Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

2nd Session, 35th Parliament,
Volume 135, Issue 64

Tuesday, December 17, 1996
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker

---

• THE SENATE
• SENATORS' STATEMENTS
  • Heritage Canada
    • Budget Cuts to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Adverse Effect on Cultural Institutions
  • La Francophonie
    • Bid of City of Moncton to Host Summit in 1999
  • The Economy
    • Entrepreneurial Role of Small Business
• ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
  • Adjournment
  • Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
    • Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Questions on Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Bill
• QUESTION PERIOD
  • Infrastructure Program
    • Efficacy of List of Projects Constructed-Propriety of Certain Grants-Government Position
  • Atomic Energy of Canada
    • Sale of CANDU Reactors to China-Accuracy of Media Reports-Request for Particulars
  • Goods and Services Tax
    • Apology of Prime Minister for Failure to Honour Pre-Election Promise-Possible Concurrence by Leader of the Government
  • The Environment
    • Non-Proliferation Policy on Plutonium-Role of Various Government Departments-Government Position
  • Heritage Canada
    • Job Cuts to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Discrepancy in Numbers Announced by Minister Copps-Government Position
    • Possible Privatization of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Government Position
    • Extent of Budget Cuts to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Minimal Government Spending in Comparison with Other Western Countries-Government Position
  • Prime Minister's Office
    • Rating of Liberals on Pre-Election Promises-Government Position
  • Heritage Canada
    • Budget Cuts to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Adverse Effect on Cultural Institutions-Government Position
  • National Defence
    • Socio-Economic Challenges Facing Department-Possibility of Creation of Joint Parliamentary Committee-Government Position
  • Heritage Canada
    • Future Plans for Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Government Position
    • Reinstatement of Radio Canada International-Future Financing Planning-Government Position
    • Possibility of White Paper on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Government Position
  • Business of the Senate
    • Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Bill-Motion to Refer to Committee-Vote Deferred-Point of Order
• ORDERS OF THE DAY
  • Manganese-based Fuel Additives Bill
    • Referred to Committee
    • Referred to Committee
  • Canada Elections Act
    Parliament of Canada Act
    Referendum Act
    • Bill to Amend-Third Reading-Motions in Amendment-Votes Deferred-Debate Continued
    • Motion in Amendment-vote deferred
    • Motion in Amendment-vote deferred
  • Criminal Code
    • Bill to Amend-Third Reading-Motion in Amendment and Subamendment-Debate Continued
    • Motion in Amendment
  • Justice
    • Investigation into Sale of Airbus Aircraft to Air Canada-Inquiry-Debate Adjourned
  • Parliamentary Delegation to Taiwan
    • Inquiry-Debate Adjourned

THE SENAT)

Tuesday, December 17, 1996

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

Prayers.

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Heritage Canada

Budget Cuts to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Adverse Effect on Cultural Institutions

Hon. Janis Johnson: Honourable senators, I am very concerned about the Liberal government's stewardship of this nation's cultural institutions. When elected, the Liberals promised stable, long-term financing for the CBC. Despite that promise, which was spelled out quite clearly in the Red Book, the federal government has once again misled Canadians by slashing the CBC's budget by $414 million. Does the federal government have a comprehensive, long-term plan for the CBC? Evidently not.

In the last few days, we listened to the Minister of National Defence, Doug Young, announce that he would like to see CBC television dismantled and privatized. Shortly afterwards, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Sheila Copps, made the statement that, by her reckoning, her government's budget cut would result in 19 lost jobs. Nineteen jobs! Was the minister misleading us, or is she truly ignorant of the effect of her own government's policies? In either case, that is a remarkable statement. Broadcasting industry experts pointed out that the number of lay-offs is closer to 1,000. To that news, the minister responsible for culture responded by saying that she obtained her facts from the newspaper. She said that she did not create statistics, and did not have any. Perhaps she should get her hands on some.

It is truly astounding that the federal Minister of Canadian Heritage is so ignorant of the impact of her own policies. The CBC is one of the most important unifying forces in this nation. It is difficult to go home to enjoy a Christmas holiday knowing that the pride of Canada, our CBC, is being mismanaged in such a cavalier fashion.

When I return home, I will be obliged to explain why Manitoba and the other have-not regions were hit so disproportionately by these cuts. In Winnipeg, our CBC regional director announced last week that 74 positions will be lost. It does not seem unreasonable to expect that Ms Copps would be aware of this, but then again, perhaps she is too busy reading the newspaper.

I fear that this sort of reckless disregard may be typical of the manner in which the Liberal government plans to manage all of our cultural affairs. We have no long-term strategy, no blueprint for the future. That lends even more credibility to my call for a study in the Senate of our cultural situation. I know senators across the way are very supportive of that idea, as are my own colleagues.

(1410)

The Liberals have already demonstrated that the policies outlined in the Red Book are no longer operative. My concern is above and beyond partisan politics. What is the long-term plan for the CBC? If we have no long-term strategy for our largest and most important institutions, can we believe that our smaller institutions are in any less jeopardy?

Honourable senators, I believe 1997 would be an appropriate time to examine a long-term strategy for Canada's cultural institutions. The CBC, the Canada Council, the National Film Board and dozens of smaller cultural agencies are the very fabric that holds our nation together. We owe it to Canadians to manage those cultural resources in a serious and thoughtful manner.

[Translation]

 La Francophonie

Bid of City of Moncton to Host Summit in 1999

Hon. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Honourable senators, today I wish to support the efforts of the governments of Canada and New Brunswick to promote the candidature of the city of Moncton, New Brunswick, as the site of the next Sommet de la francophonie in 1999. Holding the summit in Moncton would afford an opportunity to the francophone community of Canada, including Quebec, to distinguish itself on the international scene. For the francophone and Acadian communities of the country, holding the Sommet de la francophonie in New Brunswick would enhance the visibility of the Canadian francophonie and showcase its vitality.

I would ask you, honourable senators, to do your utmost to convince the various governments of the merits of holding such an event in New Brunswick.

[English]

The Economy

Entrepreneurial Role of Small Business

Hon. Richard J. Stanbury: Honourable senators, yesterday, the winners of an annual contest to identify the 50 best-managed private companies in Canada were announced in the Financial Post. There were 854 companies considered. Preliminary screening reduced the number to 209 and each of them was visited and interviewed by management consultant professionals. A panel of eminent judges made the call and found that the growth of these 50 young companies was astounding. They employed 14,026 people, up 62 per cent from 1994; sold $2.3 billion worth of products and services, up two-thirds from 1994; and had 37 per cent of their sales in exports. One of the judges said, "Innovation is alive and well in Canada. Being part of the judging panel, one can see what an engine of growth these companies are."

Small businesses are leading the way to job creation. There are over 2.3 million small businesses which account for about 50 per cent of all private sector employment, and almost 43 per cent of Canada's private sector economic output. Low interest rates, low inflation and a healthy Canadian reputation in international financial markets have provided the basis upon which entrepreneurship can perform miracles. Nearly 500 companies are planning the next Canadian invasion of foreign markets by Team Canada. The year 1996 has been a great one for Canadian entrepreneurs and particularly for the 50 best-managed companies in the land.

---

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Adjournment

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

That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, December 18, 1996, at 1:30 p.m.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

[Translation]

Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Questions on Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Bill

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella: Honourable senators, I give notice that tomorrow, Wednesday, December 18, 1996, I will move:

That, notwithstanding Rule 98, the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources present an interim report, before submitting its final report on Bill C-29, An Act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, 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?

---

[English]

QUESTION PERIOD

Infrastructure Program

Efficacy of List of Projects Constructed-Propriety of Certain Grants-Government Position

Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate with regard to a list of approved projects.

My question is: Has the Minister of Industry's department actually given loans or gifts or handouts to build golf courses in Ontario, establish dressing rooms somewhere in Canada and $20,000 to develop the martial arts? A litany of items is listed. Is this media article correct? Could the Leader of Government in the Senate so verify?

Honourable senators, there is mentioned something about a $73,200 grant to establish a billiard club in British Columbia. In view of the fact that I represent that region, I would be interested to know where this billiard club is located and whether these loans or grants have actually been made. Are they grants, loans, handouts or give-aways? Is this what the Liberal government means when it asks people to tighten their belts and act responsibly? I would like to know whether this list is correct.

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, if the honourable senator could provide a copy of the article to which he is referring, I will send it over to my colleague this afternoon and see what I can find out.

Senator St. Germain: Honourable senators, I will definitely make the list available. If there is any truth to this list, this matter should be of great concern to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and to the rest of us, given the cynicism that exists in the eyes of the public toward the way the government is administrating funds. That is not to say that such things have not happened in the past. However, I thought the Liberals wanted to establish a new way of governing.

Is this type of action synonymous with the demeanour and civility the Liberals wanted to bring to the House of Commons? How does this action relate to the non-partisan aspects of making government appointments, which they said were so blatant in the previous administration?

My question is: Are we back to the old games of handing out, for example, $15,000 for a ping-pong table for a club in Quebec or for a pool room in British Columbia?

(1420)

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I certainly accept my honourable friend's interest in this issue. I, of course, am reluctant to comment in any way until I have seen what the story is, where it is from, and what is involved.

Atomic Energy of Canada

Sale of CANDU Reactors to China-Accuracy of Media Reports-Request for Particulars

Hon. Michel Cogger: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government. I want to get back to the much vaunted sale of the CANDU reactors to China. At the time the sale was announced with great fanfare by the Prime Minister, both the Minister of International Trade, the Honourable Art Eggleton, and Atomic Energy of Canada put out press releases explaining for the benefit of Canadians some of the details involved.

According to an article in The Globe and Mail, both the press releases and the words of Minister Eggleton are simply not true. When AECL and the minister announced the sale, they claimed that AECL would be financing $1.5 billion - that is the Canadian part of the larger $4 billion sale - and that that money would be provided by AECL in the normal course of operations. I suppose, coming from the mouth of the minister and an important Crown corporation, those comments could be taken by Canadians as being true.

According to this article, the comments are simply not true, for two reasons. First, at the time the sale was announced, AECL had already reached its limit of lending to China. Therefore, on the China side of the ledger, there were no more funds to be made available. I point out to honourable senators that $1.5 billion is not peanuts. Second, according to Mr. Corcoran of The Globe and Mail, even though AECL claims that at all times its loans are made on a commercial-assessment basis, this again is not true, inasmuch as the sale of CANDU reactors or of nuclear equipment is simply not financeable under normal commercial terms. It is Mr. Corcoran's view, therefore, that both those statements are false and that the so-called "ordinary course of business" financing comes straight from the Government of Canada, and it is merely being channelled through thebooks of AECL.

Such a practice raises serious questions, Madam Minister. It also casts a shadow on the entire cabinet inasmuch as this writer says that Mr. Eggleton and his cabinet colleagues are deceiving Canadians.

I do not need to be reminded that in this house we do not, shall not, and will not use the big L word, but I ask the minister: Is everyone on that side or in that cabinet merely accuracy- challenged or are they ready to shed some light on this important matter?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, my honourable friend has asked me a detailed question. I wish to get some assistance with the details he is seeking. Also, as to the assumptions that are made in The Globe and Mail, God bless it, but it is not necessarily 100 per cent accurate. I should like to take the time to provide my friend with an answer based on facts.

Senator Cogger: Honourable senators, I will indeed make the article available. I will have it on the honourable leader's desk later this afternoon.

I will say no more. I think as a result of the Red Book and everything else, there is enough confusion in the country. Apparently no one has understood anything. This is one simple article, and we would like to understand it.

Goods and Services Tax

Apology of Prime Minister for Failure to Honour Pre-Election Promise-Possible Concurrence by Leader of the Government

Hon. Orville H. Phillips: Honourable senators, the Prime Minister has been experiencing considerable political turbulence over the fact that he broke his promise of the last election campaign to abolish the GST. In fact, the majority of Canadians believe that not only Mr. Chrétien but the Liberal Party lied to them during the election campaign.

The spin doctors around the Prime Minister tried to explain this away by saying, first, it was the fault of the media, then, the fault of the public for believing them, and, now, the Prime Minister is saying that the GST has been such a fair, beneficial tax, that they are unable to find a more suitable tax to replace it.

Recently, the Prime Minister made a half-hearted attempt at apologizing.

In view of the fact that the Prime Minister and the members of the cabinet have become such strong supporters and ardent advocates of the GST, will she now rise and join in the apology for failing to abolish the GST?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I would certainly concur with the remarks of the Minister of Finance and the remarks made by the Prime Minister yesterday in St. John's, Newfoundland. The one spin that my friend puts on this issue with which I do not concur is that the GST has been embraced as the finest and the fairest of taxes. I think my honourable friend knows that the government has been working extremely hard in the last three years to find a replacement for the GST that is indeed fairer, and it has begun that with its efforts in Atlantic Canada.

Senator Berntson: Tell me what is new about harmonization.

Senator Fairbairn: That is the area in which I take issue with my friend.

Senator Phillips: Honourable senators, I point out to the Leader of the Government that they have now had three years to find a replacement. If you have been that diligent in your efforts, you should have been able to find one in three years.

Now that the honourable senator has conceded that the government has broken its promise of abolishing the GST and apologized to this chamber, I wonder if she would go one step further and apologize for the anarchy she and her colleagues created when the bill was introduced in the chamber.

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, as I told my honourable friend at the beginning of my answer, I wholeheartedly support the Prime Minister's comments and the comments of the Minister of Finance.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Which ones? Last Tuesday night -

Senator Fairbairn: No, honourable senators.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: - when he told Canadians to move out of the country if they could not get a job?

Senator Fairbairn: I concur with the comments that the Prime Minister made in Newfoundland last night.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: And last week?

(1430)

Senator Fairbairn: However, honourable senators, I would say to Senator Phillips that the government, after considerable effort, has devised a better way of dealing with this tax - replacing this tax with a different form of tax in harmonization with the three Atlantic provinces, not my honourable friend's province, but the provinces of Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In the last few days, the Minister of Finance has made it clear that he continues to work on efforts to extend that harmonized tax to other provinces across the country.

Senator Phillips: Honourable senators, the Leader of the Government in the Senate forgot to answer my supplementary question. Will she apologize for the attempts at anarchy?

The Environment

Non-Proliferation Policy on Plutonium-Role of Various Government Departments-Government Position

Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, I always like to follow the lead of my colleague sitting to my left. I wish to return to the issue of plutonium.

Some commentators have warned that, in burning Cold War plutonium, Canada will legitimize the practice, and contribute to a full-scale, commercial, plutonium economy, one that would pose unacceptable risks to global security.

Canada has never protested against the trade in plutonium among those who produce plutonium commercially. Among those countries are Russia, Britain, France, Japan, and several others.

Canada's key federal nuclear policy people do not seem to have a serious non-proliferation policy on plutonium. This is not a trifling matter, honourable senators, either for the world or for Canada in particular, since Canada could house more than 100 tonnes of plutonium if the proposal now being suggested by AECL and Ontario Hydro is accepted.

Honourable senators, my question is very simple. What is the policy of the Government of Canada on the non-proliferation of plutonium?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I will add that to the list of my honourable friend's questions on plutonium to which I have requested answers. Hopefully, I will have an answer for her when we resume after the break.

Senator Spivak: Which minister is the lead minister for this particular issue? Is it the Minister of Trade, the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Natural Resources? Is it someone at AECL? Who is the lead proponent of this policy, if such a policy exists?

Senator Fairbairn: I will clarify that for my honourable friend. As she knows, all of those ministers would be working in close cooperation.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: No one, in other words.

Hon. Michel Cogger: Honourable senators, I believed that the ministers in all of those departments were working in close cooperation. Yet, last week I thought we had established that the Minister of the Environment did not have a clue. He did not know what it was all about. Has he since been brought into the loop? Was he given a crash course?

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, the Minister of the Environment was well within the loop.

Heritage Canada

Job Cuts to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Discrepancy in Numbers Announced by Minister Copps-Government Position

Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Liberal government promised stable multi-year funding for the CBC. Despite this promise, one which was made quite clearly in the Red Book, the federal government has cut funding to the CBC by $414 million between 1994 and 1997. As a result of these cuts, the CBC has had to announce lay-offs. The total number of positions that have been abolished in the current round of cuts is 1,700. Of this number, 996 are straight lay-offs. These are the numbers released by the CBC.

Yesterday, in the news, Minister Copps said that 19 people across the country had been laid off against their wishes.

Where did the minister get this number from, and why are her numbers so far off? Why is she so misinformed regarding the figures?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, as I understand it, the Minister of Canadian Heritage was referring specifically to the English television network cuts and lay-offs -

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): She was not.

Senator Fairbairn: - which amounted to 19. Of the 1,699 positions announced, 996 were direct lay-offs, which included the entire news operation of the English network. As I understand them, my honourable friend's figures are correct.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: They are not correct. The Minister of Canadian Heritage said on television that there were only 19 lay-offs and the remainder were all voluntary departures. The 19 she was referring to - she admitted this herself - she found in the article in The Ottawa Citizen. The reporter admitted that he was only talking about one division of the CBC. I believe it was the news room. In actual fact, there have been over 900 firings in the CBC. Those are the official figures of the CBC.

Senator Fairbairn: That is precisely what I just said.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: The Leader of the Government is defending Minister Copps' statement.

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I was agreeing with Senator Stratton. Senator Stratton enunciated the total figures. I am agreeing with him.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: My honourable friend is also agreeing with Minister Copps.

Senator Fairbairn: I explained to my honourable friend the portion of those numbers that were referred to by Minister Copps. The numbers Senator Stratton put forward are the total numbers. We are not arguing.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: We are not arguing. Minister Copps has not apologized for giving erroneous information. It is not 19 for the entire CBC - it is over 900. All she is relying on is some newspaper article. Are we to understand that the minister responsible for the CBC gets her information from articles inThe Ottawa Citizen? If that is the case, that is appalling.

Possible Privatization of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Government Position

Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, could the Leader of the Government in the Senate please advise us in this chamber exactly what the government's position is on the future of the CBC? Last weekend, Minister Young said that he believes the CBC English and French television networks should be privatized. What is the government's position on the future of CBC television and radio? What is the government's plan overall for the CBC?

Extent of Budget Cuts to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Minimal Government Spending in Comparison with Other Western Countries-Government Position

Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, an important question on this whole matter is: Why is the federal government cutting the CBC's budget at twice the rate of overall government spending cuts? Since 1995 the CBC has lost 4,000 jobs. Why?

Canada is also at the bottom of the pile of industrialized countries with public broadcasting systems. It spends the least, approximately $32 annually, which amounts to about 10 cents a day. Why is this? Is the Department of Finance running the show?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, in terms of broader numbers for the cuts, I would be pleased to go back in the record that precedes our years in government. Regrettably, the CBC, like every other segment of this economy, has had to take significant cuts in recent years, as have other sectors in this economy, including many individuals.

(1440)

Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is not what the Red Book says!

Senator Fairbairn: Naturally, these cuts are extremely tough to take. I would agree with everyone in this chamber who would make that statement. Nonetheless, it was part of the government's undertaking to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP. All of what we are discussing is part of that undertaking. The Minister of Finance has been successful in achieving the targets that he set.

My honourable friends know the reason why he had to set targets, because I have repeated it over and over again. The reason that he had to set targets was to get the fiscal situation of this country under control so that we can support the programs that are important to the Canadian people, including the national broadcasting system.

Prime Minister's Office

Rating of Liberals on Pre-Election Promises-Government Position

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, I wish to determine something about the Red Book. When the Prime Minister was correcting his Red Book exam on the question of stable funding to the CBC, did he mark it correct or incorrect? On the question of the GST, did he give himself a passing grade, a failing grade or half marks? In arriving at that 78 per cent, I want to know what kind of mark he gave himself on those two items.

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government in the Senate): Honourable senators, I will get the book for Senator Tkachuk.

Heritage Canada

Budget Cuts to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Adverse Effect on Cultural Institutions-Government Position

Hon. Janis Johnson: Honourable senators, I should like to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate, when all is said and done, what is in the future for the CBC? Will this recent course continue? What is the government's rationalization. What are their management plans? Such cuts have an impact on all our cultural institutions. I am sure the Leader of the Government understands and is sensitive to that possibility.

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I should like to give my honourable friend a proper answer to her question and I am not in a position to do that today.

The underlying commitment of the federal government is -

Senator Berntson: Stable funding!

Senator Fairbairn: - first, to get its economic house in order, and, second, to be able to sustain programs that are extremely important to this country. The CBC is one of those extremely important programs.

National Defence

Socio-Economic Challenges Facing Department-Possibility of Creation of Joint Parliamentary Committee-Government Position

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, if you are to get some Red Books, please make sure they are the original versions.

The other day, in a major policy speech here in Ottawa, the Minister of National Defence indicated that he had asked the chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs if she would be good enough to have her committee hold hearings to make recommendations on the vast array of socio-economic challenges facing the members of the Canadian forces and their families.

I welcome that study because it is probably two or three generations overdue. Colleagues will be aware that two or three years ago two distinguished senators in our chamber, who happen to sit side by side, namely, Senators Rompkey and De Bané, helped chair a joint committee of the two Houses that took a long and careful look at past and current defence policy and where we might be going in the future. It was an excellent report which was widely read and is still referred to quite often.

Is there not some merit, because of the urgency of the changing socio-economic patterns that surround and engulf our families in the forces, in considering the question of a joint committee of both houses undertaking this very important task?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, first, I should like to join with my honourable colleague in expressing my great satisfaction that this subject will be placed before a parliamentary committee. My friend is correct. It is true that such a study has been much commented upon and long overlooked, and I am sure that its outcome will affect the lives and morale of not only armed forces personnel but their families. It is a very worthwhile undertaking.

As to whether it could be a joint effort, I will be pleased to take that representation to my colleague the Minister of National Defence and the government house leader on the other side to see if that is a possibility.

[Translation]

Heritage Canada

Future Plans for Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Government Position

Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, the Leader of the Government did not answer Senator Johnson's question.

I am very disturbed by the unsatisfactory reply to this question. Your government has cut the CBC's budget. The decision was announced 10 months ago, in the budget brought down last February.

When these decisions were made in Cabinet, I assume you took part in the process. Our question today is about your government's future plans for the CBC. You can hardly tell us today that you do not know what those plans are. You have known for 10 months. What are your government's plans for the CBC in the future?

[English]

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I did answer Senator Johnson's question, inasmuch as I said that I would seek far more extensive information for her than I could possibly offer myself. Of course I will go to my colleagues and try to obtain a proper answer for Senator Johnson and for Senator Nolin.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: Honourable senators, of course, but when you make decisions at budget time - I am not interested in the details - do you consider the consequences of these decisions?

[English]

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, Senator Nolin will know that in the budget process, the Minister of Finance carefully looks at every part of the economy when arriving at his decisions and his suggestions for the direction of the Canadian interest in our economic future. Of course, the subjects before him as he comes to those decisions are vast. They cover every part of the economy. Sometimes the most difficult are the ones that touch institutions like the CBC. As I have said two or three times here today, these are painful and significant decisions, but the government remains strongly committed to the future of the CBC.

[Translation]

Reinstatement of Radio Canada International-Future Financing Planning-Government Position

Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, why did your government rush last week to reverse the CBC's decision to close Radio Canada International? In less than 24 hours, your government was able to find $16 million to finance the operations of Radio Canada International. Where is your planning in all this? There is no planning. Your decisions are made on a day-to-day basis, depending on political pressure, on what they say in the media, the Senate or the House of Commons. Where is your planning? What are your long-term plans?

[English]

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, Senator Nolin will realize that the international service of the CBC was funded partially by the CBC itself and partially by government. The government itself is now taking over the complete funding of that operation and is working towards building a better future for it so that it may extend information about this country abroad. I do believe, as I have said before, that members of this chamber, including Senator MacDonald, offered extremely worthwhile and timely comments to ensure that this service continued.

[Translation]

Possibility of White Paper on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Government Position

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, on the same subject, there is clearly some controversy in Canada, in the House of Commons and in the Senate, regarding that important institution, the CBC. Radio Canada International, in my opinion, is an entity. I will have some suggestions to make on the subject when we get back to this. Radio Canada International should be separate from the rest. The CBC represents the power and the glory of Canada. Someday, perhaps, we could remove Radio Canada International from this debate.

(1450)

[English]

Second, does the minister not agree that the time has come to have a white paper on Radio Canada, in respect of both radio and television? There is a nuance distinguishing the two. I will go to great lengths to defend the radio section of Radio Canada, because it is vital to keep Canadians informed about our country. We could also debate the television section. Many senators are prepared to defend that service. Friends of the CBC exist across Canada.

Would the Honourable Leader of the Government in the Senate agree to recommend to her government that the time has come to eliminate all of this confusion of cutting here and adding there, and of ministers contradicting each other? The time has come to have a white paper on the great institution of the CBC.

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I will undertake to pass on Senator Prud'homme's proposal to my colleagues. He is quite right in noting that, on both sides of this chamber, there are many friends of the CBC.

---

Business of the Senate

Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Bill-Motion to Refer to Committee-Vote Deferred-Point of Order

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella: Honourable senators, I rise on a point of order. As honourable senators will recall, yesterday we had a ruling from His Honour the Speaker dealing with the amendment that I had proposed to the motion of Senator Kenny to referBill C-29, the MMT bill, to committee. His Honour correctly pointed out that, according to rule 62(1), a motion to refer a bill after second reading to a committee is a non-debatable motion.

It was only after we had gone through several other steps in the proceeding that I read His Honour's decision, in which he clearly pointed out, in the penultimate paragraph, what I have just indicated about rule 62.

Prior to that, I had relied on rule 67. As I read rule 67, it allows either whip to request that a standing vote be deferred, and that is what I did. However, upon re-reading the rule yesterday, I discovered that that provision applies only to a motion that is debatable. Of course, as His Honour pointed out, the motion with which we were dealing at that time was not debatable. Therefore, the request that I made at that time was out of order.

When the motion was put to the chamber as to whether the bill should be referred to committee, the Speaker ruled that in his opinion the yeas had it. At that time, some of us on this side stood in order that I might exercise my right under rule 67, which right, of course, I do not properly have under the rules.

Therefore, honourable senators, I believe that if that same question were to be put at this time, and the Speaker were to indicate that in his opinion the yeas had it, you would find that no one on this side would rise to request a standing vote, and therefore the motion would carry.

Hon. Colin Kenny: I understood that Senator Kinsella wanted to move directly to third reading, and I was prepared to support his motion.

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, we have not yet reached that item on the Order Paper. Do you wish to deal with it now?

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): We should deal with the point of order now.

Senator Graham: That is fine. Thank you. 

---

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Manganese-based Fuel Additives Bill

Referred to Committee

Leave having been given to proceed to Order No. 1 under Recorded Division Deferred:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kenny, seconded by the Honourable Senator Landry, that Bill C-29, 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.

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Is unanimous consent required to undo what was done unduly? If so, I will tell you whether you have unanimous consent.

The Hon. the Speaker: Yes, indeed. It does require unanimous consent for the Senate to change a proceeding of yesterday.

I understand that the proposal is that we revert to the motion for third reading and disregard everything that happened after that yesterday. We would then be back to referral of the bill to committee. If that were acceptable, we would disregard everything that took place yesterday. I would put the question again to give honourable senators the opportunity to say "on division," and we would proceed without a standing vote.

Is that clear, Honourable Senator Prud'homme?

Senator Prud'homme: Yes, it is very clear. You said that you do need unanimous consent to undo what was done yesterday. To show that I am highly cooperative, I will cooperate with the Senate, even though at this time of the year it is extremely tempting for me to do otherwise.

I have made multiple requests in this place, and have received no satisfactory answers. I am still in limbo. I am non-existent. I sit on no committees. A small man in my situation would use the first available occasion to withhold consent. However, that is not the way I conduct my affairs. Having reminded you of the unkindness which some would like to continue here in the Senate pertaining to independent senators, I will give consent.

The Hon. the Speaker: I take it, then, that there is unanimous consent?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Referred to Committee

The Hon. the Speaker: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Kenny, seconded by the Honourable Senator Landry, that Bill C-29 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: Yea.

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

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

Motion agreed to, on division.

(1500)

Canada Elections Act
Parliament of Canada Act
Referendum Act

Bill to Amend-Third Reading-Motions in Amendment-Votes Deferred-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.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Beaudoin, that the Bill 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)(ii) 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"

Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-63.

The subject-matter of the amendments suggested by Bill C-63 has been around Elections Canada and parliamentary circles for a number of years. In fact, the idea of updating our electoral system and giving consideration to a permanent voters list was suggested by the Lortie commission, a commission mandated by a previous government no less.

Since many of my colleagues have already spoken on the contents of this bill, I will refrain from giving the chamber my synopsis of it. I will touch only on those matters that concern me particularly, or those that have not been raised by other senators.

I commend the government for continuing on the fine intentions of its predecessors to update and streamline the election process. I was pleased to see Senator Bryden open debate on Bill C-63 by putting it in the appropriate context. He quoted Herman Bakvis, the editor of research studies for the Lortie commission, who stated:

The act of voting in an election is perhaps the single most important form of political participation in modern democracies... The extent to which citizens exercise this most fundamental right can be seen as an indicator of the health of democracy.

I share this perspective on Bill C-63.

To function properly, democracy must ensure that citizens truly participate and feel assured that the process is a fair and just one. Only then can Parliament and government truly gain legitimacy. In other words, trust in an electoral system is absolutely necessary.

Three issues concern me. First, there is an issue that should not go unnoticed and that is interrelated to the subject of the legislation's timing. The government invoked time allocation on this bill in the other place and forced it to the Senate without all-party consensus. That seems peculiar since recent changes to the Elections Act have usually been dealt with in a more open and timely manner. Even more interesting is the fact that the government would decide to bypass general consensus on election amendments in the fourth year of its mandate.

Honourable colleagues, I ask you: Why the rush on this important piece of legislation? This is legislation that suggests sweeping changes to Canada's electoral process.

Canada is presently contributing to strengthening democracies around the world and building good governance and respect for the rule of law. In particular, we have played a prominent role in encouraging multi-party democracy in many countries. In fact, in many of those countries, we are encountering resistance by the ruling majority party to a level playing field for opposition parties.

We stress that the views of opposition parties should be taken into account. A level playing field at the time of elections is necessary. While opposition parties must act responsibly, the onus is on the government, particularly if it has a majority in Parliament, to act in such a way as to allow a full and fair discussion of, and accommodation for, the concerns of the opposition parties.

If we state that for others, surely the same principles should guide us at home. It is hard to see how a level playing field works in Canada, when closure was invoked in the House of Commons. All opposition parties unanimously voted against the bill. Surely, the election process is the responsibility of all elected members. Elections Canada deals with the machinery and implementation. The government is tasked with the drafting of the bill.

Broad principles aside, where was the all-party input prior to the introduction of the bill? At the very least, where was the full and fair debate and opportunity for opposition members to air their concerns for the record on the specifics?

Bill C-63 comes with a taint of: "Why the rush?" and with the perception that the government did not seek the support and input of opposition members. Even if not intended, this appearance of high-handedness leaves Canada with a double standard. It is all the more true when the government seeks, through this bill, to avoid the very thoughtful section in the present Elections Act that states that no implementation of changes can take place within six months of the passage of any amendment. That section was not put in carelessly. It was a deliberate decision to ensure that changes to the electoral process are not put through quickly with the appearance of favouring the ruling majority party. It was also to give adequate time for a proper and feasible implementation.

What is the crisis or the emergency situation that compels the government to avoid this section? Fast tracking around the Elections Act sends all the wrong signals. The rebuttal that full consultations about principles were held is not enough. The electoral process is about practice, implementation and confidence. I believe full and fair consultation has not taken place.

The issue of a permanent registry is also troublesome. It is not an issue of whether a permanent registry is desirable or not. Certainly, public opinion tilts in favour of a permanent registry as a principle. In fact, the Lortie commission recommended one. However, the important provision attached to the Lortie commission report seems to have been lost. They stated that a permanent registry was desirable, providing proper implementation took place.

The Government of Canada places every reliance on the Chief Electoral Officer and his department to deliver a permanent registry. While I am confident that Mr. Kingsley has done and will continue to do an admirable job in delivering his mandate, he does not control all the factors. The complexity of gathering vast amounts of information from so many different sources and provinces should not be overlooked. In fact, we have already heard from so many that these arrangements have, to date, only been made in principle.

In one previous Canadian venture, in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, a complex communications system was to be delivered with new technology. It was not only desirable but possible, we were told. Great cost savings were shown on paper. Confidentiality was termed to be "achievable." After the initial go-ahead, and when the system was commenced on an exploratory basis, the real problems began to surface. Confidentiality could not be protected. The cost savings could not be assured. In fact, overruns began immediately. At some point down the line, the scheme was abandoned.

We already know that changes to the recommendations of the Lortie commission have been made, and that changes continue to be made, which is commendable in one sense but raises more questions from another.

There is a great deal of trust built into the implementation readiness of the scheme. When it comes to the public's right to vote, Canadian citizens should not be asked to trust the government. Instead, the government should be required to prove to the public that the framework and the infrastructure in this complex process can be pulled together and made workable before the existing system is scrapped.

My final concern is that there is very little known of the strategy of implementation. How will the public be informed? How will the public be reassured that what they get will be better than what they have?

The Canadian electorate knows the current system. They have used the current system as it has been in practice for a number of years. To change this system would require sufficient education of the public and dissemination of information.

(1510)

A sufficient lead time is also absolutely crucial in making changes to the electoral system. When we talked about new technologies, surely those Canadians who are well educated and well informed will understand it. However, there are a great many Canadians, particularly in these turbulent and financially difficult times, who cannot be expected to have entered into the dialogue of change. The enumeration system has been a useful educational tool in alerting people of a pending election and the method of participation.

Honourable senators, I want to refer to one change in the new act that was not recommended by the Lortie commission, and that is the use of income tax forms. Much has been made of the fact that citizens will have the choice of agreeing to their tax returns being used for election purposes. In other words, it has been stated that it would be a voter's choice at the time of filing his or her income tax.

I would ask honourable senators to consider the problem of involving the income tax department, and one can see why the Lortie commission stayed clear of this avenue of information. Just consider, at the time that you are completing your income tax return, hoping to have properly filled out the forms, and you come across a question on which you have a choice: You can either agree to give information to the government for the purpose of the Canada Elections Act, or you can say no. If I say no, my first thought is, "What will the income tax authority think of me? Will they be predisposed to be suspicious of me if I say no?"

We have spent years trying to build public confidence in the confidentiality of income tax returns. Will this really be an informed consent? Will people shy away, not because they are irresponsible citizens, but because they have nagging doubts as to the implications of such a decision?

Louis Lavoie, the former Director of Operational Planning and International Services of Elections Canada said:

Voter registration is the basis of the democratic process. Without it, citizens could not legitimately cast the ballot to which they are entitled.

Honourable senators, I would go one step further and say that a citizen's ability to vote is his or her fundamental right that ensures all other rights in our democracy. For this reason, I am hesitant to support a bill that proposes to revolutionize the Canadian electoral process at the eleventh hour. Surely, honourable senators, change is desirable; however, thoughtful, reflective and well-managed change is what we should be hoping for. Confusion is not desirable. Uncertainty leads to fear.

The committee did hear from Dr. John Courtney of the University of Saskatchewan, who stated that the greatness of our country's present system is its simplicity, its standardization across the country and its easy comprehensibility by the general public. To change to another system should be done with a full and extensive educational mandate before implementation. If the present implementation creates difficulties that are undesirable, what other measures do we have to offer the Canadian public to ensure the integrity of the electoral process?

A better question is, can we afford even the chance of failure? We cannot afford to change the system without having truly respected the need for full debate and involvement of all parties.

Honourable senators, we praise ourselves as being the best country in the world. We did not come by this reputation easily or lightly. We should not take our democracy for granted. Our role should be to increase public confidence and involvement in the democratic system. Therefore, our responses should be measured in an inclusive democracy. The rush to be modern and efficient cannot replace trust and integrity.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, before commenting on this bill, I want to thank Senator Carstairs and her colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for the understanding, collaboration and cooperation that they gave the opposition in terms of the witnesses we wanted to have appear, and the time required to question them. This committee is one of the busiest in the Senate, and because of that fact, our appreciation is that much greater. We all benefited from Senator Carstairs' consideration, and I want to thank her on behalf of my colleagues.

I will try not to repeat what has already been said regarding our concerns over these amendments, except to emphasize my main concern, which is shared by many colleagues. Given that the sources required to maintain a permanent voters registry at least as complete as the voters list resulting from a door-to-door enumeration are not yet confirmed, can Canadians expect to have such a registry in place before the next election, which must be held by October of 1998, or in less than two years? Given that the average term of a federal government is four to four and a half years, the realistic deadline to have everything in place, if these amendments are approved, is closer to April of 1998.

My response is that there is not enough information available, or agreements from provinces and territories, and even two federal departments, to satisfy me that a permanent voters registry can have the same degree of accuracy when the next election is called, even if it is called no earlier than October 1998.

Before elaborating on this point, I want to try to answer the question regarding the appropriateness of the appointed Senate to challenge the elected house's decisions on anything to do with elections. Honourable senators will recall that the government convinced the elected house last year to pass a bill that, had it been sanctioned, would not have allowed a redistribution based on the 1990 census in time for the next election. This was prompted by a group of Liberal backbenchers, mainly from Ontario, who had examined the preliminary maps. Because the redistribution process had started, and the government wanted to interrupt it and suspend it practically indefinitely, or at least long enough so that it would not be in place for the next election, a group of Liberal backbenchers from Ontario protested. To paraphrase the remarks of one such member of Parliament from the Toronto area, and I admire his frankness, though it was a bit blunt and crude, he said, in effect, "I worked many years for this riding, and now they want to take it away from me." Honourable senators, it is this sort of proprietary self-interest, not the public interest, that had the government agree to ignore its constitutional obligations regarding redistribution. Had it not been for the opposition in this place, it is more than likely that brazen self-interest would have triumphed over the public interest.

Senator Andreychuk has questioned the government's haste in processing this bill. The bill only came to the Senate on November 27, 1996, less than three weeks ago. The government is so adamant in having the bill receive Royal Assent before the end of the year that it has even briefed the elected members to be on standby, and, should the bill go back to the House of Commons with an amendment, then they may be recalled, even during the Christmas recess. It is practically unheard of to have this sort of attitude towards a bill touching on elections, which, as Senator Andreychuk and Senator Murray have both pointed out, should have, in a broad way, general support from all opposition parties. This one does not have that support, to the point where the government imposed closure in the House of Commons to force the bill through that house.

Why wait, then, until the last minute to introduce such important legislation affecting millions of Canadians - legislation that, as I mentioned, was subjected to closure in the House of Commons?

(1520)

What is so sacred about having a last door-to-door enumeration in April? Is the government seeing in these amendments - and one can only throw out these suspicions - benefits to itself which it wants in place in time for a spring or early summer election? If that is so, as many suspect, the expression that I used before, "self-interest," is certainly not out of place in discussing the amendments and provides an additional argument in favour of scrutiny of anything electoral by those who have no direct interest in the process.

This position is reinforced by the fact that, as Senator Andreychuk pointed out and as was said yesterday by Senator Murray, normally, when such changes are made to an elections act, there is a notwithstanding clause or some such equivalent. If the election is held within six months, then the amendments do not go into effect until the following election. That notwithstanding clause has been dropped, for the first time, from the Elections Act. This is something more than streamlining the election process. To my mind, it also includes a timetable which, by the government's analysis, will benefit them should they want a quick election in the next few months.

This is a government that believes more and more in administration by regulation. More and more, Parliament only approves bills with general guidelines, and their implementation is based on regulations written by non-elected public officials and presented to Parliament as a fait accompli. I fail to appreciate any suggestion that the views of elected, experienced parliamentarians are not at least as valid as those of bureaucrats who need not and should not answer directly to the public. We should be quite comfortable in taking a hard look at any legislation put before us, particularly any concerning elections, proposed by those who have the most direct interest in that legislation.

With that background, I wish to elaborate on the main preoccupation I touched on earlier, the permanent voters register. Let me be clear that we have no objection to the establishment of a permanent voters list. We support it without any argument whatsoever. However, what troubles many of us is that it is called on to replace the current enumeration system which, whatever its costs, has proven to be most efficient in terms of the number of eligible voters on the list on the day of the election.

It also has other benefits, indirect perhaps, but quite unique. By the door-to-door enumeration, Canadians are made aware that there will be a federal election. One cannot assume that all Canadians know everything at the same time. By a door-to-door enumeration and the resultant appearance of enumerators, each household in this country, is made aware, some for the first time, that there will be a federal election. A slip is left behind with the names of those entitled to vote. That slip is left on the coffee table or on the kitchen counter for all to see.

Then, in good time, a list is sent to each household giving the names of the electors in the neighbourhood who are eligible to vote in a certain poll. The address of the poll is given, the times of voting are given, and the day of voting is repeated. In other words, documents go to every household in this country alerting Canadians that they have a right to vote. It is hoped that they will vote, and these are the documents and the information they need to exercise that right.

There are disadvantages, as were brought out before the committee. One is that it is becoming more and more difficult to get enumerators. The Chief Electoral Officer told us that something like 110,000 enumerators are needed. It is getting more difficult to get people to do that work. We were also told that enumerators are hesitant to go door to door in some areas of the country. We were also told that, more and more, elderly people living alone hesitate to answer their doors in the evening.

Despite that, the success rate of the door-to-door enumeration process is truly astounding. It works. Once the original enumeration is completed, some 92 per cent of eligible voters are on the list. When the revision is completed four or five days before the actual election, registration goes up to 95 per cent. It is an extraordinary success rate. It is highly costly, but it seems to me that there are some items in this country where cost should not be the prime factor, and certainly one of them is ensuring that as many Canadians as possible are on that list.

As a result of the high percentage of eligible voters on the list, we have a high participation in elections. I am convinced the two are linked. These are the most recent figures, but I am sure if we went back we would have the same interesting figures. In 1984, 75 per cent of eligible Canadians went to vote. In 1988, it was also 75 per cent. In 1993, it dropped to 70 per cent. I think the main reason it dropped was that in 1993 there was no enumeration. The list used was the same one used for the referendum in October 1992. The electoral officer explained to us that he was allowed, under the law allowing the use of the 1992 electoral list for the 1993 election, to add names to the list but not to take names off. As a result, the number of eligible voters grew in one year to 19.9 million from 18.6 million, which is an increase of 7 per cent. We know that our population did not increase by that factor, so there was an inflated list. It had nothing to do with Elections Canada.

I congratulate Elections Canada for the outstanding work they do, not only in this country, but when they are called upon to go abroad and help developing countries institute an electoral system suited to their own needs. We have reason to be proud, and I congratulate them again, as I did in the committee.

In 1993, the participation rate dropped to 70 per cent, but I think that is because the list was not as accurate as it should have been.

What happens in the United States? I have figures going back to 1932, but I will just read the figures from 1972: Starting in 1972, they are 55 per cent, 53 per cent, 52 per cent, 53 per cent, 50 per cent, 55 per cent, and, in the last presidential elections, 48.8 per cent, the lowest participation rate since 1924 in what they identify as the greatest democracy in the world.

What is the link between the high participation figure in this country and the low participation figure in the United States? There are many explanations that are not related to each other, but I think one significant explanation is that, in this country, we go to Canadians and invite them to get on the list. We knock on every door in the country. Everyone has an opportunity to be on the list. In the United States, you go to the register; in this country, the register comes to you. In many cases, Americans cannot be bothered. That is not the main reason, but I have convinced myself, admittedly without any data to support it, that one of the reasons for our high turnout is that, through the Elections Canada enumeration, we make Canadians aware of the election. We have a high eligibility rate. In the United States, it is up to the citizens themselves to go and register, and that contributes to a low turnout.

Bill C-63 is a combination of these two systems. I will not go into the details, but the question remains: If we pass these amendments now, will we have, one year from now, a number of voters on the list as high as a traditional enumeration provides? In one year, according to Elections Canada figures, the number of voters on the permanent list, which will be established as of April 1997 based on the last door-to-door enumeration, will drop to something like 80 per cent.

(1530)

How will they be able to make up that slack so that on election day we will have - and Canadians are entitled to this - as high a percentage on the list as we have now?

I refer honourable senators to a press release from Minister Gray which explains that the revision and the updating will be based on information Elections Canada will no longer be able to collect directly. Names, addresses and birth dates will be taken from income tax returns filed with Revenue Canada; lists of new Canadian citizens will be retrieved from those compiled by Citizenship and Immigration Canada; and data will be collected from provincial registrars of vital statistics and provincial registrars of drivers, and vehicle licences. The press release then goes on to say that the permanent register will also be augmented by proven "provincial electoral lists."

Elections Canada is now being called upon to sign agreements with 10 provinces, two territories, and two federal departments to ensure that, when needed, data will be available to ensure that the permanent registry will be as up to date as the traditional enumeration lists.

Honourable senators, as we heard in committee and as Senator Murray told us yesterday, very few of these agreements are in place now. We are talking about an election perhaps within a year. We are being asked to sanction a system that, on paper, has a lot of merit, but in its implementation still faces a great deal of difficulty.

The chief electoral officer of Quebec appeared before the committee. He explained that he will have completed his permanent list by mid-April. On it, he will have the names of 5,190,000 voters. He did not understand why Elections Canada wanted to go to the Motor Vehicle Bureau because they only issue 4,200,000 drivers' licences. At that so-called "primary source," there is a shortfall of 1 million.

Mr. Côté told us - as he told Elections Canada - that he has his permanent voters list. It is up to date. He said that he will gladly let them use it for a fee, but he was not entitled by the law that allowed a permanent list to be set up in Quebec to give out any other information. Elections Canada still insists that it must go to basic sources and not rely only on the permanent voters list.

Senator Bryden told us that he understood - and I imagine his information is well based - there are some technical difficulties in transposing from the Quebec list to the master Canadian list, and that it would take at least nine months to develop a system to allow that to happen. Hence, in one province alone with 25 per cent of eligible voters, Elections Canada is unable to go to the basic data it feels it must have to keep its lists up to date. As well, there is a technical problem in that, even if it uses its permanent list as its basic data, there will be a delay of eight or nine months. Right there, honourable senators, is an argument to go slow on the implementation of a permanent voters list.

To summarize, so far, there have been no broad, firm commitments by enough provinces. As well, there is a very short time frame in which to implement this scheme. If there is a spring election, my argument falls apart because the enumeration is in April. If the election is in May, there will be no problem, except that the traditional revisions will no longer take place. The short time frame between the actual door-to-door enumeration and the election itself will not cause a problem. However, if there is an election in the fall or next spring, the longer it is put off, the more difficult it will be for the permanent registry to be kept up to date because Elections Canada does not yet have the right to go into those data banks and retrieve the information it needs.

Honourable senators, we were told that we should pass the amendments and then all the agreements will fall into place. It would have been wiser to have the agreements in place and then come to Parliament and say that the provinces, the federal departments and the territories had agreed to make this information available; therefore, it could be implemented as soon as the bill was passed. Instead, we were told that it would be best to pass the bill and have the amendments in place, and then serious negotiations could take place.

By doing that, Elections Canada is painting itself into a corner, because, the closer we get to the ultimate date for an election, the more difficult certain provinces will be and the more they will twist arms to get a better deal. However, had they made the agreements before an election, then the negotiations might have been on a more level playing field.

I will just describe what happened in Quebec. There was an election in Quebec in September of 1994. The last door-to-door enumeration took place in September of 1995. There were 20,000 polls and 40,000 enumerators. Following that, there was a revision, and a permanent voters list was built upon that. According the Mr. Côté, the chief electoral officer in Quebec, the final list will be in place and ready for mid-April of 1997. It will take from September 1995 to April 1997 to put in place an updated system, which Elections Canada is being called upon to do in only a few months. Much as I admire them for their devotion and their enthusiasm, I think we are being asked to give them a job that they will find extraordinarily difficult to do, particularly as their sources of information are beyond their control, whereas at least in Quebec, and in any other province that builds its own list, they have control over their own data sources. Elections Canada must negotiate and sign agreements. They will not be master agreements; they will be agreements tailored to each jurisdiction.

Honourable senators, I see nothing in this bill that seriously hampers or hinders an incumbent government or an opposition party. I have no problems with a shorter writ period, although colleagues tell me that it favours the incumbent government. I think of the 1988 election, when we were told that the Conservatives won in the last week of the campaign. I think of the 1993 election, when I can say that I think we lost the election on the first day of the campaign. The argument can go on forever. Whether the campaign period is 47 days or 37 days is irrelevant. By the time we come to an election period, most Canadians have made up their minds, and one goes after the 20 per cent or 25 per cent of undecided voters. I am not convinced one way or the other as to who benefits from a short or long writ period.

Honourable senators, what concerns me is that we in this country have a unique system of enumeration that allows 95 per cent of eligible voters to get on the list. The present enumeration system helps make Canadians aware of an election, which in turn allows for a high participation rate on election day. We are now being asked to replace that with a system that has a lot of merit but does not have all the elements in place to convince me and many others that it can be as complete in terms of eligible voters as is our present system. It will be to the benefit of Elections Canada, which will be asked to carry this heavy responsibility, to give them a little more time. In other words, let the next election be based on the present rules and have the new rules in place for the election after that.

Motion in Amendment-vote deferred

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I wish to propose a subamendment to Senator Murray's amendment. Its purpose is to implement what I have said, which is that the act will only come into effect for the election of the Thirty-sixth Parliament, meaning after the next election.

Accordingly, honourable senators, I move:

That clause 94 of Bill C-63 be not now read the third time but that it be amended by replacing lines 10 to 28 onpage 44 with the following:

94.(1) Sections 2, 12 and 22 of this Act come into force on the day fixed by the Governor in Council for the return of the writs of election for the general election for the thirty-sixth Parliament.

(2) Subject to subsection (1), this Act or any provision of this Act or any provision of any Act enacted by this Act comes into force on January 1, 2000 or any such earlier day or days as are fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

(1540)

The Hon. the Speaker: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by Honourable Senator Doyle:

That clause 94 of Bill C-63 be not now read the third time but that it be amended by replacing lines 10 -

An Hon. Senator: Dispense!

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

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

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

And two honourable senators having risen.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Before calling a vote, Your Honour usually asks - and you have done this before - whether there are any more speakers. You have told us that on more than one occasion in order to avoid this type of incident taking place. You did not do that today.

Senator Berntson: Besides which, we were on our feet.

The Hon. the Speaker: No one got up. Does any other senator wish to speak?

Hon. Mabel M. DeWare: Yes. I wish to adjourn the debate.

Hon. John B. Stewart: Honourable senators, may I ask a question concerning the order? I may be wrong, but as I understand it, we had a main motion that the bill be now read the third time. We then had a motion in amendment to the third reading motion, moved by the Honourable Senator Murray. We now have another amendment to the main motion.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: It is a subamendment.

Senator Stewart: I listened carefully to Senator Lynch-Staunton, though I may not have heard him accurately. I tried to hear what His Honour said and, again, I may not have heard accurately. I did not hear the amendment put by Senator Murray and the subamendment to that amendment, proposed by Senator Lynch-Staunton, read out. What is the situation? This is not an important point, but I should like to know where we are procedurally.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, I hope I am following what I heard His Honour say yesterday, namely, that he would only entertain an amendment and a subamendment at one time. As I was reading out the text, I said, "I move, seconded by Senator Doyle, the following"; and I added, "as a subamendment to Senator Murray's amendment."

Senator Stewart: Did the honourable senator say that he moved an amendment to Senator Murray's amendment? Is that it?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Yes. It is consequential to Senator Murray's amendment.

Speaking on behalf of the whip, if the decision is to vote, in accordance with rule 67 we ask that the vote be deferred to tomorrow.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I should like a few moments to check the rules, but I understand - and I have just spoken to the Clerk Assistant, Mr. Greene - that a subamendment must be to the amendment. In other words, you cannot go back to the main motion on a subamendment.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I said that my subamendment was an amendment to Senator Murray's amendment. It is a subamendment. I may be using the wrong term, but I am attaching a subamendment to Senator Murray's amendment.

Senator Berntson: It simply expands the original amendment.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: My subamendment is consequential to his amendment; there is a link between the two.

The Hon. the Speaker: May we leave this in abeyance so that I may check the records on this? As it stands presently, I do not believe that this is in order. May we leave this in abeyance for a few moments and proceed to the next item? I will return shortly.

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Your Honour, while you deliberate on the propriety of this subamendment to the amendment, would you also take a moment to address the question - and it will help you to do so now rather than waiting until later - concerning when we can put forward new amendments?

I am asking that question because, now that the vote has been postponed until tomorrow, the government should seize the opportunity to present an order to the Senate. At what time should there be a vote?

Now that this bill has been delayed - and I think it is quite a bit of luck for the government that the opposition has asked to delay the taking of the vote until tomorrow - we must consider, first, that we have no order; second, that we do not know at what time the vote will be taken - and we should be told; and, third, if an order were to be issued that we vote tomorrow at a certain time, it would be difficult for others to propose amendments before we disposed of the amendment and the subamendment - that is, if Your Honour sees fit to accept the subamendment.

Your Honour said yesterday - and I was not sure that it was right, but I am prepared to abide by your ruling - that you will only entertain an amendment and a subamendment. I have a small one, but now I do not know when it can be introduced. Therefore, if there were to be an order by the Senate concerning the time for the vote tomorrow, it would be preferable. That is quite an unbelievable proposal by the opposition, which I did not expect, but it has not been seized yet by the government. If Your Honour wants to make the time of the vote an order of the Senate, I suggest that you seize the opportunity now, and that will dispose of one problem.

That means that no other amendment can be put to the Senate if we have to vote at "X" hour tomorrow night to dispose of the amendment, the subamendment and the motion. However, if we put forward an order that we shall dispose of everything, then we shall dispose of the subamendment, if it is acceptable - the amendment, and the main motion. There should be further debate on the main motion, if the subamendment and the amendment are defeated. If they are passed, they of course change the main motion, but if they are defeated, then we go back to the main motion.

Does the main motion then become amendable? Can we amend the main motion again? In an ordinary debate, I would say "yes." As a matter of fact, I would say that we can put forward a new amendment as soon as we dispose of the subamendment proposed by the Official Opposition.

You can only have one at a time. I am ready to accept that. However, I do not want to be precluded from introducing amendments. I am in Your Honour's hands, if you wish to reflect on all that.

In the meantime, perhaps the government will seize upon the occasion that has been offered to it. I suppose it is in the Christmas spirit to say that we will postpone until tomorrow a vote that we can take right now. I am surprised that we do not dispose of it now, but the opposition has offered to do it tomorrow. We will see how these great parts of the Senate, namely, the government and the opposition, will dispose of this matter.

I am taking a long time to make my point to give His Honour time to look into his books and check the rules. I could go on for hours, but I will not do so.

I should like to know if I can put an amendment forward and, if so, when. It seems to be more difficult because of the offer the official opposition has made to the government to deal with these motions tomorrow.

(1550)

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, rule 67(1) reads:

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 as provided below.

Rule 67(2) reads:

Except as provided in section (3) or as otherwise provided in these rules, when a vote has been deferred, pursuant to section (1), it shall stand deferred to 5:30 o'clock p.m. on the next day the Senate sits.

In order to accommodate all honourable senators - and I believe this is what Senator Prud'homme, as an independent senator, was requesting - the government side has agreed to follow the rules as set out in 67(1) and (2). Therefore, we will dispose of all votes at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow.

Hon. Eric Arthur Berntson (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I think everyone is seeking some accommodation. If Senator Lynch-Staunton's proposal is found to be out of order as a subamendment, it would be logical for us to adjourn the debate and draft an amendment that would be in order, which would bring us back tomorrow. There is a very important point to be made with the amendment.

In the last two minutes, we have had an in-depth discussion. There could be an accommodation made if we simply allowed the amendment to stand. Whether the subamendment is a subamendment or another amendment, we have agreed to this previously in respect of other matters, and I do not see why it would not work today. We could agree, as we do under the deferral rule, that all questions necessary to deal with this aspect will be put at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow. That would allow any other senators who wish to speak or to move other amendments to do so with the understanding that all votes will take place at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I realize that I should not challenge His Honour's rulings, except to ask for a vote, which we do only as an exception. However, I should like to draw your attention to November 27 when we voted on amendments respecting Term 17. They are identified as an amendment and a subamendment. The amendment was moved by Senator Doody and the subamendment, recognized as such, was moved by Senator Cogger. There is no link between the subamendment and the amendment. They both relate to Term 17, but the subamendment, identified as such, is not linked in topic to Senator Doody's amendment.

We are doing exactly the same thing in this instance. Perhaps our proceedings during the debate on Term 17 were not in order.

Senator Stewart: Honourable senators, does Senator Lynch-Staunton recognize that in that case the house was dealing with a resolution, while in this case we are dealing with a bill? In this case, we have the standard or formal motion that the bill be now read the third time. There are certain rules with regard to the amendments and subamendments that can be moved in the case of such an ancillary motion - rules that would not apply in the case of a resolution being considered by the house.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I recognize that. However, I would think the definitions of "amendment" and "subamendment" would be the same in all cases.

Senator Prud'homme: Honourable senators, things are getting worse when they should be getting better. A surprising offer was made by the opposition to the government. The government should jump at this offer, yet it seems to be slow to accept it.

If we vote tomorrow evening at 5:30, we will dispose of the subamendment, but the debate could continue on Thursday. To my surprise, the opposition has offered to dispose of everything tomorrow evening. I do not understand why the government does not accept that offer, knowing exactly what will happen.

Senator Graham: I disagree with that.

Senator Prud'homme: Senator Graham accepted the deferral of the vote until 5:30 p.m. tomorrow on a subamendment which may be acceptable.

Senator Graham: No. I said that it would refer to all votes.

Senator Prud'homme: I did not hear you say "all." That is new. When you read the blues you will see that you now have said "all amendments."

We may be precluding senators from introducing amendments. Since the Senate can do as it wishes with unanimity, if you accept for the purpose of discussion the amendments of Senator Lynch-Staunton and others, and you dispose of them all tomorrow as was offered to the government by the opposition, I think we could deal with that debate tomorrow evening. Otherwise, you may not get the unanimous consent you need, which would be very sad. I think that everyone is in the mood to dispose of this bill one way or the other. I want to vote one way or the other.

Is it the case that tomorrow night at 5:30, we will vote on all the amendments, subamendments and new proposals, contrary to the rules? If you accept that that will be the case, you must also accept that other amendments could be put. The Speaker will call the amendments; the last to be moved being called first. That is the orderly way to dispose of the debate.

I am trying to be helpful to the government. I believe that is how we should debate issues.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, if I understood correctly the comments made by the Honourable Senators Graham, Berntson and Prud'homme, the Senate would agree not to follow the rule of having an amendment and a subamendment, but would have a series of amendments, all of which would be voted on tomorrow.

If that is the agreement of the Senate, we can proceed in that way. Senator Lynch-Staunton's amendment will stand as such, as will that of Senator Murray, and we will accept other amendments.

Is that agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Graham: Is it agreed that all votes necessary to discharge Bill C-63 will be taken tomorrow at 5:30 p.m.?

Senator Berntson: That is my understanding.

The Hon. the Speaker: All votes will be taken sequentially, with the last amendment proposed being voted on first.

Senator Prud'homme: That is my understanding.

The Hon. the Speaker: Does anyone wish to speak to the amendment of Senator Lynch-Staunton? If not, does any honourable senator wish to take the adjournment?

Senator Prud'homme: I wish to speak on Bill C-63.

(1600)

I will conclude my remarks with an amendment, if I have a seconder.

I believe I will now receive some attention, honourable senators, because I have been helpful in terms of this debate. My conscience says that I was helpful. I am very happy with my day.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I will begin by thanking Senator Carstairs, who chaired the committee brilliantly, as always. She gave those who so wished a chance to participate in the debate, whether they were members of the committee or not.

This is the holiday season. I would particularly like to thank the Chief Electoral Officer and all his employees. Never in my life as a politician have I seen people appear so often before so many committees. They appear continually before committees, to the point where I am constantly wondering how they find the time to work and to implement all the proposals we make to them.

I have great respect for the His Honour's decisions. I would like to express our appreciation to the committee Chair and to all employees of Elections Canada.

I want to make some general observations. What I have to say is not harsh criticism. I shall not be negative. I have always liked to be positive. I am sorry that the government has waited until the end of a session to introduce a bill with such extensive amendments. Logic would dictate that this proposal should come at the beginning of a new government's reign.

Let me explain. An election was held. An act was implemented. The details were examined. Explanations were provided. We knew what actually went on. We saw where it did not work. Note was taken. It was concluded that changes would have to be made for the next election. Note was taken. The new Parliament began and we got down to the task.

Right away, we began to prepare and update the legislation in light of the problems experienced during the last election. This is what an orderly government does. It is not what we are seeing, with a government that jumps from one topic to another and says: We must do something, we must cut down on campaign time, knowing this is what people want. We must keep British Columbia happy. They bring a bill in through the back door, as a sop to public opinion.

I find it extremely regrettable that they waited so long. This is new law, as law students are told. Everyone knows that unfortunate precedents are being created for those who like the electoral process.

Electoral law is discussed among all political parties. With respect to election expenses, I am looking at Senators Moore, Bryden and Nolin, who know something about organization and about arrangements being made among the parties. Senator Mercier knows Quebec like the back of his hand. I hope that he and Senator Nolin will be among the main organizers of the election campaign. It will be stronger as a result.

My first regret is that consideration of this bill has been delayed; my second is that it had to be rammed through. This strikes me as completely contrary to political custom.

Imagine for a moment that the bill is amended tomorrow evening. Everything is possible. I see the whip working very hard to call all the senators. Let us assume that tomorrow evening, there will be an amendment. We saw the minister's blackmail attempt, with her threat to recall Parliament Thursday and Friday.

[English]

It is as if senators, such as Senator Lewis, are scared of being blackmailed, "We will call back the House of Commons." If that is necessary, then it must be done. We will have more friends around, and they may even reopen the dining room.

If the House of Commons is called back, it does not mean that the bill will be passed immediately. They will have to impose closure again and return the bill to the Senate. We will be back to square one, having the same discussion, having to see the two whips agonizing on the telephone trying to get everyone marshalled back to the Senate. I have no objection because I am here all the time. I will have companions this week, next week and next month.

It is unfortunate that the bill came to us so late in the year and that, for the first time, we had to impose closure. It is a bad precedent on matters pertaining to electoral matters. I will not say it is a dictatorship tactic, but that is what usually happens only in banana republics. They crush the electoral system by taking the attitude: "We have the numbers. Step aside." It goes against every precedent.

For 30 years I was a faithful Liberal supporter.

I respect any proposal that ensures that we can all vote and that we all know the results at the same time. We saw how silly the last election in the United States of America was. While we were watching it, the people of California were thinking, "Am I going to vote or not?" The vote was already counted. Canada is different.

I fought vigorously in the House of Commons on issues of election expenses and limitations. I defended both the Liberal opposition and the government of the day in Mr. Hawkes' committee. We were turned down in the Alberta court. I do not know why the government did not appeal that decision.

I always say that we must not Americanize the Canadian way of holding elections.

Ms Terrana from British Columbia is a very popular and very effective person. She made the proposition in the last days and the government included it in the bill.

I, and others, have asked questions of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. He is an officer of Parliament, and he answered questions in that capacity.

I would put an amendment to you for your consideration.

(1610)

I asked Mr. Kingsley, as did others, "If Bill C-63 passes, you need it now, do you not? To do what is in it, you need four or five months?" He said, "Yes, I need that." I said, "Do you particularly need the clauses pertaining to the hours for voting, until seven o'clock in British Columbia, until 9:30 in Ontario, and so on, that came out of nowhere and were added to the bill? Do you need that absolutely to proceed now or, as mature people, should we send that part to committee, to listen to people, because many people have all kinds of good views on making it better. I do not want to oppose, I want to make things better."

Mr. Kingsley said, "Of course, if you arrive in February or March with just a little amendment pertaining to the hours, we will still be able to proceed with what the government wants." I call it the government's bill. I have no other choice. It is not Parliament's bill, it is the government's bill.

[Translation]

Motion in Amendment-vote deferred

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I move, seconded by Senator Nolin:

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

(1) on page two, by deleting clause 1.1,

(2) on page 26, by deleting clause 44.1,

and,

(3) on page 28, by deleting clause 46.1.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, are there other senators who wish to speak? Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

[English]

I cannot call the vote now. Someone must adjourn the debate.

Senator Prud'homme: I am sorry, Your Honour, but according to practice, should you not call the vote and then say that, as agreed, the vote shall take place tomorrow at 5:30?

The Hon. the Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment please say "yea".

Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: Those opposed, please say "nay".

Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the "nays" have it. Is there a request for a standing vote?

And two honourable senators having risen.

The Hon. the Speaker: The vote is deferred.

Senator Prud'homme: No. If we do that, we will be debating the subamendment. We agreed to defer all the amendments and all the votes to tomorrow night.

The Hon. the Speaker: My understanding is that tomorrow will be the recorded vote, the standing votes.

Senator Prud'homme: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: If there is no request for a standing vote, this motion is defeated.

Hon. Eric Arthur Berntson (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Out of an abundance of caution, I ask for a standing vote.

The Hon. the Speaker: Then it is deferred automatically until tomorrow at 5:30.

Does anyone want to speak on the motion as amended, as amended, as amended? Does anyone wish to adjourn?

Senator Berntson: If it is necessary procedurally, I adjourn the debate, to keep it on the table until 5:30 tomorrow when we will have our votes.

The Hon. the Speaker: It is moved by Senator Berntson, seconded by Senator Doyle that further debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

Criminal Code

Bill to Amend-Third Reading-Motion in Amendment and Subamendment-Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Milne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mercier, for the third reading of Bill C-45, to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole ineligibility) and another Act;

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Nolin, seconded by the Honourable Senator LeBreton, that the Bill be not now read the third time but that it be amended:

(a) in clause 1, by replacing line 7, on page 1, with the following:

"may, with the consent of the Attorney General of Canada, apply in writing to the appropriate Chief";

(b) in clause 2, by replacing line 20, on page 6, with the following:

"may, with the consent of the Attorney General of Canada, apply in writing to the appropriate Chief"; and

(c) in clause 2, by replacing line 41, on page 10, with the following:

"may, with the consent of the Attorney General of Canada, apply in writing to the appropriate Chief".

Hon. Ron Ghitter: Honourable senators, I wish to make a brief intervention with respect to Bill C-45. I do so more on the basis of two principles that I think at times become forgotten in dealing with legislation of this nature. The first is a very basic legal principle that says that justice must appear to be done. The second is the basic principle that talks about public accountability.

I should like to support the amendment of my colleague Senator Nolin from the point of view that the bill as presently structured does not meet the test of appearing just to many Canadians, nor does it allow for adequate public accountability on matters that are important to many Canadians.

As honourable senators are well aware from the excellent presentations made by Senator Milne and Senator Nolin in dealing with Bill C-45, this bill deals with the judicial review of parole ineligibility and amends section 745.6 of the Criminal Code.

This piece of legislation is very controversial. Honourable senators who live in the West know full well the intensity of the debate, which has been fuelled by the media there, with respect to the faint hope clause. Many of you know that some 30,000 petitioners in Western Canada signed their names to petitions relating to the faint hope clause. In fact, many of them wish the section of the Criminal Code to be repealed entirely.

Those of us in the West who have had the opportunity to meet with some of those who are in opposition to the faint hope clause - and I refer to Darlene Boyd and Mrs. Mahaffy, both of whom came before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs - know full well the intensity and deep feelings expressed by these victims who, unfortunately and tragically, must bear the brunt of what occurs in our society, particularly those who must face the loss of their children by murder or by other elements. We must consider those people and we must allow them an avenue where they can express their frustrations and where they can feel that the public, the electorate, is accountable to them.

(1620)

Mrs. Darlene Boyd, Mrs. Mahaffy and others like them feel that the present system does not allow them the opportunity to be heard. They would also argue that the political process is not accountable to them. In any criminal law system, it is fundamental that the public respects the system and that the public regards the system as being just. If the system fails and the public no longer is of the view that the system is responsive to the needs of the community, then the system falls into disrepute. You end up with circumstances like we have today with so much criticism being directed at the law and particularly at the criminal law. The legal system falls into disrespute because our citizens do not feel that the criminal law system is respectful or is listening to them.

I am persuaded by the amendment that has been brought forward by Senator Nolin and by the position of the Government of Ontario, which made a presentation to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, that this is an endeavour to make the system more accountable.

As honourable senators are aware, under the present legislation, a convicted murderer who has received a life sentence and who is not eligible for parole for 25 years would, after 15 years, have the opportunity to make application. That application goes first to a judge who would look at the information in a paper study and determine whether there is reasonable cause to turn it over to a jury. If so, the jury would then have to be unanimous in their decision on whether this murderer should have an opportunity to receive early parole.

Within this system, there is no political accountability whatsoever. Within this system, it is merely the remoteness of a judge who sees it at the first instance and then moves it over to a jury system. Nowhere within that system is there any public accountability. Nowhere in that system can Mrs. Boyd or Mrs. Mahaffy attend at the offices of the local MP or the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General to express the concerns from a victim's point of view.

After all, it is we parliamentarians who, in the end, must pass the legislation. It is we parliamentarians who must pass amendments to the Criminal Code and who must pass legislation that allows for a parole system. Ultimately, parliamentarians must be accountable in situations like this, and not merely our courts or jurors.

Senator Nolin's amendment, in my view, endeavours to allow the citizenry an opportunity to be heard. The first step is to have the Attorney General determine whether this matter should go on to the judge. There is political input.

Honourable colleagues know that, in many areas of the world, in the United States particularly, we frequently hear about clemency and the fact that clemency is a political decision. How many times have we heard about appeals for clemency to state governors? We are talking here about clemency in a parole system. Here a convicted murderer is, in effect, asking for some clemency.

Clemency has always been a royal prerogative. It has not been a matter for judges to address. It has always been a matter for politicians - for the Queen - to address. Individual convicts, particularly murderers or those involved in very serious crimes, have the right to seek clemency from the political process, not the judicial process. That is what this amendment endeavours to do.

If you were in the position of Mrs. Boyd or Mrs. Mahaffy as a victim of these horrendous crimes, you would want us as parliamentarians to respect your view and to understand your heartache. You would want to have at least an opportunity to speak up in a political setting with your elected representatives. You would not want Parliament to cop out by deciding that the matter should go to some judge or some jury.

We politicians are presently immune from these considerations, and that is when the law runs off the rails. That is when justice does not appear to be done. That is when the citizenry come forward having lost their respect for the judicial system because they believe it no longer relates to them.

I urge you to support this amendment. It is a good amendment. It is an amendment that I know is acceptable to citizens like Mrs. Mahaffy and Mrs. Boyd. They would welcome this change, not to take away from the system, but to bring the law into better repute and to gain it more respect.

Motion in Amendment

Hon. Ron. Ghitter: Honourable senators, I do, however, have an amendment to the amendment. There should be no confusion, Your Honour. This is an amendment to the amendment. I make this amendment on the basis that, rather than the Attorney General of Canada being the body or institution to which this application should be made, it should be to the Governor in Council. It is a royal prerogative. It is not appropriate that this matter go to the Attorney General. It should be the cabinet at large that makes this decision.

As a result, I move, seconded by my colleague Senator Stratton:

That the motion in amendment be amended inparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) thereof by substituting the words "Governor in Council" for the words "Attorney General of Canada."

I submit this for the consideration of my colleagues in the hope that they will recognize the benefit of this amendment and that we can count on their support.

The Hon. the Speaker: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Ghitter, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton:

That the motion in amendment be amended in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) thereof by substituting the words "Governor in Council" for the words "Attorney General of Canada."

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

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: Does any other honourable senator wish to speak?

Hon. Finlay MacDonald: Honourable senators, I have a question for the Honourable Senator Ghitter.

I must confess at the outset that one of the many things I admired about Prime Minister Trudeau was his obstinacy with regard to the faint hope clause. I was further bolstered in that thought by association with the late Senator Hastings.

As I gather from Senator Ghitter, he is suggesting two ways in which an inmate may seek leave to appeal. Would the first one be to apply to the Governor in Council?

Senator Ghitter: Honourable senators, the answer is no; it is all part of one process. Under this amendment, the first step in the process would be the application to the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council would have a veto and could say that a case is inappropriate for consideration, and that case would go no further.

If the Governor in Council decides it is a prima facie reasonable case, then it would go to the judge. The judge would do a paper search but would not hold a hearing. The judge would then decide if the case would go to the jury. Under this legislation, the jury must give their unanimous consent. It is all one process.

Senator MacDonald: Can you speculate on what will happen politically in the first instance, when these cases come forward? Will consent always be given or always refused? Who will do the paperwork?

Senator Ghitter: I would suspect that the paper work would first be done within the bureaucracy, and moved up to the cabinet with recommendations. I would expect the paperwork would consist of examining the particular individual and making a report as to whether the view should be to recommend or not to recommend. If there are some very strong circumstances of a certain nature, they would decide that the matter should go no further.

In her remarks, Senator Milne expressed the view that politicians should not be involved in making this type of decision. As I understood her argument, these matters would be better decided by the courts. However, matters of this nature are so controversial and are so deeply felt by our citizenry that politicians must become involved. They must take a stand and set the public standards. That is what they are elected to do, and that is what we are here in this chamber to do. As a result, that is an appropriate decision for a politician to take.

(1630)

How they will decide, Senator MacDonald, depends on the individual making the application. However, the aggrieved families would feel better if they could make direct interventions to the minister, the cabinet, their elected representatives, and members of this chamber. Presently, that opportunity is not available to them.

Hon. Lorna Milne: Is Senator Ghitter seriously advocating the Americanization of our Canadian system of justice?

Senator Ghitter: I certainly am not, and if this is regarded as an Americanization of the justice system, I take it that my remarks have not been properly understood. I am endeavouring to create a situation where there will be a higher level of public accountability than there is presently in the legislation. If that is Americanization, then I am all in favour of it. However, there is much about the Americanization of the law that do I not like one bit and would not advocate in the Canadian context for a second.

Hon. John B. Stewart: May I ask a question? I believe Senator Ghitter used the expression "political" in his address. That is an ambiguous term. On the one hand, it could well mean that it is a decision of a kind that is not susceptible to the procedures and the criteria of due process of law. On the other hand, it might well mean that ministers would be besieged by aggrieved persons and that there would be political arm twisting and so on. How is Senator Ghitter using the word "political"?

Senator Ghitter: I first referred to the terminology "public accountability," which is the umbrella wording that I much prefer to the word "political."

There is no doubt that any time matters of controversy come forward in a parliamentary sense, there will be arm twisting, there will be rhetoric, and there will be debate. I do not think that is bad. Any time we deal with controversial amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada, be it capital punishment or any other element, there is arm twisting, there is debate, there is discussion, and there is rhetoric.

However, that is what our system is all about. The more debate you have, the better decisions are made. Those in political life are used to arm twisting and those other things, and those are matters with which people in political life must deal. They must use their best judgment after taking all factors into consideration.

I believe, honourable senators, it is much better to have that than to have the opposite, where people who are aggrieved feel they have no outlet for their point of view, where people like Mrs. Boyd and others feel that the system is denying them an opportunity to be heard. That is a much better situation than the one I predict will happen if this bill is passed without amendment.

Senator Stewart: Is it the second definition of the word "political" that the honourable senator has in mind?

Senator Ghitter: I have both in mind. I have public accountability, and I have political involvement in mind. I use both terms interchangeably.

Hon. Nicholas W. Taylor: Honourable senators, I found the honourable senator's speech and ideas interesting because he does retain the faint hope clause, but he seems to include another stage. When you include this political aspect, would the two people from Alberta he spoke of not run into additional problems? Someone in jail trying to take advantage of the faint hope clause could have a family with money and could hire legal counsel even half as eloquent as the honourable senator. We would be looking at a trial within a trial. Those with the money and the lawyers would be able to make that presentation to the Governor in Council, and the poor would not. Why would you want to go through another stage, in effect a trial within a trial, many years later where legal counsel on each side could make presentations to the Governor in Council?

Senator Ghitter: Far be it from me to try to take income away from my former profession by denying them an opportunity to make these representations, but this is not a public hearing process. The political judgment at the outset would not involve legal representations. It would be an in-house examination of a situation. That is not to say that people in the public arena could not make presentations and lawyers could not make speeches, just as individuals may get the public ear, but this is not an area where lawyers would make representations to the Governor in Council. This is in-house. It is not a public hearing matter.

It would be hoped that the Governor in Council would obtain the information and make the deliberation and determine whether a particular case is a bona fide case that should be considered by a judge. That consideration would not involve a public hearing. It would then go to the Parole Board. I am not totally clear as to how the Parole Board would govern that. That could involve a public hearing process, but I am not sure of that.

Senator Taylor: I have a supplemental question. If lawyers and others were allowed to make presentations, would the time not elapse before we could get through that first stage? They could reach a stage where the prisoner would have been eligible for parole in the first place. I could imagine that so much time would pass in the course of this process that the prisoner could, effectively, be asking for an early parole at the stage where he has reached his normal parole date.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to advise the Senate that the 15-minute period for the speech and questions has expired.

Senator Stewart: Saved by the bell.

Senator Milne: I would like to speak to the amendment, if I may.

Honourable senators, I contend that this subamendment is no different from the amendment. This should not be a political process; it should be a judicial one. I do not share the view that section 745.6 is a clemency provision. Therefore, I oppose the subamendment for exactly the reasons I stated in my previous speech, and I urge all senators to oppose it.

On motion of Senator Cools, debate adjourned.

Justice

Investigation into Sale of Airbus Aircraft to Air Canada-Inquiry-Debate Adjourned

Hon. Anne C. Cools rose pursuant to notice of December 11, 1996:

That she will call the attention of the Senate to the Airbus Affair and the accusations against Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, contained in a Department of Justice document that Mr. Mulroney was "involved in a criminal conspiracy to accept payments for influencing Air Canada's decision to buy airplanes from Airbus";

and to the fact that this affair is causing deformity, embarrassment to and suspicion of the system;

and to the handling of these matters;

and to the erosion of parliamentary process;

and to the damage caused to parliamentary government, to the Prime Minister's Office, to the principle of ministerial responsibility, to Parliament, and to Senators, including myself, who voted on Bill C-129, the bill to privatize Air Canada, on August 4, 1988, in the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce;

and to the belief that Parliament, in the interest of public confidence and integrity, should take cognizance of these matters and take these matters into Parliament's consideration.

(1640)

She said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak on the Mulroney Airbus affair. I spoke to this matter in my other inquiry in this chamber on February 2, 1996. I continue to be disturbed by this matter. I repeat, I am neither an accuser nor a defender of Brian Mulroney. I am not and have never been a Mulroney supporter. Senators will recall my speech on January 19, 1994, wherein I judged Mr. Mulroney harshly and rather brutally. In my February inquiry speech, I stated that my interest stemmed from my membership on the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, which considered Bill C-129, the bill that privatized Air Canada in 1988. The purchase of the Airbus 320s flowed from that bill. I believe that accusations and charges against a former Prime Minister that he corrupted Parliament in the passage of Bill C-129 into law involve and engage Parliament.

Honourable senators, the Airbus allegations originated in the private conversations of certain journalists, which were activated by Minister of Justice Allan Rock for investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. These allegations about Mr. Mulroney were penned into a government dispatch to Swiss authorities signed by Kimberley Prost, Senior Counsel, International Assistance Group, acting as an alter ego for the Minister of Justice. This September 29, 1995, lengthy dispatch entitled "Letter of Request to: The Competent Legal Authority of Switzerland" sought Swiss government assistance to investigate Mr. Mulroney's alleged receipt and deposit of moneys into Swiss bank accounts. I quote from that dispatch:

...The RCMP has reliable information that Mr. Schreiber was given these commissions in order to payMr. MULRONEY and Mr. MOORES to ensure that Airbus Industrie obtained a major contract with Air Canada for the planned upgrade of their aircraft fleet.

...A confidential source has told the RCMP Investigator that 25 percent of those commissions were to payMr. MULRONEY.

...The above three cases demonstrate an ongoing scheme by Mr. MULRONEY, Mr. MOORES, and Mr. SCHREIBER to defraud the Canadian Government of millions of dollars of public funds from the time Mr. MULRONEY took office in September, 1984 until he resigned in June, 1993.

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Could I ask the honourable senator to table the whole document she is reading from?

Senator Cools: All right, but I will first finish my comments. The dispatch further stated:

...This investigation is of serious concern to the Government of Canada as it involves criminal activity on the part of a former Prime Minister.

The style and tone of this dispatch is certain and confident. The Department of Justice and Kimberly Prost assert positively without doubt that Mr. Mulroney had acted criminally.

Honourable senators, the December 14, 1995 edition of The Globe and Mail quoted Solicitor General Herb Gray, saying:

In November, shortly after the Liberal government took office, Mr. Rock ... brought to my attention some concerns brought to his attention ... which I passed on to the RMCP...

Yet we are told that Deputy Minister of Justice George Thomson and Kimberley Prost knowingly chose not to inform the Minister of Justice, Mr. Rock, and that the minister had no knowledge of their actions on his behalf, though those actions accused a former prime minister, a former cabinet and the Parliament of Canada.

Honourable senators, the doctrine of responsible government and ministerial responsibility in Canada describes the relationship between cabinet and Parliament and the terms on which ministers, the chief servants of the Crown, hold office. Responsible government is founded on the dual concepts of ministerial responsibility and parliamentary sovereignty and holds that the executive owes responsibility to Parliament, the people's representative. Ministerial responsibility is many constitutional conventions. Constitutional conventions are rules made and observed by politicians. They are not laws and are not enforceable by the courts. They are political rules of constitutional and political behaviour that guide ministers and politicians.

Hon. Eymard G. Corbin: Honourable senators, I am sorry to interrupt, but a request was made to have a document tabled. I do not know what the document is all about, but surely consent is required for that to occur. I do not know if I am right or wrong, but I suspect I may be right. Should not His Honour seek the will of the house on this matter before we proceed?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the Honourable Senator Corbin is absolutely correct. I was simply seeking the exact rule in the Rules of the Senate.

I refer honourable senators to rule 28(4), which states:

With leave of the Senate, at the time provided inrule 23(6), any Senator may lay upon the Table any paper related to the business before the Senate.

Leave is required.

Honourable senators, is leave granted to table the document?

Hon. John B. Stewart: Who is seeking leave?

The Hon. the Speaker: A request was made by Senator LeBreton to Senator Cools to table the document from which Senator Cools was reading.

Senator Corbin: What is the nature of the document? What is the document?

The Hon. the Speaker: I do not know if it is for me to delve into that, so I will return to Senator Cools.

Hon. Eric Arthur Berntson (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, since we are apparently out of order in asking for the document to be tabled, could I ask Senator Cools if she would share it with me?

Senator Cools: I do not understand the problem. Documents are frequently tabled.

Senator Corbin: With consent.

Senator Cools: Absolutely. I was not trying to avoid receiving unanimous consent. The truth of the matter is, honourable senators, that Senator LeBreton asked me if I would table this document. My concentration was more on my next statement than on the particulars of tabling the document. If senators did not want it, I assume that senators would not have asked for it.

The Hon. the Speaker: Are you asking for leave to table the document?

Senator Cools: Yes, I am.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, Senator Cools has asked for leave to table the document. Is leave granted?

Senator Corbin: Honourable senators, surely we are entitled to know the nature of the document. Leave has been sought to table a document. What is the document?

Senator Cools: Perhaps, honourable senators, I should start my speech all over again. I thought perhaps the senator was napping a little. I thought that I had read very carefully.

Senator Corbin: I never nap. I cannot nap and speak.

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

Senator Corbin: The Honourable Senator Cools is explaining.

Senator Cools: Perhaps I could be given some guidance.

The Hon. the Speaker: Perhaps the honourable senator would explain what the document is before honourable senators are asked to give leave.

Senator Cools: Honourable senators, the document is a lengthy dispatch dated September 29, 1995, and entitled "Letter of Request to: The Competent Legal Authority of Switzerland," as I stated earlier. As a matter of fact, that is what Senator LeBreton was referring to. She was listening to my speech, and I had put the name of the document on the record.

Senator LeBreton: Exactly.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: Leave is granted.

The Honourable Senator Cools may proceed.

Senator Cools: Honourable senators, before I was interrupted, I was speaking about ministerial responsibility and responsible government.

Responsible government dictates that the minister who performs an act, or at whose will an act is done, is held responsible to Parliament for that act. A minister is responsible for every single act of a government, and government is a trust that cabinet discharges under the convention of ministerial responsibility.

(1650)

Honourable senators, the Attorney General of Canada is an office with judicial attributes and character and, therefore, is expected to conduct itself accordingly. The offices of Minister of Justice and Attorney General are two distinct offices joined in one position. This was determined by An Act Respecting the Department of Justice in 1868, which states:

There shall be a Department of the Civil Service of Canada, to be called... The Department of Justice over which The Minister of Justice of Canada,... who shall, ex officio, be Her Majesty's Attorney General of Canada, shall preside,...

This Department of Justice Act distinguishes and differentiates the office of the Minister of Justice from the office of the Attorney General in Canada's constitutional practice. Sir John A. Macdonald himself drafted this 1868 provision, which is still in the act today. It intended two distinct offices: The Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada. Two distinct notions of ministerial responsibility attach to each of the unique, twinned offices. The degree of responsibility that attaches to each depends upon the capacity in which the authority is exercised by each of the twinned offices. A Minister of Justice must know when he is acting in each office. They are two separate offices.

In 1968, the Honourable James McRuer, Commissioner of the Royal Commission into Civil Rights, described the separate role of the Attorney General in his report. He said:

The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the Crown and in that sense is an officer of the public. It is to him that the individual must look for the protection of his civil rights,...

On the independence of the Attorney General, he continued:

Historically and traditionally, in the exercise of these functions the holder of the office must exercise a degree of independence quite different from that required of any other member of the Cabinet.

Ministerial responsibility includes the independence of the Attorney General. This issue of ministerial responsibility to Parliament and the office of the Attorney General was studied by Professor John L.J. Edwards for the Macdonald Commission of Inquiry Concerning Certain Activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In Professor Edwards' 1980 study entitled, "Ministerial Responsibility for National Security", he described Parliament's rights as follows:

...Parliament has the right and duty to see to it that each minister in charge of a Government Department directs his attention, on assuming office, to instituting a system of administrative procedures that will enable him to be kept regularly informed on departmental actions that have the potential public criticism, on methods that are open to serious questioning in terms of human and social values, and especially policies that have innate, questionable qualities which, when they surface, will expose the Minister to the heat of Parliamentary and public criticism.

Parliament expects and is owed responsibility from ministers. No minister of the Crown can escape responsibility to Parliament by erecting a wall of ignorance around himself, thereby sheltering himself. Responsibility to Parliament is an essential constitutional convention of parliamentary government. All ministers are constitutionally bound by this convention. Ministerial responsibility applies to all ministers, but especially to those, such as the Minister of Justice cum Attorney General, who derive part of their authority from the royal prerogative powers. Further, the doctrine of ministerial responsibility holds that the special position of the Attorney General, in the exercise of his prosecutorial discretionary powers, necessitates that decision making in the prosecutorial sphere must be separated from direction by the cabinet or the Prime Minister.

Ron Basford, former Minister of Justice, in a 1978 House of Commons debate on national security, said that:

In arriving at a decision on such a sensitive issue as this, the Attorney General is entitled to seek information and advice from others but in no way is he directed by his colleagues in the government or by Parliament itself.

Mr. Basford then told the house that the Attorney General is responsible to Parliament for his decisions. About all this, in his same famous 1980 study, Professor Edwards also added:

...the ultimate decision as to prosecution rests in the personal hands of the First Law Officer of the Crown. Inherent in the latter principle are two related propositions, first, the Attorney General is saddled with personal responsibility for the decisions that he makes or which are made on his behalf under delegated authority, and, secondly, the doctrine of collective responsibility should not be invoked to involve the Government as a whole with respect to decisions pertaining to criminal prosecutions.

I repeat: A consequence of this Attorney General's independence in that twinned role is that he is vested with personal responsibility to Parliament for same. This personal responsibility is derived from the Attorney General's personal exercise of royal prerogative powers. Failure to comprehend the difference in these two distinct, though joined in one, ministries in Canada has sealed the fate of certain ministers of justice. Remember the case of Lucien Rivard and the resignation of the Minister of Justice, Guy Favreau.

Honourable senators, the investigation of Mr. Mulroney is an exercise of the Attorney General's criminal prosecutorial discretionary powers. The Attorney General, not cabinet nor government, carries the full weight of responsibility for the same. Failure to do so is to weaken the doctrine of responsible government and to weaken the office of the Attorney General, whose powers in this regard derive from the Crown, not from statute or common law, and are an exercise of the prerogative powers of Her Majesty.

John Crosbie, Minister of Justice under Mr. Mulroney, wrote a piece for The Globe and Mail on January 8, 1996, titled: "John Crosbie on the Airbus controversy: Foul Whisperings." Mr. Crosbie went directly to the issue of ministerial responsibility of the Attorney General as a law officer of the Crown when he stated:

If we believe Mr. Rock's statement, his department is not under his control and he seeks not to be held responsible for what his own officials have done despite the rules and conventions of cabinet government and ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Crosbie himself, while Minister of Justice and Attorney General, strengthened the procedures for informing ministers of investigations that might affect cabinet and Parliament. Toronto lawyer Edward Greenspan responded to discredit Mr. Crosbie in the January 22, 1996, Globe and Mail article entitled: "Justice Minister Rock acted properly in the Airbus case." In his zeal, Mr. Greenspan, like many lawyers, dismissed the doctrine of ministerial responsibility and the minister's duties therein. Interestingly, just prior, Mr. Rock appointed Mr. Greenspan's partner to the bench. His December 13, 1995, news release announced that:

Marc Rosenberg of Toronto is appointed a judge of the Ontario Court of Appeal. He fills a newly created position... He has practised criminal law... with the firm known as Greenspan, Rosenberg and Buhr.

Another Toronto lawyer, Clayton Ruby, also had rushed to support Mr. Rock in the January 17, 1996, Globe and Mail. He, too, disregarded ministerial responsibility.

Honourable senators, Mr. Rock's August 8, 1996, news release announced the hiring of six lawyers as expert witnesses in the Mulroney lawsuit, one being Michael Code, Clayton Ruby's former partner. I refer senators to Mr. Justice Peter Cory's words about lawyers Michael Code, Clayton Ruby and Morris Manning in the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment in the case of Casey Hill v. Morris Manning and the Church of Scientology of Toronto. Justice Cory wrote that Scientology and its lawyers':

...behaviour throughout can only be characterized as recklessly high-handed, supremely arrogant and contumacious. There seems to have been a continuing conscious effort... to intensify and perpetuate its attack on Casey Hill without any regard for the truth of its allegations.

I spoke to this in the Senate on November 23, 1995, and March 26, 1996, on the issue of false allegations in judicial proceedings.

Honourable senators, Parliament's purpose is the control of government expenditure. The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance studying the Estimates heard the Deputy Minister of Justice, George Thomson, on October 23, 1996. Senators questioned him on the expenditures on this Mulroney lawsuit. George Thomson said:

I think it is quite inappropriate for a Deputy Attorney General to be publicly discussing the state of litigation, civil or criminal, presently before the courts.

How extraordinary and supercilious. The department, having plunged us into an unseemly and expensive court case, opines that they ought not to answer because the case is in the courts. I inquired as to money spent by the Department of Justice on this lawsuit and the moneys paid to lawyers, particularly Michael Code and Claude Armand Sheppard. In reply, Mr. Thomson said:

What I can tell you is that the expenditures to date are $720,000. The amount spent to date on Crown agents is $532,000.

I pressed again for the amount paid to Mr. Sheppard to which Mr. Thomson replied:

The firm of which he is a member - and I think there are more lawyers than Mr. Sheppard - has received $318,963 as of the end of September.

Again, I pressed for the amount paid to Michael Code. George Thomson only stated that the expert witnesses, including Michael Code, were paid $66,000. He gave no breakdown.

Honourable senators, I inquired about the relationship between George Thomson and Michael Code and Code's hiring. George Thomson said they both had been Assistant Deputy Ministers to the Attorney General of Ontario. These two are credited with negotiating the catastrophic Karla Homolka plea bargain deal in 1993 under Attorney General Marion Boyd of the New Democratic Party government of Premier Bob Rae. Parliament must consider the quality of advice that the government is being given on this Mulroney lawsuit and its consequent expenditure and costs.

(1700)

Honourable senators, the Attorney General is the law officer of the Crown. In criminal investigation and prosecutions, the Attorney General's responsibility is personal and not collective in character and practice. In this exercise of independent prosecutorial discretion, the Attorney General is responsible to Parliament. About the special constitutional role of the Attorney General's responsibility to Parliament, and on Parliament's powers to hold the Attorney General responsible, Professor Edwards, in the same 1980 study, regrets that:

It is unfortunate that this aspect of the Attorney General's constitutional position has not received the attention it deserves by either parliamentarians or constitutional writers.

Professor Edwards judged parliamentarians, saying:

The proper place for questioning the Attorney General's judgment in a particular case is the House of Commons. That this forum and its equivalent in the provincial legislatures have shown themselves...to be lacklustre in the pursuit of questionable decisions by the Law Officers of the Crown is hardly open to denial.

Honourable senators, this terrible case of Mr. Mulroney and this Airbus affair is a poignant example of the catastrophic effects of Parliament's failure or disinclination to hold the Attorney General responsible, and demonstrates that many in government and parliament today are prepared to discard the doctrines of ministerial responsibility and responsible government. Justice itself, and public confidence in the administration of justice, is imperilled when Parliament fails or declines to hold the Minister of Justice and Attorney General responsible to parliament.

In my speech of February 2, I stated that the Parliament of Canada had a duty to either exonerate Mr. Mulroney fully or to impeach him. As a matter of fact, I urge that we issue articles of impeachment immediately. I maintain that position.

That the entire weight and treasury of the state have been pitted against an individual who is also a former prime minister, without parliament's will and involvement is a pox upon us all. It is a tragedy for parliamentary democracy in Canada and a piece of human nastiness.

I urge honourable senators to bring this matter into the Senate's cognizance and consideration, and to engage the Senate's inquisitorial and judicial powers.

On motion of Senator LeBreton debate adjourned.

Parliamentary Delegation to Taiwan

Inquiry-Debate Adjourned

Hon. Lorna Milne rose pursuant to notice of December 11, 1996:

That she will call the attention of the Senate to the Report of the Delegation of Canadian Parliamentarians to Taiwan.

She said: Honourable senators, from October 8 to 13, Senator Ethel Cochrane and I were members of a delegation of six Canadian parliamentarians invited to visit Taiwan and observe their 85th National Day celebration.

Since there are no official diplomatic relations between Canada and Taiwan, we were the guests of the Chinese National Association of Industry and Commerce and its Chair, Dr. Jeffrey L.S. Koo, during our stay.

The underlying purpose of the trip was to meet and have discussions with national, political, government and business leaders in Taiwan.

The delegation was thoroughly briefed in Canada before we left by officials of our own Department of Foreign Affairs and by Representative Fang and other members of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office.

Immediately upon our arrival in Taipei, we were also briefed by the Director of Staff of the Canadian Trade Office in Taipei. All these people were most gracious and informative. The insights they gave us helped to make the entire trip a much more valuable tool to improve Canada's position with respect to Taiwan.

We also had with us much reading material and background information provided by the Library of Parliament and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

In addition to meeting President Lee Teng-hui and observing the National Day ceremonies, we had separate sessions with the top officials of the Taiwanese departments of environmental protection, foreign affairs, economic planning and development, and economic affairs, which is a separate department.

We met with the Chinese National Association of Industry and Commerce. That was an excellent opportunity to meet and talk with leaders of the business community in Taiwan. We toured Tamsui Oxford University College and MacKay High School, which were founded by a Presbyterian missionary from Oxford County, Ontario, Dr. George Leslie MacKay.

We boosted Canadian attendance at the annual Maple Leaf Ball hosted by the Canadian Trade Office, which gave us, individually, an opportunity to discuss business affairs with many Canadian and American entrepreneurs presently doing business in Taiwan.

The delegation also took time to visit the Taipei International Electronics Show. The electronics show was a truly impressive display of the technological and economic significance of the Asian Pacific Rim countries.

One of the most striking impacts of our visit was the realization of the enormous abilities displayed by the political leaders and officials whom we met. They were most impressive, as were the officials of the so-called "Canadian Trade Office" there. Our pseudo-diplomats are a dedicated and professional group and they have contacted members of the delegation since our return with information and further contacts. It made me wonder whether the absence of diplomatic duties gives this group of keen and dedicated young people a sharp focus on business and trade, an approach which perhaps could be of use to Canada in other countries.

I shall turn for a moment to the reason behind our visit, that being increasing Canadian business and trade with Taiwan. We found many avenues for expanded trade while we were there, including education. There are over 5,500 Taiwanese students receiving some form of higher education here in Canada in any given year. Their tuition forms a major source of income for our universities. Their presence contributes to the learning experience for Canadian students as well.

With regard to transportation, Great China Airlines in Taiwan is the largest buyer of our Dash-8 aircraft, with 15 purchased and an option to buy 8 more.

With regard to the environment, we have signed a memorandum of agreement on the environment with Taiwan and will have at least eight booths in the largest environmental trade show in Southeast Asia, the upcoming Fifth Annual Enprotech, in February and March of 1997. Three of the 12 seminar presentations at that show will be run by Canadians.

With regard to telecommunications, Northern Telecom presently has a $100 million contract for Taiwan's cellular phone system.

Canada leads the world with high-quality, healthy food such as canola, beef and seafood, and we are busily selling them to Taiwan. I was able to put several Canadian providers of ostrich and emu meat in touch with the Taiwanese market through our trade office. I received confirmation today that these growers are now providing some of these meats to five-star hotels in Taiwan.

Canada is a preferred destination for Taiwanese tourists with over 125,000 visits per year, and that number is growing. Each of these visitors spends an average of $7,000 U.S., while they are in Canada. They are our largest spending tourists.

As a very interesting source of opportunity for Canada, I have made a list of Taiwanese companies that presently send tourists to Canada. This was part of the package I tabled the other day. Taiwan is interested in developing a larger tourist trade with us. I forwarded that list to all members of Parliament from the Greater Toronto and Niagara areas. I also sent it to several tour operators in the Northwest Territories and Yukon. I have had discussion with two large hotel chains in an attempt to increase Taiwanese tourism to this country. I remind my honourable friends that Taiwanese are keen entrepreneurs and that investment in trade and business often follows tourism.

(1710)

In all, honourable senators, the trip was both valuable and informative. Our visit was short, but we were able to contribute positively to the development of trade between our two countries.

I wish to recognize again the remarkable talent in our trade office in Taipei. I also wish to take this opportunity to thank everyone in Canada and in Taiwan who made our visit very successful.

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I should like to ask a couple of questions of Senator Milne.

The honourable senator mentioned that this was a group of parliamentarians. This is an association that is not recognized by the Senate, nor by the House of Commons. Indeed, it is not recognized by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

In Canada, we have freedom of movement. When I refer to the Chinese people, I do not mean the Taiwanese. The Chinese people have to understand that, in Canada, we have freedom of movement and freedom of organization. We have freedom of association.

If any members or group of members want to associate themselves with any particular body, they have the right to do so. That does not mean that their association is officially recognized by Parliament.

For instance, when I was involved with the Canada-Cuba association it was not recognized, although it is now.

The honourable senator mentioned that she was one of six in the Canadian delegation. I congratulate her for the efforts she has made in the Toronto and the Niagara region. She must understand that I am a little selfish, being from Quebec, and therefore would like to know which member of the delegation I should impress. Is it possible to have the names of those on the delegation who accompanied the honourable senators? We would then know whom to be in touch with if we need some supplementary information.

Senator Milne: Honourable senators, Senator Prud'homme is quite correct. We were a delegation of Canadian parliamentarians, which is what I stated at the outset. I emphasized that there are no official relations between Canada and Taiwan. If Senator Prud'homme wishes a copy of the list of tourist groups interested in coming to different parts of Canada, I will make that list available to him. I went through that list and selected those who were interested in tours in the Northwest Territories and the Canadian North. I passed those on to the tour people in the North. The ones who are interested in tours to the Toronto area and the Niagara region I passed on to tour operators in those areas. I will be delighted to select the ones who are interested in tours to Quebec and pass them on to the honourable senator.

Senator Prud'homme: With which members of Parliament did the honourable senator travel?

Senator Milne: Peter Adams was the tour leader. Senator Cochrane, Jag Bhaduria, John Finlay, member of Parliament for Oxford, Peter Thalheimer, member of Parliament for Timmins-Chapleau, as well as myself, were part of the delegation.

Hon. Ethel Cochrane: Honourable senators, I should like to add a few brief remarks to Senator Milne's report on the visit of our delegation to Taiwan.

I also found our meetings with Taiwanese legislators, officials and business people to be quite fruitful and informative. I am impressed by the variety of future trade and investment opportunities that Canadian companies and businesses can and should explore with Taiwan, particularly in the broad and growing area of environmental technologies.

The various meetings, conferences and trade exhibitions that will be held next year right here in Canada, serving as hosts to the APEC, will provide tremendous opportunities to pursue and to develop these trade ties.

I was also impressed to learn of the very large number of young people who come to Canada from Taiwan every year to study at our universities and our colleges. They serve both as a stimulus to the intellectual environment of our educational institutions and as important cultural links between our two countries.

Finally, like Senator Milne, I am struck by the significance of Taiwanese tourist travel to our beautiful country of Canada. The high volume of tourist traffic from Taiwan, over 125,000 visits per year, is expected to continue to grow. That offers a tremendous opportunity for us to market tourist destinations in Canada beyond the normal landing area of the West Coast of B.C. B.C. is the place everyone knows about and the place that everyone has visited; but we have to continue to go beyond B.C. and to promote the other beautiful areas of our country.

In summary, our delegation found tremendous potential for further development of productive and mutually advantageous ties between Taiwan and our country, Canada.

On motion of Senator Prud'homme, debate adjourned.

The Senate adjourned until Wednesday, December 18, 1996, at 1:30 p.m.

---