Skip to content

Previous Sittings
Order Paper and Notice Paper
Previous Sittings
Journals of the Senate
Previous Sittings
Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
 Previous
Next 

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Download as PDF Opens a new window

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

2nd Session, 35th Parliament,
Volume 135, Issue 63

Monday, December 16, 1996
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker

THE SENAT)

Monday, December 16, 1996

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

Prayers.

[Translation]

SENATOR'S STATEMEN)

Heritage Canada

Cuts to Budget of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Effect on Francophone Communities

Hon. Jean-Maurice Simard: Honourable senators, I should like to refer to a press release issued December 12 and to adopt its words as my own. The press release, from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, is titled "Dismantling of services at CBC: the flags of francophone Canada are flying at half mast."

These are sad days for Canadian francophones. After the announcement of the layoffs at the CBC, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada feels the corporation will no longer be able to fulfil its mandate to provide adequate programming to meet the needs of the country's francophone and Acadian population.

According to the FCFA, the CBC's statements to the effect that audiences will not be affected by the layoffs are false. The downsizing will have a truly dramatic effect on the quality of regional programming. Consequently, the reflection communities will receive of themselves will be seriously affected, as will the reflection their reality will have upon the network.

I am taking the liberty of quoting Jacques Michaud, president of the federation.

No one can convince us that staff cuts, of up to 60 per cent in some regions, will not have a substantial impact on the quality of services provided by the CBC. Yesterday's announcements provide us with concrete proof that we are now witnessing the dismantling of that Corporation!

The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada has serious concerns about the priorities senior management has set for this Crown corporation.

(1410)

I repeat, too much money is spent in Montreal. The network's resources will be cut by 22 per cent, while the regions will average cuts of 44 per cent.

Communities in Western and Southern Ontario will suffer cuts of up to 60 per cent. These decisions are a direct contradiction of the mandate of the CBC, which is to reflect the situation and special needs of francophone and Acadian communities.

Again, here is the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada:

The francophone and Acadian communities and the CRTC have always urged the CBC to provide better service to the regions. The communities are fed up with hearing only about what goes on in Montreal.

Again, the FCFA urges the Chrétien government to react. In its Red Book and on many occasions subsequently, the federal government promised us stable, multi-year funding for the CBC.

Mr. Chrétien and his cabinet have no hesitation in expressing and repeating their commitment to the Canadian francophonie. However, their actions clearly prove they have reneged on that commitment.

Here is one last quote from Jacques Michaud:

It will take more than pretty speeches to convince us that the government is committed to the Canadian francophonie! If we truly believe in a linguistic duality in this country, if we truly believe it is important to see francophone and Acadian communities grow and develop their potential, we must ensure that the tools are there for them to do so. The CBC is one of those essential tools. So let Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin and Ms Copps do something to ensure the survival of francophone and Acadian communities. It is their responsibility!

[English]

QUESTION PERIOD

Intergovernmental Affairs

Labour Market Development Agreements-Effect on Availability of Service to Francophones in Alberta-Government Position

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my questions arise from two recent Labour Market Development Agreements that were signed with Alberta and New Brunswick. In particular, my questions are with respect to the status of the two official languages to be used by those who either implement the agreements or are called upon to make use of them. Before these agreements were signed, the Official Languages Act applied to all federal activities across the country. We now see in these two agreements that the official languages are being applied in a different fashion.

The agreement signed on Friday is clear-cut as far as New Brunswick is concerned. The explanatory notes say that there will be no change in official language services. In other words, no matter what language is employed, both will be treated on an equal footing.

In Alberta, there is no change in service to francophone clients. However, there is a proviso that states, "to determine significant demand," which is now in the Official Languages Act, "Alberta will be guided by federal regulations." What that says is that Alberta will not be forced to extend federal regulations into its own implementation of the agreement, but that it will be guided by those regulations.

As small as it may be, what assurance does the francophone minority in Alberta have that the Alberta government will provide it with the services to which it is entitled under federal jurisdiction, where numbers warrant?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, my honourable friend outlines exactly the provisions of the Alberta agreement. The same question was raised at the time of the signing of the agreement a couple of weeks ago. I was in attendance at that time. The minister from Alberta, Mr. Jack Ady, indicated that the provincial government would respect fully the need for the francophone community in its province to have access to French services.

Future Labour Market Development Agreements-Assurance of Availability of Service to Anglophones in Quebec-Government Position

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I would point out, however, that this is all done on a voluntary basis. When the previous Mulroney government transferred certain airports to local jurisdictions, Senator Simard in particular insisted that, where appropriate, both official languages be recognized. I remember his very active insistence that Moncton have such terms included in its contract. When the Mulroney government decided to privatize Air Canada, they made a point of stating in the enabling legislation that both official languages would be given the same status as though Air Canada were under federal jurisdiction.

The government is saying that it is currently discussing with the Province of Quebec a Labour Market Development Agreement. Can the minister guarantee, on behalf of the government, that no such agreement will be signed with the Province of Quebec unless access to programs and services as presently provided in both languages will continue to be provided by the province of Quebec under the terms of such an agreement?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I will seek a response to that question from Mr. Pettigrew, who has been in close consultation with the Province of Quebec, and in particular through Madame Harel. I understand that the discussions are going positively. I will certainly draw this question to his attention and ask for confirmation.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, I should like the minister to be a little more insistent and tell Mr. Pettigrew that a basic condition of such an agreement with the Province of Quebec is that both official languages be respected by the province implementing the agreement with respect to providing services to both French and English communities. There have been complaints already to the Commissioner of Official Languages from some people in the Gaspé region to the effect that the federal government is not now providing services in the language of those seeking help. We know that in Northern Ontario the Commissioner of Official Languages has also received complaints, valid or not.

If such an agreement is entered into with the Province of Quebec without this basic guarantee, a guarantee that was officially sanctioned and approved by the Province of Quebec, we will see a continuation of the Quebec government's demeaning of the English language in favour of the other official language at the expense of those who can least defend themselves. I am not speaking just for myself when I say that I insist that the Government of Canada not sign an agreement with Quebec unless both official languages are given the same status in the agreement as that which presently exists for the services that would be transferred to Quebec.

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I have certainly taken note of the strength of my honourable friend's words. They will be communicated directly to the minister.

(1420)

Justice

Refusal of Entitlement of Former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to have Legal Fees paid by Department-Government Position

Hon. Eric Arthur Berntson (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question today to the Leader of the Government in the Senate is on a matter that I have raised several times previously. On December 4, I asked for specific information with regard to the refusal of the government to pay Mr. Munro's legal fees. I followed up last Friday with further queries.

I discovered in today's edition of The Globe and Mail a matter of which I was unaware previously and which I thought I should bring to your attention. According to the article, the moneys to pay Mr. Munro's legal bill would have come out of the budget of the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and this request was refused.

That is somewhat in contrast to the Minister of Justice,Mr. Rock, saying that it was a discretionary call and that, at his discretion, he denied payment by virtue of its being a political decision. Now we learn that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development denied the request.

I want to know who denied the request and why.

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am sure my honourable friend will appreciate that I am awaiting information on this issue, and I am not inclined to comment on it until I receive that information. I am still seeking answers to my friend's questions and other public statements.

Senator Berntson: Honourable senators, on December 4, the Leader of the Government in the Senate talked about the contribution that Mr. Munro had made to his constituents, to Canada, and particularly to the aboriginal peoples of Canada. I am curious as to why the money was to have come out of the budget of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development when, at the time Mr. Munro was charged, he was no longer either a minister or even a member of Parliament.

I remind honourable senators that on December 4 it was the Leader of the Government in the Senate who attested to the quality of this man's work as a minister of the Crown, particularly for the aboriginal peoples of our country. It was during his tenure as minister that the House of Commons established the special committee on Indian self-government that reported on methods by which self-government could be achieved. It was Mr. Munro who took the recommendations of that committee and introduced a bill in the House of Commons in 1984 that would have established a process whereby Indian First Nations could become self-governing - obviously, a man ahead of his time, or at least ahead of his department.

It is curious that, as I am told, it was faulty record-keeping on the part of that department, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that led to the charges against Mr. Munro being laid in the first place. Who are these people in the department who have the gall to put this man at risk and then say, "Sorry, but you are on your own"?

Honourable senators, I want to know specifically why that department has refused to pay Mr. Munro's legal fees.

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I am trying to deal with the questions that my honourable friend has raised. I will continue to do so. My friend must also understand that Mr. Munro himself has filed a judicial review application to challenge the government's decision.

Senator Simard: That is no excuse.

Senator Fairbairn: This matter is currently before the courts. However, I am doing my best to obtain further information on this issue.

Senator Berntson: Honourable senators, I read this morning in The Globe and Mail that, indeed, Mr. Munro is seeking remedy, but he is seeking remedy through a case of malicious prosecution. Based on what I have read and seen, I do not blame him. However, that will take forever. The same article said that the Department of Justice is erecting every roadblock conceivable. We are dealing with a man who has declared bankruptcy because of earlier treatment by government. How far do you think he will get?

Request for Tabling of Treasury Board Guidelines Respecting Payment of Legal Fees for Government Officials and Relevant Guidelines Respecting Entitlement of Present and Former Ministers

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I wish to ask the Leader of the Government if she would obtain and table a copy of the Treasury Board policy with regard to paying the legal expenses of public servants and whether she would inquire if there is a similar policy with respect to ministers of the Crown, and, if so, table it also.

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I will follow my honourable friend's suggestion and make those inquiries.

Endorsement of Request to Pay Legal Fees for Former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Position of Government Leader

Hon. Jean-Maurice Simard: Honourable senators, when this issue was raised previously, I heard the honourable Leader of the Government in the Senate make a commitment to obtain information asked for by my colleague Senator Berntson.

Madam minister, I get the impression, as have many other Canadians, that in this case the government has cold feet because Mr. Munro is a former Liberal minister and a very able one. I did not have the opportunity to get to know him. However, as the honourable senator said, he served his country and the Liberal Party very well. As with many Canadians, I get the impression that the government is holding back because such action would be unpopular with some sections of the Canadian electorate because he is a former Liberal minister. Is that so? Would this government do the same for a Conservative or any other Canadian, as the legislation and regulations suggest?

Honourable senators, I know that the Leader of the Government undertook to come back with answers from her colleagues, and she has said as much again today.

As a minister, the Leader of the Government is not strictly a messenger between the Senate and your government. She is a full-fledged minister. She was part of that decision, and she must have been consulted.

Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate takeMr. Munro's case to cabinet and ensure that she does not restrict her role to that of only a messenger? The honourable senator is a full-fledged minister, and she has assumed her responsibility on many occasions. Will she give the Senate her commitment that she will act as a full-fledged minister?

(1430)

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I take my responsibilities very seriously, as did my colleague Senator Murray before me and other leaders of the government before him. We act as ministers in government regardless of which government it may be. I have indicated to this house that I am seeking information, and that is what I am doing.

Senator Simard: That is not good enough.

Amount of Legal Fees Owing by Former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Request for Information

Hon. John G. Bryden: Honourable senators, it is difficult for some of us to grasp the discussion relating to the legal fees. To make it more concrete for someone like me, is it also possible to determine how much the legal fees are and to whom they are payable?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I will add that request to my list of inquiries.

[Translation]

Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement

Suspension of Royal Assent on Bill-Necessity for Quorum of members of House of Commons-Government Position

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, on Thursday, a vote I consider very important was held. I am very happy we had the opportunity to express our position on the government's bill concerning free trade with Israel.

[English]

I will call it, in English, "free trade with Israel."

The vote was 50 in favour, 4 opposed; Mr. Speaker did not have to vote, and 49 were absent.

Canada has spoken. How will it respond in view of the very strong statement of Mr. Netanyahu on Friday morning - and this was predicted by Senator De Bané - to the effect: To hell with international public opinion, to hell with the Americans, to hell with the pressure; I will go ahead with the implementation of settlements not only in the West Bank but Gaza.

[Translation]

It is almost like in the Old West. It used to be, when people stole other people's livestock, they were killed. Today, we have a law that supports people who steal - since we have to move up a notch, I will move up a notch - who steal land that is not theirs and water that is not theirs. The Government of Canada turns a blind eye, and, in an act of encouragement, signs a treaty with the country in question.

Has the government decided since Thursday night to suspend proclamation of the bill? The Senate has spoken; the House has spoken. However, the bill has not received Royal Assent.

Is the government thinking about suspending proclamation of this bill? Has the Government of Canada clearly, if not vehemently, expressed its opposition to the government of Mr. Netanyahu against this latest usurpation announced by Mr. Netanyahu himself?

[English]

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, in response to the first part of my honourable friend's question, I have no indication of the government's changing its position on the treaty in the legislation that was passed here last week.

As to the second part of his question, I will make inquiries of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Senator Prud'homme: Honourable senators, some senators on the other side and I are of the opinion that, to give Royal Assent, the House of Commons must have a quorum. Is it the intention of the government in the House of Commons, when and if Royal Assent is given this week to any bills, to present a quorum of members, rather than, as they have done in the past few years, just having one or two members show up here? Some people could challenge that trend eventually. I know some senators are very interested in this discussion of the rules.

Is the Leader of the Government aware of that rule? Will she confirm that Royal Assent can be given to bills even though the House of Commons does not have a quorum when they come here to ask for Royal Assent?

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I am sure that the House of Commons will observe the rules of that chamber.

Linking of Trade Agreement with Monitoring of Political Situation in Occupied Territories-Government Position

Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I have a follow-up question. On the free trade agreement, the comments were that Canada would impose the agreement as we would any other free trade agreement and follow the same rules. Will there be any scrutiny at the political level to ensure that an economic tool is not turned into a political tool thereby causing Canada to lose its neutrality on the issue of the occupied territories?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am sure that my honourable friend will appreciate Canada's position with regard to that area, as articulated by Minister of Foreign Affairs Axworthy at the committee hearings. I will certainly convey the honourable senator's question, but I think Mr. Axworthy expressed himself strongly at that meeting, particularly on the efforts being made on both sides of the Middle East peace issue.

Senator Andreychuk: Honourable senators, in fairness to the minister, he was asked the question whether he would consider cancelling the agreement, should it become political. I do not think this question was put to him: Will there be put in place a political monitoring device, as opposed to a trade monitoring device, to ensure that we maintain neutrality?

In light of the statement on Friday and in light of many other worrying signals, I would not want Canada's free trade agreement to be part of a political football either way in the occupied territories. Therefore, I would not only ask whether there is one, I would go one step further and suggest that there should be some political monitoring so that an economic tool does not turn into a political weapon.

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I will certainly convey Senator Andreychuk's suggestion to the minister.

Delayed Answers to Oral Questions

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have responses to questions raised by the Honourable Senators Carney, Comeau and Tkachuk, on December 3, 1996, concerning the directive from the minister's office to monitor telephone communications of parliamentarians, and a response to a question raised in the Senate on April 25, 1996, by the Honourable Senator Robertson regarding GST harmonization, provincial sales taxes, revenue neutrality, rationalization of concept.

Fisheries and Oceans

Directive from Minister to Monitor Telephone Communications of Members of Parliament and Regarding Monitoring of Foreign Telephone Communications-Government Position

(Response to questions raised by the Hon. Pat Carney, Hon. Gerald J. Comeau and Hon. David Tkachuk on December 3, 1996)

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans seeks to ensure that all inquiries directed toward it are dealt with in a manner that is professional and expedient. In responding to inquiries, the Department endeavors to convey information that is comprehensive, but above all, accurate.

In many instances, the inquiries made to the Department are complex, dealing with a range of intricate issues. In some instances, inquiries may touch on different aspects of the Department's mandate and responses may require the expertise of more than one official. In order to ensure that the Department responds to such requests in a proper manner, it is necessary for the departmental officials with whom Parliamentarians deal to be the most appropriate and the most qualified, to ensure information relayed is accurate and timely.

It is especially important that Members of Parliament and Senators, who represent constituencies and who are directly involved in the formulation of public policy, are not only supplied with accurate responses to inquiries, but are also the recipients of all information which can assist them in understanding complex issues facing Canada and its Legislature. As such, the implementation of a telephone log was intended specifically for Members of Parliament and Senators as a tool to ensure that the most comprehensive and accurate information is relayed to Parliamentarians. Inquiries from others, including foreign nationals, are dealt with professionally and expeditiously, although there is no requirement to maintain a log of inquiries in these instances. Obviously, matters that are critical to the national interest are treated accordingly.

The request to maintain a telephone log was issued to officials in the National Capital region, as well as all Department of Fisheries and Oceans regional headquarters. The same request was conveyed, in writing, to Regional Directors in the Pacific Region, the Central and Arctic Region, the Laurentian Region, the Maritime Region and the Newfoundland Region. A weekly report for the Minister's Office is prepared from information collected throughout Department of Fisheries and Oceans regions. This report enables the Department to better meet the needs of Parliamentarians, by determining what issues are of concern to them and ensuring information relayed is accurate and as comprehensive as possible.

Goods and Services Tax

Harmonization with Provincial Sales Taxes-Revenue Neutrality-Rationalization of Concept-Government Position

(Response to question raised by the Hon. Brenda M. Robertson on April 25, 1996)

From a federal perspective, the harmonization of federal and provincial sales taxes is revenue neutral - there is no change in the amount of federal sales tax revenues as a result of this agreement.

The adjustment assistance offered by the federal government will help participating provinces cover revenue losses associated with moving to a nationally viable tax system and will provide provinces with sufficient time to adjust to the harmonized system.

How provinces deal with any remaining revenue losses is an issue for the provinces to decide.

Governments entered this agreement which is intended to create a simpler and more efficient tax system and a stronger economy and not to increase taxes.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Canada Elections Act
Parliament of Canada Act
Referendum Act

Bill to Amend-Third Reading-Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bryden, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pearson, for the third reading of Bill C-63, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Parliament of Canada Act and the Referendum Act.

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, when I moved the adjournment of the debate on Friday morning, I had expressed our satisfaction that it had been possible during the committee deliberations to obtain from Elections Canada a rather more liberal interpretation of the special voting rules than had existed heretofore. This will have the effect of enfranchising some Canadians who had been disenfranchised by the more restrictive interpretation.

(1440)

I have in mind a number of Canadian missionaries serving overseas.

At the time, I expressed our appreciation to Elections Canada and also to the minister, Mr. Gray, for his support on this matter. I wish to add a brief acknowledgement of the significant contribution of our colleague Senator Beaudoin to that discussion. Senator Beaudoin reminded us at the committee that the more restrictive interpretation might well be in contravention of the guarantees concerning the right to vote contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, that view was reflected in the opinion that we eventually received from Elections Canada.

Honourable senators, with regard to Bill C-63, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is torn between our support for the objectives of this bill, on the one hand, and our conviction, reinforced during the hearings of the committee, that the loose ends attached to this bill are such as to make it highly inadvisable to rush the bill to completion and implementation on the schedule that is now envisaged by the government.

We have a very good election system in this country. Generally speaking, I believe we can be proud of the way our electoral democracy functions. The more notorious areas of abuse, and potential abuse, have been cleaned up in modern times. Recent Parliaments - and by that I would include Parliaments in the past 20 years or so - have made very important improvements in the elections law and in the operation of our electoral democracy.

Unfortunately, however, within the past couple of years, some judicial decisions have been rendered that have had the effect of undoing some of those reforms that previous Parliaments had enacted, and thus have frustrated the intent of Parliament and, in my view, the wishes of most Canadians. Today I want to refer to two of those judicial decisions, because they bear directly or indirectly on some of the matters that we are discussing here in connection with Bill C-63.

The first matter concerns the allocation of broadcast time. Honourable senators will be aware that the Canada Elections Act provides that every broadcaster in the country must make available 6.5 hours of broadcast time at the lowest commercial rate to the political parties during the course of an election campaign. This 6.5 hours is then allocated amongst the registered political parties according to a formula that is set out in the act. There is a whole process described in the act as to how this formula is supposed to operate: parties have a certain amount of time in which to submit their broadcast plans to the broadcasters; some further period of time is allowed for negotiations and possibly arbitration. However, at the end of the day, the 6.5 hours and the time that is allocated thereof to the different political parties has functioned as a maximum. No party could buy, and no broadcaster could sell, more time than was allocated under the process in the act.

By the same token, there was a provision that, if a party did not buy up its full allocation, what was left over could be allocated, on a proportionate basis, among the other parties. Subject to that, the 6.5 hours and the allocation of broadcast time that each party received was a maximum: no party could buy any more time.

The Reform Party of Canada challenged these provisions of the Canada Elections Act. I suppose they were displeased with the way in which it operated and its effect on them. As a matter of fact, one of the criteria to which some weight is attached in the allocation process is the number of seats that a party has in the House of Commons. This would have disadvantaged the Reform Party in the run-up to the 1993 election, as it disadvantages my party today.

In any case, they took the matter to court, and they won in the Court of Queen's Bench Trial Division of the Alberta Supreme Court. The final decision, to the extent that any decision of the courts can be considered final, was brought down by the Alberta Court of Appeal on March 10, 1995. That decision struck down sections 319(c) and 320 of the Canada Elections Act. These were the sections that made it an offence for any broadcaster to sell to a party more time than that party had been allocated under the process in the act.

As a result of that decision, the 6.5 hours that a previous Parliament intended would be the maximum that could be bought by the political parties becomes a minimum. Subject to the overall election spending limits, there is now no limit on the amount of time that any broadcaster can sell, or any party can buy, for advertising during an election campaign. Further to that, any time that is bought over and above the 6.5 hours is now subject to no rules under the Canada Elections Act. In the original Irish sense of the term, it is "beyond the pale."

Mr. Peter Grant, the broadcast arbitrator, appeared before the committee. He told us that his authority extends only to the 6.5 hours and the allocation thereof. He can arbitrate with regard to that time, but time bought by parties in excess of their allocation is subject to no rules at all as a result of that judicial decision. Honourable senators, I do not think that that is what Parliament intended.

Another case that is perhaps more celebrated is the famous Somerville case. That case was brought, I believe, by the National Citizens' Coalition, and refers to the spending and advertising activities of outside parties, including the National Citizens' Coalition, other advocacy groups, and whatever. Mr. Somerville and the National Citizens' Coalition challenged the restrictions that existed under the act on outside parties.

There is some history to all this. If we go back as far as 1984, just before the calling of the election in that year, the courts struck down a provision that had existed for some considerable time under which any political advertising to support or oppose a candidate or party in an election campaign had to be authorized by the official agent of the candidate or party.

(1450)

Amendments brought by Parliament in 1993 attempted to place restrictions on outside parties. These restrictions were struck down, again by the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, in June of 1993. The government of the day appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal and the decision in that matter came down in June of this year, 1996.

That decision, first of all, struck down the advertising blackout provision, section 213, as it pertained to outside parties, but the court was not asked to address, and did not address, another blackout provision, namely section 48, which applies to political parties. The result of the decision is that the National Citizens' Coalition, the Canadian Labour Congress or any outside organization whatsoever, or any citizen for that matter, can buy air time and advertise against any or all of the political parties, and the political parties are governed by a blackout and may not respond by way of advertising during that period.

That is what has happened as a result of the judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

There is a broader implication to all of this. The court also struck down section 259(1), which dealt with the spending limits. There had been a $1,000 spending limit for advertising by outside parties. As a result, we have a situation in which previous Parliaments have, I think properly, imposed overall spending limits on political parties during election campaigns. No such limits now apply to outside parties, to outside individuals or groups. As the law now stands, any individual or group with deep enough pockets can hijack an election campaign in this country.

The government, in its wisdom, decided not to appeal these judgments of the Alberta Court of Appeal. I do not know, because I am not privy to the government's decisions, whether the decision not to appeal was taken primarily for legal or for political reasons. In any case, no appeal was brought, so those decisions stand, and they will stand all across the country if, as we expect, Elections Canada chooses to enforce them across the country.

The government, having decided not to appeal, has also not brought forward any legislative solution to these problems. The government has not tried to correct the problems created by the judicial decisions, nor to restore the reforming intent of previous Parliaments. Instead, it has been chasing this fancy new technology. It has been, as Mr. Kingsley told us, working feverishly to set up this electronic permanent voters register. It has been preoccupied with shortening the campaign period from 47 to 36 days. All this is very commendable, and we support those objectives, as I said. However, honourable senators, it seems to me there was - and is - a more urgent challenge before the government and before Parliament. It is to repair the gaping hole in the defences that Parliament intended to erect to ensure that the system was fair and open, functioned properly and was as invulnerable as possible to hijack. It seems to me that that should have been a priority for the government and for Parliament these past couple of years.

The key decision taken by the government with regard to Bill C-63 was a resolution to shorten the writ period from 47 to 36 days. However, they do not propose, in Bill C-63, to shorten the period during which advertising is permitted. It was 28 days during a 47-day writ, and it will be 28 days during a 36-day writ. I do not know what the rationale was for leaving the advertising period at 28 days. There seems to have been little discussion about it, either in our own debates or in those in the House of Commons. My personal off-the-cuff opinion is that we could have shortened the advertising period from 28 down to 21 days without doing anyone any damage. In any case, it remains at 28 days.

The practical problem I want to flag has to do with the allocation of that famous 6.5 hours of broadcast time.

Under Bill C-63, a maximum of 10 days is provided for the political parties to present their broadcast plans to the broadcasters. Another four days are provided for the broadcasters to respond and for negotiations to take place. If the negotiations fail, it goes to the arbitrator who decides forthwith. Therefore, that process will take 14 or 15 days.

The problem is that, with a 36-day writ, the blackout will be lifted on day eight. It is quite possible that party "A" could have its broadcast plan in and approved and be on the air on day eight, while party "B" is still tied up in the negotiations and in the arbitration process. This could not happen under the present act because, while there is a maximum number of 16 days for this process to take place, the blackout is not lifted until day 19, so the whole process up to and including possible arbitration is completed before any party goes on the air.

The drafters of Bill C-63 saw this problem when they were drafting the bill. In its original form, Bill C-63 provided that there would be only three days, not 10 as under the present act, for parties to submit their broadcast plans, and a further four days for negotiation and arbitration. That would again ensure that the whole process would be completed before the blackout is lifted. When the bill was referred to committee, the broadcast arbitrator, Mr. Grant, persuaded the government that the three-day period would be a hardship on new parties, small parties or whatever, and the government was persuaded to change it back to 10 days. Thus, we have this situation that I have described where the blackout is lifted on day eight. Some parties could still be involved in the negotiation process, while another party could be on the air.

My preferred way to solve the problem would be to lengthen the blackout period and allow broadcasting not over the 28-day period but over 21 or 22 days. The other possibility would be to shorten the period that is allowed to parties to submit their broadcast plans from 10 days, as is now provided, to three or five.

(1500)

Honourable senators, finally I wish to come to the question of the famous, permanent, electronic register of voters. This register will be compiled, as we know, on the basis of a door-to-door enumeration that will take place in April of next year. If there is an election call in the spring of next year, there is no problem about the voters list - it will be up to date. The problem arises with an election that is not called until the spring of 1998 or even the fall of 1998. In what shape will the lists be then? The last door-to-door enumeration will have taken place in April of 1997. Elections Canada will be dependent upon the Department of National Revenue records - personal income tax data - which will come on stream after April 30, 1998, and for which, according to the testimony of Mr. Kingsley earlier, there is about a 40-per-cent match-up with voters lists.

Elections Canada will be largely dependent upon provincial sources of information to keep that voters list up to date. I expressed the concern here during the debate on second reading, and Senator Lynch-Staunton and a number of our colleagues pursued the matter at committee. We are, I am afraid, no more satisfied now than we were then that it will be possible to keep those lists up to date after the spring of 1997.

Agreements with the provinces will be necessary. Mr. Gray, to give him credit, has called his provincial counterparts. As he has told us, there is political support for the idea of sharing their information with Elections Canada. There are, as he said, understandings in principle. Mr. Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer, has testified in even more detail before the committee.

When you get down to it, here is what the government has. They have an agreement with Saskatchewan and Newfoundland for the driver's licence information. They have an agreement with the Yukon for vital statistics. As for Alberta and Prince Edward Island, they will get the voters lists from the enumerations done in 1996, but it is not clear to me that they have an agreement with those provinces as to keeping those lists up to date. In other words, it is not clear to me that they have an agreement with those provinces for information from their vital statistics, drivers' licences and all the rest of it. British Columbia has given legislative authority to share its list with Elections Canada. I presume there are no further impediments to that happening. Quebec has also, as I understand it, given legislative authority to the chief electoral officer of that province to share the provincial lists with us. I should also say with respect to Ontario that Mr. Kingsley says that they are close to an agreement. That is where we are at the moment; that is the state of play at the moment.

Honourable senators, there are problems with regard to Quebec in particular.

[Translation]

Pierre F. Côté, Quebec's chief electoral officer, appeared before the committee last Thursday. He told us plainly that he is prepared to negotiate an agreement to sell these electoral lists to the federal government, at a price that has yet to be set. There is, however, a technical problem.

Senator Bryden mentioned this testimony in his discussion with Mr. Côté at the meeting of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. It will be a problem to convert Quebec's data to meet federal standards. Mr. Côté admitted, when we spoke, that the software does not exist.

[English]

Senator Bryden, referring to previous testimony, allowed as how it looked like it would take nine months, at least, to put that in place. Mr. Côté thinks perhaps it might not take quite that much time.

[Translation]

However, it is clear that the Government of Quebec is not going to provide Elections Canada with driver's licence information or vital statistics. All we will get from Quebec are the electoral lists. If negotiations drag on, if the software is not in place 11 or 12 months from now, what will become of our federal register?

[English]

We have a real problem there. Quebec is only too pleased to sell us their lists, but no negotiations have been concluded. The lists are not in shape for us at the moment because the software does not exist.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, in view of the fire alarm, we will adjourn during pleasure to return when the bells are clear.

The Senate adjourned during pleasure.

(1530)

At 3:30 p.m. the sitting of the Senate was resumed.

Senator Murray: Honourable senators, I had almost achieved peroration when the bells rang, but I shall conclude now simply by referring again to the problem posed by the situation with Quebec. It will take some time - perhaps nine months, perhaps less, perhaps more - for the software to be accommodated and the electoral lists of that province to be matched up here. Meanwhile, there are negotiations to be conducted between Ottawa and Quebec City on the question of price and other details of the arrangement.

In the meantime, there is no other provincial source of information available to us from Quebec - not the drivers' licences, not the vital statistics, nothing. We are running some risk, in the case of Quebec perhaps more than with other provinces, but certainly in the case of Quebec, that in the spring or fall of 1998 we will have a list that we know will be of itself 20 per cent out of date because it will not have been kept up to date through the information sources on which Elections Canada depends.

Honourable senators, I conclude from this that the course of prudence is to follow Mr. Kingsley's first idea. I think his first idea was his best idea. He proposed to the House of Commons committee in March or April of 1996 that, during the next election campaign, a door-to-door enumeration take place as usual, and that that door-to-door enumeration provide the basis for a permanent, electronic register of voters. I think that is still the prudent course.

Mr. Gray and Mr. Kingsley tell us that they will be ready when they need to be ready. That is fine. I say we pass this bill and attach a rider to it which will ensure that this law does not take effect before all the preparations have been made to ensure its successful implementation.

Motion in Amendment

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I can only move one amendment at a time, and the amendment I will now move, seconded by the Honourable Senator Beaudoin, is:

That Bill C-63 be not now read the third time, but that it be amended

(a) in clause 12, on page 5, by replacing line 8 with the following:

"referred to in subparagraphs 71.011 (a)(i) or (iii). The"; and

(b) in clause 22, on page 11, by replacing lines 3 to 6 with the following:

"(a) information that is

(i) collected by means of the enumeration conducted for the general election for the thirty-sixth Parliament, if the Chief Electoral Officer considers the information adequate for the establishment of the Register of Electors;

(ii) collected by means of an enumeration contemplated by section 63; or

(iii) contained in a list of electors to which"

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Hon. John G. Bryden: Would Honourable Senator Murray take a question?

Senator Murray: Of course.

Senator Bryden: My question is this: Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Flat Earth Society?

I ask the question because some of the issues raised by the honourable senator have been established in debate here on second reading and referred to in debate at third reading and have been addressed clearly in the committee by all of the witnesses, yet the honourable senator seems to continue to maintain that the answer that, in fact, the world is round and does work and will be in place is not acceptable.

Senator Murray: Honourable senators, let me discuss the two problems to which I have referred specifically.

We have the practical problem posed by shortening the writ without shortening the broadcast period and the possibility that arises that one party would be on the air on day eight or nine while another party would still be tied up in negotiation and arbitration. I raised it here in the debate at second reading, and, yes, I raised it with the broadcast arbitrator, Mr. Grant, when he appeared before the committee. The problem exists. It is still there. No suggestion has been made by the government that they would correct this by an amendment. I have no criticism to make of the people who appeared before the committee. They addressed the question, as my friend says, but the problem is there and unsolved.

With regard to the other major problem, that of the register and whether Elections Canada will be ready, I continue to believe that we are taking an unnecessary risk. I have placed on the record what the state of play is. There is an agreement with Saskatchewan. There is an agreement with Newfoundland. There is an agreement with Yukon. That is it. The rest of it is all "goodwill" and "political support" and "close to an agreement". We are asked to take a leap of faith. I do not think that that is justified nor necessary, frankly.

(1540)

Senator Bryden: Is the honourable senator discounting the fact that a senior officer of Parliament, the Chief Electoral Officer, when asked, unequivocally and categorically said: "Yes, the agreements will be in place and we can do what is laid out in the bill"?

Senator Murray: The question was put by my friend Senator Lynch-Staunton: Are you confident the agreements that you need will be in place at the time you need them? The reply was: "Yes, sir, I am." Senator Bryden quoted that the other day. Mr. Kingsley is confident. However, being confident and having the agreements nailed down are not the same thing.

I have considerable respect for Mr. Kingsley and all his staff, as they know. However, we have a different responsibility here. As I have suggested to the Senate, I believe the course of prudence should be to ensure that this bill, which is a very good bill, is not enacted any sooner than the day the preparations are completed and the agreements nailed down.

Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, I should like to speak briefly to Bill C-63, because I have some concerns that I should like to have answered.

Earlier, we heard two excellent presentations on the bill: one by Senator Bryden, who described the bill clearly and in some detail, and the other by Senator Murray, who spoke eloquently about concerns and questions that he has regarding the bill, and he has thus spoken again. I wish to reinforce the concern expressed by Senator Murray and raise questions pertaining to the bill, particularly from the viewpoint of the average Canadian voter, as I see it.

There is no doubt that the bill appears to be popular. Having gone through the marathon agonies of federal campaigns of 56 and 47 days, we all cheer the potential of having only 36-day campaigns. However, does this shortening of the campaign allow the party in power to set up the campaign and run it before the people fully have the opportunity to hear unrestricted debate on the issues across the breadth of the land? This is a big country.

The question should be examined more closely, before we jump to the adoption of a 36-day campaign, to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to hear all the issues being fully discussed. I do not believe we can necessarily assume that it will be transmitted through the marvel of television, the Internet, or whatever. There is nothing like an old town hall meeting in the rural prairies or up North to bring the issues to the fore, but I cannot see that happening across our country, because it is too big.

On the issue of voter registration, with the election campaign being shortened, with no enumeration taking place in areas where elections have been held in the last year, and the fact that the accuracy of the voters' list dropped from 95 per cent to 80 per cent at best, I do not believe we will have a very accurate voters list. I believe the accuracy will be even lower than 80 per cent.

People will arrive at their polling stations only to be told that they must register. For every 100 voters, 20 will have to register at the polls. That amounts to 200 out of 1,000. Will the volunteer scrutineers be ready for this? Can you imagine the confusion and anger on election day when individuals who are lining up to vote are told that they must register? The line-ups at the end of the polling day, after working hours, which is when most people vote, will be longer and filled with angry and frustrated people.

Why must we impose upon people a potentially frustrating experience when we should be offering the least painful and most expedient way to vote?

There is also the matter of extending the time for voting from 11 hours to 12 hours. In Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, it will be from 8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.; in Quebec and Ontario, from 9:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.; in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, from 8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.; in Alberta and the Northwest Territories, from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.; and in B.C. and the Yukon, from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Confusion reigns!

Once again, imagine ordinary individuals who have voted in a certain fashion and at a certain hour for years. They arrive at a polling station in Quebec and Ontario, as was customary, before going to work, to find that they cannot vote. In Alberta and the Northwest Territories, they may arrive just in time to vote, say, at 7:55 p.m., after a hurried ride home from work, after picking up the children from day care and after eating a hurried dinner, only to find the polls closed. I would not want to be there when that happens. Voters in B.C. and Yukon must deal with an even tighter time frame because their polling stations will close at 7:00 p.m. Remember, it is two out of 20, or 20 out of 100 at best. At 7:25 p.m. two out of 20 voters in Alberta could show up at polling stations only to be told that they are not registered and that the polls will close at 7:30 p.m.

I do not disagree with the idea of allowing people in B.C. to have their vote count with the rest of Canada, but is there not another way to do this? Can we not offer another solution?

In conclusion, honourable senators, as to the perceived advantages of incumbency on a 36-day election, I do not believe that the issues will be fully and properly discussed. Voter registration should be delayed for one election in order to ensure a proper, better than 80 per cent, registration. What have other countries done?

Lastly, surely we can offer a better solution to the question of voting hours. Why can we not consider delaying the count until the polls close in the West? When do the majority of people vote? We must adapt the voting hours to suit the convenience of the people themselves, not the bureaucrats or the television stations.

While this bill appears to be popular, I fear that, once it is passed, it will be popular until election day and then confusion, anger and frustration will reign. Once again, all of us will have failed in our task to achieve better government.

Senator Bryden: Honourable senators, I propose to adjourn the debate. However, would the honourable senator allow me to ask a question before doing so?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Senator Bryden cannot take the adjournment.

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, there is an amendment before the chamber for discussion. The Senate must decide whether it will receive it. If it is received, then the discussion will be on the bill, as amended.

If other amendments are put forward, will we adjourn the discussion on the amendment, or will we adjourn the debate on the bill as amended? I should like to know how we can have an orderly discussion.

The Hon. the Speaker: The situation right now is that an amendment has been proposed. The amendment is before the Senate. There can be discussion on the amendment. The practice has been that we allow a wide discussion on amendments, including the whole of the bill. There could be one further amendment; no more. This amendment can be adjourned.

(1550)

Honourable Senator Bryden has asked for permission to ask a question of the last speaker. That is in order. It is up to the last speaker whether he wishes to take a question. He is not obliged to do so.

Senator Bryden has asked a question. Senator Stratton can decline to accept the question. I understand that Senator Bryden then intends to adjourn the debate on the amendment.

Senator Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I was of the opinion that, if no one else wants to speak on this amendment, there is either an agreement to postpone the vote or the vote on the amendment is called, after which we return to the main motion unamended. If there is a new amendment, that is what we do.

I want to be clear on each step that we must take, because this issue has been of great interest to me for 30 years.

Hon. Eric Arthur Berntson (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, as I understand it, the main motion is before the Senate. In addition to the main motion, an amendment has been introduced. People who have spoken to the main motion can now speak to the amendment. People who have not spoken to the main motion can speak to the motion and the amendment concurrently. However, the amendment cannot be adjourned independent of the main motion. The debate carries on concurrently, as I understand it.

I am not an authority on Senate rules, but I have sat in other houses for a long time. That seems to be the logical way to proceed.

This intervention is not to be interpreted in any way as a challenge, because I know that the Speaker is very learned in the rules. However, I do not know where the idea comes from that only one more amendment is allowed. I am not suggesting that we want to move any more amendments, but I think that procedurally amendments can be offered indefinitely.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, perhaps I did not make myself clear. On a main motion, you are allowed an amendment and a subamendment. There can be no further subamendments until the subamendment has been disposed of. Obviously, once you have disposed of it, and of the amendment, you can have other amendments, if they are different.

The question before us at the moment is the amendment, and the practice has been that we allow debate on the main motion at the same time as we are discussing the amendment. However, when we come to making decisions, the first decision will be on the amendment. There could be a further subamendment, which would be considered as to whether it is in order. It is in order to adjourn the debate on the amendment or on the subamendment if the Senate so agrees, and it is quite permissible for senators who have spoken on the main motion to speak again on the amendment and, if there is a subamendment, to speak again on it.

Is that clear?

Currently, Senator Bryden is asking a question of Senator Stratton. I will then consider a motion for adjournment of the debate.

Senator Prud'homme: It is so clear that everyone is confused.

Senator Bryden: Is Senator Stratton prepared to take a question?

Senator Stratton: Yes, honourable senators.

Senator Bryden: With regard to his reference to 80 per cent versus 95 per cent, I wish to draw to the attention of the honourable senator some things that have happened in the recent past. British Columbia operates from a permanent voters register and then does a revision when an election is called. Their list is approximately 80 per cent accurate. By the time the revisions are done, it is 95 per cent accurate.

Similarly, the list used for the 1993 election was the voters list that was enumerated and brought up to date for the 1992 referendum, which was a year old and was, therefore, approximately 80 per cent accurate. However, through the revision process, which is standard in the election period, the electors list was back up to 95 per cent accuracy.

Is the honourable senator aware of those circumstances? Is he aware also that that is exactly the situation under the proposal in Bill C-63 - that is, that the permanent register is expected to be maintained at about 80 per cent accuracy? That is not the list of electors at the election. That list goes out in five days. There is then active revision, and accuracy goes up to 95 per cent three days before polling day.

Senator Stratton: Honourable senators, I was aware of that. I believe in a permanent voters list. I believe that for the sake of everyone a permanent voters list is the way to go. I believe it should be a requirement that, if people move, they must send in their new address.

I do not believe that what the government is suggesting is possible in such a short time frame. I can foresee a lot of trouble and confusion arising from the use of the old voters list and the change in voting hours.

Honourable senators, people do not pay attention until voting day to whether they are registered, in which poll they are to vote or what the voting hours are. They may find out on voting day that they are not registered or that the poll has closed. That is my concern. People are creatures of habit. They will not change their customs because we tell them to. The sad fact is that we are forcing them to do something that I think can be resolved in another way.

Senator Bryden: Honourable senators, I give voters a great deal more credit for being informed on issues than the honourable senator opposite does. I believe the honourable senator mentioned that, if anyone is inadvertently left off a list, he or she can register on voting day.

Senator Stratton: I am aware that voters can do that. My concern is that people will turn up after dinner in Alberta and B.C. only to find that the polls are to close half an hour or an hour earlier than they are accustomed to, and to find that they are not registered. If accuracy is anything less than what the honourable senator says it will be, there will be a real problem.

On motion of Senator Berntson, debate adjourned.

[Translation]

Manganese-based Fuel Additive Bill

Second Reading-Motion to Refer to Committee-Motion in Amendment-Point of Order-Speaker's Ruling

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kenny, seconded by the Honourable Senator Landry, that Bill C-29, An Act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources;

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Kinsella, seconded by the Honourable Senator Oliver, that the motion be amended by adding the following thereto:

, and

That notwithstanding Rule 98, the Committee present an interim report, before submitting its final report on the Bill, relating to its findings on the following questions:

  1. Is MMT-based petroleum the cause of OBD malfunctioning?
  2. Does MMT in gas cause a health hazard to Canadians?
  3. Does MMT in gas cause direct damage to the environment?-(Speaker's Ruling).

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, on Friday, December 13, 1996, Senator Kenny moved the motion to refer Bill C-29, to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese substances, to the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

Senator Kinsella then attempted to move an amendment. His amendment sought to have the committee produce an interim report to answer certain questions about MMT before submitting its final report on the bill.

[English]

Following an intervention by Senator Kenny, objecting to the amendment as a proposition, Senator Corbin rose on a point of order. Referring to rule 58, he maintained that the amendment was not really an amendment, but an instruction and as such it was out of order because it lacked the required notice.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, Senator Kinsella replied that the amendment was indeed in order. He cited the example of the amendment that had been moved on June 11, 1996, to the order of reference to the Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs respecting Term 17. At the conclusion of his remarks, I stated that I would review the matter and come back with a ruling at the earliest opportunity.

(1600)

[English]

Before considering the amendment of Senator Kinsella, it is necessary for me to point out that the motion of Senator Kenny seeks only to refer Bill C-29 to the committee. According to our practices, the motion referring a bill to a committee is now treated as a consequential motion that is routinely moved after a bill has received second reading. The motion of reference regarding Term 17, on the other hand, was a substantive motion independent of any other consideration. The two cases are not really comparable to each other.

[Translation]

According to my understanding of rules 62(1)(i) and 62(2), a motion referring a bill is not debatable or amendable while a motion referring any other kind of question, such as the substantive motion on Term 17, is both debatable and amendable. Rule 62(1)(i) states that, and I quote:

...the reference of a question other than a bill to a standing or special committee...

-is a debatable motion. Rule 62(2) explains that, and I quote:

All other motions, unless elsewhere provided in these rules or otherwise ordered, shall be decided immediately upon being put to the Senate, without any debate or amendment.

[English]

Consequently, the proposal of Senator Kinsella must be made as a separate, substantive motion requiring notice, which is the basic point that Senator Corbin raised. It cannot be moved as an amendment to the motion to refer the bill to committee, and is thus out of order.

Honourable senators, we are now back to the main motion.

It was moved by the Honourable Senator Kenny, seconded by the Honourable Senator Landry, that the bill be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Senator Prud'homme: On division.

The Hon. the Speaker: Will those in favour of the motion please say "yea"?

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: Will those opposed to the motion please say "nay"?

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And two honourable senators having risen.

The Hon. the Speaker: Perhaps the whips would indicate the timetable for the vote.

Vote Deferred

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella: Honourable senators, pursuant torule 67(1), which provides that:

After a standing vote has been requested, pursuant torule 65(3), on a motion which is debatable in accordance with rule 62(1), either Whip may request that the standing vote be deferred...

I so request that the standing vote be deferred, as provided for in rule 67(2), until 5:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The Hon. the Speaker: It is requested by the Honourable Senator Kinsella, pursuant to rule 67(1), that the vote be deferred until 5:30 tomorrow. This is in order, and the vote shall be deferred until 5:30 p.m. tomorrow.

First Nations Government Bill

Point of Order-Timing of Speaker's Ruling-Order Stands

On the Order:

Second Reading of Bill S-12, An Act providing for self-government by the first nations of Canada.-(Speaker's Ruling).

Hon. Eric Arthur Berntson (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, Senator Tkachuk is in the chamber this week - or he was. The question is now academic: When might we expect a ruling on this order?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable Senator Berntson, I had hoped to make the ruling last week; I found it impossible to do so. This matter is really much more complicated than I had anticipated, partly because of previous rulings and a lack of concurrence in previous rulings.

I phoned the Honourable Senator Tkachuk last week, as well as Senator Twinn, and advised them that unfortunately I would not be able to make that ruling. However, I will do so when we return after the recess.

Order stands.

State of the Arts in Canada

Inquiry-Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Johnson, calling the attention of the Senate to the state of the arts in Canada.-(Honourable Senator Stratton).

Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, I rise today to support Senator Johnson's inquiry on the state of the arts and culture in Canada.

Cultural policy is important to the very fabric of Canadian society. In a world of constant change, we must ensure that government cultural policy is kept up to date as the years progress. It is my understanding that a thorough study of Canadian cultural policy has not been undertaken at the federal level for many years now. In fact, the last major study was done by the Applebaum-Hébert commission in 1982.

Canada is a country that is particularly challenged with respect to the arts and cultural sector. Our country's vast territory and small population make it difficult to produce, exchange, disseminate and communicate with respect to works of art, while our economic fragility threatens the very existence of artistic production.

I should like to digress here and give you an example of just how fragile, but also just how determined, the people of the vast prairie were around the turn of the century. Virden is a small town in Manitoba about halfway between Winnipeg and Regina. It is a small farming community along the main line of the CPR. I was doing some work there for the town, and was shown over a beautiful turn-of-the century theatre, complete in every detail, for the production of plays and opera. It was a point along the railroad where travelling troupes would stop to put on productions. That theatre had been lovingly restored. The immigrants to Canada at the time were determined to have arts and culture in their vast, flat land of grain.

Honourable senators, there are other examples of this sort right across the prairies. Winnipeg, with the Canadian Shield at its back and, to the east, Toronto 1,900 miles away, Regina six hours away to the west, Minneapolis 10 hours to the south, and the expanse of the shield to the north - is isolation at its best. Into the city at that time poured immigrants from all over the world. Today, we have a cultural mosaic second to none, starting with the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra, the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, and Folkarama, a celebration of that cultural mosaic.

On top of all this isolation and economic fragility, Canada must also contend with the constant cultural presence of the United States. Yet despite these circumstances, Canada and Canadians have been fortunate in that area of arts and culture. Our country has many successful artists. Céline Dion, Loreena McKennitt from Morden, Manitoba, Alanis Morissette and Shania Twain are all international superstars. Writers such as Margaret Atwood are well known around the world. These are but a few examples.

Our country faces new challenges as globalization and rapid changes in information and communications help transcend national borders. The expansion of the digital environment has great potential in many areas, including culture, but we need to take care. New questions arise out of the newly developed technologies and need to be addressed. Government will need to take a lead in ensuring that Canadian culture is preserved.

Honourable senators, our major trade agreements, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement, both negotiated by the former Progressive Conservative government, protect the growth of our cultural sector in our home market and provide fair access to foreign markets. We must ensure that cultural exemptions in trade agreements continue to be supported. Such exemptions are important to enriching Canadian culture.

(1610)

Art and culture impact greatly on Canada's economy. In 1992-93 the total contribution of the cultural sector to Canada's economy was $23.4 billion, approximately 3.5 per cent of GDP. In this same fiscal year, 660,000 people were employed in this sector. Between 1987 and 1992 employment in the cultural sector increased by 21 per cent. In addition, the average Canadian household spent more than $1,100 on cultural goods and services in 1992. Despite these significant numbers and the positive impact the sector has had on the Canadian economy, many in the cultural sector feel that the federal government has not done enough to promote and sustain the development of arts and cultural industries.

In the case of CBC, the Liberal government broke its Red Book promise to provide stable multi-year financing. Instead, the overall CBC budget has been reduced by more than $400 million, resulting in more than 1,700 job cuts with another 700 or 800 more to go. After the threat of the elimination of Radio Canada International, they have seen fit to restore it to its proper place. This is another classic example of Liberal broken promises, such as the one they made with regard to the GST. The Prime Minister showed us again that what he says is not necessarily what he does. We have the Liberal promises in the Red Book and then we have reality.

Since they come to power in 1993, their federal expenditures on culture have declined. Consequently, artistic organizations are facing financial shortages and shortened seasons. They have been limiting the scope of their productions. The incomes of artists who work for these organizations have been reduced. The situation is not a good one.

The government needs to take a look at ways to assist this sector. Are there measures other than the inflow of funds that could be taken by the government to support the cultural sector? What studies have been taken by the government in this regard? Can we not find ways and means to export the product, instead of always exporting the individual who has become successful? As Senator Meighen has stated, if our traditional methods of funding the arts is through grants and those grants are being reduced, why then can government not offer tax incentives to business to encourage them to pick up the severe shortfalls that are now occurring?

I must confess a conflict of interest here. Although my connection is not as direct as Senator Meighen's being president of Stratford, I do have a son in the arts who worked at Stratford, and he quit and walked away because he stated that there was no future in theatre because of government cuts.

Despite the vastness of the land in which we live, the cold of its climate and the relative isolation of some of its inhabitants from one another, our culture has thrived. Are we now simply to allow it to whither away to become a part of the culture of the United States, or are we more determined, like the pioneers of Virden, Manitoba, to ensure that our culture not only continues, but thrives?

The government's cultural policy must keep pace with our constantly changing world. Canada's cultural sector must have the support of sound policies that are relevant for modern Canada moving into the 21st century. It is time to take a look at our cultural policy.

I support Senator Johnson's idea of setting up a special committee of the Senate to look into and analyze the problems facing the arts in Canada. Recommendations must come from such a committee in order to assist this sector as we move into the 21st century. There is a need to review the federal government policy in this area.

On motion of Senator Pearson, debate adjourned.

Inter-Parliamentary Union

Conference on the Impact of Land Mines-Conference on United Nations Reforms-World Food Summit Conference-Inquiry-Debate Adjourned

Hon. Peter Bosa rose pursuant to notice ofDecember 13, 1996:

That he will call the attention of the Senate to an IPU conference that took place on the 22nd of October at the United Nations in New York on the impact of land mines, support of the United Nations and United Nations reforms; and to a Parliamentarians Day at the World Food Summit conference in Rome which took place on November 15, 1996.

He said: Honourable senators, I would draw your attention today to two recent events organized by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which I attended in my capacity as chairperson of the Canadian IPU group.

The first was the annual meeting of parliamentarians attending the United Nations General Assembly, which took place on October 22, 1996. The second was the Parliamentarians Day at the World Food Summit in Rome, which took place on November 15, 1996.

Each year, the Inter-Parliamentary Union coordinates a meeting of parliamentarians who are in New York as part of their conference delegation to the General Assembly. Although Canada no longer sends delegations of parliamentarians to the General Assembly meetings, I felt that the topics of this year's agenda were of such importance that the Canadian IPU group should participate.

The issues on our agenda were: Humanitarian Challenges: Land mines and the impacts of conflicts on children; support by the United Nations to new or restored democracies; and the Challenge of the United Nations Reform: the Secretariat Perspective.

I recently spoke about the work of the Canadian IPU group at the union's statutory conference in Beijing, where we worked hard to secure a debate on the importance of achieving a world-wide ban on anti-personnel mines. The Canadian group played a major role in putting this issue on the agenda. The resulting resolution was adopted, without a vote, by the 125 countries attending the Beijing conference. Only four countries, China, Cuba, Libya and Vietnam, expressed any reservations about the final resolution.

Honourable senators will recall that shortly afterwards, the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs, convened an international strategy conference in Ottawa to provide a focal point for international action on the anti-personnel mines issue. I was a speaker in one of the sessions at that conference, explaining the work of the union in trying to achieve a comprehensive ban. The 50 states who participated in the Ottawa conference endorsed what is known as the "Ottawa Declaration", which calls for the earliest possible conclusion of a legally binding international agreement to ban anti-personnel mines.

This declaration was supported by an "Agenda for Action on Anti-Personnel Mines" outlining numerous concrete activities that states, international organizations and non-governmental organizations are willing to undertake at the global, regional and national levels. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs also extended an invitation to states to work with Canada to give additional focus to these efforts and indicated that Canada would be pleased to convene a ministerial level meeting in late 1997 to sign an agreement.

From the Ottawa conference and during the discussions of the United Nations, it has become clear that there is a critical mass of states willing to push forward to negotiate an international agreement. Canada has been in the forefront at both the government and the parliamentary level.

Following our day-long session in New York, I wrote to each of the leaders of the national IPU groups asking them to work with their respective governments to achieve an international agreement in 1997. We have the momentum. Now we must get to the goal post.

The second IPU event I attended was the Parliamentarians Day at the World Food Summit. It is the custom of the Inter-Parliamentary Union to organize such meetings in conjunction with major United Nations conferences. This meeting was organized at the invitation of the Italian Parliament, with the assistance of the Food and Agricultural Organization, FAO. Approximately 190 parliamentarians from 73 countries participated.

(1620)

Most of our time was devoted to an examination of the contribution of parliaments to the summit, particularly parliamentary strategies for effective follow-up of the summit.

I was one of 57 parliamentarians who addressed this meeting. In my remarks I noted that no one could dispute the importance of the debate on world food security. The proportion of the hungry has fallen in developing countries from 35 per cent in the 1960s to about 20 per cent today. However, the number of malnourished, around 800 million, has remained unacceptably high. While per capita food consumption has risen by 18 per cent over the past 30 years, the increases are very unevenly distributed.

Noting that our principal task was to demonstrate our political will in tangible terms, I focused on some of the commitments in the plan of action, such as the importance of a peaceful, stable, enabling political, social and economic environment in achieving food stability. Solutions to world food security must be based on the principles of democratization and good governance, peace, sustainable development, and respect for human rights. As parliamentarians, we have a special role to play in ensuring that parliaments everywhere promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. Through specific efforts to ensure that our institutions are democratic, transparent and participatory, we are creating the conditions that form the essential foundation for achieving food security.

As members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, we made a commitment to promote human rights and the development of representative institutions. We can do this on several levels, particularly from informal contacts with parliamentary colleagues where we share experiences through exchange visits between parliamentary groups to examine specific issues. Study tours and training seminars organized by the union or by individual IPU groups are also concrete ways in which we can give substance to the objective of creating a peaceful, stable and enabling political, social and economic environment.

I noted that the Canadian Parliament has an extremely active program of international training and development. In fact, this autumn we were almost overwhelmed by the number of requests for events on specific aspects of good governance, such as the operation of a human rights commission or the conduct of house business. It has been our experience that an effective program of parliamentary development requires a long-term commitment so that legislators and staff can work intensely on various components of good governance.

Supporting the development of representative institutions is something that we as parliamentarians can do immediately, confident in the knowledge that our efforts will help build the foundation required for achieving food security.

I also mentioned the importance of effective implementation, monitoring and follow-up of this plan of action. As parliamentarians, we have a role to play in ensuring the accountability of government policies through the normal channels of parliamentary business, such as the review of budgets or proposed legislation.

I urged all my fellow parliamentarians to pledge to raise the issue of the implementation of the plan of action of the World Food Summit in our respective legislatures.

In concluding my remarks in Rome, I spoke about Canada's commitment to take action right now in Zaire. Our Prime Minister, responding to world-wide concern, had agreed that Canada should take a multinational, humanitarian, intervention force to enable food aid workers to go back into this conflict area to try to save the more than one million people whose lives were in jeopardy. However, Canada could not do it alone. I urged colleagues to exhort their governments to become involved in this mission.

Our day-long session concluded with the adoption of a Declaration on the World Food Summit. Included in this declaration was a proposal that the union should set up, in cooperation with FAO, a mechanism to monitor the implementation, at the parliamentary level, of the state commitments taken in Rome.

On motion of Senator Berntson, debate adjourned.

[Translation]

Transport and Communications

committee Authorized to Travel

Hon. Lise Bacon, pursuant to the notice of motion given Friday, December 13, 1996, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be empowered to adjourn from place to place within and outside Canada for the purpose of pursuing its study of Canada's international competitive position in communications generally, including a review of the economic, social and cultural importance of communications for Canada.

Motion agreed to.

The Senate adjourned until tomorrow, at 2 p.m.

Back to top