Previous Sittings

Order Paper and Notice Paper

Previous Sittings

Journals of the Senate

Previous Sittings

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Download as PDF

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

1st Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 137, Issue 66

Tuesday, June 2, 1998

The Honourable Eymard G. Corbin, Acting Speaker

SENATORS' STATEMENTS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
QUESTION PERIOD
ORDERS OF THE DAY

THE SENATE

Tuesday, June 2, 1998

The Senate met at 2:00 p.m., the Acting Speaker, Eymard G. Corbin, in the Chair.

Prayers.

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Nova Scotia

Improvement in Race Relations at Cole Harbour High School

Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, on October 2, 1997, Cole Harbour High School, in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, erupted with racial violence. Three students and a teacher were injured in a series of ugly brawls and the school was closed for a week.

Honourable senators, I am pleased to report that Cole Harbour High School has made a remarkable comeback. This school of approximately 1,000 students, which had become the national flash point for racial intolerance, is on the mend. As student council president, Michelle Myers, noted recently, "We are a changed school."

Principal Gary Hartlen, with the backing of Halifax Regional School Board, implemented a series of actions which included imposing a zero-tolerance policy. The prime troublemakers were ousted, and steps were taken to improve the security of the staff and students, including the installation of a video surveillance system. Three security guards have also been hired. However, changes were not limited to enforcement of the rules alone; there were also academic changes, sensitivity training and more visible-minority teachers hired. Students will also take part in mediation programs. A diversity week will be held to offer the students an opportunity to learn more about each other and their cultures.

These steps were only part of the solution. Students and parents, both white and black, have realized that if the school is to survive they must change their attitudes. They had to accept more responsibility about what was happening to them and had to deal with sensitive issues appropriately.

Honourable senators, I congratulate the students, the staff, the Halifax Regional School Board and the parents for their efforts. They have demonstrated that success comes to those who unite and work together to overcome obstacles. They have clearly demonstrated that practising racial intolerance is a recipe for disaster. They have shown Canadians that working together as equals is the surest path to success. The only unfortunate thing is that some Canadians have still not received this message.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Manitoba

Millennium Fund-Raising Projects for Neepawa High School

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, over a year ago, I received a phone call from a high school teacher in Neepawa, Manitoba. I had known Bob Lepischak for a number of years because he had been engaged in planning a most successful yearly science fair for high school students at Brandon University, where I had been a presenter.

Mr. Lepischak told me that he had 83 students in grade 9. These students would be graduating in the year 2000 and they wanted to do something special because they were graduating in what they saw as the first year of the millennium and would be the first graduates. Two members of their class suffer from juvenile diabetes and they wanted to do what they could to promote a cure. Their second interest was national unity and they viewed the 15,000-kilometre Trans Canada Trail as a unifying force.

Bob asked me if I thought their desire to promote a series of projects in these fields was a good idea and whether I thought other schools would be interested. My reply was a resounding "yes" to both questions.

Yesterday, in Winnipeg, the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba, the Honourable Yvon Dumont, the Premier of Manitoba, the Honourable Gary Filmon, and the Honourable Glen Cummings, MLA for Ste. Rose, including the Town of Neepawa, who was recently diagnosed with diabetes, gathered with students from 25 Manitoba schools. Their goal is to raise five loonies from each student graduating in the year 2000. They hope that all Manitoba schools will participate, as well as students from across Canada who will be graduating in the year 2000.

If they succeed and the funds are matched by the private sector, they will raise $10 million, one half to go to the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation to research a cure for diabetes, and one half to the Trans Canada Trail. Will they raise $10 million? Perhaps not. However, they will raise a considerable amount of money for two very important causes. They are reaching for the stars, as Senator Cohen often says, but they will settle for the moon.

I was proud to be with them yesterday, and I will be proud to walk the trail with them for the next two years. I encourage all honourable senators to do the same.

[Translation]

Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation

Hon. Jean-Claude Rivest: Honourable senators, I would draw your attention to a very important decision this house will have to make concerning the Canadian millennium scholarships. This federal program presents special problems for Quebec.

I should remind honourable senators that, in the Quebec National Assembly, the Liberal Party led by Jean Charest and the current provincial government unanimously passed the following resolution. This is a very short resolution stating in essence that, for the sake of Quebec students, the National Assembly urges the federal government and the Quebec government to resume negotiations on the millennium scholarship issue so that an agreement can be achieved, which will respect the following principles: the formula used to calculate the share assigned every year to Quebec students should be based on demographic criteria; Quebec should determine which students ought to receive a scholarship and submit a list to the foundation. That is the principle of respect in matters of education.

The foundation is to grant scholarships on the basis of terms and conditions agreed to by the Quebec government. Visibility seems to be the principal concern of the Right Honourable Prime Minister of Canada.

I bring this problem to the honourable senators' attention because there are obviously underlying political issues. The premier of Quebec called a press conference with student representatives. All educational stakeholders, whether sovereignists or federalists, students or professors, support the proposal put forward by the Quebec National Assembly and the Quebec Liberal Party.

I urge honourable senators to begin giving thought to the urgency of passing such a bill right now. If we must nonetheless pass this bill, why not include amendments that respect the will of the Quebec National Assembly and allow the federal government to create its millennium fund? Could the Senate not at least allow all the stakeholders from Quebec's education sector, be they students, teachers, school boards, or university or college professors, all of whom have spoken out against the government's current plan, not necessarily against the idea of a foundation per se, but against the manner in which the federal government has proceeded, to be heard in this chamber?

It is absolutely preposterous, in the context of our Canadian federalism, that the Canadian government acted in this way, without consulting anyone from the Quebec education sector, the Government of Quebec, the universities or students. We now find ourselves with a significant political problem that may once again damage the federal regime's credibility in the eyes of all Quebecers. All of us in this chamber are concerned with how we should go about promoting the federalist option in Quebec. We could start by practising the most elementary federalism and respecting the jurisdictions of every level of government.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Adjournment

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (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, June 3, 1998, at 1:30 p.m.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

[English]

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

Tenth Annual Seminar Held in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island-Notice of Inquiry

Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, I give notice that on Thursday next, June 4, 1998, I will call the attention of the Senate to the attendance of a parliamentary delegation to the tenth annual Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Seminar in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.

Health

Protection of Conscience of Health-Care Givers-Presentation of Petition

Hon. Raymond J. Perrault: Honourable senators, I present a petition to the Senate that I have received from a group of citizens, most of whom live in Lumby, British Columbia. This petition relates to a bill on the Order Paper which seeks to protect the rights of health-care workers who oppose abortion and euthanasia.

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in our gallery of a delegation from the Federation Council of the Russian Federation.

Welcome to the Senate.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I call your attention to the presence in our gallery of two representatives of the Canadian Islamic community: Imam Jamal Zahabi and Imam Sheikh Saïd Youssef Fawaz.

Welcome to the Senate.

[English]

QUESTION PERIOD

Industry

Agreement on Internal Trade-Absence of Dispute Resolution Mechanism-Government Position

Hon. James F. Kelleher: Honourable senators, I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As we all know, laws and regulations cannot be credible and effective unless they are enforceable through binding dispute resolution. Nevertheless, the agreement on internal trade, which the Prime Minister signed with his provincial and territorial colleagues in 1994, does not include an effective dispute resolution system.

In fact, in December 1996, the Minister of Industry actually admitted to The Financial Post that the dispute resolution system agreed to by the Prime Minister was, and I quote:

"...too slow, too cumbersome, too complicated, and doesn't have enough teeth...."

A few weeks ago, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce carefully assessed the agreement on internal trade and also concluded that it was not effective because interprovincial trade disputes cannot be resolved quickly and with binding decisions.

(1420)

Given the fact that the Minister of Industry and the business community have been concerned about this problem for quite some time, will the Leader of the Government consult with the Prime Minister and report back to the Senate on the precise steps that the Government of Canada is taking to ensure that interprovincial trade disputes can be resolved in a more effective and credible manner?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I would be happy to draw the suggestions of Senator Kelleher to the attention of the Right Honourable Prime Minister, as well as to the Minister of Industry, with whom I have already had discussions about the representations that have been made in this chamber by Senator Kelleher in this regard.

The honourable senator's observations are indeed very timely. The committee itself met in February of this year, as my honourable friend obviously knows, and, subject to negotiations currently underway, it is possible that another meeting could be held before the annual premiers' conference in August. I agree with my honourable friend that it would be important that they take the representations he has made into account, and I will certainly carry the message to those most responsible.

Senator Kelleher: Honourable senators are aware that, as a member of the World Trade Organization, Canada has agreed to be bound by dispute panel decisions, including the recent adverse WTO decision regarding split-run periodicals. Canada has agreed to binding dispute resolution in the World Trade Organization because we recognize that an effective, rules-based trading system helps create jobs here at home.

Will the leader therefore also consult with the Prime Minister and report back to the Senate with a full explanation as to why Canada has agreed to be bound by the decisions of an international organization that includes over 130 foreign countries, while here at home Canadians have no effective means of resolving interprovincial trade disputes?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, the matter of interprovincial trade disputes has been one of great concern to this government. It has been raised repeatedly at first ministers' meetings. I am sure it will be high on the agenda at the meeting to be held in August. In the meantime, I will draw the honourable senator's representations to the attention of my colleagues.

National Defence

Awarding of Contract without Tender-Essential Characteristics of Contractor-Government Position

Hon. Orville H. Phillips: Honourable senators, recently, the federal government presented Bombardier with a gold-plated $2.85-billion contract. Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate please explain to this chamber what particular characteristic of Bombardier made it the only firm to be considered for this project and thus able to avoid the tendering process? What particular aspect of Bombardier's operation made it essential?

Senator Di Nino: We know the answer.

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, my understanding is that NATO had a deadline for receiving bids from interested countries, and Canada was facing competition from other countries for the contract. A full-fledged competition would have taken over one year to run - far too long for the NATO deadline. The government concluded that with the vast experience of Bombardier, it would be most appropriate - and not inappropriate - to sole-source this particular contract with respect to NATO pilot training in Canada.

Senator Di Nino: I am going to become a Liberal; I am going to cross the floor.

Senator Phillips: Honourable senators, I am really not satisfied with the answer from the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I would point out that this contract is approximately four times the size of the Pearson airport contract. Therefore, I would ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: When will Mr. Robert Nixon and his four closest associates be appointed to examine the contract?

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Graham: That is a very helpful suggestion which may have escaped the attention of my colleagues, but I certainly shall bring it very forcefully to their notice so that they are aware of the observations that have been made by Senator Phillips, a man of great experience.

[Translation]

Re-Equipping of Armed Forces-Revision of 1994 White Paper-Government Position

Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, in his recent report, the Auditor General of Canada wrote that National Defence is faced with equipment shortcomings and deficiencies which limit the Canadian Armed Forces' ability to attain the government's objectives.

In light of this statement, does the Leader of the Government not agree that it is time to update the 1994 white paper and that his colleague the Minister of National Defence should make a statement in Parliament on this matter?

[English]

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, that is a very interesting question. In answer, I would need to review the white paper of 1994.

I am not aware that any steps are being taken to reopen that particular report, although I do know that it has been used, on an ongoing basis, by the government in its efforts to equip the armed forces with the best possible equipment.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: It seems obvious to me that the Department of National Defence ought to provide Parliament with information on the performance and resources of the military, to facilitate our examination of the budget of that department. It must link its defence capacities with the resources available so that Parliament may determine whether the resources of the Department of National Defence are equal to the task of meeting Canada's defence objectives.

The department must update defence policy and explain to Parliament and to Canadians why the resources provided to the Department of National Defence do not allow it to fulfil its mandates. Can we count on the Leader of the Government in the Senate to support this undertaking in his contacts with his colleague the Minister of National Defence?

[English]

Senator Graham: Honourable senators will know that recent announcements were made with respect to the equipping of the armed forces with helicopters and submarines. Further examination is being carried out with respect to a second contract in relation to helicopters for our maritime forces.

On several recent occasions I have met with officials of the armed forces. I participated in the launching of a naval vessel in the Port of Halifax earlier this year. As one who comes from Nova Scotia, where a large part of our armed forces are based, particularly the naval attachment, I am happy to report to the chamber that the morale in that force has been heightened considerably as a result of the acquisition of those submarines and helicopters.

The Senate

Allocation of Office Space to Retired Senator-Request for Particulars of Necessary Qualifications-Date for Termination of Arrangement

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, a number of senators will be retiring shortly. In fact, a reception is to be held later this month in the Speaker's apartment for them. On their behalf, I want to revisit a question that I asked on May 27 regarding former Senator MacEachen.

I understand that the former senator has been given office space for two years. We are in a minority position. I want the Leader of the Government in the Senate to know that our caucus is very concerned about the distribution of office space to retiring senators.

(1430)

The other day, a number of my questions were left unresolved because of the furore that was going on and the unparliamentary exchanges that were taking place, mainly on the other side. My questions were not answered. However, I wish to re-ask one question in particular.

The former senator is occupying office space in the East Block. Are there certain qualifications that must be met in order to be granted such space, particulars of which can be tabled on the floor of the Senate with the Clerk? It seems to me that the former senator has that office space because he is a consultant to all of Parliament, and not just to the Senate.

Many distinguished senators on our side would fulfil those same qualifications, but they do not know where to apply. They do not know what qualifications they need. Could the leader table that information in the chamber today?

Senator Di Nino: We have Senators Gigantès, Jessiman and Doyle, all of whom are good people.

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Would Senator Di Nino like to read out the list of all senators planning to retire?

Senator Di Nino: I thought you might need some names.

Senator Graham: If you wish to know the qualifications, it has been mentioned in several newspaper reports that Mr. MacEachen is a national treasure. Perhaps that could be one of the qualifications. He was the single most influential Canadian in bringing medicare to every province and territory of the country, among other things. The list goes on and on. By the time I finished listing all the qualifications of Mr. MacEachen, we would have reached the six o'clock adjournment time.

Senator Tkachuk: No matter how hard we try on this side to get an answer, it is difficult.

Honourable senators, I tried to inject some levity into this situation, but it is a serious matter. We still do not have an answer as to why the former senator has occupied the space for two years. Whether or not he is a national treasure was something that was mentioned after the fact, because there was no knowledge of it before the fact. I am sure there are many museums that would be willing to take him.

However, honourable senators, I still want that question answered in a serious way. Who decides such matters? I noticed in the other place that the Government of Canada did not wish to answer a question on a Senate matter. It is too bad that those on the opposition benches were not quick enough to grasp the fact that you were saying that Mr. MacEachen was a parliamentary consultant, and not just a consultant to the Senate.

By way of supplementary, apart from Mr. MacEachen being a consultant, does the Senate also provide a place for senators to write their memoirs? It seems that every Liberal politician wants to write his or her memoirs. Is office space being provided for Mr. MacEachen to do that as well? Since he is a national treasure, does that mean that all of the proceeds from the book will be coming to the national treasury of the Government of Canada?

Senator Graham: I take this matter very seriously, as does, I am sure, Mr. MacEachen. I do not know of any particular qualifications that were asked for when this space was made available to Mr. MacEachen. I was not in my present position at that particular time, but my understanding is that it was an arrangement agreed to by representatives of both sides of this chamber.

Space was provided for Mr. MacEachen in the Victoria Building. He was then asked to move to the East Block because senators from both sides of the chamber had requested parts of the space that he was then occupying.

I am told that the space that Mr. MacEachen now occupies, which consists of two rooms, was offered to honourable senators on both sides of the chamber. Those offers were declined. As a result, the space was offered to Mr. MacEachen and he took up that offer, since the space in the Victoria Building was required by honourable senators in this chamber.

Senator Tkachuk: When is he moving out?

Senator Graham: I am not aware that Mr. MacEachen is moving.

Allocation of Office Space to Retired Senator-Clarification of Agreement

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I have a supplementary question. Did the Leader of the Government in the Senate not hear me last week when I said that no one on this side had any say, or was consulted in any way on Mr. MacEachen making use of office space other than the space in the Victoria Building? If he did hear me, why does he keep repeating that this move to the East Block was done by agreement on both sides, when this side was never consulted, and was only informed recently through press reports?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I would ask Senator Lynch-Staunton to listen carefully. I did not say that Mr. MacEachen moved to the East Block with the agreement of both sides of the chamber. I said that he occupied space in the Victoria Building with the agreement of senators on both sides of the chamber. When he moved to the East Block, it was because that space was required by senators on both sides of this chamber. I was not aware that the opposition had not been consulted about that particular move, but if the Senate wanted to continue to offer to Mr. MacEachen space, then the only space available at that particular time was in the East Block, which was space that had not been requested, and indeed had been declined by senators on both sides of the chamber.

When Senator Lynch-Staunton was quoted as having said that there was agreement on both sides that Mr. MacEachen, on his retirement, should be offered space in the Victoria Building, he knew more about that arrangement than I did, because I was not party to it in the beginning.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I am glad that that part of our participation in the use of space by Mr. MacEachen has been clarified. However, I would add this: Our agreement was limited to his using the space in the Victoria Building on a temporary basis; space that was not needed for senators' offices, and space that was required strictly for him to sort out his documentation and whatever papers he had. We understood that, because he had been here for so long, it would take him longer than most parliamentarians to get through all of that paperwork. Never did we agree that, if that space was required for other purposes, he would move on to another part of the parliamentary precinct for an indefinite period. Our agreement at all times was that the arrangement was on a temporary basis, and involved space in the Victoria Building not required by senators. That was the limit of our understanding, which has been completely broken, unilaterally, by someone on the other side who has yet to be identified.

Allocation of Office Space to Retired Senator-Availability of Same Arrangement for Other Retiring Senators-Government Position

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Honourable senators, I have a supplementary question to seek clarification. We now have several vacancies in the Senate, and several senators are retiring. Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate suggesting that if any senator on either side is offered office space and that space is rejected, the vacant office then joins some kind of lottery for those deemed to be national treasures by whomever? Is that what he is suggesting?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Not at all, honourable senators. I am merely trying to clarify, for anyone interested in this particular subject, the evolution of the arrangement as I have been given to understand it.

Senator LeBreton: You are saying that if senators on either side reject office space, then someone - and in this case it would be someone on the government side, since they control these things - can deem what to do with that office space?

(1440)

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, not at all; the appropriation of office space is the responsibility of the respective whips on either side.

Hon. Fernand Roberge: Honourable senators, a few months ago, I wrote to the Liberal whip asking for office space in the East Block. To date, I have not heard from him. Would it be possible for me to have that space?

Senator Graham: I will refer that question to the whip.

Senator Tkachuk: I asked for that space, too.

Senator Di Nino: He is not getting it.

National Defence

Awarding of Contracts without Tender-Responsibility for Decisions-Government Position

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, my question relates to the untendered contract awarded to Bombardier for the training of Canadian pilots. It also serves me well to recall that recently the Government of Canada gave an $800-million armoured personnel carrier replacement contract, LAV-25, to General Motors without tendering for that contract.

Who makes these final decisions that massive amounts of moneys of this nature can be directed? Is it the Prime Minister? Is it the Minister of Defence? Is it a cabinet decision? Is it Canada 21, which seems to be fixed in there every way you look at it?

In any case, the way this government does business leaves one to wonder. In light of just those two examples - and, without any difficulty, I can think of eight or 10 direct awards - would the minister give some consideration to speaking to his colleagues about the Aurora life extension program, which is long overdue now? I asked the government if they would consider directing that program to team Nova Scotia over a year ago.

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I recall very well that Senator Forrestall brought his representations to my attention and to the attention of the chamber. I have made his concerns known to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of National Defence, and to others who are responsible for such matters.

Honourable senators, with respect to the particular question that gave rise to the observations that were made by Senator Forrestall, NATO flying training in Canada - that is, the government industry partnership to train Canadian and NATO pilots - represents an innovative and cost-effective way to meet our pilot-training needs. Everyone benefits from the deal. The Canadian forces maintain a viable pilot-training system; Canada is able to make a significant contribution to NATO; we are able to showcase the capabilities of Canadian industry abroad; CFB Moose Jaw remains open as a result of this contract award; and the project will create 5,000 person years of employment over 20 years, 90 per cent of which is expected to be in Western Canada.

Senator Forrestall: Thanks for the lecture.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: We got the press release earlier.

Senator Forrestall: Honourable senators, that is a very broad question. It is not just a question of teaching pilots to fly, because we could have gone either to Air Canada or to Canadian Airlines International, two outstanding corporations that seem to have done very little else than train people to fly and to train them to fly safely and well.

Can the minister suggest to me what thought has been given to those people who will be displaced from the air force, namely, the base personnel who support flying training activities? Are we looking at doing the same thing with respect to the air navigational systems for the air force? Will Bombardier take that over as well? The list becomes quite endless.

On the surface, it seems that we have disposed of several thousand highly trained, bright and enthusiastic Canadian men and women, with another 2,000 or 3,000 to come. We have not gained anything, not a nickel. If the minister suggests he will save us money, he probably should have said up front that that is why we are doing it. If he would care to tackle some of the ancillary problems that go hand in glove with this decision, we would appreciate it. For example, I might ask, "Why do you not direct the shipboard helicopter contract to the makers of the EH101?" Why do you not do that?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, that point was raised by Senator Forestall at an earlier sitting. I replied that for the next helicopter bid, as in the previous bid, it would be an open, transparent process.

With respect to the displacement of base personnel at CFB Moose Jaw, I am not aware of any personnel displacement at the present time. The government's experience with contracting out flight training at Portage La Prairie, which involved an exhaustive tendering process, suggested that Bombardier, British Aerospace and CAE Aviation were the only Canadian companies capable of playing a leading role in providing flight training services.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: What about foreign companies?

Senator Graham: All three of these companies are part of the NATO flying training consortium. Ultimately, the government took the decision to sole-source the contract to the Bombardier led consortium because it represented the best prospect for a Canadian team to meet NATO's deadlines and to win the contract for Canada.

Awarding of Contract Without Tender-Estimated Profit from Sole-Source Contract

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I have a supplementary question. In the business plan filed by this consortium that is led by Bombardier, what is the estimated profit that is to ensue from this sole-source contract?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the profit margins will be a matter for the company concerned. I am not in a position to give any estimation of what the profit may be.

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, I have a further supplementary question.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, the time allotted for Question Period has been exhausted. However, we may continue with unanimous consent.

(1450)

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Hon. Philippe Deane Gigantès: No.

Answers to Order Paper Questions Tabled

Energy-Cape Breton Development Corporation-Conformity with Alternative Fuels Act

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government) tabled the answer to Question No. 88 on the Order Paper-by Senator Kenny.

Energy-Department of Finance-Conformity with Alternative Fuels Act

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government) tabled the answer to Question No. 91 on the Order Paper-by Senator Kenny.

Energy-Natural Resources Canada-Conformity with Alternative Fuels Act

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government) tabled the answer to Question No. 101 on the Order Paper-by Senator Kenny.

Citizenship and Immigration-Minister's Permits Issued in 1997

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government) tabled the answer to Question No. 113 on the Order Paper-by Senator Oliver.

Citizenship and Immigration-Convention Refugee Board-Minister's Opinions

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government) tabled the answer to Question No. 115 on the Order Paper-by Senator Oliver.

The Senate

List Provided to the Chair of Speakers During Question Period

Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, I should like to ask His Honour whether he received a list from our side today with respect to speakers for Question Period.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Yes. From time to time, the Chair is given lists. However, the Chair recognizes those honourable senators who rise. The Chair cannot recognize an honourable senator who has not risen.

Senator Oliver: Honourable senators, that was not my question. The question was: Did Your Honour receive a list today?

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: I answered that question. I said "Yes."

Senator Oliver: Was my name on the list you received today?

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Yes, Senator Oliver.

Further Request for Answers to Outstanding Oral Questions-Government Position

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I should like to ask a question about delayed answers. Last week, I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he could provide information on the status of a question asked in 1997.

To bring the honourable senator up to date, of a certain group of nine questions presently on the Order Paper, the oldest has been there for eight months and the most recent, from November 19, for six and a half months. It seems to me that there is little justification for waiting all that time for answers to questions which, for the most part, should not require that amount of time to research the proper answers.

Can the Leader assure us that the answers to these questions in particular will be received before we break for the summer?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am pursuing this matter assiduously. I assure my honourable friend that I will redouble my efforts this afternoon.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, my question was whether he can assure us that answers to these questions will be received before we break for the summer.

Senator Graham: If I were to write the answers myself, I could give that guarantee. However, since I am not responsible for writing the answers, I could not possibly give that guarantee. I do undertake to the Leader of the Opposition that I will do everything within my means to bring forth satisfactory answers to the questions being asked by him.

Pages Exchange Program with House of Commons

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, allow me to introduce to you the Pages from the House of Commons who will be spending a week in the Senate in the cadre of the exchange program between the two Houses.

Christine Parton is enrolled at the University of Ottawa in the Faculty of Arts and majoring in communications. Christine is from St. Albert, Alberta.

[Translation]

Gaëlle Holliday from St. John's, Newfoundland, is majoring in French in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Ottawa.

[English]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Income Tax Conventions Implementation Bill, 1998

Third Reading

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette moved the third reading of Bill S-16, to implement an agreement between Canada and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada and the Republic of Croatia and a convention between Canada and the Republic of Chile, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.

Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.

Canada Shipping Act

Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Order Stands

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mercier, seconded by the Honourable Senator Milne, for the second reading of Bill C-15, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my colleague Senator Angus intends to speak on this bill. I therefore move the adjournment of the debate in his name.

Order stands.

Canada Labour Code
Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act

Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Order Stands

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Maheu, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fitzpatrick, for the second reading of Bill C-19, to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, Senator DeWare will speak on this bill tomorrow. I move the adjournment of the debate in her name.

Order stands.

Budget Implementation Bill, 1998

Second Reading-Debate Adjourned

Hon. John G. Bryden moved the second reading of Bill C-36, to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998.

He said: Honourable senators, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-36, the omnibus budget bill. This is indeed a comprehensive and somewhat complicated piece of legislation. Before outlining the measures in this legislation, I wish to take a moment to put the bill in context.

Since coming into office in 1993, the government has had two mutually reinforcing goals: to build both a strong economy and a secure society for the 21st century. The government has pursued these goals, first and foremost, by getting its fiscal house in order. As my honourable colleagues know, the 1998 budget marked the start of a new fiscal era. The federal books will be balanced this year for the first time since 1970, and the budget will be balanced next year and the year after that. This will be the first time in almost 50 years that Canadians will have seen three consecutive balanced budgets.

However, honourable senators, a healthy bottom line is only a means to an end and not an end in itself. In his budget speech last February, the Honourable Paul Martin said:

Our goals today remain what they were when Canadians placed their trust in us in 1993: first, to build a country of opportunity - of jobs and growth - one where every Canadian has equal access to the avenues of success; and second, to safeguard and strengthen a caring and compassionate society.

While the government cannot guarantee equality of outcomes, it can strive to ensure that Canadians have equality of opportunity. Today, that means helping to ensure that Canadians can acquire the education, knowledge and skills that will allow them to participate in and benefit from economic growth in this information age. The 1998 budget builds on actions taken in previous budgets to provide Canadians with this enhanced access to education, knowledge and skills.

The measures in this bill - some from the 1998 budget, others announced separately - are all diverse, but each contributes in its own way to the goals the government has been pursuing.

This bill will establish the new Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation and the Canada Education Savings Grant, measures that will go far to help ensure that Canadian young people will be able to pursue higher education, something we know is crucial to succeeding in the economy of today.

The bill also contains measures dealing with the financial burden on students, the National Child Benefit System, senior citizens, tax arrangements with aboriginal governments, Canada's international obligations, excise taxes, the Canada Development Investment Corporation, and the Hibernia oil project, among others.

I will begin my remarks by discussing the measures in the bill that directly impact on individuals. I refer to seniors, to low-income families with children, and to students facing financial hardship.

First, to speak about senior citizens, the government remains committed to ensuring a secure retirement income for our senior citizens. The Guaranteed Income Supplement and the Spouses Allowance are income-tested benefits and must be renewed each April. Historically, many needy pensioners failed to reapply by the due date and were temporarily cut off, often suffering hardship. With this in mind, Bill C-36 provides for the payment year for both the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the Spouse's Allowance to move to July from April, beginning in 1999.

This measure will give seniors receiving the GIS three extra months in which to file their income statements with the government. It will also reduce the possibilities of underpayments. Eventually, recipients of the Guaranteed Income Supplement will not need to report their income twice to the federal government.

(1500)

At the same time, the payment period for the War Veterans Allowance will also change, from July in one year to June of the next year.

These measures fulfil a 1996 budget commitment that the government would improve the existing process and reduce hardship for some 1.4 million needy seniors.

Another important measure in this bill deals with assistance to low-income families with children. I referred a moment ago to Canadians having equal opportunity. The government firmly believes that equality of opportunity means a good start in life. That is why a new National Child Benefit System is being implemented this July.

Under the National Child Benefit System, which was announced in the 1997 budget to provide better support for low-income families with children, the federal government will provide basic income support to low- and modest-income families. For their part, provinces will reduce the child component of their social assistance benefits and reinvest the savings in programs to assist low-income working families.

The 1997 budget proposed that the current $5.1-billion Child Tax Benefit be enriched by $850 million to create the new child tax benefit by July of 1998. The first step in this two-step process began last July when the Working Income Supplement was increased by $195 million, and benefits were provided for each child instead of per family.

The second step will take place this July. Over 1.4 million Canadian families with 2.5 million children will benefit from the two-step changes to the Canada Child Tax Benefit. Families earning up to about $21,000 per year will receive benefits of $1,625 for the first child and $1,425 for each additional child. The 1998 budget commitment to enrich the Child Tax Benefit by an additional $850 million will be legislated following discussions with the provinces, territories, and Canadians.

A major part of Bill C-36 centres on helping students. We all know that there is no better investment in Canada's future than investments in education, knowledge and innovation. However, Canadians need greater access to the knowledge and skills needed for the jobs and opportunities of the 21st century. One of the ways in which the 1998 budget addresses these issues is through the new Canadian Opportunities Strategy, the aim of which is to help ensure that all Canadians, especially those with low and middle incomes, have equal opportunity to participate in the changing labour market. This means reducing the financial barriers and other obstacles to acquiring skills and knowledge.

The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, established in Bill C-36, is one important element of the Canadian Opportunities Strategy, and just happens to be the single largest investment ever made by a federal government to support access to post-secondary education for all Canadians. The foundation will provide scholarships to students who are in financial need and who demonstrate merit. Operating at arm's length from the government, the foundation will decide how the scholarships are designed and delivered in consultation with the provinces and the post-secondary education community.

The federal government will provide an initial endowment of $2.5 billion which, beginning in the year 2000, will provide over 100,000 scholarships each year for 10 years to full- and part-time students. Full-time students could see their student debt load reduced by over one-half. Potentially eligible for an average of $3,000 per year, an individual student could possibly receive up to $15,000 over four years.

On a related issue, the 1998 budget also lived up to the directive given by the first ministers last December that it had to include measures to reduce the financial burden on students. These measures are another part of the Canadian Opportunities Strategy, several elements of which are contained in Bill C-36.

Amendments to the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, the Canada Student Loans Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act will provide interest relief to more graduates, an extended repayment period for those in need, an extended interest relief period for borrowers still in financial difficulty, and a reduced loan principal for those still in trouble after all these relief measures.

Another element of the Canadian Opportunities Strategy is the Canada Education Savings Grant. A 20-per-cent grant will be provided on the first $2,000 in annual contributions made to registered education savings plans after 1997 for children under 18 years of age. The Canada Education Savings Grant will make RESPs one of the most attractive vehicles available to parents to save for their children's education.

An additional measure related to young people provides an employment insurance premium holiday to employers who hire young Canadians between the ages of 18 and 24 in 1999 and 2000. This will mean increased employment opportunities for youth and reduce payroll costs by about $100 million per year for employers in the years 1999 and 2000.

Honourable senators, Bill C-36 also contains two amendments to the Excise Tax Act. Federal excise taxes on tobacco products will increase, adding $17 million annually to federal revenues, while helping to discourage Canadians, and in particular youths, from smoking.

As part of the government's program to commercialize air navigation services in Canada, Bill C-36 reduces the air transportation tax and clarifies the rules relating to its elimination later this year.

First Nations taxation is another tax component of this legislation. Bill C-36 allows the Kamloops Indian Band to impose a value-added tax on all sales of fuel, alcoholic beverages and tobacco products on its reserve. The rate of the tax will be 7 per cent, the same as the Goods and Services Tax, and will be similar to the GST in application.

At the same time, the Westbank First Nation, which currently taxes tobacco products, will be able to tax on-reserve sales of alcoholic beverages. Again, this tax will be a 7 per cent value-added tax similar to the GST.

Further, the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Revenue, with the approval of the Governor in Council, will now be able to enter into tax administration agreements with aboriginal governments that want to tax. This measure extends the current authority, which, at present, applies only to agreements with provinces.

Honourable senators, I want to discuss two other measures before I end my remarks. The first concerns Canada's international obligations, while the other concerns the Canada Development Investment Corporation. Bill C-36 amends the Bretton Woods Act so that the International Monetary Fund is assured of adequate resources to fulfil its mandate of preserving monetary stability.

The recent Asian crisis reinforced two things: the importance of the IMF being in a position to support a stable international financial system and the importance of our government's having the ability to participate in internationally coordinated efforts to resolve short-term liquidity crises.

These amendments also give the government additional means to participate in cooperative financing arrangements with other countries to supplement IMF-led assistance packages.

Another measure requires consultation between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Finance before any financial assistance is provided by Canada to institutions covered under the International Development Assistance Act. This will improve control over the growth of contingent liabilities associated with Canada's foreign obligations.

Finally, the Canada Development Investment Corporation will be empowered to sell the government's 8.5-per-cent interest in the Hibernia oil project when market conditions are favourable. In addition, authority is provided to wind up the CDIC once its remaining principal asset, the Canada Hibernia Holding Corporation, has been sold.

Honourable senators, these are the highlights of Bill C-36, which, even from these brief remarks, you can see is clearly an omnibus bill. As I stated earlier, each measure is key to helping to build a strong economy and a secure society, the two mutually reinforcing goals of the government.

A strong economy creates employment opportunity and generates the resources needed to maintain and enhance programs that contribute to a secure society. A secure society provides Canadians with the means and sense of security necessary to adjust to the changes in the modern economy. The benefits to be derived from these measures will be innumerable. I invite my honourable colleagues to support this legislation.

(1510)

Hon. Terry Stratton: Would the Honourable Senator Bryden accept a question?

Senator Bryden: Certainly.

Senator Stratton: I am sure the honourable senator is aware that there are 13 parts to this bill, each quite different, some requiring far more study than others. The bill's front cover states that the House of Commons received the bill on February 24, 1998, and passed it on May 27, 1998, in virtually three months.

What is the expectation of the government as to the passage of the bill in this chamber?

Senator Bryden: Honourable senators, I have no specific idea. I assume that the government will expect this chamber to treat this bill in the wise and considered fashion that we do all government legislation, and to do it in a manner that will be in the best interests of all Canadians so that we can get on with improving government policy.

On motion of Senator Bolduc, debate adjourned.

Criminal Code

Bill to Amend-Second Reading

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Oliver, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gustafson, for the second reading of Bill S-17, An Act to amend the Criminal Code respecting criminal harassment and other related matters.-(Honourable Senator Callbeck).

Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Honourable senators, I rise today to support Bill S-17, presented here by Senator Oliver, and proposing changes to the Criminal Code with respect to stalking.

I begin my remarks by stating my belief in a balanced approach to crime and its prevention. I do not think that it is simply through increasing sentences that we ensure a safe society. We must also address the causes of crime by tackling its roots. In this regard, I am looking forward to the implementation of the $32-million a year crime prevention program announced today by the Honourable Anne McLellan. However, I believe that once in a while balance needs adjusting, and I see this bill as responding to just one of those problems that must be taken more seriously if faith in our justice system is to be maintained.

Overall, we know that in random surveys of the population, the self-reported rates of victimization have either remained the same or decreased over the last 10 years. In fact, crime has been declining in most key categories for the last six years. Although this trend is supported by official police statistics which indicate crime is decreasing, it is still 26 per cent higher now than it was 20 years ago. In spite of this, an Angus Reid-CTV News poll revealed that six in ten Canadians believe that crime has increased in their neighbourhoods. Only 4 per cent thought it had decreased. One in four Canadians feels unsafe in their own neighbourhood at night. While only 10 per cent of males reported feeling unsafe, 42 per cent of women felt unsafe.

It might be easy to dismiss these concerns since this same poll showed that most Canadians do not feel more likely to be a victim of crime today than they did in 1990. It may be easy to blame other causes such as the rapid change in society and the breakdown of the family. However, I believe we can and should act to increase confidence in the criminal justice system. I see this bill as a step in the right direction.

We cannot deal merely with statistics; we must deal with fear. If people are forced to live in fear, our communities will break down and society will suffer. I am using these statistics to provide an overview of crime in Canadian society so that we can see stalking as a part of the overall picture.

One important aspect to take into account is the relationship between the criminal and the victim. We know that strangers commit only 29 per cent of violent crimes. Spouses account for 18 per cent of accused persons in minor assaults, while strangers make up 17 per cent. Over the period of 1974 to 1992, a married woman was nine times more likely to be killed by her spouse than by a stranger. Nineteen females were killed in 1996 by current or former boyfriends. In all, 40 per cent of female victims were killed by a male with whom they had had an intimate relationship.

As we all know, stalking is the beginning of a process. It can lead and has led to increasingly severe and violent behaviour. Many of the homicides referred to above began with the killers being a stalker. Their activities became more and more violent, and finally we see the tragic results on the front page of the newspaper. Even if stalking does not always lead to assault or murder, it affects the mind of the victim. It engenders the fear I mentioned earlier, and it is the cause of this fear that we must target.

Even the Department of Justice has looked at the stalking legislation and found its application to be wanting. It is time to send a message to the judiciary that we believe stalking must be taken seriously. We must send a message to the Minister of Justice that she should act on the report of her department, and we should send a message to the general public that the Senate cares and is ready to act. I think this bill sends such a message.

Honourable senators, another group in our society is waiting to hear from us, and they are the victims of crime. We need to do everything in our power to treat victims with respect and compassion. I do not think we have done enough for victims within the criminal justice system, and this has done enormous damage to how Canadians perceive this system. Victims do not ask to be part of the system; it is thrust upon them. They are expected to endure and understand things that many of us have difficulty understanding.

Over the last three years, we have seen a few changes in the system. Victim impact statements are now commonplace at the time of sentencing. We have a victim's Bill of Rights to give us policy guidance. Victims of sexual offences can now avail themselves of publication bans and screens, which are often used to protect the identity of young victims. Governments have begun to provide support services. However, more needs to be done. We must examine what needs to be done. We must share information on what is happening, and we must identify new and innovative ways of responding.

This bill sends the message that the Senate is listening. Although this cannot be our only response, we can be among the first to indicate our interest in and support for victims. Their point of view is not always appreciated, yet they must be heard. One reason I became a senator was to hear and act on the views of those who, for whatever reason, were shut out of the corridors of power. I feel the victims of crime are such a group and that they are worth championing.

Honourable senators, we know that some victims of crime have been forced by circumstances to abandon their identity, their very life, to avoid the harassment and fear engendered by the crime. In October 1996, 65 victims asked for the federal government's assistance to totally change their identity. They were forced to leave family, friends, neighbours, and community, all in the hope of having a safe and peaceful life. In Canada, perhaps we cannot promise the pursuit of happiness, but we have promised peace and order.

(1520)

The harassment has taken the form of letters, phone calls, even e-mail. They have been followed, spat upon and even murdered. Their entire lives have been thrown into disarray, and yet the justice system seems to treat this crime too lightly. As we know, 60 per cent of the charges are withdrawn, or made the object of a peace bond. Seventy-five per cent of all those found guilty receive probation, or are subjected to peace bonds, and a majority of those sentenced to prison are released early. The problem is so widespread that 12 Canadian cities have started programs to provide personal alarms for citizens who fear for their safety.

Honourable senators, we must do more in the area of crime and violence. I am personally committed to so doing. I wish to start my dedication to this issue by supporting this bill. I look forward to working with all of you on other initiatives that underscore the Senate's desire to act on this issue of concern to so many Canadians.

Hon. Erminie J. Cohen: Honourable senators, in June 1993, I was asked to sponsor Bill C-126. It was the end of my first overwhelming week as a rookie senator and I, still in awe of this new arena, agreed. I was briefed by justice, handed notes, and realized quickly that my maiden speech in the Senate would be in support of this vital piece of legislation, which was designed to give protection to the victims of stalking.

At that time, victims of this insidious crime had little legal recourse until a perpetrator physically injured them. It was clear to me that the laws had to change in order to make the system work for the victim. Regretfully, since 1993, those being stalked are still not adequately protected by our criminal justice system. I wish to commend Senator Oliver for recognizing this problem and addressing it with Bill S-17.

Criminal harassment is not a single act that can be assigned to one fit of temper or a simple misunderstanding where unwanted attention is mistakenly given. It is defined by repeated, unwanted acts, which may extend over several days, weeks, even years. The harassment can include threats by phone, unwanted letters and gifts, watching and following the victim, verbal and physical intimidation. It can escalate to vandalism of property and leaving dead animals for the victim to find. Ultimately it can result in physical harm or even death.

Being a victim of criminal harassment has a profound impact on the psychological health of the victim. Marion Boyd, former Ontario Attorney General, claims that criminal harassment poisons a woman's life on a daily basis by inhibiting her movement and removing any sense of security and control over her own life. Men are more reluctant to talk about their experiences; however, 12 per cent of victims are men who experience the same kind of fears and lack of control.

No one, honourable senators, has the right to make another feel unsafe. Victims are justified in their fear as criminal harassment often leads to violence. It is this clear link between stalking behaviour and other serious violent crimes that is alarming. It is for this reason that our criminal justice system must view criminal harassment in the same light as other violent crimes. The existing laws are not tough enough to deter those intent on harming others.

Currently the crime of criminal harassment is not treated seriously enough by prosecutors, lawyers, and judges. Many victims withdraw the charges on the advice of the Crown attorney in exchange for a peace bond. In fact, in Canada, almost 60 per cent of criminal harassment charges are withdrawn or stayed. According to recent information from the Provincial Association Against Family Violence in St. John's, Newfoundland, this is definitely not in the best interests of the victim. They report that criminal harassment is linked to family violence because the majority of victims are usually former lovers, former spouses, or the current spouse of the stalker. They state that many of the women they work with are encouraged and convinced by the legal system to drop the criminal harassment charge and apply for a peace bond. However, the victims are finding that peace bonds seldom work against determined stalkers.

It is the criminal harassment of ex-spouses, often leaving violent relationships, where the risk of serious physical injury and death are the most severe. The problem is serious enough that the Association Against Family Violence in St. John's, Newfoundland, is actually producing a brochure advising women about what they call "The Dangers of the Peace Bonds." A piece of paper will not protect women from the violence aimed at them. The fact that leaving an abusive partner is still more dangerous to a victim than remaining in the violent relationship angers me.

This situation is clearly unacceptable. I remember that Bill C-126 was created partly in response to the knowledge that peace bonds were not working in stalking cases where there was a history of domestic violence. Thus, Bill C-126 renamed "stalking" as "criminal harassment" and created new legal avenues for those who had the job of providing women with protection. Somehow, honourable senators, we have gone off track, for most women are persuaded to continue to rely on the peace bond five years after our Justice Department declared that the system clearly did not provide adequate protection. I do not know how this happened but it is not what we had hoped for, honourable senators, when the bill was passed.

In cases where the Crown has decided to proceed, many offenders are released prior to trial and continue to torment their victims, making a farce of the legal system and leading the victim to believe that there is really no one on whom they can count for help. When the trial is completed, as my colleague told you, 75 per cent of those convicted of criminal harassment receive probation only, or a suspended sentence. This is not surprising, given the light penalties currently applied in the law. Section 264 of the Criminal Code presently has a summary conviction penalty of six months in jail and/or a $2,000 fine. Bill S-17 proposes to change that to a jail term of 18 months with no fine and to increase the maximum penalty from five to ten years on indictment.

Under Bill S-17, criminal harassment will also be included in the definition of a "serious personal injury offence." This means, honourable senators, that dangerous offender applications could be made against those convicted of this crime. It would also be added as an offence for which long-term offender applications could be made, which would result in community supervision for a period of time upon release from jail.

Front-line workers tell us that this is probably the most important part of the bill, for many women live in fear of their perpetrators and dread the day when they are released from jail and are free to resume their controlling behaviours. That is why I speak in favour of Bill S-17, and to support Senator Oliver, who had the foresight to recognize the limitations of section 264 of the Criminal Code, which does not offer enough protection to those who are terrorized in their daily lives.

While stalking itself is not new, the crime of criminal harassment is relatively new to the legal system. At the time of the addition of criminal harassment in the Criminal Code, it was difficult to know then what would work and how protection could best be granted. Today, five years later, we have a better understanding of how these cases are being played out, and it is disappointing to learn that victims are not that much further ahead post Bill C-126.

Honourable senators, it is time to add some teeth to this law. Section 264 of the Criminal Code in its present form fails those it was intended to protect. Our law enforcement officers know it, front-line workers at shelters for victims of domestic violence know it, and our own Justice Department knows it. Now that we know it is not working, we must commit ourselves to fixing it.

(1530)

Senator Oliver's Bill S-17 will do just that. We must support it.

Motion agreed to and bill read second time.

Referred to Committee

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

On motion of Senator Oliver, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Veterans Health Care Services

Consideration of Interim Report of Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee-Debate Concluded

On the Order:

Resuming debate on consideration of the fourth report (Interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology entitled: "The State of Health Care for War Veterans and Service Men and Women - First Report: Long-Term Care, Standards of Care and Federal-Provincial Relations," tabled in the Senate on April 2, 1998.-(Honourable Senator Carstairs)

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the first report of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, on the state of health care provided to Canadian war veterans and service men and women.

I should like to start by commending the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs for their very fine work. The subcommittee has produced a comprehensive and insightful report. If fellow senators have not had a chance to read the report, I strongly encourage you to do so. I personally took interest in the report because of my interest in the overall state of health care in Canada.

Senator Phillips, Senator Cools, Senator Forest, Senator Jessiman, Senator Johnstone and Senator Bonnell all contributed to the subcommittee, and Senator Jessiman made an excellent presentation on the report here in the chamber several weeks ago.

The resulting report, the first on the subject, has four main themes: first, long-term institutional care; second, standards of care; third, federal-provincial relations; and fourth, two case studies, the Sunnybrook Hospital and Sainte-Anne's Hospital. In particular, it is with the case studies that I was struck and will later comment.

At this time, honourable senators, allow me to bring to the forefront of our thoughts the indispensable role that veterans and service women and men have played in our country's history. We are sombrely reminded of their essential roles in Canada's construction each time we look at the walls of this very chamber, as well as at the occupants of some of its seats. Veterans and service people have touched and affected each and every one of our lives, in some way or another.

Honourable senators, please allow me to further summon to your attention the way in which the lives of Canadians and Canada's veterans and service people have been touched and affected as a result of their duties. To illustrate, the following is an excerpt of the 1941 diary of Frank Curry of the Royal Canadian Navy, written during the Battle of the Atlantic. He wrote:

What a miserable, rotten hopeless life...an Atlantic so rough it seems impossible that we can continue to take this unending pounding and remain in one piece...hanging onto a convoy is a full-time job...the crew in almost a stupor from the nightmarishness of it all...and still we go on hour after hour.

He wrote in a separate diary entry:

We spent a terrible night - one that will never be forgotten by me. As we hurled ourselves onward into the teeth of mountainous seas at full speed, we made an all-out effort to reach the convoy which has now been under steady attack for four days - we found her at last, in the pitch darkness of 2:00 in the morning. She has now lost sixteen ships, and everyone feeling mighty tense as we took up screening position. Thick and miserable fog closed in on us at dawn, and we are going to have one great time hanging on to this convoy...

That must have been some of the experience of Senator Jessiman. Canadian veterans and service people have given immeasurably to Canada's construction: their bravery, their honour and, for some, parts of their very being. While recognizing that Canada has the highest esteem for its veterans and service people, and one of the most established and accommodating programs for veterans' benefits, it cannot be glossed over that Canada's veteran population has not escaped the effects of the national decline in some health care services.

Honourable senators, the impending future does not hold a release. Echoing the number Senator Jessiman presented to this chamber a few weeks back, the total veteran population in Canada is 475,000. Currently, two-thirds of this population, that is 322,000 individuals, have not yet required assistance from Veterans Affairs. However, as the age of veterans increases, it is clear that the need for medical care will increase as well. The time to address the health care needs of veterans is now, and I applaud the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs for beginning this process.

As stated, one section of the subcommittee report addresses long-term institutional health care. Specifically, the report points out that delivery of health care to veterans is not clear, with some matters being the exclusive responsibility of the federal government and some of provincial governments. It is the veterans themselves who ultimately suffer because of this lack of clarity.

I will again echo Senator Jessiman in bringing to the attention of honourable senators recommendation 4 of the subcommittee report. It states:

The Subcommittee recommends that the Department establish a detailed federal standard of care for implementation in long-term care facilities. This standard must meet the needs of veterans to the same or a higher degree than was the case before the Department transferred its facilities to the provinces. Regardless of whether the standard is expressed in terms of patient outcomes or in terms of hours of care per resident per day...it must be readily understandable.

Allow me to return, honourable senators, to the case studies with which the subcommittee was involved, and the issue of long-term institutional care. I should like to commend the senators who attended in Toronto at the Sunnybrook Hospital and at Sainte-Anne's Hospital in Quebec for a job well done. As a consequence of gathering information and holding discussions with both veterans receiving services and persons delivering services, the subcommittee recommended that the standards referred to in recommendation number 4:

...specify that all chronic care palliative care wards in which the Department contracts for veterans beds be equipped with a sprinkler system.

Requests for a sprinkler system should not, in my view, have to be a recommendation in a Senate subcommittee report. However, thank goodness, for the sake of the residents at this particular institution, it is. Neglect of the elderly, from the point of view of institutional care, has become an area of increased attention in our society. We have learned from this report that the quality of long-term institutional health care delivery for veterans and service people is insufficient. I believe we are obligated to the veterans of Canada, as we are to all Canadians, to ensure adequate long-term institutional health care. I fully support that this area receive further attention.

I will close by stating that I look forward to any future reports and debate submitted by the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, and once again encourage the members of this chamber to examine the report and take note of its concerns.

As a final note, I should like to bring to your attention, fellow senators, if you are not already aware, that the Department of Veterans Affairs is carrying out a review of veterans' care needs in order to identify changes in the needs of aging veterans, their caregivers, as well as regular force pensioners, to determine how it can best add value to their care. In congruence with the conclusions of our Standing Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, I believe this is an essential area of attention in the field of health care.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: If no other senator wishes to speak, the debate on this report is concluded.

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board

Report of Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee on Examination of Governance Provisions Adopted

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the consideration of the eleventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, entitled: "The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board: Getting it Right," tabled in the Senate on March 31, 1998.-(Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton).

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, this item stands in my name. I think it has been fully debated and I am willing to move the adoption of the report.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and report adopted.

[Translation]

The Senate

Concerns of Albertans-Inquiry-Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Ghitter calling the attention of the Senate to the concerns expressed by Albertans with regard to the Senate as an institution: (a) its effectiveness, usefulness and viability; (b) alternative means by which to select members of the Senate; (c) the nature of its regional representation, particularly a desire to see equal numbers of Senators representing each province; (d) the length of each term of office; (e) the role which a revised Senate might take at a national level; and (f) the powers which would be appropriate for it to exercise in harmony with the House of Commons.-(Honourable Senator Berntson).

Hon. Gérald-A. Beaudoin: Honourable senators, I wish to say a few words on the Senate, a much despised house today. In Charlottetown and Quebec City in 1864 and in London in 1866, the Fathers of Confederation discussed the Senate at length. Debates on Confederation bear witness. Many are the pages concerning the upper chamber.

Today the Senate has become despised, and some are suggesting that it be reformed.

[English]

(1540)

In 1867, the Fathers of Confederation modelled the Senate on the British House of Lords instead of the American Senate. The speeches of Sir George Étienne Cartier are clear on that question.

At that time, the principle of representation by population was accepted in legislative assemblies. Macdonald and Cartier felt that the principle of representation by population should apply in the House of Commons, but that in the upper house, Quebec should enjoy parity with Ontario and that the Maritime provinces should make a third region. The three regions each had 24 senators. The western part of Canada became a region of 24 senators, each of the four provinces having six senators, as stated in the Constitution Act of 1915.

At first, senators were appointed for life. Senators appointed since 1965 must retire at the age of 75.

The idea of an equal Senate is relatively recent. The United States and Australia have an equal Senate, but that is not the case in Germany and Austria. Even in the western part of Canada where the idea originated, some people are now reconsidering their position.

I agree that British Columbia and some other provinces are discriminated against. We must reconsider the representation of the provinces in the Senate. Several anomalies exist. The mandate of the Senate was to represent regional interests. The Senate has not really fulfilled that mandate. More and more, probably because of the executive federalism we have experienced in the last few decades, the premiers of the provinces have become strong and they wish to speak for their own provinces. I am not sure that they would favour an elected Senate.

What about the House of Commons? Would the elected members of Parliament favour an elected upper house?

[Translation]

The situation in Canada is not the same as in the United States. In addition, it must be said that Canada has a parliamentary system, while the United States has a presidential system.

We have long talked of Senate reform. There is a long list of in-depth reports on the subject. In the United States, in 1913, a major reform was passed. Each state elects two senators for six years. In 1949, Germany approved an interesting formula for the upper chamber.

[English]

The House of Lords in 1911 lost its absolute veto, and in 1949 its powers were further diminished. Prime Minister Tony Blair is planning a more drastic reform.

The Canadian Senate lost its absolute veto in the field of constitutional amendment in 1982. The veto in that field is now suspensive only and for six months.

Alberta elected a candidate for the Senate in October 1989, and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney appointed Mr. Stan Waters to the Senate several months later, in June 1990. The Prime Minister, however, has no legal obligation to do that, as long as the Constitution is not amended. The Prime Minister alone may recommend to the Governor General to fill a vacancy in the Senate, as stated in section 32 of the Constitution Act of 1867.

[Translation]

We could certainly have an elected Senate in Canada. If we want to pursue that option, then we must continue the debate. Will that Senate be elected for a fixed term of six years, of nine years? Will it be proportional? Will senators be elected at the same time as members of Parliament? At a different time? Will the two Houses have different powers? If the Senate ever becomes an elected body, I would favour a proportional system for the upper house.

Some have talked about abolishing the Senate. Clearly, there has to be unanimity among the "eleven" before the Senate can be abolished. Indeed, by abolishing the Senate we would change the amending formula and, under section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, unanimous consent is necessary to change the amending formula.

The Senate must not be abolished. Certainly not because it costs $42 million a year. In fact, the savings would be short-lived, since the House of Commons would have to restructure its committees to do the work done by Senate committees, and it would definitely cost as much for the House of Commons to do as good a job as the Senate does. The usefulness of the Senate from a legislative point of view has been demonstrated time and time again. There are plenty of examples.

Upper houses have a reason to exist in federations, where they represent the regions, and even in unitary states such as France, the United Kingdom and other countries.

The Senate is very useful. Its standing committees do a great job because of the senators' expertise. The same is true of joint and special committees, as evidenced by the Senate reports on poverty, euthanasia and assisted suicide, and numerous special inquiries conducted by the upper house. Many inquiries done by royal commissions could have been carried out by the Senate, at lesser cost and much more quickly. Again, I must mention the report on euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The prestige of the upper house varies from country to country. In the United States and in Germany, the Senate enjoys a great deal of prestige. In Canada, the premiers want to continue to speak for the provinces and, thanks to constitutional conferences, they have gained a great deal of visibility.

Should the powers of the Senate be changed? In order to do in-depth reforms in that area, the 7-50 formula must be used. Currently, the Senate has the same powers as the House of Commons, except in three areas: in the case of a constitutional amendment, the Senate only has a six-month suspensive veto, since 1982; votes of confidence and non-confidence do not exist in the Senate; finally, a bill involving public spending must originate in the House of Commons.

[English]

(1550)

In his famous book entitled L'esprit des lois, Montesquieu, a very learned jurist, stated that we must be quite prudent with respect to the adoption of foreign institutions. What is good for one country is not necessarily good for another country. Each country has its historical background. The Senate, as it was said by the Macdonald commission, should continue to perform the useful role of applying basic sober second thought to all legislation.

I must say that the Senate has considerably improved the quality of legislation. We have done it in criminal law and in constitutional law matters more than once, for example.

If ever the Senate is elected, we must ensure a new balance between our federal institutions as well as between our federal and provincial institutions.

In conclusion, I must say that many reforms of the Senate may take place without constitutional amendment. The Senate has the power to adopt resolutions and rules and, in my opinion, we should do it without delay.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. John Stewart: Will the honourable senator receive a question?

The honourable senator has told us some of the serious implications that might follow the transformation of this house into an elected house. There is one area which I thought he might have explored more deeply. We make much of the fact that we enjoy what is called "responsible government." That means that the executive government of the day, the ministers of the day, are answerable to the elected representatives of the people.

What would be the implications for our system of responsible government, if this house were to be an elected house giving Canada two elected houses? Would the situation be that we might as well adopt the American system of government? Is that the real intent of the advocates of a three-E Senate, although they do not state that when they engage in their advocacy?

Senator Beaudoin: That is a good question, which I was anticipating. Those who advocate a triple-E Senate speak of elected, effective and equal.

I prefer a four- or five-region Senate, the number being debatable, but elected, equal and effective. It is much easier to have two elected houses in a presidential system. In the parliamentary system that we have inherited from Great Britain, the government is responsible to the elected house. Australia has the same system as Canada except that the Senate is elected. They had the crisis in 1975, as honourable senators will remember.

If ever we have an elected Senate in Canada, we should state in the Constitution whether the government of the day will be responsible to only the House of Commons or to both houses. My suggestion is that the government should be responsible to the House of Commons because if the government is responsible to two houses, there will be more problems. You may also have a double dissolution. It is very complex.

My first reaction would be, if ever we have an elected Senate, that we perhaps keep the three domains where we are not entirely equal with the House of Commons; that is, constitutional amendments, money bills and the vote of confidence.

Some people say it is easier to have an elected Senate in the presidential system than in the parliamentary system. However, we have countries such as Germany which since 1949 has had two houses. The representatives of the laender are elected or chosen by each laender. I am told this works perfectly in Germany, a country of 80 million people.

I do not have a definitive answer, but if we keep the parliamentary system - and I am in favour of that solution - the responsibility of government should be only to the House of Commons. However, to change the system completely and adopt the presidential system would be quite a change.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, I must inform the Senate that the time allocated for this item has been exhausted; however, this exchange could continue with the consent of the house. Is it agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Stewart: I thank honourable senators.

Senator Beaudoin has told us twice in his reply that, if the Senate were to become an elected body, it should be written into the Constitution that the government of the day, the ministry, be responsible only to the House of Commons. I wonder if that would be an adequate solution to the problem that we have in mind? Would it not, indeed, be necessary to reduce the powers of the Senate?

As an example, unlike the British House of Lords, the Senate can defeat money bills.

Senator Beaudoin: There is no doubt.

Senator Stewart: Even if we say that the government of the day is responsible to the House of Commons, if the Senate were to defeat one of those bills - which is the traditional way in the parliamentary system to demonstrate that the government of the day does not enjoy the support of a chamber - then we have a major constitutional crisis.

Therefore, one of the problems that I have when I hear people advocating an elected and effective Senate with a system of responsible government is that you must make it less effective - in other words, reduce its powers. Otherwise, an elected Senate would not be compatible in a system of responsible government.

(1600)

What is the honourable senator's view on that? Do you think that simply going with a statement that the minister is responsible to only the House of Commons would be adequate?

Senator Beaudoin: I am inclined to agree with the honourable senator. The difference is this: If the government of the day is defeated in the House of Commons on its budget, the government must resign. There are many cases involving this in the history books, for example, Mr. Trudeau, in 1974; and Mr. Clark, in 1979.

If the government is defeated in an elected Senate, that government would not be obliged to resign. That is to say, the Prime Minister may stay in power.

Senator Stewart: What if it is defeated on its Appropriation Bill?

Senator Beaudoin: The government may come back with a new budget. In our system, if the government is defeated on its budget, it cannot come back with another budget. The government must resign.

Having said that, I would agree with the proposition that, if we have two elected houses, one should have a little more power than the other because we have a parliamentary system. In the presidential system, there is no such thing. Even if the President of the United States is not able to have his legislation adopted in the Congress, he will stay in power for four years, except if he is impeached. No president has been impeached in the history of United States, although Johnson came very close in 1868, when just one vote in the Senate saved him. However, they do not have the principle of responsible government. The government is elected for four years, that is all. Those two systems are very good. However, I do not know which is better.

My first reaction is that we have so many problems in the constitutional field that we should retain the system that we have - at least in that field - and solve the other problems that we are facing.

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I have a question for the honourable senator.

I listened with some interest, as I always do, to Senator Beaudoin. I am interested in his concept of an elected Senate. As we know, the Leader of the Government in the Senate must be a minister of the Crown. In my friend's scheme for an elected Senate, how will a government, once elected, be able to guarantee that it can always choose a minister of the Crown to lead the business of the Senate?

Senator Beaudoin: This is one point I do not understand. The Leader of the Government in the Senate is a member of the cabinet now and the Senate is not elected.

Senator Cools: Exactly.

Senator Beaudoin: If the Senate is elected, I do not see why, prima facie, an elected member of the Senate cannot be a member of that government.

Senator Cools: How, then, in an era when the evidence is that we are moving toward more parties than fewer, would, for example, the Reform Party upon winning an election choose a member to be the Leader of the Government in this chamber and to sit in cabinet, unless the honourable senator is proposing that the government would then have to take non-party members into its cabinet?

Senator Beaudoin: We will cross that bridge when we come to the river. Nevertheless, I will attempt to answer.

Senator Cools: I knew I would stump you.

Senator Beaudoin: In our Canadian history is it not the case that after an election in a certain province everyone was from the same party and there was no opposition?

Senator Cools: In Alberta?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: No, in New Brunswick.

Senator Beaudoin: Suppose the Canadian Senate is elected and, as a result of an election, there is no one in the Senate of a party similar to the party that is sitting in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister may certainly try to convince someone in the Senate to act and to be in the cabinet. That is a possibility. It is difficult to go further than that, but it may work.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question to Senator Beaudoin is the following: Can you think of any system of governance in any part of the world that has had a grander success in the practice of freedom than the systems of governance that we have had for 131 years?

Senator Beaudoin: That is a question of appreciation. As I said, I am in favour of the parliamentary system. In 1982, when the government chose to enshrine a Charter in the Constitution, many professors of law, for example, were discussing whether or not it was possible, in a parliamentary democracy where Parliament is supreme, to have a charter of rights and freedoms. We settled the problem. I believe we did it beautifully in section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. We said that what is supreme in Canada is not the Parliament. What is supreme in Canada is the Constitution.

Each Parliament is under the obligation to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They settled the problem with section 52 of the Constitution Act of 1982. I think our system is very good, with the addition of the Charter of Rights. I am in favour of the Charter of Rights. Perhaps not everyone would agree, but it is quite an improvement to have a charter of rights in the Constitution. That is the best system of government that we may have.

The United States has a charter of rights in its Constitution, as well as a presidential system. When the Constitution of the United States was drafted Thomas Jefferson said, "You made one mistake. The Constitution is beautiful, but you do not have a charter of rights." Madison and others then amended the Constitution. France had la Déclaration des droits des citoyens and the United States had the first Bill of Rights in North America.

Senator Kinsella: France's charter and the American declaration do not have a section 33, a notwithstanding provision, as we have in our Charter.

My supplementary question to Senator Beaudoin is this: Would you not agree that, given the success that the practice of freedom has had under the Canadian Constitution since 1867, the burden of proof of a reformed system of governance that will guarantee the same level of freedom for Canadians rests squarely on the shoulders of those who are advocating some dream of reform in our institutions? Do they not have the burden of proof?

Senator Beaudoin: Honourable senators, the answer to that question is very simple. Those who are proposing a new system always have the burden of evidence to prove that it is better than what we have. It is the rule in law. If you go to court, you must establish your case. If you wish to change the Canadian system, you must establish that another system would be better. As for the notwithstanding clause, which is very controversial in this country, I have always said that I would have preferred a charter of rights without a notwithstanding clause.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

(1610)

Senator Beaudoin: Some people say that it gives too much power to the courts. However, I am ready to accept that.

On motion of Senator Atkins, debate adjourned.

Child Custody and Access

Participation of Members of House of Commons in Hearings of Committee-Inquiry-Debate Concluded

Hon. Anne C. Cools rose pursuant to notice of May 12, 1998:

That she will call the attention of the Senate to the poor attendance and participation of the House of Commons Members in the work meetings and hearings of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak on the poor attendance of the House of Commons members at meetings of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Child Custody and Access, which originated in the exercise of the Senate's peculiar constitutional function as recorded in Senate debates February 12 and 13, 1997, on Bill C-41, and October 28, 1997.

My thrust today is the parliamentary law, privilege, and principle that the Senate is entitled to the full support of the House of Commons for this committee's work. Less than full support from the other place will yield diminished results; endanger the committee's work, its witnesses, and its findings; and mislead and let down the public's confidence and hope, faithfully reposed in this committee.

Honourable senators, maligning senators has become the Commons' sport of choice. It is a predatory and mean-spirited sport. Whenever certain commons members are at a loss for words or ideas, which is often, they turn to the Senate. I thought that examination of the attendance of commoners at our special joint committee meetings might be a helpful addition to the growing dialogue in this country about the House of Commons as it cries out for improvement.

However, before the committee meetings, I shall review the general attendance of the commons members in their own House during the week of May 11 to 15, 1998. That week alone, I personally observed on several different instances that there was no quorum in the House of Commons. The House's persistent emptiness is an eyesore. That week, government whip staff member Charles-Eric Lépine informed a member of my staff, David Nelson, that on May 11 and 12 alone quorum had been called 10 to 15 times. As we know, quorum in the Commons is 20 members out of a total of 301; that is, 6 per cent of its members. In the Senate, quorum is 15 members out of 104; that is, 14 per cent of its members.

However, keeping quorum in the Commons seems to be a daunting challenge, for quorum is frequently called as the Commons quorum-calling bell resonates frequently, seemingly daily, in our ears. On the other hand, quorum is virtually never called in the Senate. I can recall only one quorum call in the last 10 years.

Obviously, senators are better attenders in their house than commoners are in theirs, despite the higher proportional requirement for Senate quorum. The chronic emptiness of the House of Commons during sittings is so compelling that some commentators have labelled it "parliamentary indolence."

Douglas Fisher, himself a former Commons member, in the May 21, 1998 Toronto Sun article entitled "Is Parliament a waste of time," said:

Two weeks ago, ...the government whip had not a single Liberal MP in the chamber during a debate - not even himself.

Mr. Fisher concluded:

By their empty seats MPs, ...are telling us that debating in the House is a waste of time and a bore.

Honourable senators, I move now to the attendance of commoners at the Special Joint Senate-Commons Committee on Child Custody and Access. The quorum of this committee is 13 members out of its total committee membership of 23. The meetings of this committee rarely have a quorum, and on those rare occasions it has, it is only for a few minutes, for a quick vote, usually without debate, or with quick, insufficient debate. This committee has difficulty mustering the six members required to hear witnesses.

The poor attendance and chronic absence of the Commons members is impairing the committee's work. This committee's 23 members are comprised of seven senators and 16 commoners. Of the seven senators, four are Liberals and three are Progressive Conservatives. Of the 16 commoners, nine are Liberals, three are Reform, two are Bloc Québécois, one is Progressive Conservative, and one is NDP. As of May 11, 1998, the week in question, the special joint committee had held a total of 25 meetings.

Honourable senators, attendance records for these first 25 meetings provided to me by the committee's House of Commons joint-clerk, Richard Rumas, indicate that the attendance at these 25 meetings by Liberal commoners is as follows: John Harvard, zero; Denis Paradis, zero; Robert Bertrand, two; Nancy Karetak-Lindell, five; Judi Longfield, seven; Sheila Finestone, eight; Eleni Bakopanos, 12; Carolyn Bennett, 18; and Joint Chairman Roger Gallaway, 25.

The number of meetings attended by Reform commoners is as follows: Gary Lunn, one; Eric Lowther, 13; Paul Forseth, 21. Bloc Québécois Commoners' attendance is Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, seven, and Caroline St-Hilaire, 12. Conservative member Diane St-Jacques attended ten meetings and NDP member Peter Mancini attended five meetings. A simple arithmetic calculation reveals that the overall average of meetings attended by commoners is nine out of 25.

Honourable senators, attendance by senators at the same 25 meetings is as follows: Liberal Senator Marisa Ferretti Barth and her permanent replacement, Senator Joan Cook, together attended seven meetings; Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool and her permanent replacement, Senator Lucie Pépin, together attended nine meetings; Joint Chair Senator Landon Pearson attended 24 meetings, and I, Senator Cools, attended 25 meetings.

The attendance of Tory senators is as follows: Senator Erminie Cohen, 12; Senator Duncan Jessiman, 16; Senator Mabel DeWare, 22. Similar calculations show that the average for meetings attended by senators is 16.4, an average vastly superior to the average of commoners of nine. Honourable senators, I submit that this finding is predictable.

Looking closely at the average attendance by commoners at nine meetings of 25, I shall examine their attendance at this committee by party affiliation. The average attendance by commoners by party is as follows: NDP, five; Liberal, 8.5; Bloc Québécois, 9.5; Conservative, 10; and Reform, 11.7. Note that Liberal commoners' - the government's commoners - average 8.5 falls below nine - the overall Commons average - and that their poor average attendance rate is the second worst, surpassed only by that of the NDP. These conclusions are self-evident and appalling.

Honourable senators, I move now to one particular special joint committee meeting on Monday, May 4, 1998, and the attendance of commoners there, particularly the Liberal commoners. This meeting was most interesting. Its record shows attendance of 15 committee members. In fact, the committee only had a quorum of 13 members for a fleeting moment - a few minutes - for a particular vote.

To properly understand why quorum at that particular meeting was important, I shall refer to a prior committee meeting of Monday, April 20, 1998. At that meeting, I had raised a question of privilege regarding Michele Landsberg's dishonest, malicious and contemptuous attack on the special joint committee in her April 18, 1998 Toronto Star article entitled "How far have we come on domestic assault issues." Her article showed wanton disregard for truth, objectivity, and democratic parliamentary institutions. Liberal Commoner Carolyn Bennett had even informed me that Landsberg had told her that she - Landsberg - had not read the committee transcripts prior to writing this article.

Landsberg's offending statements impeaching and maligning the committee included the following:

...the danger that lurks in the committee's careless assumptions about making custody 'fairer' to men.

and,

...members of the committee seem unconcerned about the danger of violence and murder in custody disputes.

and,

Until the committee on custody and access demonstrates that it fully grasps the scope and seriousness of domestic violence, it should not be trusted...

and,

...these men erupted in noisy laughter, jeers and shouts.

Honourable senators, Landsberg's words, now repeated in media across the country about men's so-called venomous attacks on women, their "hatred" towards women, and their "hysteria" during the committee hearings are simply false. Landsberg's attacks on the special joint committee, its proceedings and its witnesses are causing some highly qualified witnesses to decline to appear before the committee in fear that her attacks on them will affect their jobs and their lives adversely. Witnesses barrister Walter Fox and author Wendy Dennis, both of Toronto, suffered in yet another Landsberg Toronto Star article of May 2, 1998, attacking the committee entitled "Lunatic rhetoric distorts child custody debate."

Believing that Parliament has a responsibility to defend itself, its committees, its proceedings and its witnesses, on April 20 I raised a question of privilege in obedience to Senate rule 43.(1)(a) that it "be raised at the earliest opportunity." Most members in attendance at that meeting were in agreement. However, as per usual, there was no quorum of members in attendance to deal with this issue, or any other issue. Further, for several weeks, and every meeting thereafter, there was never a quorum present.

(1620)

Honourable senators, Joint Chairman Roger Gallaway decided that this important question of privilege, on which proper debate was rendered impossible by a continuing lack of quorum, should not be postponed and delayed again, and that it should be dealt with at the meeting of May 4, 1998. To this end, he took the following steps.

He developed a motion upholding high principles, upholding Parliament, this committee and its joint chairs. The motion sought no conclusion. It only sought the confidence of the committee in the two joint chairs Senator Pearson and Mr. Gallaway, to represent and defend the committee in their respective Houses, in any form or manner the two joint chairs would choose. Chairman Gallaway spoke to his Liberal Whip, one of his House leaders, about the continuing chronic absence of Liberal commoners and its consequence to the committee. He asked his whip to ensure attendance and quorum to support him as the Liberal Commons joint chair at the meeting of May 4.

On May 4, at 3:30 p.m., when the committee meeting began, it lacked quorum, and barely obtained the six members necessary to hear witnesses. Suddenly, around 5:00 p.m., the committee members swelled to 14, to quorum, with the appearance of six Liberal Commons substitute members, being Claudette Bradshaw, Denis Coderre, Shaughnessy Cohen, John Finlay, Mac Harb, and Lynn Myers. Not one of these six substitutes had ever been involved in the work of this committee. Further, their appearance was accompanied by their whip's staff, Melanie Lauzon.

Chairman Gallaway beamed at quorum and informed me proudly that his Liberal Commons colleagues had come to support him as Commons joint chair and to vote with him. He informed Reformer Paul Forseth of this and Mr. Forseth pledged Reform support. A confident Chairman Gallaway asked me to move his motion, as he had had no time to prepare a speech. Since his motion was a debating point to gather consensus on high principles, leaving representative action to the joint chairs, and further assured by his satisfaction in his colleagues supportive presence, I agreed, so I moved:

That a purpose of Parliament's privilege is the performance of Parliament's democratic representative function in the service and representation of the public, the citizens of Canada; and
the Law of Parliament asserts that the protection of Parliament's privileges, and the protection of Proceedings in Parliament are the bounden duty of individual Members, and of the Parliament of Canada collectively; and
that the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, wishing to uphold these privileges, and being concerned that Michele Landsberg's article in The Toronto Star, April 18, 1998, is a breach of the Law of Parliament and a contempt of Parliament; and
the Committee, wishing to express confidence in its Joint Chairs, Senator Landon Pearson and Roger Gallaway, and in the Parliament of Canada, ask the Joint Chairs to advance the Committee's concerns regarding a contempt of Parliament in the respective Houses of Parliament.

Shaughnessy Cohen, a substitute member, was the only Liberal commoner to speak to the motion, and she spoke against it. Eleni Bakopanos, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, who had attended only 12 of the first 25 meetings, called for an immediate vote. En passant, she is a member of this committee despite Parliamentary rules forbidding a parliamentary secretary from membership on a committee in which the parliamentary secretary's department or minister has a strong interest or has responsibility. Beauchesne's 6th Edition, page 224, citation 768 reads, in part:

...a Parliamentary Secretary shall not be a member of a standing committee which has responsibility for reviewing the department of the Minister to whom the Member is Parliamentary Secretary.

The result of the vote of this May 4 meeting was a swift and terrible blow to Joint Chairman Gallaway and to Parliament as a whole. The Liberal commoners, mostly substitutes, all voted against the motion, against their own Chairman Gallaway, and against confidence. They defeated him and the regular attendees of the committee, few as they are. Immediately they disappeared, as suddenly and as swiftly as they had appeared. Chairman Gallaway was stunned, and humiliated. Reformer Paul Forseth muttered:

Hmmm, obviously you cannot trust Liberals. Obviously, it seems that Liberals cannot trust Liberals.

Chairman Gallaway's Commons substitute colleagues came to support someone, but alas not him, and to support someone's interests, but not his, nor Parliament's. Who, whose, whom, and why?

Further, within hours, these events were "brown enveloped" to a certain daily newspaper, well before any public release or posting on the Internet of the committee's proceedings. Further, I note the persistent undermining of this committee by certain Department of Justice lawyers in advancing their own agenda, buttressed by the committee's researchers, those same lawyers that the Senate fought hard in 1997 on Bill C-41.

Honourable senators, I mused on Thomas Hobbes' famous words about life being "...nasty, brutish, and short." I mused on disingenuousness. I reflected on political parties, on party loyalty, and on party treachery. I mused on our Liberal senators' struggle, sacrifice, and efforts during our opposition years, 1984 to 1993, aimed at returning a Liberal majority to the other place, which bore fruit in the 1993 election. I reflected on those Commons members who disparage the Senate, and on their advocacy for an elected Senate, or to abolish it. I reflected on the many Liberal commoners, including members Maria Minna, Jean Augustine, Art Eggleton, and others whose nomination conventions were waived as our leader, Mr. Jean Chrétien, appointed them Liberal candidates for the 1993 general election, and also on the later appointments of Stéphane Dion and Pierre Pettigrew, who were appointed ministers prior to their election to the Commons, as safe seats were cleared for them by appointment to the Senate. I thought, "What a proposition: Elect the Senate, and appoint the House of Commons!"

Honourable senators, I pondered on the committee's joint chair, Senator Landon Pearson's role. I reflected on those who engineered this vote to embarrass Chairman Gallaway, while trying to make it appear that their actions emanated from the Senate Liberal Deputy Leader, Senator Sharon Carstairs. I pondered on Joint Chairman Roger Gallaway's savaging. I pondered this phenomenon of substitute Liberals substituting their own agenda.

Faced by this committee's continuing irregular activities, I even reconsidered my own commitment and involvement with this committee. As I pondered all this, the words from the Old Testament Book of Ecclesiasticus, Chapter 2, verse 1 to 5, reverberated in my mind -

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, I regret to have to inform the honourable senator that the time allotted for her speech has expired. She may continue with the consent of the house. Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Gigantès: Regretfully.

Senator Cools:

My son, when you come to serve the Lord,
    prepare yourself for trials.
Be sincere of heart and steadfast,
    undisturbed in time of adversity.
Cling to him, forsake him not;
    thus will your future be great.
Accept whatever befalls you,
    in crushing misfortune be patient;
For in fire gold is tested,
    and worthy men in the crucible of humiliation.

Honourable senators, I reflected on female aggression, and on female deceit buttressed by its own assertion of female moral superiority. I reflected on those people afflicted and damaged in divorce and access disputes who are looking to this committee to improve the situation. I thought of all the children of divorce, and of all the children of this land who cry out to us. I said to myself, "Thank God for the Senate! Long live Chairman Gallaway! Long live the notion that children deserve the love and support of both parents, even after divorce! Long live fairness, balance, and equality in the law!"

Honourable senators, the Senate must insist on the Commons' full support for this committee, or assume this important work unto a special Senate committee. The Senate must fulfill its duty to the public.

Honourable senators, I am closing with something which I discovered only in the past several hours in preparing this speech. I shall be raising a question of privilege about it.

We had been told that on that day there was a quorum. In preparing this speech -

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): What day?

Senator Cools: May 4.

In preparing this speech and in reviewing the records carefully to ensure that my information is accurate, I have now realized, in the last few hours, that even the quorum that we thought existed during those few minutes for that vote may not have been. I believe that I have discovered that there was no quorum present even at that very moment. By reviewing the records in preparing for this speech, I have now learned that two of the members, Carolyn Bennett and Mac Harb, had left immediately before the vote. Honourable senators, even that vote, which was held on the only occasion that the committee had a quorum for many days, it seems now was held without a quorum.

(1630)

The difficulty is that you cannot raise anything in the committee because there is never a quorum. Nothing can happen because there is never a quorum. I do not know if I can raise the issue now that that committee vote was perhaps void. I do not know. I must struggle with this. Certainly, I shall be raising a question of privilege on this issue.

I urge honourable senators to be aware that this subject matter is of great importance to millions of people in this country. I urge honourable senators to be mindful of the fact that the Senate has an investment in this committee. This particular committee is not a House of Commons creature; it is a creature of the Senate and the House of Commons. I would ask all members of the Senate to use all influence possible to encourage members of the House of Commons to attend more regularly and to take the work of this committee more seriously. It is deeply troubling to me that, after several months of this committee's hearings, we have a situation where barely a handful of members of the House of Commons have heard the testimony. The amazing thing about this committee is that millions of people in this country are banking on this committee, a committee that has a wider political legitimacy and wider political support than virtually anything I have seen in my years here.

Perhaps many of us have been browbeaten as senators, and perhaps some of us have become timid. I sincerely believe, as Senator Stewart mentioned in his exchange with Senator Beaudoin just moments ago, that this is a valuable institution. Senator Kinsella said a few moments ago that ours is one of the finest systems that the world has ever seen. I sincerely believe in this system of government, and I sincerely believe that we have an opportunity to reach out and touch people's lives and have an impact. I call upon senators to beseech their fellow members of the House of Commons to take this committee seriously.

At the same time, I should like to thank Senator Pearson, Senator Cohen and Senator Jessiman, and all of the other senators on the committee whose performance is sterling compared to that of the members of the other place. I know that we have now entered an era where the traditional words and language of Parliament have disappeared. I used to say "the other place" when I referred to the House of Commons, but we are now into an era where no one knows what "the other place" is. One is hamstrung.

The question still remains, and it is a question I shall be asking: When a committee never has a quorum, where does one turn in order to raise issues in the committee?

Senator Kinsella: Would the honourable senator accept a question?

Senator Cools: Yes.

Senator Kinsella: When might we in this chamber, in your opinion, expect to receive a report from this joint committee?

Senator Cools: I do not believe that I am qualified to answer questions such as that on behalf of this committee. I would defer to the Senate chairman of the joint committee.

My point is rather straightforward: I sincerely believe that we may be diminishing a very important responsibility with which we are charged. I sincerely believe that people have a faith, a trust in this committee. You should see the people coming before us, pouring out their stories of injustice, believing that we are taking them seriously. You must also be mindful, Senator Kinsella, that these are issues upon which I have worked for many years, and I have taken substantial political risks to advance these issues as far as I have.

I would decline to answer a question about when an interim report might be forthcoming. My concern is that I should like this committee to function as Parliament intended, as the Leader of the Government intended, as the leadership of the government in the Senate intended when it was constituted, and to be vigilant. There is a danger that this committee might be stillborn.

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, it seems to me that this chamber has apprehended, through the speech given by a member of the joint committee, that there seem to have been some problems with that committee. Either we must wait until we receive the report from that committee, and perhaps that report will explicate whatever the difficulties are, or perhaps during Question Period tomorrow we might ask the co-chairman of the committee some questions. I confess some curiosity, both procedurally as well as in terms of the content of the address that we have heard from Senator Cools.

I hesitate to ask questions about the attendance of those members of the joint committee from the other place because of the parliamentary tradition, if not the rule, that we are expected to be circumspect, at least, or more reticent than circumspect, when it comes to commenting on the comportment of members of the other place. However, in her speech the senator did give us some information concerning our own colleagues, so I should like to ask Senator Cools to clarify for us the percentage level of attendance of members of the Senate at those hearings, and the percentage level of attendance of senators from this side of the house as compared to that of our good friends and colleagues from the other side.

Senator Cools: Thank you, Senator Kinsella. I should like to say that I have observed the rules as I have researched - and understood - them, and I have said nothing of a personal nature. I have cast no reflections; I have simply described facts. We must remember that I was talking about a joint committee which is a creature of ours, this Senate. We are talking about an extension of ourselves, so it is a slightly different situation. I have not offered reflections on anyone, nor have I used objectionable language.

The average attendance of senators is 16.4. You are obviously asking about the attendance rate of the Tory senators. I am proud to tell you that the difference between the Tory senators and the Liberal senators is not of any statistical importance. The average for senators on both sides is 16.4, with the Liberals coming in at 16.2, the Tories at 16.6, and the Commons at 9.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Good whip, good whip.

Senator Cools: I must tell you that the senators were disabled somewhat by illness. As you remember, originally Senator Bosa was to be a member of this committee. As we know, Senator Bosa has been very ill. The Liberal senators, even with their disabilities due to sickness, have still come in at a very high rate of attendance. I see Senator Pépin sitting here. I thank her. Liberal senators had difficulties with two positions, both for illness and for very good reasons. Despite those disabilities, we still come in at a very high rate. However, we knew that would happen, did we not?

I hope I have answered Senator Kinsella satisfactorily. The fact of the matter is that it hurts me to see some fine senators maligned. It hurts me. I thought that there were some honourable senators who did not mind speaking up for senators.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: If no other senator wishes to speak, this order is considered debated.

The Senate adjourned until Wednesday, June 3, 1998, at 1:30 p.m.

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

1st Session, 36th Parliament,Volume 137, Issue 66

Tuesday, June 2, 1998

The Honourable Eymard G. Corbin, Acting Speaker

THE SENATE

Tuesday, June 2, 1998

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Nova Scotia

Improvement in Race Relations at Cole Harbour High School

Manitoba

Millennium Fund-Raising Projects for Neepawa High School

Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Adjournment

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

Tenth Annual Seminar Held in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island-Notice of Inquiry

Health

Protection of Conscience of Health-Care Givers-Presentation of Petition

Visitors in the Gallery

QUESTION PERIOD

Industry

Agreement on Internal Trade-Absence of Dispute Resolution Mechanism-Government Position

National Defence

Awarding of Contract without Tender-Essential Characteristics of Contractor-Government Position

Re-Equipping of Armed Forces-Revision of 1994 White Paper-Government Position

The Senate

Allocation of Office Space to Retired Senator-Request for Particulars of Necessary Qualifications-Date for Termination of Arrangement

Allocation of Office Space to Retired Senator-Clarification of Agreement

Allocation of Office Space to Retired Senator-Availability of Same Arrangement for Other Retiring Senators-Government Position

National Defence

Awarding of Contracts without Tender-Responsibility for Decisions-Government Position

Awarding of Contract Without Tender-Estimated Profit from Sole-Source Contract

Answers to Order Paper Questions Tabled

Energy-Cape Breton Development Corporation-Conformity with Alternative Fuels Act

Energy-Department of Finance-Conformity with Alternative Fuels Act

Energy-Natural Resources Canada-Conformity with Alternative Fuels Act

Citizenship and Immigration-Minister's Permits Issued in 1997

Citizenship and Immigration-Convention Refugee Board-Minister's Opinions

The Senate

List Provided to the Chair of Speakers During Question Period

Further Request for Answers to Outstanding Oral Questions-Government Position

Pages Exchange Program with House of Commons

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Income Tax Conventions Implementation Bill, 1998

Third Reading

Canada Shipping Act

Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Order Stands

Canada Labour Code Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act

Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Order Stands

Budget Implementation Bill, 1998

Second Reading-Debate Adjourned

Criminal Code

Bill to Amend-Second Reading

Referred to Committee

Veterans Health Care Services

Consideration of Interim Report of Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee-Debate Concluded

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board

Report of Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee on Examination of Governance Provisions Adopted

The Senate

Concerns of Albertans-Inquiry-Debate Continued

Child Custody and Access

Participation of Members of House of Commons in Hearings of Committee-Inquiry-Debate Concluded

1st Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 137, Issue 66

Canada Labour Code
Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act