for my honourable friend I will send to him immediately.
Case of Lieutenant Marsaw of the Navy-Identification of Other Impediments to Intervention of Minister
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I should like to ask another question, and I suspect it involves a legal interpretation. I will try it out anyway. Minister Young said that he felt it not possible for him to intervene in the process, and he cited the military judicial process. It has always been my understanding that a court martial is internal to the military and, because of that, does not constitute the definition that we generally understand with respect to the judicial process. I assume that that remains an impediment for the minister or, at least, that he considers it to be a serious impediment. Are there other things standing in the way with respect to some of us intervening? I am fully aware of Senator Moore's concern with this matter. Indeed, I am aware of the concern of the entire community in Halifax-Dartmouth. Are there any other impediments that we might do something about? Time is of the essence.Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I know time is very much of the essence. I am seeking guidance from several sources to do whatever I can.
Intergovernmental Affairs
Exemption of Provincially Regulated Professions and Associations from Federal Competition Laws
Hon. Richard J. Doyle: Honourable senators, in a recent submission to the Senate's debate of Bill C-42, the Judges Act, I was bold enough to suggest that honourable senators should be careful in their scrutiny of all legislation pertaining to judges. With the judiciary's ever-increasing influence on the governance of this country, matters relating to the powers and independence of the courts should never be treated lightly.My question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate today has to do, not with judges, but with those who, for now at least, are at the periphery of the justice system where, if ambition is to be served, performance should be not only above suspicion, but correct beyond doubt.
The minister will be aware that the Law Society of Upper Canada was recently challenged by a group of young lawyers, who contended that the law society's mandatory insurance scheme was in violation of the federal Competition Act.
Perhaps I should note here that the October 7 edition of the Law Times referred to the results of a 1995 survey of the legal profession, which found that 70 per cent of Ontario lawyers "believe they should be able to buy professional errors and omissions insurance wherever they wish." Despite this fact, Convocation accepted the recommendation of the Lawyers Professional Indemnity Corporation, the Law Society of Upper Canada's wholly owned insurance dealer, that the law society continue to force members of the profession to purchase their protection from LPIC only and not through the private market place.
So it went, when the young lawyers took their grief to court. The court held that there was no violation as long as the conduct in question was authorized by provincial legislation, in this case, the Law Society Act of Ontario.
Now, with apology for the time it has taken to get to the question, may I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate if she can confirm that the government intends to address, in some sharp way, the issue of the application of the Competition Act to provincially regulated professionals? Does this government intend to send a strong message that no one professional body is exempt from the competition laws in this country; that everyone - even the august Ontario Law Society - is subject to the rule of law?
Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, that is a very important question and a complicated one. I am grateful for the detail Senator Doyle has given me, and I will transmit that question right away for an answer.
Senator Doyle: Honourable senators, according to The Globe & Mail of April 26, 1995, the errors and omissions deficit in Ontario had run up to $159 million, and high insurance fees, on top of membership fees, were being used to shrink the debt. On August 27, 1996, The Globe and Mail reported that the quality of legal professional services being provided in Canada is progressively decreasing partly because of the exorbitant fees and insurance premiums members of the profession are required to pay in order to be permitted to practise. More and more lawyers are taking risks in order to survive in a highly competitive market, especially in Ontario, where insurance premiums are highest. They are being forced to cut corners in order to continue to practise law. The whole purpose then of mandatory insurance programs, which, according to the law societies, has always been the protection of the public from lawyers' negligence, is completely defeated.
(1500)
Is the public interest served by the monopoly the law societies have secured over the insurance of their members? Although under the Constitution Act, 1867, the regulation of professions is under provincial jurisdiction, should not the federal Competition Act apply with respect to the professional liability insurance of lawyers so that the quality of legal services provided in Canada does not decline to the detriment of society?
Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I will add Senator Doyle's supplementary question to his original question and seek an answer for him.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Appropriation Bill No. 3, 1996-97
Third Reading
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government) moved the third reading of Bill C-68, granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1997.Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.
Divorce Act
Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act
Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act
Canada Shipping Act
Bill to Amend-Second Reading
On the Order:Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mercier, for the second reading of Bill C-41, to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act.
Hon. Duncan J. Jessiman: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in respect of Bill C-41, which was explained in some detail yesterday by Senator Losier-Cool. Bill C-41 will amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act.
This bill builds on measures taken by the former PC government to improve the child support system in particular, making it easier to track down spouses who default on support payments, the statistics of which are staggering. For example, as of September 1995, almost half the cases registered with the Ontario Family Support Plan involved child support orders where absolutely no money had been paid. Of the remaining half, only one in four had been fully paid.
This bill will also provide stronger enforcement measures to help provincial and territorial agencies to ensure that family support obligations are respected. Ottawa will be able to deny or suspend federal transport licences and passports to people who have stopped making child support payments. Revenue Canada will be added to the list of departments whose data banks can be searched to locate defaulters. A candidate for appointments such as a federal judge or a legal agent of the Attorney General of Canada will have to be in compliance with any family support obligations they may have.
It will now be possible to garnishee the wages of a person working at sea in order to enforce a family support obligation. Access to federal public service employee pension benefits will be expanded to satisfy support arrears. Computer systems will be improved to permit online computer access between federal, provincial and territorial enforcement services.
I commend the government for amending the law so that those who have the financial ability to pay child support in these circumstances will in fact pay.
The government has also introduced a set of guidelines for child support through regulation. These will guide the courts in making child support orders, for example, by helping them determine the amount payable. The guidelines themselves are also a step in the right direction. Their use by the courts will result in appropriate and more consistent awards respecting payment for child support orders. These guidelines, which will be used across Canada by the courts, by lawyers and by parents, will establish appropriate levels of support payments for children.
At present, courts determine child support levels on a case-by-case basis. The issue prolongs litigation and adds to the anguish of parents. Some suggest that the system is based on the principle that every person deserves his or her decade in court. Not all judges take the same approach or have the same philosophy. As a result, levels vary greatly not only across Canada but also within the provincial jurisdictions and even from family to family. The amount that is available to pay for a child's needs should not depend on which province one lives in, to which courtroom the case is assigned, or which party has the more persuasive lawyer.
The guidelines will establish, without need for trial, the levels of child support to be paid according to the income of the person paying. The amounts are calculated by a formula that takes into account average expenditures on children at various income levels. As income levels increase or decrease, so will the parent's contribution to the needs of the children, just as they would if the family had remained together.
The guidelines are standard, but they are also flexible. No two families are exactly alike. Exceptional expenses for children can be added, such as uninsured medical expenses and child care costs for pre-schoolers. A court can also change the amount if undue hardship can be established.
This bill also provides that future child support payments will not be tax deductible by the spouse making such payments. Nor will the receipt of such payments be considered taxable income in the hands of the spouse receiving such payments.
This new law respecting tax for child support will not necessarily, however, apply to persons who are at present paying or receiving such payment. Separated spouses will have the option to have the income represented by their support treated as it is now. That is, an expense for tax purposes by the spouse making the payments and as income for tax purposes by the spouse receiving such payments. If they make that decision, they would do so for a number of reasons, thinking that their present support agreement is working well and should be left alone. Or they could elect to apply to a court to have the payments reviewed and have the court, using the guidelines, determine the amount to be paid for child support. These payments will not be an expense that can be deducted by the payor from his or her income for tax purposes, nor will they represent income for tax purposes in the hands of the payee. This part of the legislation is the most controversial and really amounts to a giant tax grab by the federal government.
A recent federal-provincial family law committee on child support that studied the support system in preparation for this new legislation concluded that the current deduction system offers a potential benefit to the majority of divorced families. By eliminating the deduction system, there is less money to go around for divorced families, and both sides suffer while the government revenues rise. I say the government in this regard has it all wrong in disallowing support payments as deductible for income tax purposes.
(1510)
Here is what Karen Selick of Bloomfield, Ontario, wrote in her letter to The Globe and Mail, published March 13, 1996:
The sensible solution on the issue of taxing child-support payments would have been to permit each couple to elect one regime or the other when negotiating their separation agreement. If they couldn't agree, a judge could decide for them when determining the support amount. This way, each family could be sure of keeping the greatest amount of money out of the tax collector's hands.
The fact that the Liberals have ignored this obvious and sensible solution signifies, to me, that the proposed change is strictly a tax grab, and has nothing to do with the well-being of separated spouses or their children.
The fact that the government will use this tax money, taken from separated couples and their children, to increase the payments it makes to low-income families by way of a working income supplement does not help the situation one iota.
I look forward to the bill's being referred to committee for the purpose of studying the various amendments, and particularly in respect of the change in the income treatment of the payments made for child support.
Hon. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Honourable senators -
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to inform the Senate that if Honourable Senator Losier-Cool speaks now, her speech will have the effect of closing debate on second reading of this bill.
Senator Losier-Cool: I wish to thank Senator Jessiman for his comments, since he added to all of the details that I mentioned yesterday. This is a very interesting bill. It is a bill with many small details. I look forward to studying it in committee.
Motion agreed to and bill read second time.
Referred to Committee
The Hon. the Speaker: When shall this bill be read the third time, honourable senators?On motion of Senator Losier-Cool, bill referred to Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[Translation]
Royal Assent
NOTICE
The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the following communication had been received:RIDEAU HALL
November 28, 1996
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable John Major, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 28th day of November 1996, at 6:00 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth
Deputy Secretary, Policy, Program and Protocol
The Speaker of the Senate
Ottawa
Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation bill
Second Reading
On the order:Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Stollery, seconded by the Honourable Senator Riel, P.C., for the second reading of Bill C-61, to implement the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement.
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, you know that the Middle East has occupied almost as important a place in my political career as my defence of the rights of French Canadians in the Parliament of Canada. It has been said that these are the two great causes in my life, and there is some truth to that.
I prepared a speech. I would not want to bore my colleagues. I have timed it. In order to speak longer, I must have unanimous consent. I have timed it. It takes 15 minutes.
It looks at the origins of the conflict we are witnessing today. This brings us to the government's decision to sign a free trade agreement with Israel. I always find it difficult to speak about the Middle East. I have the feeling that many circles in Canada are completely ignorant about our position, and certainly about mine.
I have always been an advocate of harmony in Canada.
[English]
You cannot pick and choose, as I have said before, and as my father always said when talking about human rights. You believe in universality or you shut up.
We are now faced with a very important bill. It was rushed through Parliament. Honourable senators may recall that in June I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate if it was the government's intention to wait until the House of Commons and the Senate were away during the summer before they signed it, and I was told "No, no, no." However, that is exactly what happened, to the surprise of many Liberals who were not invited to witness the signature of this measure. Such is life, honourable senators. Some very prominent people from across Canada were in attendance, and it was signed in the presence of a former Minister of Trade for the Soviet Union.
I was happy that the Right Honourable Prime Minister Jean Chrétien first announced this measure during the visit of Mr. Rabin, who paid for his beliefs with his life. At the end of his time, he saw fit to make peace with the Palestinians. The game changed after that, but it did not change in Canada. We decided to go ahead with the new government, whose true motivation and intention we did not know. We know now that, as the new Prime Minister of Israel has indicated, he does not care about world public opinion. He will step in and occupy territory and extend settlements, regardless of the fact that he has been told he is endangering world peace.
(1520)
I predict that peace is at stake. The Middle East will explode. Canada, with its great reputation, is almost rewarding a man who does not give a damn for international public opinion.
Think of our reputation, honourable senators.
[Translation]
Marcel Prud'homme is a Canadian, as are Senators Anderson and Poulin. We have an excellent reputation throughout the Middle East.
[English]
All through the Middle East they love Canada. The Arabs are asking themselves why Canada would reward a man whose intentions with regard to peace we do not even know. They are wondering why we do not at least suspend the agreement for now.
I know that I will have very little support in my position. I believe in free trade. I am happy that Prime Minister Chrétien started that process with Prime Minister Rabin, but Mr. Rabin is no longer there. Do we want to continue? I say yes. Should we sign this agreement right away? I say no, let us wait until we know exactly where Mr. Netanyahu is going in the peace process. What is his true intention?
Honourable senators, I could bore you with all the details. I have followed this debate from day one. I attended the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee meetings. They studied the bill in committee on October 29, 1996, and reported it in the House of Commons on Friday, November 1. They heard a fantastic witness from the Canada-Israel Committee. They heard two Canadian scholars, and they heard the minister. I begged the committee members, discreetly, not to invite witnesses, only to send them home after they had had their day and then call for clause-by-clause study. That is what they intended to do. It made no sense. People must reflect on the views expressed by the witnesses before they make their decision.
I must have some friends in the House of Commons. They came back the following Thursday for clause-by-clause study of the bill and reported the bill on Friday. The entire committee left Saturday for Scandinavia and Russia. The House of Commons debated the bill the following Monday and voted on it on Tuesday, with not one member of the Foreign Affairs Committee present. That is how we debate matters of great importance in this country.
[Translation]
This is how we take the affairs of state seriously.
[English]
Once again, I am happy to be in the Senate, because I know that if no one else speaks on second reading after I have finished, this bill will be referred to committee. There I will explain the situation in the Middle East. I will tell in detail how I was almost blackmailed, I felt, by a journalist of The Toronto Star just for speaking with Arafat, just for saying that Canada should take a stand for peace and justice for all. That is what it means to be Canadian. I do not take my marching orders from the PLO, the Palestinians or the Arabs. Neither do I take my marching orders from Israel, Washington, Paris or London. I take my marching orders based on what is good for Canada.
I have debated this issue with prime ministers; with Lester Pearson, with John Turner, with Pierre Elliott Trudeau and with Brian Mulroney. It is a shame that we do not know more about what is going on there. Some day your grandsons or granddaughters may go to fight there. As unbelievable as it sounds, hundreds of young Canadians are presently serving in the Israeli army in the occupied territory. What kind of message does it send when people hear that Canadians are serving in the military in Israel?
I will die telling you that I am proud to be a Canadian, but I do not like anyone anywhere in the world telling me to shut up because electoral funds or careers are involved. I know what I have to pay and I pay it willingly and publicly.
I accepted an appointment to the Senate because of two issues. The first is who I am as a French Canadian in this country. The ultimate hypocrisy is the Middle East. As you all know, I am devoted to world affairs. I was chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Commons. I served my country very well in that capacity for years, and now I cannot even serve on a committee here in the Senate.
I swallowed my pride. I say it openly. If I had pride, I would not talk like this.
I know that this bill will be sent to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs. I am not a member of that committee. I am hopeful that the minister will appear there in order that the right questions can be put to him. He signed the agreement rapidly, during the summer, as I predicted he would, in the absence of many who would like to have attended.
I know that Senator Stewart, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, will ensure that this bill is given a fair hearing. I will attend the committee, although I am not a member. I hope that those who wish to be heard will be given that opportunity. Honourable senators will be surprised at what great Canadians they are. Their only doubt is the same as mine. Is it right at this time, when we do not know the future of the Middle East, to send encouragement to any party?
(1530)
There are many ambiguities in this bill. I hired people to explain it to me because it is so complicated. It speaks of Palestinian authorities here and there. Well, I spoke with the Palestinian authorities. I did my duty in the last few days. Those authorities are in total disagreement with those who quoted them in the House of Commons. What made me worry most, honourable senators, were these words - and if you do not laugh it is because you want to hold your smile, knowing all of the individuals in the International Parliamentary Union, wherein I am also deprived of being present. When I heard Sheila Finestone in the other house talking about "my great Palestinian cousin," I became highly suspicious. It is in the register. I do not say that I will send that to the Montreal Jewish News because they would never believe it. I am rejoicing if, at the end of the day, she is thinking in this way. After all, they are cousins. If she admits that, it will be great for "my Palestinian cousin." I do rejoice, I tell you. It is a bigger conversion than that of St. Paul on the road to Damascus.
I will not make that speech now, honourable senators. I will write that speech. I will outline the events. It is coming. Everyone knows it. I do not have an axe to grind. My comments today are just for explanation. Canadians are entitled to know the details.
If I were to give a gift to the younger members of the House of Commons and to younger senators, I would say, "Please, if you think you are right in your heart and conscience on a question, then go for it. Expect to pay the price for your stand. However, do not stop if it is, to you, a just cause."
The cause of peace in the Middle East and recognition for all are goals that are dear to all Canadians. If rushing this bill through Parliament helps to bring peace to that country, then fine. However, there are many questions that I hope will be raised in committee. I know that there are questions that should be raised in committee.
The bill is so vague you would not believe it, honourable senators. It mentions, for instance, Palestinians who live on the West Bank, Palestinians who live in Gaza, settlers. Zionist zealots who live in settlements who have established companies, can they be part of this free trade? I do not want to interrupt it. I set that out right away. I say that I am delighted to attend the committee, if that is acceptable. If I am not given permission to ask questions, I will be there nonetheless. I will give my consent right away because that is the way we proceed here, harmoniously, but I hope that members of the committee will take this issue seriously.
The Hon. the Speaker: If no other honourable senator wishes to speak, I will proceed to call the motion.
It was moved by the Honourable Senator Stollery, seconded by the Honourable Senator Riel, that this bill be read the second time.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read second time.
Referred to Committee
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?On motion of Senator Stewart, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, we have reached the end of the Order Paper. The Senate will now suspend its sitting to await the arrival of the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General for Royal Assent.
The sitting of the Senate was suspended.
(1800)
At 6:00 p.m. the sitting was resumed.
Judges Act
Bill to Amend-Message from Commons
The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill C-42, to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act, and acquainting the Senate that they had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this bill without further amendment.The Senate adjourned during pleasure.
[Translation]
Royal Assent
The Honourable John Major, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, having come and being seated at the foot of the Throne, and the House of Commons having been summoned, and being come with their Deputy Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give the Royal Assent to the following bills:An Act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act (Bill C-6, Chapter 27, 1996)
An Act to amend the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act (Bill C-54, Chapter 28, 1996)
An Act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act (Bill C-42, Chapter 30, 1996).
The Honourable Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, then addressed the Honourable the Deputy Governor General as follows:
May it please Your Honour:
The Commons of Canada have voted certain supplies required to enable the Government to defray the expenses of the public service.
In the name of the Commons, I present to Your Honour the following bill:
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1997 (Bill C-68, Chapter 29, 1996)
To which bill I humbly request Your Honour's assent.
The Honourable the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give the Royal Assent to the said bill.
The House of Commons withdrew.
The Honourable the Deputy Governor General was pleased to retire.
The sitting of the Senate was resumed.
The Senate adjourned until Tuesday, December 3, 1996, at 2 p.m.