Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
1st Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 137, Issue 73
Monday, June 15, 1998
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker
- SENATORS' STATEMENTS
- ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
- QUESTION PERIOD
- ORDERS OF THE DAY
THE SENATE
Monday, June 15, 1998
The Senate met at 7:30 p.m., the Speaker in the Chair.Prayers.
New Senators
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that the Clerk has received certificates from the Registrar General of Canada showing that the following persons, respectively, have been summoned to the Senate:The Very Reverend Dr. Lois M. Wilson
Francis William Mahovlich
Calvin Woodrow Ruck
Richard H. Kroft
Marian Maloney
Introduction
The Hon. the Speaker having informed the Senate that there were senators without, waiting to be introduced:The following honourable senators were introduced; presented Her Majesty's writs of summons; took the oath prescribed by law, which was administered by the Clerk; and were seated:
Hon. The Very Reverend Dr. Lois M. Wilson, of Toronto, Ontario, introduced between Hon. B. Alasdair Graham, P.C., and Hon. Landon Pearson.
Hon. Francis William Mahovlich, of Toronto, Ontario, introduced between Hon. B. Alasdair Graham, P.C., and Hon. John Bryden.
Hon. Calvin Woodrow Ruck, of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, introduced between Hon. B. Alasdair Graham, P.C., and Hon. Mary Butts.
Hon. Richard H. Kroft, of Winnipeg, Manitoba, introduced between Hon. B. Alasdair Graham, P.C., and Hon. Sharon Carstairs.
Hon. Marian Maloney, of Etobicoke, Ontario, introduced between Hon. B. Alasdair Graham, P.C., and Hon. Lucie Pépin.
The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that each of the honourable senators named above had made and subscribed the declaration of qualification required by the Constitution Act, 1867, in the presence of the Clerk of the Senate, the Commissioner appointed to receive and witness the said declaration.
(2000)
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, according to the ancient Chinese proverb, "A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step," fifty years ago, the first step in the journey toward a freer, fairer world was taken when the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In so doing, the international conscience of man entered the early dawn of freedom.
Senator Lois Wilson has spent her life understanding that there are no shortcuts to a more peaceful and more tolerant world. She has believed always, as someone once said, that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
As an author, minister and internationally known authority on human rights issues, she would know better than most that the long journey of growth of freedom and respect for human rights in our time, in the political as well as the social and economic meaning of rights, is rather like watching an aircraft carrier turning. It is the few degrees of tilt to port or to starboard which frustrate so many throughout the international community.
It has not been the sweeping, 180-degree turns which have led to the growing emergence of internationally shared norms on questions of human rights and democratic freedoms in our time. Rather, it is the constant few degrees of tilt to port or starboard engineered by the commitment, the determination and the courage of brilliant internationalists like The Very Reverend Dr. Wilson that have strengthened the conscience of mankind, whether it has been through her work with Amnesty International or with the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, or latterly, as the chair of the board of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development.
Whether it has been her service as a United Church minister, as the first Canadian president of the World Council of Churches, or in her current positions as Chancellor of Lakehead University and Vice-President of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Senator Wilson has worked passionately for a new law on earth; a new law whereby the true test of civilization, the acid test of civilized nations and societies, is how they treat the poor and illiterate, how they treat those who are hungry and those who are persecuted by repressive governments, how they treat women and minorities, how they treat the most defenceless among us, the tiny babies and the little children of the planet.
The children of the world do not understand globalization, computers, trade pacts and gross domestic product. However, they are born among us and raised among us with rights; rights to shelter and good health care, rights to nourishment and protection, rights to societies that respect them and love them, rights to the promise of a better world. These are rights which a Pearson Prize winner would understand; these are rights which the winner of the World Federalist Peace Award would understand; these are rights which an Officer of the Order of Canada would understand; but more than anything, these are rights which a mother of four and a grandmother of 12 would understand, because she will understand them with the heart.
Tonight, we welcome Senator Lois Wilson to our midst. Wherever she has travelled, she has become a symbol of hope where hope has often been forgotten. By her very presence, she has signified a glimpse of what is possible to poor and frightened people, both here in Canada and around the world.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Graham: Honourable senators, one of Canada's all-time great runners, Bruce Kidd, once said that the rink is a symbol of the country's vast stretches of water and wilderness, its extremes of climate. The player, he said, is a symbol of our struggle to civilize such a land. He spoke of an important truth when he called hockey "the great Canadian metaphor." In many ways, that great Canadian metaphor is personified in the legendary figure of Senator Frank Mahovlich; Calder Trophy winner and one of hockey's true superstars who played on six Stanley Cup winning teams - four for the Toronto Maple Leafs and two with the Montreal Canadiens.
Honourable senators will know and understand the pure delight that I personally have in welcoming to this chamber "The Big M," a greatly honoured figure in the Hall of Fame. All of my life I have loved this game and to this day I continue to play on these rickety old legs. I watch it; I talk about it constantly. As a matter of fact, as a former broadcaster at the Antigonish radio station CJFX, which my honourable colleague Lowell Murray will recall, I followed at a play-by-play microphone in the steps of our friend and fellow Xavierian, the late Danny Gallivan, whose legendary voice would become synonymous with the poetry in motion which was the Montreal Canadiens.
As many of you know, the rink, our great Canadian metaphor, has a central place in the lives of Cape Bretoners; families such as my own where the game is played and replayed. That is something, Frank, that your bother Peter, who is in the gallery tonight and who coached the Cape Breton Oilers, would understand as well as anyone.
Frank Mahovlich scored 626 goals and was selected to nine all-star teams, tying the record for most playoff points in 1971. None of this is news to the many hockey fans seated in this chamber, particularly Senator Peggy Butts from Bridgeport, Glace Bay, who grew up with me playing the game herself on the local bogs and ponds. Incidentally, Sister Peggy has a command of the stats which is probably unbeatable in this chamber.
For so many of us here tonight, and for Canadians from coast to coast, the sound of the first slap shot, the first puck hitting the boards, was and is the first shock of psychic electricity that unites hearts and minds in this country irrespective of regions and time zones or ethnic backgrounds, because if there ever was a visible, passionate and inspirational testimony of our magnificent multiculturalism, it was and is hockey.
(2010)
If there ever was an inspirational and visible ambassador for the game, and a model for our youth, it was the great left-winger, Frank Mahovlich - a man of power and grace with a trademark skating style whose blades flashed brilliantly on the ice, a hockey legend who has learned all there is to learn about endurance, courage, pain and about humility being part of the elation that comes with winning.
I do not know of anyone who has given as much time to Canadian kids as "The Big M." When you watch him at work with them, as I was able to do at a Tim Horton event in Nova Scotia last year, you see the magic of a presence that gives not only tremendous motivation but belief, hope and confidence as well, along with the values, class and nobility that are all part of the persona of one of Canada's finest gentleman emissaries of the sport.
Frank, you are a symbol of national pride, courage and the pursuit of excellence. Your presence here tonight represents a country united. You strengthen the conviction in all of us that the bonds that bring Canadians together are much stronger than those that keep us apart.
Senator Mahovlich, we welcome you most sincerely to this chamber.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Graham: Honourable senators, when we all reflected this past April 4 on the thirtieth anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, some of us may have remembered the beautiful words of the speech he gave in Memphis the day before his tragic death. He said:
I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over and I've seen the promised land. So I'm happy tonight.
The man who had a dream that his children would one day live in a nation where they would not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character died the following day. However, his dream lived on. It lived on in all those people whose lives were shaped and guided by it, in all those people who believed that the challenges, the injustices and the inequities of life could always be beaten by the indomitable power of the human heart, of the human spirit.
Senator Calvin Woodrow Ruck spent his life guided by that dream, guided by the content of his character. Cal grew up in my part of the world, in Sydney, Nova Scotia, and was raised in the spirit of self-help and community cooperation which was always so much a part of the Cape Breton psyche.
He knew that the people together make giants, as our own Father Jimmy Tompkins once said. He knew that you only had to give them ideas and they would blow the roof off together.
In all the years he worked as a labourer and a porter with the CNR and as a cleaner at CFB Shearwater, he kept his heart and mind focused squarely on the promised land of freedom. All through his later efforts at community development and the years spent as a social worker, and as a human rights officer who played a key role in desegregation of public accommodation with the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, Cal looked with the heart.
Later, he would give freely of his time to the Black Cultural Centre of Nova Scotia, the North Preston Day Care Board and the Nova Scotia Association for the Advancement of Coloured People. In all this, he distinguished himself from those who had sight but no vision. He distinguished himself from those who failed to understand that the real things in life, the real things such as hope and compassion, tolerance and human rights, were those which were invisible to the eye.
Senator Ruck has won a long list of honours in this country because he has fought for a Canada in which our children and our grandchildren will go up on to the mountain and see the promised land. He has fought for a country in which they all will have a fair opportunity to do their very best, a country where they have the right to grow up equal, a country where children will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.
Tonight, we welcome a man who has received the Certificate of Honour from the Black Hall of Fame, the National Harry Jerome Award, along with an Honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Dalhousie University. We welcome a man who had a dream about freedom, a courageous man who has distinguished himself from the multitude of those who have sight but no vision.
Senator Ruck, we are honoured to welcome you to this chamber.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Graham: Honourable senators, in this magnificent chamber of the regions we remember the vast reach of our multicultural federation as we proceed from Atlantic Canada to the gateway to the Canadian West.
"Winnipeg is the west," Rupert Brooks once wrote. Winnipeg is, indeed, the historic city where east meets west. It is a place where openness of hearts and openness of minds is a way of life. In many ways, it is a mirror of the fine multicultural sweep of the whole of Canada.
Senator Richard Kroft is a native of that special place. In many ways, he personifies the pulse of his city. He personifies lifestyles based on determination, self-reliance and enterprise, a career which has led to many successful business endeavours in finance, grains, metals and investments, as well as environmental controls and protection.
In all these endeavours, as well as his service as an executive committee member with the recently formed Business Council of Manitoba, he has contributed greatly to his home city at the geographic centre of our nation.
Senator Kroft, all of us here tonight are assembled in this, the workshop of government, to make a difference. We are charged here with grave and onerous duties which require devotion, courage and great energy, along with service to others. We know we must never tire in the search for the facts or in the search for the truth. We must never tire in the search for what is right, because we in this chamber are the custodians of the basic freedoms of Canadians. We are the guardians at the gate.
Senator Kroft, you have received the Order of Canada because you have understood that to those of whom much has been given, much is expected in return. As a citizen of the gateway to the Prairies, you are part of a tradition of social reform. You are a citizen of a special place which has become home to waves of immigrants from across the planet, and which has evolved over the decades into a multicultural treasure.
You are part of a proud legacy wherein the meaning of real success is measured by what you give back to your city, to your province, and to your country. In this regard, your efforts in support of the Jewish Foundation of Manitoba, as a member of the Executive Committee of the Pan-American Games Society, and as a Capital Campaign Committee Member for the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, all reflect the sense of caring and sharing which is so much the Winnipeg way.
No Canadian who watched the flooding of the Red River in Manitoba will ever forget the sight of the thousands of Manitobans who battled a great natural disaster with courage, patience and back-breaking efforts, Manitobans who are in so many ways a microcosm of the planet.
We welcome you to the workshop of government, Senator Kroft, a place where we are blessed with people of unusual talents and dedication from all walks of life. It will be a great privilege to work with you in the days ahead. We know that you will carry out your responsibility in this historic chamber with great care, dedication and attention to the continuing search for what is right.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
(2020)
Senator Graham: Honourable senators, many decades ago Nellie McClung wrote that a woman's place in the new order is to bring vision and imagination to work on life's problems. If this courageous member of the Valiant Five was here today, she would no doubt smile approvingly as Senator Marian Maloney is welcomed to this chamber. No doubt, as she looked at the 31 women senators who are members of this chamber, she would think of the landmark decision in the Persons Case delivered by Lord Stanley, Lord Chancellor of the Privy Council of Great Britain in 1929, a decision by which women became eligible to be summoned to and become members of the Senate of Canada. Yes, tonight we reflect on the Valiant Five and the messengers of the past, and we think of the good fight for a new order, the good fight for a fair, just and equitable society that women like Marian Maloney have given so much to bring to fruition.
Her personal success as a businesswoman and community organizer has been based on some pretty timeless truths. Marian has always given a little more than she had to. She is known to have always aimed a little higher than maybe even she thought possible. She has consistently tried a little harder than probably even she often wanted to.
Senator Maloney has always understood that leadership is not someone else's concern; it has to come from all of us. Self-reliance is not someone else's concern; it has to come from all of us. Generosity is not someone else's concern; it has to come from all of us. She has always understood our collective loss as a nation when citizens say too often and too easily: What is in it for me?
When the amalgamation of Fort William and Port Arthur took place, Marian worked tirelessly as chair of the 1970 celebration. When the St. Joseph's Hospital Auxiliary and the Thunder Bay Big Brothers needed her, Marian always gave a little more than she had to. When the Toronto Chapter of the Canadian Kidney Association needed her, she did not ask, "What is in it for me?" She spent more time than even she may have thought possible. When the chronic care hospital in Runnymede needed her, she went beyond her fingertips to make a difference, believing always that the real meaning of success is to know, as someone once said, that even one life has breathed easier because you have lived.
Marian, you have worked all your life for a new order, and in so doing you have brought vision and imagination to work on many of life's problems. In supporting the causes of so many worthy women candidates in political life, women who have struggled against the current, you have helped bring new levels of understanding, new levels of compassion and fairness to political life in this country. These are women who will never be shy to get the job done, who will fight the good fight, and if they do not like it, as Nellie once said, they will "give them hell."
In the spirit of the Valiant Five and the good fight of 1929, we welcome you, Senator Maloney, to the Senate of Canada.
Indeed we extend the warmest of welcome to all the new senators who have joined us in this chamber tonight.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I must say this is a first for the Senate. Here we have five new colleagues, not one of whom has been extolled for any partisan activity, particularly with the Liberal Party. I was wondering perhaps they might be more comfortable sitting as Independents.
I am very tempted to say something about each one of them, but I realize that their friends and relatives are in the galleries and anxious to see them as soon as possible to end, together, a very special day. Let me just say that on behalf of the colleagues on this side, I am pleased to join with the Leader of the Government in the Senate in welcoming our five new colleagues, who will soon make their mark here, although after reading their biographies and in particular their birth dates, some will unfortunately not have as much time as others to do so.
Honourable senators, our five new senators come to the Senate at a time when it is under siege as never before. While some of the criticism directed at the institution has merit, most is petty, partisan posturing. Seldom, however, are individual senators the object of this criticism, except for the naive notion that the greater one's attendance in the chamber, the more assiduous one becomes. Even its severest critics must recognize that the Senate of Canada is made up of individuals whose backgrounds and experience are unequaled by any elected legislature in Canada, beginning with the other place. Such is the value of the appointment process, and the talents and abilities which the newest members are bringing to the Senate reconfirm that value. I wish them well as they assume their new responsibilities.
Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, I rise as well to welcome the five new senators to this place, but I should like to make a special mention tonight and welcome Senator Mahovlich to a new arena. There are no bodychecks here, but there will be some verbal checks, I am sure, back and forth.
Honourable senators, I have worked with Frank, his brother Peter and others in the NHL Oldtimers Association in raising funds for the less privileged in Canada. Senator Graham mentioned some of the work that Senator Mahovlich and others in the NHL and former NHLers do for the youth of Canada, and the work is remarkable. We hold an annual golf tournament in British Columbia with the NHL Oldtimers Association; with names like Keith McCreary, Eddie Shack, the Hull brothers and Andy Bathgate, to mention just a few. Peter, of course, is always there with us, along with Frank, and they make a difference for the charities in British Columbia.
Senator Mahovlich, I wish you could have been a right winger, because we have a seat open over here on the right wing. However, being that you are a left winger, you ended up over there. I can appreciate that fact. I think what is really important is that you are here and that you have been chosen to be here with us to make your contribution. I am asking you to continue to make your contributions as you have in the past, which I am sure you will do. I am looking forward to seeing you on July 23 at the Northview Golf and Country Club in British Columbia, along with Peter and other committed volunteers.
I wish to thank honourable senators for giving me the opportunity to mention this great charity in British Columbia, but most of all to welcome the five senators here this evening, especially the one I know, Senator Mahovlich.
Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, I, too, wish to welcome all of the new senators to this chamber, but I have a particular welcome for the distinguished representative from Manitoba. I certainly approve of the Prime Minister's choice. For those of us from Manitoba, we can relax a little because some of the burden of responsibility will be shifted on to the capable shoulders of the Honourable Senator Richard Kroft. I know that he will be a credit to his province, to the Senate, and to his country. I extend my congratulations to his wonderful family, who are all here this evening.
Welcome, Richard.
[Translation]
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I would like people to know that there are Independent senators. I wish the five new senators a very warm welcome. I knew all five of them before their appointment, two of them very well.
What I cannot understand is why Mrs. Wilson has been seated at the far end of the chamber. Whether it is the far right or the far left, I do not know, but I would like to tell her that I do not represent the far right. Quite the contrary. I am familiar with her long career. I know that she and I could see eye to eye about the reforms needed to correct all of Canada's social problems. After all, her role as president of the World Council of Churches makes her a leader in social justice.
I am delighted at Mrs. Maloney's appointment to the Senate or, as the Vatican would say, her creation as a senator.
[English]
(2030)
I have regretted very much the bias of some younger journalists. I usually do not criticize them, but they should have known at least the identity of Ms Maloney. I noticed her as a Young Liberal and as a young member of the House, I noticed her, and since I have been in the Senate, I have noticed her extraordinary, avant-garde promotion of women in politics. If she does not deserve a Senate seat, I do not know who does, politically liberal or otherwise.
This chamber is a place where everyone should be represented. In that sense, I welcome this great senator, Senator Mahovlich. He will be a real senator because, in Ottawa, we are not too lucky with our other Senators. Perhaps you can teach them a good lesson.
I welcome, too, this great fighter for black rights, Senator Ruck.
There are still two seats vacant in this chamber. Perhaps there will be more vacancies over the summer. I still entreat the Prime Minister to follow the advice that I have given him in private, and which is now public, that he should use his prerogative to move towards the goal of more equality in the Senate, especially for women. I believe in it. I always believed in it in the House of Commons when I was a Young Liberal. I believe in it on behalf of my sister and my family. I believe in total equality. Here, as I say often, we have the option. The Prime Minister has the option. You can try in the House of Commons, as Senator Maloney has tried over the years, but here we have the option and, when there is a vacancy, he should continue his great effort.
I see in the gallery, for instance, Judy Erola. Would she not be marvelous in the Senate? I see Monique Bégin. Would it not be extraordinary to have these fighters in the Senate chamber? While Canada is under attack, these people could help us to help all Canadians understand the importance of this country.
Senator Kroft I knew in the Young Liberals. He looks much younger than I do, but I think we are of the same age. I knew him to be very active in Manitoba and that goes back a long time.
Welcome, Senator Kroft, Senator Wilson, Senator Ruck, Senator Maloney and Senator Mahovlich. If you ever change your mind, it takes only two to change the Senate, a proposer and a seconder. There is plenty of room in the Independent quarters. Senator Wilson, I can see you and I wave to you. I would hope to sit closer to you eventually.
I am pleased to join with all others to welcome you all very warmly to the Senate chamber.
Hon. John Buchanan: Honourable senators, I, too, would welcome the new senators. I have known Senator Lois Wilson for many years. I had the great privilege, as premier of Nova Scotia, to induct her as a member of the oldest social club in North America when she was moderator of the United Church. The Order of the Good Time, l'Ordre du bon temps, was founded in 1606. I will not go into the four questions that I asked her many years ago.
I also welcome Senator Frank Mahovlich, on behalf of myself but primarily on behalf of my sister who, over the years, has been your biggest fan. She told me to give you a kiss from her. I will not do that but I will blow the kiss to you.
Specifically, I want to welcome a fellow Cape Bretoner who, like myself, was born in Sydney: Dr. Calvin Ruck. I have known Senator Ruck for many years. He is a member of a Cape Breton family which can claim adherence to a quality few can claim in service to people. Calvin Ruck is a total and true manifestation of that quality. From a hard-working young man to an adult community-worker, he worked his way up to becoming one of the top social workers in Nova Scotia. He is a very distinguished Nova Scotian. During my years as premier of that great province, he was always available to work with people through the Human Rights Commission, the black community, the black cultural centre - he was present at its opening - and in many other organizations.
His brother, Winston, who is known to Cape Bretoners in this place, was certainly a friend of Cape Breton and, in my opinion, one of the finest presidents that the United Steel Workers of America had over the years. He was very distinguished.
Dr. Cal, I welcome you on behalf of all Nova Scotians. You are known from Victoria County to Yarmouth County. You, sir, will make a very positive contribution to this Senate. You are one of God's good gentlemen.
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
The Senate
Reflections on Various Party Leaders
Hon. Philippe Deane Gigantès: Honourable senators, as I am about to leave this place, I should like to take a moment to speak about the leaders on both sides of this chamber.I had the privilege of serving under Senator MacEachen, whom some of you perhaps found difficult. That was his job. He was a master of parliamentary procedure, of tactics, and a man of great wisdom who has given much to Canada's vaunted social programs.
His assistant, Senator Frith, in a moment of mad passion, turned us all into young D'Artagnans, and we went into our wild follies which you on the opposite side did not appreciate, but which I personally enjoyed. Afterwards, there was civility to restore to this chamber, and Senator Fairbairn did that with the able assistance first of Senator Molgat and then of Senator Graham.
Now I have Senator Graham, who is immensely kind to me and very patient, and Senator Carstairs whom I much admire and love.
I would like also to speak of the leaders opposite. I always enjoyed and respected Senator Doody, a great gentleman. I have enjoyed my relationship with Senator Berntson; I have enjoyed the two excellent leaders opposite, whom I have had to face. If, sometimes, I have appeared to jab at them a little too much, I would attribute that to my father, who said, "If you want to learn to box, get in the ring and jab at champions."
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
A Bill to Change the Name of Certain Electoral Districts
Message from the Commons
The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill C-410, to change the names of certain electoral districts, and acquainting the Senate that they have agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this bill without further amendment.[Translation]
Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act
Bill to Amend-Amendments from Commons
The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-2, to amend the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill with the following amendments, to which they desire the concurrence of the Senate:1. Page 9, clause 17: Strike out lines 5 and 6 and substitute the following:
"(i) the flight deck of an aircraft"
2. Page 9, clause 17: Strike out lines 16 and 17 and substitute the following:
"ing personnel, on the flight deck of the aircraft, on"
On motion of Senator Carstairs, bill placed on Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting.
[English]
The Estimates, 1998-99
Report of National Finance Committee on Supplementary Estimates (A) Presented and Printed as Appendix
Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, which deals with Supplementary Estimates (A), 1998-99.(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, Appendix, p. 832.)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?
On motion of Senator Carstairs, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.
Budget Implementation Bill, 1998
Report of Committee
Hon. Terry Stratton, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, presented the following report:Monday, June 15, 1998
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance has the honour to present its
SIXTH REPORT
Your Committee, to which was referred Bill C-36, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Monday, June 8, 1998, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment.Respectfully submitted,
TERRANCE R. STRATTON
Chair
On motion of Senator Carstairs, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.
National Parks Act
Bill to Amend-First Reading
The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message has been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-38, to amend the National Parks Act.Bill read first time.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?
On motion of Senator Carstairs, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading on Wednesday next, June 17, 1998.
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Notices of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Dimensions of Social Cohesion in Canada
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I give notice that on Tuesday next, June 16, 1998, I will move:That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to examine and report upon the dimensions of social cohesion in Canada in the context of globalization and other economic and structural forces that influence trust and reciprocity among Canadians.
That the committee present its report no later than June 30, 1999.
Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group
Thirty-Ninth Annual Meeting-Notice of Inquiry
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, I give notice that on Wednesday next, June 17, 1998, I will call the attention of the Senate to the thirty-ninth annual meeting of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group held in Nantucket in May, 1998.QUESTION PERIOD
Atomic Energy of Canada
Aid and Information Supplied to Purchasers of CANDU Reactors-Difference of Opinion on Financial Risks-Government Position
Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, last week I questioned the Leader of the Government in the Senate about the government's diligence in signing this country's largest loan guarantee ever to finance the sale of CANDU reactors to China, without an environmental assessment or the oversight necessary for federally financed projects. That question was premised on reports of a sworn statement by a senior Finance Department official that the department had neither seen nor reviewed the loan guarantee. Since then, more court documents and more internal memos have come to light showing that, five months before the deal was signed, the EDC president wrote to the Deputy Minister of Finance, saying their officials had been working together on the text of the loan guarantee for months, and that eight months before the signing, Department of Finance officials were warning about the deal's major financial risks.Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate clarify the seeming contradiction between the sworn statement of Mr. Cameron of the Department of Finance, which claimed no departmental involvement, and that of Mr. Giles of the Export Development Corporation, who disputed that claim?
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the government does receive thorough analysis and what is considered to be objective advice from the Export Development Corporation.
With its responsibilities as required under the Export Development Act in considering CANDU project proposals, the ministers responsible rely upon the financial risk analysis and assessment provided by EDC and the contract expertise of the exporter, AECL. That was the case with the sale to China and also with the bid for Turkey.
Senator Spivak: Both AECL and the federal government have refused to disclose the key features of this $1.5-billion loan guarantee to China, including the interest rates, the repayment schedule, the default penalties, the exchange rate risks, the government costs to cover the loan, and the projected profit margin.
(2050)
Can we be assured that, in the deal with Turkey, we will be informed of the finance department's review of the $1.5-billion loan guarantee for the proposed sale to Turkey?
Senator Graham: Honourable senators, neither ministers nor departments exercise direct control over the Export Development Corporation's commercial operations or the specifics of the contracts. If the information is available with respect to the proposed sale to Turkey, I certainly will bring it forward.
Hon A. Raynell Andreychuk: I had previously asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate if the government would impose a moratorium on any further sales of CANDU reactors. In light of the evidence coming out on the China deal, the question is: Who is in charge? Is it the government? Is it the Prime Minister? Is it Atomic Energy of Canada Limited? Is it the EDC? There seems to be more confusion and more risk than on any other deal, with $2.5 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money, in American funds, at stake.
Could we have some assurance that there will be a moratorium until the issues of safety, security, and exposure for the Canadian taxpayers are identified and monitored appropriately?
Senator Graham: Quite obviously, the matter is under review. As I mentioned, the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Finance review such projects as part of their respective responsibilities vis-à-vis the Export Development Corporation. Neither ministers nor departments exercise direct control, but the matter is certainly under constant review.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Who named Robert Nixon? Was it the Chinese?
Some Hon. Senators: Shame, shame!
Post-Secondary Education
Millenium Scholarship Foundation-Comparison of Accountability with Canada Pension Plan Investment Board-Disclosure of By-laws-Government Position
Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, on Tuesday last, officials of the Department of Finance confirmed that the Millennium Scholarship Foundation will be under no legal obligation to make public its organizational by-laws, and members of the Senate National Finance Committee were told that this is because it is not appropriate to require an arm's length organization to release such information. Yet, section 28 of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act specifically requires that any by-law passed by the CPP Investment Board be both provided to the provinces and made available to the public. Both the foundation and the CPP board are supposedly arm's length organizations. Why is it appropriate to require the CPP Investment Board to release its by-laws while exempting the foundation?Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): It is a very good question and I know that the Minister of Finance appeared before the committee this morning and addressed several questions with respect to the arm's length position of the millennium scolarship fund administration. I am sure that honourable senators received their answers at that particular time.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: No, we did not.
Senator Tkachuk: We did not.
Senator Graham: With respect to the by-laws and information being provided to the provinces and the public, that is ceretainly the case as it applies to the CPP Investment Board.
Senator Tkachuk: Bill C-36, among other things, establishes the Millennium Scholarship Foundation. During our study of that bill, the minister admitted that there was a problem with certain proposed provisions to the Old Age Security Act. However, he undertook to fix those problems in the fall if we would pass the bill now. Is it possible that he will also undertake to fix this part of the act in the fall?
Would the Leader of the Government in the Senate ask the minister to clarify whether this was a legislative mistake on the part of those who drafted the bill, or whether there was a deliberate reason for them not to make those by-laws public?
Senator Graham: I am sure that question was raised at the committee hearing this morning, but I will bring my honourable friend's representations to the attention of the Minister of Finance tomorrow morning.
Senator Tkachuk: I have one more question, the answer to which might go some way to explaining why these by-laws are not made public.
Members of our committee debated whether we should put forward amendments that would establish an investment committee. That suggestion was rejected by the minister in committee today. My concern was that, perhaps, the by-laws would not be made public because they might disclose some information about how the government will fund the $2.5 billion that is necessary to establish the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, and if that was the reason to contain any further questioning by members of Parliament and members of this institution.
Senator Graham: I would be very surprised if the by-laws were not made public.
Solicitor General
Investigation by RCMP of Release of Private Records to Press-Government Position
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. A few weeks ago, when it was reported that certain papers were leaked from the Privy Council Office, the government undertook to have the RCMP inquire into that matter. Today, in New Brunswick newspapers, the personal health records of Ms Dickey, former member of the Canadian Armed Forces, were published. Will the government undertake to have the RCMP investigate such a leak, or is there a double standard?Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): There is no double standard. As I said on one other occasion, such practices are repugnant and despicable. The matter is under very serious investigation.
Senator Berntson: By whom?
Senator Lynch-Staunton: By the RCMP.
Senator Berntson: Who is investigating?
Senator Graham: I had hoped that the news media would respect the privacy of the individual concerned.
Senator Kinsella: As a supplementary question to the minister: Will the Government of Canada ask the RCMP to investigate this matter?
Senator Graham: I will raise that matter with the responsible authorities tomorrow morning.
Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Request of Dene Nation for Appointment of Independent Boundary Commission to Review Western Boundary of Nunavut-Government Position
Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, Bill C-39 has been passed but the Dene leaders in Manitoba do have some problems. The borders of Nunavut, as they are drawn today, include the Dene homeland. Essentially, the Manitoba Dene want, first, a Supreme Court reference to resolve the question of judicial land use, and, second, the appointment of an independent boundary commission to review revisions to the western boundary of Nunavut.My question for the government leader in the Senate is, knowing that Bill C-39 has been passed, what other remedy is available now to these people of Northern Manitoba?
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): I will bring the matter to the attention of the minister concerned to determine whether or not an appropriate remedy can be found.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Question of Privilege
speaker's ruling deferred
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators when last we met a question of privilege was raised by Senator Cools. I will be prepared to rule tomorrow.Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Bill
Third Reading-Motion in Amendment-Debate Adjourned
On the Order:Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Forest, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fitzpatrick, for the third reading of Bill C-6, to provide for an integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain boards for that purpose and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, we are at third reading debate on Bill C-6, and last Thursday, when we last met in this chamber, we were heavy into that debate with speakers on both sides of the chamber speaking to the bill on third reading.
Honourable senators, like many of you, I did not participate in the proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples where we adopted the bill in principle. That committee then reported the bill and we proceeded to debate on third reading.
Honourable senators, during that debate, certain information was brought forward by the honourable senators who participated in the debate that, quite frankly, many of us found somewhat disturbing. For example, turning to the Debates of the Senate for June 11, at page 1736 one honourable senator makes the following statement:
(2100)
...we asked the minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to appear before the Aboriginal Peoples Committee to discover, first, why the bill was drafted as it was, and, second, to discover if indeed some compromise was possible to satisfy the aboriginal peoples who object to the bill.
Quite frankly, not having participated beyond the debate at second reading, I, like many other honourable senators, was surprised to hear of this situation. I inquired as to whether the minister had received, in good time, an invitation to appear before one of the standing Senate committees to defend a bill of which the given minister was the proponent. The answer I received was that the minister met with some of the members of the committee. The response from the minister was, "I'm too busy, but I will send you a letter explaining my views. I will meet privately with Liberal members of the committee."
Honourable senators, this is not intended in any way to judge members of the Senate who support the government, for I know many of them, when they sat on this side, would have been equally as shocked had we, when sitting on that side, met with a minister without them, offering to tell them what the minister had told us.
Honourable senators, that is simply not acceptable. This house cannot accept that as a principle. It is now on the record of the proceedings of the committee. First, the honourable members in the other place must recognize that the Canadian Parliament is composed of three parts: the House of Commons with 301 members elected directly by the people; the Senate of Canada, which is a house of review, appointed as we are through the process provided by the Constitution of Canada; and the Crown. Until such time as the Constitution is amended, the Parliament of Canada will continue to be made up of three parts, the Senate being one of the three parts, and there is an obligation upon all honourable senators to examine legislation in a logical, thoughtful, careful and responsible manner. I know that that is what all honourable members undertake to do.
A few moments ago, we listened as our new colleagues swore their oath. Intrinsic to that undertaking is our commitment to examine legislation in substance and form and to pass judgment.
If a minister of the Crown says that he or she is too busy to appear before a standing committee of the Senate of Canada, then that minister is too busy to be in the cabinet or to be advancing serious government legislation. This chamber cannot allow itself to be undermined by the failure of a minister to appear before one of its standing committees, which are an extension of the chamber. That is why we have standing committees.
Honourable senators, I listened to the debate and I know there were some problems with the bill. In most bills that we examine there are substantive issues on which there may be room for compromise. That is what the parliamentary process is about. However, there are certain issues of form and process that make our system work. The other day we had the opportunity to observe that our system in Canada for the last 131 years has not done too badly.
Honourable senators, in order to get out of the difficult situation in which we have been placed, it seems to me that this bill ought not to be read the third time at this juncture. That is not to say that I disagree with this bill in any way. Indeed, I supported the bill in principle at second reading. I heard honourable senators from both sides argue some of its substantive issues. However, in our examination we must not be deprived of the minister's evidence. This house must be privy to the policy objectives to which only a minister can speak. Officials cannot speak to government policy issues. Only ministers are able to do that.
If the ministers do not understand our system, we should invite them to attend a Political Science 1000 course during the holidays in order that they might learn that in our system it is ministers who have the responsibility to speak, not only in this chamber but in the other place, on matters of policy.
Motion in Amendment
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I move:That Bill C-6, an act to provide for an integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain boards for that purpose and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be not now read the third time but that it be referred to a Committee of the Whole for further consideration.
We hope, of course, that the minister will appear before the Committee of the Whole in order that we might resolve this matter once and for all.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
On motion of Senator Carstairs, debate adjourned.
[Translation]
Income Tax Amendments Bill, 1997
Third Reading-debate adjourned
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government) moved that Bill C-28, to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Western Grain Transition Payments Act and certain acts related to the Income Tax Act, be read the third time.Hon. Jean-Maurice Simard: Honourable senators, I intend to speak at third reading. I can speak this evening for about a half-hour, if the honourable senators so wish, or I can defer my remarks until tomorrow.
On motion of Senator Simard, debate adjourned.
[English]
Appropriation Bill No. 2, 1998-99
Second Reading-Debate Adjourned
Hon. Anne C. Cools moved the second reading of Bill C-45, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1999.She said: Honourable senators, I wish to welcome Senator Mahovlich.
This is a new hockey game, senator. I trust that you will score as well here. I promise you that you must be very fast on your feet, as opposed to your skates.
(2110)
Honourable senators, when enacted, Bill C-45 will be cited as the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1998-99. Bill C-45 provides for the release of final supply for 1998-99, being $27.7 billion.
The Main Estimates for 1998-99 were tabled in the other place on February 26, 1998, and here in the Senate on March 17. The Main Estimates for 1998-99 total $145.5 billion in planned budgetary expenditures for the fiscal year which ends March 31, 1999. This $145.5 billion includes $103 billion stemming from existing legislation and $42.4 billion in expenditures for which parliamentary authority must be granted.
As honourable senators will recall, earlier this year we passed the interim supply bill, Bill C-34, in the amount of $14.7 billion. The bill before us today, Bill C-45, seeks spending authority for the remaining $27.7 billion.
Honourable senators, before and since the adoption of our interim report on March 26, our National Finance Committee has continued to study the Main Estimates, and will continue to do so following adoption of Bill C-45.
The witnesses to date who have appeared before our committee have included Jocelyne Bourgon, Clerk of the Privy Council, and Denis Desautels, Auditor General of Canada, among others. As I said, our committee will continue its study of the Main Estimates, and make its final report upon completion of that study.
As honourable senators know, control of the public purse is Parliament's primary function. It is stated at page 67 of Erskine May's Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, Twenty-first Edition, that:
...the most important power vested in any branch of the legislature, the right of imposing taxes upon the people and of voting money for the public service.
Erskine May was speaking about the other place, the House of Commons; however, in Canada, the Senate has an important role in authorizing, along with the House of Commons, expenditures of public money. By supervising expenditures and reviewing expenditures, we are fulfilling Parliament's primary function.
Honourable senators, since 1993 the government has endeavoured to regain control of the nation's finances. Federal government spending has been reduced to a sustainable level, and the government is projecting balanced budgets for this fiscal year and for the following two fiscal years. These achievements are reflected in the Estimates, and the government is to be congratulated on its success. I especially congratulate Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and the Minister of Finance, Paul Martin.
I urge all honourable senators to support the passage of Bill C-45 so that the government can continue to do its work.
On motion of Senator Stratton, debate adjourned.
[Translation]
Parliament of Canada Act,
Members of Parliament Retiring
Allowances Act,
Salaries Act
Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Debate Adjourned
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government) moved the second reading of Bill C-47, to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act.She said: Honourable senators, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on Bill C-47, to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act.
The bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Blais commission on the remuneration of members of the House of Commons and of the Senate, which were tabled in February.
[English]
As the Blais commission report stated:
Service as a member of Parliament is a public service, and members should not and do not expect compensation that would amount to a financial windfall.
But by the same token, no one should be required to face financial hardship as a result of a term of elected office.
Pay and benefits should therefore be realistic in terms of the actual demands on members, and should keep pace with trends in society generally - or at least not lag behind them significantly.
[Translation]
Bill C-47 was introduced and passed in the other chamber last Thursday, June 11, and tabled that same day in the Senate. The bill offers a reasonable solution to a complex and difficult problem. It is a non-partisan solution that meets the concerns expressed by both Houses of Parliament and by all parties. This is a case where Parliament has agreed on a solution to a difficult problem.
[English]
Bill C-47 contains two key provisions. First, there would be a 2-per-cent annual increase in remuneration for senators and MPs starting January 1, 1998. This would apply to the sessional indemnity and all other allowances. It would replace the existing cost of living adjustment, which would have been about 1 per cent this year.
A 2-per-cent increase is modest and reasonable in the context of increases in the private sector, for parliamentarians in other countries and for the public service. Private sector wage settlements were 2.2 per cent in February 1998, and recent public service settlements have averaged about 2 per cent.
Senators and MPs have not had a remuneration increase, other than partial cost of living adjustments, since 1980. In 1980, the sessional indemnity was 120 per cent of the average salary of a high school principal; in 1996, it was 75 per cent.
In 1997, Canadian MPs ranked ninth in a survey of remuneration - below Japan, the United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, Norway and New Zealand. Indeed, the Blais report noted that a Canadian parliamentarian's salary in October 1997 was 37 per cent of that of a United States Congressman.
The second key provision of the bill would allow members who opted out of the pension plan in the last Parliament to be allowed to opt back in. Members of the other place who are at least 55 years of age and choose not to opt back in would be given a supplementary severance allowance equal to one month's remuneration for every year of service up to a maximum of 12 months. Allowing members of the other place to opt back into the MPs' pension plan is consistent with the government's view that the MPs' pension plan is a reasonable plan for members of Parliament.
For those members of the other place who choose not to opt back in, there would be a supplementary severance allowance. Members of the other place who retire at 55 and are not entitled to a pension would receive an additional one month of remuneration for every year of service to a maximum of 12 months. Members of the other place who are under 55 years of age would receive the supplementary severance allowance when they turn 55 years of age. This provision is similar to the severance package for the Ontario legislature, which provides for a 12-month severance allowance.
The bill also provides for a small increase in the allowance payable to the Speaker of the Senate and an allowance for the Speaker pro tempore in the Senate. This was recommended by the Blais report to give parity with comparable allowances in the other place.
[Translation]
Here are a few recent observations by the media. According to The Toronto Star:
The time is right for a modest increase in parliamentary salaries. Members deserve a salary increase.
According to La Presse:
It is in democracy's interest to raise members' salaries.
[English]
This bill is a sensible and reasonable approach to parliamentary compensation. I urge all honourable senators to support it.
On motion of Senator Berntson, debate adjourned.
Parks canada Agency Bill
Second Reading
On the Order:Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Fitzpatrick, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore, for the second reading of Bill C-29, to establish the Parks Canada Agency and to amend other Acts as a consequence.
Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, Senator Fitzpatrick, who is from the province of British Columbia, gave his maiden speech on Bill C-29. He aptly described what the government's intentions are in respect of this bill.
Honourable senators, Bill C-29 is a bureaucratic response to a lack of policy initiatives by the federal government in respect of the national parks of Canada. We in Western Canada have a particular interest in this public policy because so much of the land mass of all of the national parks in Canada is located in our part of the country. We are also home to some of the most popular parks in all of Canada, while Alberta, our sister province, is home to the most popular park in all of Canada, Banff National Park.
(2120)
In the last five years, the Liberal government has been anything but inspirational in this matter. There has been, and continues to be, much controversy as to how our parks will be managed. With this bill, the government is attempting to blame the system for the lack of policy direction and is arguing that, if we have an agency rather than a department managing the parks, everything will be better and the management will be more efficient, more productive, and more in tune with what the users in the park need and desire. The government, it seems, will accomplish this by setting up an agency, a quasi-department, a Crown-corporation hybrid, and by shifting the present staff to the new agency.
That, honourable senators, is the logic behind the bill. The government is saying it will improve the park system by establishing a new agency of government. It seems to feel that, by taking the same people who were running the parks before and moving them to this new agency, things will improve.
The only significant change will be the mandatory consultation every two years. Instead of user fees for parks being deposited into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, they will be taken up and used by this new agency without its having to go to the House of Commons except once every two years. This sleight of hand will mean that 20 per cent of the budget of the parks will not have to move to general appropriations. What the government is trying to accomplish with this agency is to give itself more freedom to establish user fees and then to spend them as it sees fit without having to come to Parliament for permission.
I have four major concerns regarding this bill. The first is the removal of user fees, which has been a controversial matter over the last five years and is the way the government has raised revenue to meet its deficit mandates, something which I call taxing people without representation. The second area of concern is the use of government personnel to solicit cash for goods and services. Third is the consultation process, which they claim is mandated in the bill every two years. Fourth is the argument by government that privatization in parks has been a failure and that the agency will not be going in that direction.
Honourable senators, make no mistake about it: User fees are a tax, are a tax, are a tax. The federal government has appropriated billions of dollars over the years from the taxpayers to establish national parks. Taxpayers have paid for the parks. Taxpayers have paid for the capital improvements in the parks. Taxpayers have hired the staff in the parks. In fact, the taxpayers have paid for everything. All user fees should go to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the departments and agencies should come before the Parliament of Canada requesting their total budget. To do otherwise gives a licence to an arm of government to impose a tax to pay for some grandiose scheme that they have dreamt up and are planning to implement.
The problem with user fees is that they are only charged by government on things that people need and want, therefore giving bureaucrats a lot of incentive to charge more. Take health care as an example. Everyone fears user fees there because people need health care. It is a good way to get revenue. Airport fees in Vancouver are another example. You have paid for your ticket. It already has a $56 user fee on top of the ticket price, in case you did not notice. Then you walk into the airport to get on the plane and they hit you for another $10.
Park fees are another example.
These fees can be charged in these areas because the government has a monopoly. They do not charge user fees for the National Film Board and the CBC because no one would pay them. That is why there is no user fee for the CBC. The public says, "It is free. Take it out of general appropriations." They cannot get any more tax dollars out of it because no one would volunteer any more tax dollars for it.
In national parks, you pay a fee to get in. In some cases, it is $10 per person; in other cases, $20 per car. Then if you want to backpack, for example, it costs $6 per person. In case any honourable senator does not know, backpacking is wandering around the park with a pack on your back and going off the beaten track. You do not stay on the pavement in Banff. You wander into the mountains with a backpack and they charge you six bucks. That is a user fee.
If you park your car, you have to pay. You cannot park your car in the park without paying. If you are in a town, it could be a meter. Let us say you want to wander off and you need a place to park your car for a while. They have parking lots. You cannot park your car outside those lots because you will get a ticket.
If you want to camp, you must pay a fee. If you use anything whatsoever in the park, there is a fee. Therefore, if you are paying user fees for everything you use in the park, what was the general admission price for? The air you breathe? It is a tax, it is a tax, it is a tax, because everything in the park is paid for by user fees. The admission is simply the right to enter. That is all it is: a tax.
Let us now talk about the part of the bill that says the parks will consult. I know how national parks consult. That was one of the first issues I had to deal with when I was appointed in 1993. It was a small issue, but I remember the national parks administration was wandering around the country consulting on user fees. These are the same people who will be in the new agency that we are told will consult. The government is not changing the people in the administration. They will simply be the same people doing the same consulting.
Honourable senators, on November 17, 1994, I asked the then acting leader, the Honourable Senator Molgat, a question in reference to the consultation process that was going on at that time in the province of Saskatchewan in regard to Waskesiu. The government issued an answer saying that the people involved in education in the Prince Albert area, such as the principals and the school teachers, agreed with charging fees in the summertime. In June, teachers are tired so they throw the kids on a bus. They want to send them on a new experience, so they ship them to a national park to learn something about the environment and the world in which they live. However, they wanted to impose a fee of $2.00 per child, and they said that everyone had agreed.
(2130)
On June 7, 1994, Mr. Boyd Clarke, on behalf of the Prince Albert School District No. 3, wrote a letter to Ms Terry Jackson of the park, stating:
It was the feeling of the group that no extra charges should be put in place for services offered at a National Park. It is appropriate to remember that funding for all park activities already rests with the Canadian taxpayer, and perhaps your directive to recover some of the program costs from those who use the park needs to be re-examined.
Yet, surprisingly, in a survey distributed to park users by the national park, officials said:
School groups now pay a very modest entry fee of $10.00 per bus. They also enjoy a very high level of service...
The letter goes on and on about how wonderful the park is. It then states:
...if we wish to continue to provide quality educational programs, we will need to recover some of the costs. Our consultation with teachers and principals indicates that a fee of $2.00 per student for the duration of their stay is reasonable.
That was a big surprise to the school officials because Ms Shirley Gange, director of education for the public schools in Prince Albert, on October 14 of that year restated the public schools' opposition to the fee increase when she stated:
...any additional charges directed at school groups would result in a significant reduction in our attendance at the park.
Our concern is that, in a brochure distributed by Parks Canada, a statement was made that:
Our consultation with teachers and principals indicates that a fee of $2.00 per student for the duration of their stay is reasonable.
In light of these irregularities that are being permitted to go on in Waskesiu and other parks in Canada, I would ask that the Leader of the Government in the Senate request that the minister conduct an audit. What Terry Jackson was trying to imply and Shirley Gange, the director of education, clearly stated, is that no one talked to them, no one sent them a letter and no one surveyed any principal or anyone in the Department of Education.
Of course, the then Acting Leader of the Government responded, telling me that he would attempt to get a response from the minister, which is the standard response.
In part, the answer to my question was as follows:
In the summer of 1994, more than 100 teachers were contacted by letter and telephone by Prince Albert National Park to solicit their feedback on initial proposals for user fees. Visitors were also asked for their opinions...
The overall response from those who participated in the consultations related to Prince Albert National Park was supportive of the proposal to charge students a fee on a per person per day basis...
Honourable senators, I know a little bit about human nature. I believe the director of education. No one consulted her. Notice how they turned it around and stated that they phoned some teachers. I am sure if you were a Liberal and a left winger you would have replied in this way. However, in the province of Saskatchewan, some Reformers and Tories would probably disagree with that proposition. I can visualize polsters phoning a teacher and asking: "Do you think we should charge students admission fees to a national park?" and the response being "Oh, I think it is a wonderful idea. Charge students more money. I support the government on this."
Honourable senators, do not believe that for a minute. I will not say they L-I-E-D, but I will say that the bureaucrats were twisting the truth. These are the same people who will be going through the same consultation process in the future and offering advice. They will be phoning people in the community and telling us that they consulted the people, and the people were in favour of higher fees.
The argument is that fees are based on cost recovery. That is the government's premise by its introduction of this bill. That is nonsense. I think I have appropriately demonstrated that no consultation has taken place.
Within the park, one must deal with the bureaucracy that fixes the prices. In fact, no business goes on inside the park that cannot be privatized. The reason the government argues that privatization has failed is that, if parks were privatized, you would have competition and you could no longer charge a big user fee. If we had a private campground operating a national park rather than the civil servants, the fees might be lower.
The argument that privatization has been a failure, as propagated by the minister in charge, is nonsense. The bureaucrats might get some argument from Canadian Pacific, which operates the Banff Springs Hotel in Banff National Park; the Château Lake Louise, which operates in Banff National Park; Starbucks Coffee Company, and a host of other restaurants and services in all of the national parks of Canada where private enterprise seems to work extremely well servicing the public. The exception seems to be that they cannot run a campground. They cannot take admissions at the gate. Apparently, we need a bureaucracy to do that.
Honourable senators, I maintain - and some will disagree with me - that private individuals, businesses and enterprises can and should operate the camp sites and perform all the work that goes with that, such as maintaining the grounds, landscaping, providing security, garbage disposal and snow removal.
What do all those people who work in Waskesiu do in winter when the park is closed? After October, the only people who can go into the park are those who work there, the bureaucrats. There is nothing for them to do except clean up after themselves. If you have lived in northern Saskatchewan for any length of time, you know that winter takes up a large portion of the year. Frankly, no one goes to that park on the long weekend in May. No one shows up until July 1.
None of this will happen because parks might be cheaper to go to and more people might want to visit them. That is the conundrum of the park operation. It is the conundrum of the minister: What will we do if people actually want to come to the park? What we do is make it difficult for them to come because if people come, it is bad for the environment, you see. We prevent people from coming to the park by charging them and making sure we do not have competition.
I found it interesting that our present Minister of Parks, Sheila Copps, saw fit to scold the people of Banff. This is the great consultation process. We will all remember this new consultation process. She said to the people of Banff, "I want you to come up with a plan with respect to how we deliver the services to the people who want to come to Banff National Park." You know what? They worked for a year and they did that, and the minister said she was very disappointed in them.
Senator Berntson: Without even seeing it.
Senator Tkachuk: She was very disappointed in them because they did not present an eco-plan for the next century - whatever that is.
Senator Taylor seems to find this amusing. Perhaps he could help me out, since he comes from the province of Alberta where Banff National Park is located. However, I still do not know anything about the eco-plan for the town of Banff in the province of Alberta.
That is the consultation process of the government. The government says, "Come and help us because we want your ideas." However, when they do come forward, the minister gives the people of Banff heck and chastises them for wanting others to come to the park.
(2140)
I know that all honourable senators want to see a national park system that works, but we should vote against Bill C-29. We should throw it out and thereby send a signal to the government that they must start thinking about what they will do with all the parks in Canada. How will we govern them so that people can enjoy them? How will we plan for future development of the parks to make people feel welcome and yet not destroy the environment? We want people to feel that they are a part of their parks, rather than feeling that they are being nickel-and-dimed to death every time they walk in.
Some may think that these grand ecological ideas are great. I will tell you what is happening in Banff today, and it will happen in other parks. It is a problem which must be solved. If you tell a community that they cannot grow and if you cut their borders and tell them there will be no more services, then nothing that happens in Banff will benefit anyone and it will cause things to become even more expensive. Then the only people who will be able to visit Banff will be rich people.
The cost of hotel rooms in Banff will go up because of a lack of new competition. When you go to Banff National Park today, you pay a tremendous amount of money for a hotel room only because there is no way for expansion to take place. The only people who go there are people who can pay between $200 and $350 per day for a hotel room. Ordinary folks must sleep for $6 bucks a night in a tent. They cannot sleep in the car or they will be fined. You must be in a campground. It is an indictable federal offence to sleep in your car in a national park. It is a bad thing to happen.
Anyway, honourable senators, the idea of consultation is false. I believe user fees will get out of control. I believe that senators on this side agree with me when I say that the federal government has not developed a plan for the national park system over the next century. The government does not know what it is doing. The government is using Bill C-29 as an excuse to pretend that it is actually doing something and it is telling the people of Canada that it is doing something. I urge all honourable senators, at the risk of disagreeing with Senator Fitzpatrick, to vote against this bill.
Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, we have heard many allegations. However, the plan that the federal government is following is one which has been followed in Quebec and which works very well there. Has the honourable senator been made aware of some examples where this plan is working well, where there is no abuse and where the services are better since operations have been guided by an independent corporation? Does he know that?
Senator Tkachuk: I agree with you.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Fine.
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to inform the Senate that if the Honourable Senator Fitzpatrick speaks now, his speech will have the effect of closing debate on the motion for second reading of this bill.
Hon. Ross Fitzpatrick: Honourable senators, I move second reading of this bill.
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Fitzpatrick, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore, that this bill be read the second time.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read second time, on division.
Referred to Committee
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?On motion of Senator Fitzpatrick, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
Information Commissioner
Motion to approve Appointment-Debate Adjourned
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government), pursuant to notice of June 11, 1998, moved:That, in accordance with section 54 of the Access to Information Act, Chapter A-1, RSC (1985), the Senate approve the appointment of the Honourable John M. Reid, P.C., as Information Commissioner.
She said: Honourable senators, the position of Information Commissioner has been vacant following the expiration of John Grace's term of office on April 30, 1998. Passage of the Access to Information Act in 1983 gave Canadians the broad legal right of access to information recorded in any form and controlled by most federal institutions, subject to limited and specific exemptions. The Information Commissioner is a special ombudsperson appointed by Parliament to investigate complaints that the government has denied rights under the Access to Information Act, Canada's freedom of information legislation.
The Information Commissioner is independent of government and has strong investigative powers. The commissioner's priorities are to convince government to release information informally without resort to the formalities of the access law or the rigours of the federal court; to follow a non-adversarial approach to resolve complaints in a fair, equitable and expeditious manner; and to ensure that response deadlines are consistently respected across government.
This is an extremely important position. It requires an individual who possesses experience in managing at the senior executive level and in innovating and leading a multidisciplinary team on sensitive issues in a public environment. The commissioner must have a thorough knowledge of the Access to Information Act as well as an understanding of the rules of natural justice and fairness and the principles of public administration, current government structure and government decision-making.
The Honourable John Reid is a native of Fort Frances, Ontario, and studied at St. Paul's College at the University of Manitoba and at the University of Toronto. He was first elected as a member of the other place in 1965 and again in 1968, 1972, 1974, 1979 and 1980. He served as parliamentary secretary to the president of Privy Council in 1972 and became Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations on November 24, 1978. He made a major contribution to the reform of campaign expense legislation and worked on the creation of an access-to-information system to allow Canadians greater access to government information. For several years he worked for a group well known to all honourable senators, the Company of Young Canadians.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, he also served with distinction in the private sector. Mr. Reid's name was submitted by members of the opposition in the other chamber, including members of the same party as my honourable opposition colleagues in the Senate. This in itself is indicative of the respect in which members of all parties hold him. I note that the other chamber passed a motion in his honour on June 10, 1998.
[English]
Honourable senators, I recommend Mr. Reid with enthusiasm and without qualification. With his distinguished career in public life and the private sector, I believe he will be an excellent Information Commissioner and I thank all honourable senators for their support.
On motion of Senator Kinsella, debate adjourned.
Business of the Senate
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I understand there is agreement on both sides to allow all other matters on the Order Paper to stand in the position they are in on this day.Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, that is agreed.
The Senate adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.