Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

1st Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 137, Issue 76

Thursday, June 18, 1998

The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker

---

• The Honourable Jacques Hébert
  The Honourable Philippe D. Gigantès
  • Tributes on Retirement
• Visitors in the Gallery

• SENATORS' STATEMENTS
  • Ms Nancy MacBeth
    • Congratulations to Liberal Party Leader on winning Election to Alberta Legislature
  • National Defence
    • Absence of Canadian Forces from NATO Initiative in Kosovo, Serbia
  • Halifax, Nova Scotia
    • Celebration of Birthday
  • Health
    • Increase in Government Funding to Breast Cancer Initiative
  • National Integrated Health Care System
  • The Senate
    • Tributes to Pages
  • The Philippines
    • Centennial of Declaration of Independence from Spain
  • Business of the Senate
    • Clarification for the Record
• ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
  • Royal Assent Bill
    • Report of Committee
  • Information Commissioner
    • Report of Committee on motion to approve Appointment Presented
  • Federal Child Support Guidelines
    • Interim Report of Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee on Study Tabled and Considered-Debate Adjourned
  • Canada Grain Act
    Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act
    Grain Futures Act
    • Bill to Amend-Report of Committee
    • Third Reading
  • Canada Labour Code
    Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act
    • Bill to Amend-Report of Committee
  • Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
    • Twenty-Second Report of Committee Presented and Adopted
  • Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders
    • Sixth Report of Committee Tabled
  • Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
    • Twenty-third Report of Committee Presented
  • Merchant Navy War Service Recognition Bill
    • First Reading
  • Developing Countries
    • Status of Education and Health in Young Girls and Women-Notice of Inquiry
• QUESTION PERIOD
  • Business of the Senate
    • Canada Pension Plan Investment Board-Assurance to Deal with Motion-Government Position
  • National Defence
    • Readiness of Canadian Forces to Participate in NATO Initiative in Kosovo, Serbia-Government Position
    • Allegations of Mistreatment and Abuse by Members of Armed Forces-Comments of Minister Before Completion of Investigation-Government Position
  • Delayed Answers to Oral Questions
  • Veterans Affairs
    • Present Status of Perley and Rideau Veterans' Health Centre-Government Position
  • National Finance
    • Changes to Rules on Guaranteed Income Supplement Regarding Casual Earnings of Seniors-Government Position
  • Atomic Energy of Canada
    • Aid and Information Supplied to Purchasers of CANDU Reactor-Safeguard of Signing Non-Proliferation Agreement-Government Position
  • National Defence
    • Purchase of Clothing and Equipment in Public Sector for Troops-Government Position
    • Training and Deployment of Reserves-Inadequacy of Food Allowance-Government Position
    • Accusations of Mistreatment and Abuse by Members of Armed Forces-Government Action
  • Answers to Order Paper Questions Tabled
    • Department of Justice-Letter to Swiss Authorities Regarding Claim of Criminal Activity in Airbus Purchase
    • Confirmation Regarding Purported Humanitarian Medical Shipments to Mexico by Senator Andrew Thompson
    • Energy-Department of Revenue-Conformity with Alternative Fuels Act
    • Transport-Tolls on Trans-Canada Highway
    • Auditor General's Report on Immigration
    • Department of Citizenship and Immigration-Request for Reports
  • The Senate
    • Tributes to Departing Pages
• ORDERS OF THE DAY
  • Parliament of Canada Act
    Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act
    Salaries Act
    • Bill to Amend-Third Reading
    • Motion in Amendment
  • Mi'kmaq Education Bill
    • Third Reading
  • Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Bill
    • Third Reading
  • National Defence Act
    • Bill to Amend-Second Reading
    • Referred to Committee
  • Business of the Senate
  • Health
    • Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada-Motion to Comply with Recommendations-Motion in Amendment-Point of Order-Debate Adjourned to Await Speaker's Ruling
    • Motion in Amendment
    • Point of Order
  • Visitor in the Gallery
  • Canada Labour Code
    Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act
    • Bill to Amend-Third Reading
    • Motion in Amendment
    • Motion in Amendment
    • Motion in Amendment
  • Health
    • Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada-Motion to Comply with Recommendations-Motion in Amendment-Point of Order-Speaker's Ruling
    • Motion to Comply with Recommendations, as Amended, Adopted
  • Information Commissioner
    • Report of Committee on Motion to Approve Appointment Adopted
  • Excise Tax Act
    • Bill to Amend-Third Reading-Motions in Amendment-Debate Continued
    • Motion in Amendment
    • Motion in Subamendment
  • Royal Assent Bill
    • Consideration of Report of Committee-Motion in Amendment-Debate Adjourned
    • Motion in Amendment
  • Royal Assent
    • Notice
  • Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
    • Twenty-third Report of Committee Adopted
  • Transport
    • Lerner Report on Cancellation of Pearson Airport Agreements-Inquiry
  • Transportation Safety and Security
    • Final Report of Transport and Communications Committee Adopted
  • Canada Pension Plan Investment Board
    • Report of Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee-Motion to Elicit Response of Government-Motion Concurred In
  • Inter-Parliamentary Union
    • Conference Held at Windhoek, Namibia-Inquiry-Debate Adjourned
  • Environment
    • Reports on Sustainable Development-Inquiry-Debate Suspended
  • Royal Assent
  • Environment
    • Reports on Sustainable Development-Inquiry
  • Transportation Safety and Security
    • Establishment of Special Senate Committee
  • Social Affairs, Science and Technology
    • Committee Authorized to Study Dimensions of Social Cohesion in Canada
  • Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
    • Tenth Annual Seminar Held in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island-Inquiry
  • Adjournment
  • Business of the Senate

THE SENATE

Thursday, June 18, 1998

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

Prayers.

The Honourable Jacques Hébert
The Honourable Philippe D. Gigantès

Tributes on Retirement

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, one of Quebec's finest intellectuals and journalists, André Laurendeau, the editor-in-chief of Le Devoir in the stifling society of post-war Quebec, once referred to the crusading journal Cité Libre as a paper which said out loud what others only dared to whisper. For Senator Jacques Hébert, editor of the reform weekly Vrai and administrator and editorial board member of Cité Libre and part of the fascinating generation of Citélibristes, the struggle against authoritarianism was waged on the front lines of a society in intense, revolutionary change from within as a new world emerged from the old.

This was a generation never known to whisper in the defence of human rights and freedoms - in the condemnation of the self-absorption and intolerance of an inflexible and rigid nationalist ideal. This was a generation never known to whisper in its passion for human rights and liberty. This was a generation of citizens of the world.

In Two Innocents in China, Hébert and Trudeau wrote of their first trip together in 1960, but pointed out that, between them, they had already been four times around the world, sailed nearly all of the seas, and explored five continents extensively. These were people who said out loud, who trumpeted from the rooftops, a commitment to openness and democracy, to political, ethnic and religious pluralism, and to a profound love of this vast federation, of strength through diversity and of the dream of compromise and cooperation Canada symbolizes across the planet.

The late Gérard Pelletier captured the spirit of so many of his colleagues of the time. He captured the spirit of Quebec on the eve of the Quiet Revolution when he said:

We were the first generation to say...we'll stay at home and change the place.

and change the place they did.

Today, in honouring Senator Jacques Hébert, we honour a man for whom the power of the pen was the engine of freedom, a revolutionary spirit in so many ways who has spent much of his life striving restlessly to put a new face on his province, on his country, and on the world.

Honourable senators, today we honour a traveler of the world for whom the ultimate reward was in the journey itself. We honour an officer of the Order of Canada, a Knight of l'Ordre de la Pléiade, and a Knight of Malta. We honour the author of 35 works in three languages. We honour one of the architects of a new Law on Earth.

(1410)

Senator Hébert started out as a journalist in his home province, recording, among others, the profoundly moving impact of one of the first struggles at the barricades for democratic freedoms in Quebec, la grève de l'amiante, in 1949. This was the historic strike in which a man who was in so many ways a kindred spirit and friend, a man named Pierre Trudeau, addressed 5,000 miners and held them spellbound.

Along with Jean Marchand and Gérard Pelletier, among others, all of whom were witnesses to the dramatic events at Asbestos, Jacques quickly developed a reputation for taking the road less travelled, the road of political, spiritual and intellectual idealism.

[Translation]

He never followed the beaten path, and he never obeyed the dictates of anyone or anything apart from his own conscience.

[English]

From those early days, and consistently across these decades, it was conscience that was his guide. When Jacques wrote J'accuse les assassins de Coffin in 1964 - a book which threatened to get him jailed - his friend and soulmate Pierre Trudeau would free him in the Quebec Court of Appeal. He became the founding president of the Quebec Civil Liberties Union and began to write on the developing world with the distinguished Maurice F. Strong.

[Translation]

His true passion, however, was young people, here and elsewhere.

[English]

When Senator Hébert went on his now-historic 21-day hunger strike in 1986 in order to save his beloved Katimavik program, a young volunteer helped pass the time by reading passages to him from Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's Le petit Prince. One of the wonderful lines which that young volunteer must have savoured, as he read throughout some of the long hours just outside in the Senate lobby, has become one of the great quotations of the Western World:

[Translation]

It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.

[English]

It is only with the heart. Senator Hébert's real belief and commitment over the last 25 years has remained foremost the young people of this country and this planet. Young people working together can learn to overcome almost anything, said the founder of Jeunesse Canada Monde and Katimavik. In both youth exchange programs, he believed thousands of young people were taught things no school could teach them. We were training young people for life, he said. We were teaching young people that education is inseparable from service, justice and truth.

For thousands of young people, these programs meant self-realization and the acceptance of values other than their own. They meant openness to others, and autonomy and initiative. They meant sociability and education and brotherhood.

[Translation]

Experience has shown us that the greatest things are accomplished when we are all looking together in the same direction.

[English]

Looking together in the same direction meant responsibility, and civic consciousness, and concern for others. These youth exchange programs were and are about building new worlds and new societies. They were and are about the central role of young people in the evolution of tolerant and civil societies that will be a catalyst for international peace in the future. They were and are about going forward by going back to the power of ourselves.

For many of us, it takes a long time to become young, as Pablo Picasso once so wisely observed. Senator Hébert did not spend a long time in the traces, as so many of us have had to do in order to understand the simple realities, the dreams and the hopes of the young - the ability to see with the heart, with which too many of us have difficulty reaquainting ourselves, and the ability to see with the heart that was the special prerogative of de Saint-Exupéry's Le petit Prince.

[Translation]

Thank you, Jacques, for having been a great source of inspiration to us all as whip and guardian of our conscience. Thank you, Jacques, especially for your loyalty and great friendship.

[English]

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, last fall I watched Shaw's Major Barbara at the Neptune Theatre in Halifax, and I remember so well the great line in Act I: "Nobody can say a word against Greek: it stamps a man at once as an educated gentleman."

Philippe, in spite of the great playwright's caustic humour, I have always admired you as precisely that - an educated gentleman with a pure and forceful intellect. I must confess I have often sat in some awe at the precision of your thought processes and the very penetrating nature of your wit. Perhaps you are brilliant. I say this with no disrespect, particularly as you advised us not to use that word when summarizing the careers of retiring senators like poor old Senator Blogs, a man of your own invention.

Perhaps we should erase the word "brilliant" and use a play on the classic line from Hamlet which would go something like this: Honourable senators, Senator Gigantès is a man; take him for all in all - we shall never look upon his like again.

Take him for all in all. A man of multitudes - so where do we start? Do we start with a christening on a battlefield and a man of many names? Do we think of his father, a much-decorated Greek war hero and courageous ancestor who fought the Turks at the battle of Lepanto? Do we think of his career as a journalist with The London Observer, and later with the Montreal Gazette; his appearances with René Lévesque on Point de Mire and Lévesque's subsequent introduction to Pierre Trudeau? Do we think about his service on torpedo boats with the Royal Navy during World War II, or a fascinating time counselling young King Constantine on the folly of attempting a royal coup against the prime minister of the day?

Wait a minute. Senator Gigantès has most appropriately advised us all to be brief in recent remonstrances in this chamber. This is a man who made one of the longest speeches in the history of the Canadian Parliament. Yet he now professes to be won over by the ancient counsel of Ecclesiasticus: Let your speech be short, comprehending much in few words.

Of course, it is true that brevity is the soul of wit, and of that aphorism Philippe clearly is a masterful exponent. Perhaps we can look at another of which the good senator is clearly also a masterful exponent: that is, that wit is more often a shield than a lance.

(1420)

Can we say it can be a shield against life? Or perhaps a shield protecting a passionate, gentle and noble spirit, as noble and as gentle as that masterpiece of nature the elephant, represented often on his tie-clips or drawings, whose cartoon-like figures seem synonymous with Senator Gigantès' approval and disapproval, with his happiness and his sadness; perhaps an eye on his soul.

Senator Gigantès saw the horrors of war at a young age; in his own country during World War II, and then as he had to flee to the British Mandate of Palestine. Later, as a young journalist in Korea, he was captured and suffered 33 months of torture as a North Korean prisoner of war.

I have read some of the accounts of that time as given to the Canadian press in recent months. As always, pure Gigantès, told with gusto, humour and wit.

Stop the world for a moment. These were horror stories that very few of us have ever known. Let us turn the wheel just a bit. Let us think of the man for whom great wisdom has come from great suffering, who has told Canadians that the next war will be a theatre from which there will be no exits, no survivors, no veterans.

[Translation]

Let us think of the senator who has contributed his energy and joie de vivre to the service of this institution, who has always been the defender of the Senate in his writings and in his speeches.

[English]

Finally, let us reflect a little on the Gigantès of the great heart of Canada, to be found in a special place. In the simple words of his preface to his book, A Road Ahead, he says:

I am a Canadian by choice. I made the choice on Christmas Eve, 1950 in a North Korean prisoner of war camp - people around me were dying of disease, cold, hunger, despair. I resolved to survive and live happily ever after in Canada. I have written about, worked, and studied in 59 countries; I could have chosen Britain, France, Greece, or the USA as the place to be happy. But the people I had loved the best had always been Canadian. Roaming the continents before I came here, I always made for the Canadian embassies in search of truth and friendship and I was never disappointed. Since my arrival in Canada, I have been treated as well as, perhaps better than the native born. This book is my thanks for my wonderful 25 years in Canada.

Philippe, today we have some thanks to give you.

[Translation]

Thank you, man of heart, man of great intelligence, man of uncommon strength. We will miss your lively mind and your sense of humour, as well as your displays of impatience with the status quo.

[English]

Philippe, we thank a man of many languages and many adventures, a man of many countries. Most of all, we thank you for choosing us.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, looking into the Senate from the outside I knew a few of the men and women who sat in this place, mostly by their reputation and not personally. For me, there was always a giant among you. His name was Jacques Hébert. I spent the majority of my early professional life working with young persons. For those of us who chose teaching as both a career and a vocation, Jacques Hébert symbolized the care, nurturing and dedication that young Canadians need in order to become full participating members, not only of the Canadian family but of the human family.

Since last September, when the Prime Minister appointed me Deputy Leader of the Government, Jacques Hébert has become my friend. Our shared love of young people was coupled with the daily working relationship that meant we were in and out of each other's offices two or three times a day.

Honourable senators, this is a man beloved by his staff. They care deeply about him because they know just how firmly he is committed to them.

Jacques Hébert is a man of love. He loves his country, its citizens, and the citizens of the world. It has been an enormous honour and privilege for me to work with him. He has taught me that caring must never cease. He has reaffirmed for me the need to reach out to young people, for they are our future. He has inspired me to be like him - forever young.

Honourable senators, we tend to overuse the word "love," but I want it on the record that I love Jacques Hébert. I love his spirit, his thought processes, and all that he is. I will miss him enormously.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, it is with great sadness that I speak on one of the few remaining days that Senator Gigantès will be among us.

When I think of Senator Gigantès, the memories are interesting ones. The first memory is of the first time I met him, which was in my home, beside my pool, on a warm summer night, when he entertained, as we know he does so well, a throng of young people gathered, literally, at his feet.

Another memory is of the day he waltzed my daughter Cathi around his office. One may wonder how that happened. Well, I had just been appointed. He was moving to Centre Block and I was given the choice of his office. I went to visit the office with Catherine, who was, to put it mildly, somewhat disconcerted, but when she learned of his passionate concern for others and his love of fun, she related instantly.

I will remember, certainly, the pain that was so clearly evident at the loss of his wife and, shortly thereafter, his brother. I will remember the dignity with which he bore that pain when he was so clearly angry at what had befallen them and him.

Most of all, I will remember his support when I was appointed Deputy Leader. Philippe kept dropping into my office just to make sure that I knew I had his support. He did not think I knew what he was doing, but of course I did, and I appreciated it very much.

Honourable senators, we are very fortunate to have men and women of the caliber of Philippe Deane Gigantès in this chamber. When he leaves, as he will over the summer, he goes with a full measure of my respect, love and affection.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

Hon. Normand Grimard: Honourable senators, in January 1995 I had the pleasure of traveling to Cuba with Senator Hébert and five other members of Parliament as part of our work with the Canada-Cuba Parliamentary Friendship Association, of which he was then the chair.

For him, I was "the nonetheless affable Conservative colleague, Normand Grimard," as I was amused to see myself described in the account he published in the May-June 1995 issue of Cité libre.

(1430)

One of the most important things I learned on that occasion was how Senator Hébert traveled, mingling with the local people, visiting their families, asking questions. I also understood, or at least I imagined I could, how he had traveled the world with another Quebecer, still living, who became Prime Minister of Canada.

The trip to Cuba gave me a chance to get to know Senator Hébert, to see him in action, to view him in another light, something perhaps not as easily done by an adversary, especially a Conservative like myself, who was appointed by Prime Minister Mulroney during the battle over the GST.

I had another opportunity to get to know Senator Hébert better when we worked together during the visit to Canada of the Cuban delegation, headed by the education minister, a friend of the senator's. This minister was accompanied by a number of Cuban parliamentarians.

Almost daily, in the weeks leading up to the trip, I was in his office and I must say, Senator Hébert, that my colleagues on this side of the house thought that you and I were creating a passage between the two sides of the house. In fact, we were organizing the trip.

You will recall that at one point, because you have a big heart, which sometimes either we do not appreciate or we do not know, you had grand ideas and you knew that our resources were limited. I said: "Senator, do not let go of your grand ideas, let me look after the dollars. I promise we will end up with a surplus." And we did. So our colleagues had a wonderful trip to Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto, not to mention to Niagara. With your work and my financial administration we ended up with a surplus for the Canada-Cuba trip.

Outwardly, Senator Hébert looks like the old man of the sea, if we may be permitted to make a comparison with Ernest Hemingway, who was also a frequent visitor to Cuba.

However, after I got to know him, and I am weighing my words carefully, I discovered his exterior hid a warm, devoted, affable and obliging individual.

Need I say that Senator Hébert and I did not always share the same opinion. He has nothing but criticism for Maurice Duplessis and I have nothing but admiration for the former Quebec premier. So, the senator will no doubt smile today at the memory of the times he and I had to suspend our discussions when we got too close to this sensitive and delicate subject.

In closing, I would like to mention another of Senator Hébert's attributes. In my opinion, as a great Canadian and a vibrant federalist, however petty the issue, he was never afraid to point out the beauties of this unique country of ours and the attraction it held for him.

So, we wish Senator Hébert, former publisher, author, ever watchful journalist, a joyous retirement, now that the Constitution and age force him to set down his Liberal whip.

I would add that my wife, whom you know well, shares these thoughts.

[English]

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I am pleased to have this occasion to rise to pay tribute to our two honourable colleagues from the senatorial division of Quebec, Senator Hébert and Senator Gigantès, as they reach the mandatory retirement age, which is contrary to Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Before leaving, my former seat-mate, Senator Doyle, rose and shouted out, "Four more years!" I will leave it to the other side to shout that out today.

Honourable senators, Jacques Hébert and I first became acquainted over 30 years ago. The then under-secretary of state, the Right Honourable Jules Léger, who went on to become Governor General, had convened a meeting of a number of Canadians to explore programs in which Canada might engage itself in the field of human rights. I have followed Jacques' career ever since then.

Senator Gigantès and Senator Hébert are close friends. That they should leave this chamber at the same time is an interesting coincidence. The fact that they both are senators from the province of Quebec is to be noted in a special way. The great province of Quebec in Canada affords the opportunity for those who are Canadian by birth and for those who are Canadian by choice to serve our country in the highest offices, without discrimination. All Canadians are equal and able to enjoy the fullness of the kind of Canada that Senator Gigantès envisaged as he made his decision to make Canada his home of choice.

We all recall the new designation that Senator Hébert gave the foyer of the Senate: "a second home without a cafeteria." However, it has been in this last little while, in his functions as chief government whip, that I, as the whip on this side, have had occasion to work closely with Senator Hébert. He has always been very forthright, businesslike and professional. I have enjoyed dealing with Senator Hébert in his capacity as the chief government whip.

(1440)

Senator Gigantès, of course, a great Biblical reader, caught my attention when I arrived here eight years ago during a more exciting time. I recall him sitting on a special seat at a table in front of where Senator Graham now sits, reading the Bible. Senator Doody was there as well. The place has become much more civil and urbane since then.

Honourable senators, I must say I love Sophocles' story of Antigone. King Creon had decreed that because Antigone's brother had committed a crime and was put to death, his body ought not be buried, but Antigone felt that there was a higher law and a higher duty, and that drove her to defy the king's rule and to bury her brother's body. When called before the king and asked, "Why did you break my decree?" she declared that there are indeed laws that are higher than the laws made by man or by the king.

In some ways, Senator Gigantès has exemplified that great tradition. One noted it particularly in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. He would press, quite acutely, officials from the Department of Justice who would be attempting to defend legislation written in language less than clear or plain, and he always made the point, eloquently, that there should be much more plain speech in our language.

I also think of Plato when I think of Senator Gigantès. We have the image of Plato in the cave seeing the shadows. I often thought that the shadow that Senator Gigantès sees is that of an elephant, and just as there were many principles of idealism associated with the shadows of Plato, in Senator Gigantès there has always been an idealist on the benches opposite.

I considered referring to Socrates and his hemlock, but that might be misinterpreted, so I will go on to Aristotle.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: We should have thought of that eight years ago.

Senator Kinsella: I wondered which of Aristotle's many writings to use, from his Nicomachean Ethics to his Politics, but it is in his book of metaphysics that one finds the great line that for me epitomizes Senator Gigantès, and that is where he says that man by nature is political. Of all the senators in this room, I have never met one more political than my dear friend Philippe.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Kinsella: I know also - as we all do - of the distinguished military career of Senator Gigantès with the Royal Navy, his service as advisor to King Constantine - who, by the way, lost his throne - and Senator Gigantès's heroism as an agent of a free press during his years of imprisonment in Korea. Again, to make reference to my former seat-mate, Senator Doyle, Senator Gigantès and Senator Doyle had worked together, as we know, at The Globe and Mail.

Let me simply close by saying to both Senator Hébert and Senator Gigantès that we wish you well as we pay tribute to you today. In a very special way, I should like to say to you, Senator Gigantès, for all the things that I have learned from you, efkaristo.

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn: Honourable senators, what a remarkable slice of history these two old friends represent. It is very difficult for all of us to see them go.

However, back in the days when my party was in opposition, Senator Hébert and I were seat-mates. He was the newly appointed chief whip for our troops and I was just hanging around throwing in my two cents' worth when needed. I had watched with awe as our old friend Bill Petten went through some 17 years as whip and emerged with great respect and his sanity intact. Therefore, on a day when Jacques was particularly harassed, I asked him kindly how he was getting along. He looked me dead in the eye, absolutely straight, and he said, "It is wonderful. I can hardly accept the fact that I, Jacques Hébert, have been chosen for such a position. I come to work each day with joy in my heart. When I was a small boy, my mother used to live in hope, and she got down on her knees in the morning and asked that one day her son might become a whip. It is truly unbelievable."

After we wiped the tears from our eyes, I thought what an incredible fellow. Here is a citizen of the world, master of words, creator of inspiration and hope for young people in Canada and around the globe, fierce fighter for civil rights and freedoms, a loud, clear voice for federalism in a strong Quebec in a united Canada, a person who, throughout most of his life, fought for causes, not for political parties. Here he is in one of the toughest, most nerve-wracking, most political, often most thankless, but most fundamentally important parliamentary positions. He is doing it with humour, fairness, and understanding, but at the same time with a kind of firmness that sometimes makes colleagues edgy, if not downright hostile, at having to cancel those all-important events.

Honourable senators, Senator Hébert has been a superb whip and I love him for it. He survived under three leaders, Royce Frith, myself and Senator Graham. He has helped all of us survive.

You cannot help but look at the other faces of Jacques Hébert and marvel at his capacity to adapt to circumstance, to give so generously of himself to the thousands of people who have come to count on him and his leadership, particularly in difficult times.

I feel as though Jacques and I have been pals forever even though I had not really met him until I came to the Senate 14 years ago. However, some of his legendary battles and successes were part of the history I have learned on Parliament Hill. I first encountered his presence when I was in the Parliamentary Press Gallery in the 1960s and the name Jacques Hébert was being either acclaimed or defamed, depending on the side you took, as a result of a book he had written on the case of a man in the Gaspé named Wilbert Coffin who had been charged, convicted and hanged for the murder of three American hunters in 1953. Jacques led a fierce battle against the system and the authorities who had pressed on with the trial which many believed, and always will believe, was a tragic miscarriage of justice.

One of his books, I Accuse the Assassins of Coffin, caused an uproar and a public outcry in 1963, both in Parliament and across the land. It prompted a Royal Commission on the Coffin affair in Quebec, which was so outraged at the author's charges against the judicial system that, in spite of the efforts of his lawyer, Pierre Trudeau, our colleague was sentenced to a fine and 30 days in jail. He served three days and was later acquitted, prompting him to write another book entitled Three Days in Jail.

(1450)

I mention this case because it indicates the passion and conviction which this special man brings to his work and the human beings whom he encounters along the way. It is what prompted him to associate with Pierre Trudeau, Gérard Pelletier and others to publish the magazine, Cité libre, as a voice of protest against the Duplessis regime in Quebec in the 1950s. He has assured its survival as an outspoken vehicle of expression. Only months ago, Cité libre became a bilingual publication, and lives on under the sharp eye of our colleague.

It was the same passion and conviction which led to the creation, in my view, of the greatest youth program ever produced in our country, Jacques' beloved Katimavik. Thousands of young Canadians were encouraged to travel, work and learn about the different parts of this country - something which is still one of the strongest responses we can offer to drive back the forces of division, separation, disunity and misunderstanding.

It was the cancellation of that program in 1986 that drove Jacques to begin a 21-day hunger strike outside the Senate in order to draw attention not just to the death of Katimavik but also to the plight of young Canadians in a changing workplace and enduring global economic pressures. He was ridiculed and sharply criticized by some. However, the young people and their parents took heart from what others believed to be a demonstration of the courage of conviction.

In the end, Katimavik managed to survive in a reduced form, thanks to the persistence and persuasion of its founder, a continuing example for young Canadians to use in their constant search for attention from those in power throughout the country.

It was this same spirit that caused Jacques to look outward with the formation of Canada World Youth, enabling our young people to reach out and understand the needs and the hopes of those in other lands. This continues to dominate his personal time. I know that, as he leaves this chamber, he will move on with even greater energy to build opportunities for those who will lead this world long after we are gone.

Indeed, when Jacques was asked by Mr. Trudeau to come to the Senate back in 1983, he admits that he was staggered. "Out of the question," he replied. "Canada World Youth is my entire life." After Mr. Trudeau assured him that his role as senator would enable him to continue to serve the movement, he not only accepted the new role but was made Founding President for Life of Canada World Youth.

All of this is reflected in his personal dedication to his own children and grandchildren. Perhaps some of you do not know that among the enormous amount of work published by Jacques there is a truly delightful series of children's travel books, starting with Two Innocents in an Igloo, prompted by a trip he took with his young grandson Max in 1990 to the Arctic, where they stayed with Inuit friends, helped to build an igloo, and slept in it.

Jacques has been a precious spirit during his years in the Senate. He has kept me young. He has offered his colleagues the same encouragement and generosity that have marked the other chapters of his life.

For me, the most interesting and intense committee I ever served on in the Senate was the Special Senate Committee on Youth, chaired by Jacques. It was during those cross-country hearings back in 1985 that all of us were shocked to hear the evidence of widespread problems with literacy and learning disabilities in every region of this country. That experience led me toward a lifelong journey of advocacy for literacy. In a sense, I am one of Jacques's students.

In his book Hello, World!: on Canada, the World and Youth, he writes:

We're the masters of the present. We can give it wings and let it fly away like a swallow crossing the sky without leaving a trace. Or seize it by the hand and let it carry us towards grace.

That is the path that Jacques has chosen. I am so very grateful that he has let me go some of the way with him.

Do not ever stop, Jacques. You take with you on your journey our warmest wishes for all of your family, and the thousands of others you will continue to inspire.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, it is also with great affection that I pay my own tribute to Senator Gigantès, who will no longer be with us here when we return in the fall. Instead, after turning 75 in August, he will be devoting his humour, his sparkling imagination, his kindness and love to his children and his grandchildren.

No doubt he will also be looking back on 14 years with amazement, frustration and, I hope, pride in his participation in and contribution to an institution where, undoubtedly, he had never expected to be during a remarkable working life.

Philippe Gigantès is a very interesting person. Since his childhood in Athens, Greece, he has gathered experiences that books are made of and, indeed, he has written some of them.

We have heard today about his service as an officer in the British Royal Navy in the Second World War, and an incredible career as a foreign correspondent, including in Korea during that dreadful war which earned him 33 horrific months in a prisoner of war camp, which he later described in a rather searing reminiscence entitled I Should Have Died.

He was a minister in the Greek government and a counsellor to King Constantine who, perhaps, did not listen closely enough. He did a stint as an academic, was a member of the Public Service of Canada and an advisor, writer and friend to former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

I admired him from afar as a journalist. It was not his prodigious writing career that caught my eye back in the 1950s simply because, back in Lethbridge, Alberta, in those days, I did not have access to The London Observer, The Globe and Mail or La Presse. I knew him first as Philippe Deane, reporting on radio and television with great verve, intelligence, and that sort of turn of phrase which, in this place, has drawn both admiration and fury, depending on which side of an issue you happen to be.

Philippe is a fine journalist, not just because he has lived a life of serious conflicts or rollicking adventures but because, along the way, he took the time to learn history, politics and languages - six of them. Indeed, in two short years, he earned an M.A. and a Ph.D. from the University of Toronto. He went on to both challenge and provoke one of my favourite institutions, the University of Lethbridge, where he was Dean of Arts and Science, and a professor of classics.

Always, however, he was drawn back to writing, to watching the world as it changed, and how governments tried to manage that change. He was fascinated with the shifting workplace, its drawbacks and its potential. He had a dear brother working at the OECD in Paris, who kept him on top of the trends as they developed in Europe.

(1500)

It was not until the 1970s, however, that I actually met him. He suddenly turned up in Mr. Trudeau's office, filled with enthusiasm, humour, and his usual eccentricities. I was toiling away, helping to find answers to the questions of the day that might be flung at Mr. Trudeau, and at that time some of the liveliest of those questions focused on the economy. The answers were all too often dreary and incomprehensible to Canadian citizens who did not roam the so-called corridors of power on Parliament Hill or in the Bank of Canada.

That was when Philippe came along with a more daring attitude than your usual bureaucrat. Make it like a sporting event, he said, where competing countries could be measured by their successes and their failures. He constructed a document - which could constantly be updated - called the "Economic Olympics," filled with all conceivable indicators and statistics. It was a new way of talking about a pretty heavy subject, and Mr. Trudeau loved it. Indeed, that exercise spawned a television program of the same name hosted by none other than Philippe Gigantès. We have heard echoes of those Economic Olympics in answers given by successive leaders in this house.

When he was appointed to the Senate, Philippe came here to work. He has made a significant and steady contribution to our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. He authored a private bill creating the crime of dangerous intoxication, a concept which was later taken up as part of government legislation.

He served with the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology and spearheaded a report entitled "Only Work Works," a study on how to improve education, literacy and training, create jobs, and reduce unemployment to 4 per cent without increasing the deficit, inflation or tax rates. It is still very much worth reading today.

He has never failed to respond to an assignment, and his attention to this institution has been outstanding, even when he was totally absorbed with supporting his beloved wife Sylvie during her courageous battle with cancer. After that battle ended, he returned quietly to the job he had come to care about.

He has defended this place, honourable senators, and those who serve in it, with a vigor and respect that even skeptical editors cannot ignore, and his letters have appeared in publications across this land.

Yes, Philippe is a partisan - a partisan for his party, the Liberal Party of Canada; a partisan for a democratic society and the rights of its citizens, whatever their age, colour, gender, or social and economic condition; and he is a fierce partisan for his country because, as we all know, Philippe did not have to come to Canada - he chose to come here. He wanted to be a Canadian. His experience in Korea strengthened that resolve, and he has given and always will give this land his heart and soul. He is a proud senator from Quebec, and he fights with all of his skill and experience for the unity of a Canada that includes a strong Quebec.

On a personal note, he has supported and encouraged me with enormous kindness from the day I arrived, through my term as Leader of the Government, and he is a strong supporter of my crusade for literacy in this country. More than that, he is my friend, whom I value more than I can say.

Philippe, you have made the Senate a better place. May the years ahead bring you nothing but good health and happiness for yourself and for all of your family whom you love so much.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

Hon. Serge Joyal: Honourable senators, it was in 1958, when I was 13, that I first heard mention of Jacques Hébert. He had just published a book that was the topic of discussion over dinner in Quebec, entitled: Coffin était innocent.

Jacques Hébert dared to question the authority of the Quebec judicial system, which, at the time, was the sometime servant of political, indeed, clerical, authority. Coffin's fate caused considerable distress. The politicians and the judiciary had an innocent victim hanged in order to calm the fears of rich American tourists who came to hunt and fish on the shores of the St. Lawrence.

My father told us the story. My brother and I were terrified at the idea of the body of an innocent victim dangling at the end of a rope. So, in our minds, prison became a place of torture. Only later, in 1963, did I read Jacques Hébert's second work on the subject, the famous J'accuse les assassins de Coffin.

What struck me and what concerns me still is the sentence on page nine, and I quote:

Whatever happens, so long as I have breath in my body, I will continue to defend the cause of W. Coffin, which has become a national shame.

This single sentence expresses the commitment of Jacques Hébert. "So long as I have breath in my body, I will continue to defend causes that perplex the national conscience." A man of profound conviction and combat, visor raised, he taught us a great lesson: In everything, we must question the conventional wisdom and the unanimity that characterizes societies favouring consensus over the critical approach. And God knows clericalism is still deeply rooted. It may not have a religious face these days, but its political allure remains as strong as ever.

How many times do we not use this argument to end debate: "There is consensus." How can you oppose the single voice behind the political or union elites?

Jacques Hébert has always railed at this vision of a society of corporate thought. This was never his approach. This was never his school of thought. Rather, as his friend and inseparable companion, Senator Philippe Gigantès, would put it, he is of the school of skeptical philosophers, and, believe me, our society is all the better for it.

His great knowledge, his humanism, indeed his spirituality, exemplify the words of one of the great French Renaissance philosophers, Montaigne, and I quote:

Doubt makes a soft pillow for a head well informed.

We all know he is leaving this house to carry his fight to meet other challenges facing our national conscience.

We send our best wishes with him and his companion.

[English]

Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, I will strive to heed Philippe Deane Gigantès' admonitions for brevity, as I add my own very personal tribute to my dear friend.

As our new senators are just beginning to find out, this can be a bewildering place when you first arrive, and I warn you that you will soon almost drown in the sea of paper that crosses your desks. There is also the horrifying discovery that we all make when we realize that Parliament Hill is, in truth, a small town with its own code of conduct, its own pecking order, and its own societal system of rewards and punishments.

When I was feeling almost overwhelmed after a few months in this place, Senator Gigantès took me under his wing, bolstered my ego with his courteous manners, encouraged me not to despair, and made me understand that I was not entirely alone. I have relied heavily upon him in committee for his faithful presence, his new-found brevity, his innate ability to come up with piercing and sometimes rabble-rousing questions for the witnesses, and for the support he gave me as the chair whenever it was needed, even when he disagreed with what I was doing. His wit has brightened many a dull and droning afternoon. His combination of great abilities is so rare, and his exceptional history is a constant source of amazement.

Philippe, you have added great value to your chosen country and to this place. I will miss you, my friend.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, during Senator Gigantès' extraordinary feat of speaking non-stop for 21 hours, on the GST debate, a journalist asked whether it was leather lungs or golden tonsils that enabled him to perform in this fashion. The conclusion was that as a former editorial writer he was used to lecturing without needing to be aware of whether or not people were listening.

On the opposite side - at that time the government side - the lesson learned was to beware of Greeks bearing rhetorical gifts.

Senator Kinsella referred to Plato and the allegory of the cave. I am sure that Senator Gigantès would never be sitting in the cave looking at those images removed from reality. He is out in the bright sunlight teaching everyone else what the world is really about.

His wonderful gifts will be missed in the Senate. I wish him a fruitful retirement and I hope that he will employ those gifts, I am sure he will, in other very important beneficial causes. We shall miss him.

[Translation]

I would like to say a few words on the retirement of our honourable friend Senator Jacques Hébert. Much has been already written and said to sing his praises. The Toronto Star compared him, perhaps rightfully so, to Martin Luther King when it referred to his courageous and even reckless act back in 1986.

More recently, he acted again with the same courage when he claimed that women are:

...more conscientious, more devoted and more passionate than men in their work in the Senate.

[English]

I also want to thank Senator Hébert for several gifts that were bestowed on me during my experience in the Senate. First, mega-doses of vitamin C, second, that wonderful journal Cité libre, which I struggle through in French. I thank him also for some wonderful volumes which he gave me and which I value highly in my library, inscribed with his name.

[Translation]

Consequently, Senator Hébert, we will miss you.

[English]

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Jacques Hébert, Jacques Hébert, Jacques Hébert: voyageur, publisher, author, wit, raconteur, editor, pamphleteer, novelist, thinker, broadcaster, broadcast commissioner, catalyst, innovative organizer, humanist, bon vivant. All in all, Jacques Hébert is a most uncommon "common man."

I first heard of Jacques Hébert by his reputation as a civil libertarian well before I met him over a quarter of a century ago. When we met, we quickly discovered that we shared a deep affinity in our precise political outlook. Moreover, we shared a guru, a mentor of mine, the late and sorely lamented Fernand Cadieux, a sociologist and media thinker on a par with Marshall McLuhan yet virtually unknown in English Canada and, unfortunately, even in French Canada. Fernand Cadieux deeply influenced Jacques and the political and scholarly activist cohorts in Quebec and beyond, including Trudeau, Lévesque, Seguin, Breton, Guindon, Falardeau, Pelletier, David, Dion, Marchand, Lamontagne, Sauvé, Ryan, Roux, Gagnon, Juneau, Chaisson, Pitfield, Faibish, Strong, Meisel, Cook, Joyal, myself and countless others. It remains for future historians to document Cadieux's influence on Jacques, and all these men, and the influential role model that Jacques himself became for his generation in all of his works.

As for Jacques, that rather quiet surface of tranquil self-effacement camouflages the soul of a turbulent poet, of strong ideas and passionate commitments, who has always dreamed of what can be. George Bernard Shaw said:

Some people see things and say why, but I dream things that never were and say why not.

So it is with our friend Jacques.

Shortly after the Second World War, Jacques not only became the leading travel writer in Quebec, opening up new vistas of the world, but he led when he founded the leading French publishing house in Quebec and then offered especially low-priced books to make his authors accessible and known to the broadest sectors of the community. Jacques led again, when he founded and edited the weekly newspaper, Vrai, that challenged the one-eyed press that had been such a hallmark of the old regime, now the new regime, in Quebec.

As with his long-time friend, compatriot and fellow voyageur, Pierre Trudeau, in his heart of hearts Jacques remains a contrarian, schooled from his very youth to go against the stream, against the grain, against the conventional wisdom of his own milieu. Jacques believes in the power of the written word, and with a vengeance, as an author of over 35 books. At a time when the government had forged a close circle of ideas in Quebec, there was Jacques, and very few others, who bravely cracked that circle and went about preparing the groundwork for the quiet revolution. Revolutions eat their own, but this was not the case with Jacques. He was never prepared to exchange one system of closed ideas for another. He moved and acted to keep that new circle open to ideas of equality and accessibility.

Equality meant equality to Jacques. Equality was not an empty slogan but a word full of content and commitment. Therefore, he led again when he founded the Quebec Civil Liberties Association at a time when civil liberties were not very popular amongst the ruling cliques of his province. He led, again, as a catalyst for Cité libre in French and, even this year, in English.

No task was too small, no objective too grand to capture his time and attention. In the Senate, he revived his dream palace Katimavik, where he believes a new and united and different Canada will be spawned by a constant stirring and intermingling of our youth from every region. This common effort would create common values. This was one man's plan, Jacques' plan for national unity. Bring young people together on challenging tasks, and unity will be sure to follow.

Honourable senators will recall that he put his undoubted talents and energy to work as a founding president of both Canada World Youth and Katimavik. Honourable senators will recall his heroic fast in the antechamber of this Senate when he brought to public attention the demise of Katimavik.

Without Jacques, the Senate, for me, will be a lonelier place. We have shared such intense frustrations while observing the ebb and flow and drift, even the erosion, of the federalist idea, especially from those who profess the federalist idea. Distinctiveness for him did not require, and does not require, the crutch of constitutional recognition. This, to him, would be demeaning. Jacques was and remains a distinct individual in all of his works.

Jacques, we will sorely miss you, not only for the stimulus of your companionship but the unequaled pleasure of your company.

Albert Camus, that great French writer and humanist, once wrote that even the darkest winter will give way to invincible summer. Jacques, may you enjoy countless summers, as we have been privileged to share the invincibility of your ideas and your friendship.

Albert Camus also wrote:

I love my country too much to be a nationalist.

So it is with my friend Jacques Hébert.

[Translation]

You will be sorely missed, Jacques. Goodbye, old friend. So long.

[English]

Hon. Senators: Hear hear!

(1520)

Senator Grafstein: Long before I met my friend Philippe Gigantès, I had heard of him as "Philip Deane." I had come to know his agile mind through his acute dispatches as a The Globe and Mail foreign correspondent based in New York and Washington three decades ago.

What an odyssey this elegant, articulate and graceful Greek-born adventurer has experienced. Son of Greece's greatest general and war hero, naval officer and gentleman, soldier, commando, bemedaled war hero, war correspondent, prisoner of war, humanist, broadcaster, world traveller, lover, author of 12 books, reporter, editorialist, gourmet, classical scholar and teacher, cabinet minister, UN official, legislator, true and clear Grit, Zionist, and advisor to kings and prime ministers and secretaries-general of the United Nations. Philippe's colourful career gives true meaning to the oft-quoted but rarely exercised phrase: A life unexplored is not worth living.

From our very first meeting, decades ago, Philippe and I learned that we shared a love of ideas, words, books, life and literature. Philippe has a unique gift and capacity to inspire friendship and loyalty.

Yet, honourable senators, how best to adequately celebrate Philippe's almost unparalleled life and extraordinary life accomplishments? Perhaps in quoting a poem written by one of Greece's greatest poets, Constantine Cavafy, in 1911, entitled Ithaca, we can echo some appropriate words. Let me quote:

When you set out on your journey to Ithaca,
pray that the road is long,
full of adventure, full of knowledge.
The Lestrygonians and the Cyclops,
the angry Poseidon - do not fear them:
You will never find such as these on your path,
if your thoughts remain lofty, if a fine
emotion touches your spirit and your body.

The Lestrygonians and the Cyclops,
the fierce Poseidon you will never encounter
if you do not carry them within your soul,
if your soul does not set them up before you.

Pray that the road is long.
That the summer mornings are many, when,
with such pleasure, with such joy
you will enter ports seen for the first time;
stop at Phoenician markets,
and purchase fine merchandise,
mother-of-pearl and coral, amber and ebony,
and sensual perfumes of all kinds,
as many sensual perfumes as you can;
visit many Egyptian cities,
to learn and learn from scholars.

Always keep Ithaca in your mind.
To arrive there is your ultimate goal.
But do not hurry the voyage at all.
It is better to let it last for many years;
and to anchor at the island when you are old,
rich with all you have gained on the way,
not expecting that Ithaca will offer you riches.

Ithaca has given you a beautiful voyage.
Without her you would have never set out on the road.

She has nothing more to give you.

And if you find her poor, Ithaca has not deceived you.
Wise as you have become, with so much experience,
you must already have understood what Ithacas mean.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

Hon. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Honourable senators, I too wish to pay tribute to Senators Hébert and Gigantès.

When I first came to the Senate three years ago, Senator Hébert was a real mentor for me. He was available to help me do my work better. I must admit that, when I was first appointed to the Senate, I thought that the reason Senator Hébert asked me to attend all the committees was that he thought I was a quick study, but I soon learned that it was so there would be a quorum. I learned a great deal anyway.

In 1958, I also heard about Senator Hébert when my parents were reading his book, J'accuse les assassins de Coffin. I remember my parents commenting on the kind of man Jacques Hébert was. In 1958, I was not as young as Senator Joyal, but I was still a young woman who was not very interested in Senator Hébert and even less so in Coffin's murderers.

Now, my mother is 91 years old. I often tell her how lucky I am to know Jacques Hébert, the great federalist. She likes it when I add that he is a great Liberal, a great defender of young people, a man with a big heart, and someone who has become a very good friend.

Senator Hébert, my husband whom you know well and I both wish you an active retirement, restful but rewarding. I will continue to defend Katimavik to the national caucus. I wish you good health and plenty of time with your family and hope that Katimavik will go on for years.

I would like to thank Senator Gigantès for all his words of encouragement when I was having such trouble adjusting to the Senate. Your words of comfort kept me going. Today, I love my work, and it is perhaps because of what you said. I wish you happy moments with those you love and who love you, too. I know that your three-year-old grandson will make those moments even more enjoyable.

I wish you good health, lots of time with your family, and a chance to travel, and encourage you to come back to see us now and again to set the record straight.

[English]

Hon. Willie Adams: Honourable senators, I should like to add to the comments of our leader regarding Senator Hébert. I have known Senator Hébert quite a long time. He is always after me to make sure I am in my seat every day the Senate is sitting.

Earlier, Senator Fairbairn mentioned Senator Hébert's visit to the Arctic. I remember, when I was making arrangements for a trip to the territories, Senator Hébert asked me which was the best community to visit in the North. At that time we were coming up to the Easter break in the Senate. My advice to him was to go to Igloolik where they still have dog teams which they use to go out and visit some of the communities where the people are still living the same way they did over 1,000 years ago.

Later, when he was trying to find accommodation, he asked for my help. I got in touch with someone I knew in the community who had a hotel and when I called he quoted a price of $150 per night. Senator Hébert said he could not possibly afford that price. After I called back and asked if the price could be reduced, the hotel owner said the he could make it $125 per night. Again Senator Hébert said that was way over his budget of $140 per day because his grandson would be travelling with him.

I checked with the Anglican mission to see if they had any accommodation, but they had nothing available. Finally, I phoned some of my friends in the community and told them about the senator from Ottawa and his grandson who would like stay a few nights in an igloo. I finally found someone able and willing to build an igloo; and we made arrangements. The only thing left was to find a sleeping bag which would be good to minus 40 degrees. Upon returning, after having slept in the igloo for three nights, he said, "Willy, I don't know how you people survived for thousands of years. I brought a thermometer into my igloo one night and it was minus 36 degrees!"

Once Senator Hébert told me that he wanted to go to Eskimo Point, which is located exactly half way between St. John's, Newfoundland and Victoria, British Columbia. He said he might walk there from Churchill, Manitoba, which is about 150 miles, quite a feat for a man over 75 years of age.

I will miss Senator Hébert. He was a very good whip.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Adams: Much has been said about Senator Gigantès today. I am glad that he will be able to walk out of here alive. I remember when he collapsed in his seat here in the Senate. I thought he had had a heart attack.

I recall when we were voting on the Pearson airport legislation. We lost the vote and Senator Gigantès got so angry at Senator Sparrow that he fainted. I am glad that he is still alive today.

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I join colleagues today in paying tribute to Senator Gigantès. I wish him well in his retirement years and I look forward to his next book.

In saying farewell to Philippe, I recollect his speech of many hours during the GST filibuster. I remember well how he sorely tried the patience of the Tories. I also remember well how we all were touched by the fact that his wife, Sylvie, sat in the gallery throughout his entire speech. We were all deeply touched by that. Senator Gigantès was attempting to get into the Guinness Book of World Records.

Senator Gigantès, bonne chance and God speed.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Cools: Honourable senators, I should also like to pay tribute to Senator Jacques Hébert, my seat-mate when I first came to this place. I bid him adieu. I shall remember him for much, but I shall remember him most for two things. I shall remember him first for his most famous Cité libre dinner meeting at La Maison du Egg Roll where former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau spoke on the Charlottetown Accord. Honourable senators, I was there that night. As I passed my eye about the room looking for Liberals, scarce as they were, I thought to myself, "Frère Jacques, we two form a multitude tonight."

I remember also the 1996 conference in honour of Allan J. MacEachen, and his retirement from the Senate, held at St. Francis Xavier University, in Antigonish. It was attended by many of us. Senator Lowell Murray spoke, as did Senator John Stewart. I remember that so very well because Frère Jacques drove from Montreal, accompanied by Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Mr. Gérard Pelletier. That was the last time I saw Mr. Pelletier alive.

That meeting at Antigonish was a gathering of a passing era, an epoch. I was deeply struck at that meeting by the motto of St. Francis Xavier University which is "Whatever things are true." I thought that in saying goodbye to Jacques today, and in saying goodbye to so many people who have had an association with Mr. Trudeau, I would share the full quotation. It is from the New Testament, Philippians, Chapter 4, verse 8:

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

In saying goodbye, I shall use the words of Senator David Croll. On the occasion of Mr. Trudeau's last meeting with our Liberal caucus in 1984, Senator Croll was called upon, as the senior member of the Liberal caucus, to express the caucus' farewell to Mr. Trudeau. Senator Croll rose and said something like this: "We Jews have an expression for situations like this. It is `shalom'." To our departing colleagues, I say shalom.

[Translation]

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, one of the difficulties with being among the last ones to speak is to try to make our comments interesting while sticking closely to what we want to say.

Senator Carstairs, Senator Fairbairn and others summed up well what I wanted to say about the two colleagues who are leaving us today.

You might be surprised to know that I first met Senator Hébert in 1953. At the time, I was a student and I always attended events taking place in modern Quebec, including an annual meeting of the Canadian Institute on Public Affairs, held in Sainte-Adèle. I have always been involved with this institute. However, Senator Hébert was definitely the most involved of us all. I was just a young student who was using a $25 scholarship to attend the institute's meeting. At the time, we used to be told that the institute was a place for major figures. I have been following Senator Hébert's career ever since.

Our paths crossed again when we both became members of the Quebec caucus. I served as president of that caucus a number of times, while Senator Hébert represented the Senate and acted as vice-president. He always agreed to take on the most thankless representational tasks, right up to the last minute. One day, I joined him in the Senate. New senators are aware of the events of the last five years. I always understood Senator Hébert, and none described him to me in one short sentence better than his great friend, the highly respected Jean-Louis Roux, whom I will always respect. When my friendship with Senator Hébert became strained, Senator Roux took me aside and said: Marcel, my dear Marcel, we all know that Jacques is a strong-minded person.

From that day on, I decided to grin and bear it because I realized that Jacques Hébert bore no personal malice toward anyone. He is indeed a strong-minded man, a man who never does things by halves.

During his hunger strike, I had the honour of being the president of the Liberal caucus of Canada, if I remember rightly. My task every morning was to go and check on Jacques' health, as he was in a terrible state. He was determined to go as far as he had to for his beloved Katimavik program.

I have a secret to share with you. As de Gaulle said, when he was speaking to 40 million people, "keep it under your hat." Senator Grimard and I conspired against Senator Hébert. We decided to ask him to become the first chair of the Canada-Cuba meetings. Not being able to do so directly at the time, I went through Senator Grimard. I can even tell you now that I watched Senator Grimard cross the room to offer Senator Hébert the position of founding president of Canada-Cuba. I knew he would make this friendship group into a worthy institution, with the financial and administrative assistance of Senator Grimard, to which he has referred just now.

I have travelled a fair bit, here and there, and I am pleased to say that I was able to influence Jacques Hébert a little. He was quicker and more talented than I, but I was able to tell him about my travels to the two Yemens - now, thankfully, one.

Senator Hébert backpacked around Yemen. That trip became the inspiration for two fine works that were eventually published in three languages: German, French and English. The people of Yemen, that obscure and ancient historical country, thus came to know of the Senate. In his dedication, which I shall not take the time to read here, but shall always keep, he speaks of the book and the indirect contacts we have had with Yemen. The projects so dear to his heart, which are so important, will continue to have their defenders here in this house.

[English]

This is something that unites us all. We are all in agreement. There will always be people here to defend such efforts. I would hope that as Senator Hébert retires from the Senate, the Prime Minister of Canada will see fit to put him in charge of some of these events so that he will continue to give to the young people of Canada all his devotion and talent. Anyone who knows anything about embassies will know that Senator Hébert goes around the world and always has a youth program in every part of the world. This is good for the Senate and good for Canada.

[Translation]

As for Senator Gigantès, I wish him enjoyment of his new activities. I know that both Senator Gigantès and Senator Hébert will be two individuals to be feared in Quebec for their sharp tongues and pens. They will have far more free time now to attack those whho wish to destroy Canada. All of you here know how I feel about my country, so I shall not go on about this any longer. The two of them will address themselves to this challenging new job of using the simplest and the most complicated of words to convince people that our commonalities are greater than our differences.

Senator Gigantès has never shirked the most unpleasant of duties. One day, he was asked to become actively involved in politics.

[English]

Senator Gigantès has never refused any task, even one that was very difficult. In 1980, no one wanted to run in a particular district in Toronto. Senator Gigantès did not hesitate to answer the call of the Liberal Party of Canada. He ran against Bob Rae, whom he almost defeated. Mr. Rae went on to become premier of Ontario. You should have seen that fight. I still remember it. Imagine the scene in Toronto between Senator Gigantès and Mr. Rae.

Today, I felt that something new had to be said at the very end of a long day. I, too, wish him a very happy retirement. I hope that he will continue to write. You may have read his works in English or in French.

Senator Gigantès once came to my district to help me out on a Greek television program. I am not sure that he translated exactly what I was saying in English into Greek but the result was unbelievable, so he must have corrected in Greek whatever mistakes I may have made. He still writes in all the Greek newspapers in Montreal and across Canada. As with Senator Hébert, I wish him a very happy retirement. I hope these men will publish their memoirs soon. I hope they will let us know where they are. If we call on them to help us out to draft letters to all newspapers in Canada, I hope they will do so.

Politics can be either tough or difficult.

[Translation]

It is in good taste to mention only the nice things that united us, ignoring the clouds that might have darkened our relationship over the past five years. In retrospect, they were not clouds, but fleeting shadows and I will keep mum about them. Thank you, honourable senators, for allowing me to join in this chorus of praise.

Hon. Léonce Mercier: Honourable senators, I am really surprised to hear what I am hearing. We will need to table documents to prove the veracity of what has been said. I cannot believe that these two men have so many attributes! This is incredible.

I would like to thank Senator Kinsella, who kindly congratulated me on being appointed whip and assured me of his full cooperation.

I really appreciated your gesture. You in turn can count on my cooperation.

I will go to the heart of the matter. If you find this boring, just applaud and I will stop. A career parliamentarian, Senator Hébert has been a member of this house since 1983. A man of many attributes, of phenomenal intelligence and incredible creative talents, he is one of the great Canadians. He was president and founder of Canada World Youth and Katimavik; founder and editor of the weekly publication Vrai; founder and director general of Les Éditions du jour; president of the Association des éditeurs canadiens; founding member and chair of the Ligue des Droits de la personne du Québec; chair of the organizing committee of the first North-South assembly for youth in 1981. He took part in a number of public affairs programs on CBC, and he is the author of 35 books. He is the co-founder of Cité libre. He is also a prestigious member of some well-known societies and organizations. He is an officer of the Order of Canada, a knight of the Ordre de la Pléiade, a knight commander of the Order of Merit, Sovereign Military Order of St. John and Jerusalem, as well as a recipient of the medal for agricultural merit.

In spite of all these activities and the fact that there are not enough hours in a day for the Honourable Jacques Hébert, he also found time to raise a fine family of three daughters and two sons.

In all likelihood - and this is based on secret information - Senator Hébert's children are among the greatest users of vitamins in Canada.

The vitamins recommended by Senator Hébert - the super algae, vitamin E (400 milligrams), vitamin C (100 milligrams), beta-carotene, zinc, Echinacea in liquid form, which comes in 12 vials, and many others - will no longer be useful because today, Senator Hébert, there is Viagra.

We will remember this line from the Honourable Senator Jacques Hébert:

A journalist who interviews another journalist is as boring as a dance with one's sister.

Honourable senators, let me tell you about my meeting with Senator Jacques Hébert in the whip's office. For your information I had never met him before and he had never met me either. Like everybody else I knew him only by name. On my being introduced to him he exclaimed: "Léonce, you have not changed a bit!" He had never seen me!

I had been told I most likely would sit in Jean-Louis Roux's chair. It made me very proud. Senator Hébert told me it was out of the question because newcomers usually sat in seat 104. After I was called to the Senate, eight new senators were appointed, but I was still in seat 104. I finally managed to change places. As you can see I got my revenge. Today I occupy a different seat.

Since I replaced Jean-Louis Roux I thought I would be assigned his office on the fifth floor of the Centre Block. But the whip sternly advised me it was impossible and that it would create an uproar among other senators. He put me on the third floor and my assistant on the sixth. All my colleagues lamented my less than ideal set-up.

Senator Hébert, I have things to forgive you for. You will be fondly remembered in the Senate, where you have many friends. Your energy, determination and knowledge will always be a reference for many of us. You guided us well and those who will come after you will benefit from your wisdom.

Senator Hébert, I am looking at you and just like me you have not changed a bit.

It is hard to talk about Senator Gigantès without mentioning Senator Hébert. When you see Senator Gigantès you see Senator Hébert and vice versa. It is like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. If you praise one you have to praise the other. The only thing Senator Gigantès does differently is that, unlike Senator Hébert, he does not take any vitamins.

Senator Gigantès, I regret not having known you. I am sincere when I say that because, had I known you, I would have made two very good politicians out of the two of you.

Hon. Jacques Hébert: Honourable senators, on April 30 of this year, I expressed my opposition to this bizarre habit that we have of showering senators with compliments on their retirement.

Try to imagine the number of hours, not to say weeks and months, the Senate has wasted this way since 1867. All these trees that were cut down so this flood of gentle remarks can be immortalized in Hansard, as if somebody would go to the library one day to read all that.

To limit the damage, I had urged my colleagues to spare me when my turn came. I have just been given the proof that I have absolutely no authority in this house on either side, even as a former whip.

[English]

I am only sorry my father and mother cannot be here.

Senator Fairbairn: Especially your mother.

Senator Hébert: My mother would have been very proud to hear all that, but my father would have believed it all.

[Translation]

I would be lying if I told you that I am indifferent to what I just heard. Behind the most incredible of exaggerations, I thought I could detect true feelings of friendship and camaraderie. I touches me a lot more than I would want to admit. To avoid giving way to sentimentalism, which we all tend to do in such circumstances, I will thank everybody in general without naming anybody in particular. Thank you, merci.

[English]

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Philippe Deane Gigantès: Honourable senators, I have been assembling a few notes for the past 14 and a half years. I thought that on such an occasion, because of your great courtesy, you would put up with me while I went through this text. Then I remembered that the quality of mercy is not strained, it falleth like a gentle rain from heaven. Therefore, I will let these notes fall.

Senator Di Nino: He has it all memorized.

Senator Gigantès: You are admirable. It has been a privilege and an honour to participate with you in the grand conversation, which is the stuff of democratic life. We fought verbally, but what we have done here is what makes democracy work and what makes a country like Canada so civilized. We may have had our differences, but that is the purpose of such an institution.

Through an accident of history, my honourable friends across the way find themselves in a chamber of the centre, like it or not. To their right is a menace to the country as there is one to the left.

In the 14 and one half years that I have been here, this chamber has made hundreds of amendments to 59 bills sent to us by the House of Commons. That means that those bills were defective. We corrected them, and they accepted our corrections. We served the country.

We do it cheaply. The Senate costs $1.40 per Canadian, per year; $42 million divided by 32 million people. Each senator costs 1.4 cents per Canadian per year. In my 14 and a half years, I have cost each Canadian 20 cents. With your help, I have participated in trying to help my fellow Canadians have better lives.

I thank the members opposite - including Senator Beaudoin who is not here - for allowing me to introduce a bill in the Senate prohibiting the drunken defence. When we were about to pass it, the Minister of Justice asked me if he could take it over, and I agreed.

(1600)

Senators on both sides of this chamber have done that many times. We have advanced ideas and ministers have asked us if they could take over carriage of the proposed legislation. We have allowed them to do so and the result has been much-needed legislation.

I am sure the women of Canada think we are well worth our 1.4 cents, if only because of our part in the drunken defence bill.

I will not continue. I will simply, for the first time, give you a greeting in Greek: Yatara. It means health and joy.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

---

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I should like to draw your attention to some visitors in the gallery who are guests of the Honourable Senator Forrestall. They are representatives of the Naval Officers Association of Canada and the Merchant Navy Coalition For Equality.

Welcome to the Senate.

---

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Ms Nancy MacBeth

Congratulations to Liberal Party Leader on winning Election to Alberta Legislature

Hon. Jean B. Forest: Honourable senators, today, like all my colleagues, I am very sad to see Senators Hébert and Gigantès take their leave of this chamber, but I must also say that today Alberta Liberals are a group of happy campers. Last evening, our newly elected leader, Nancy MacBeth, won a seat in the provincial legislature and, I am happy to add, won it quite handily.

I have known Nancy for a number of years and worked with her when she held the education and health portfolios under premier Don Getty. Nancy proved to be an able and competent minister. She was, of course, a Tory cabinet minister, but my honourable colleagues know I have no difficulty working with capable Tories, and as Premier Klein suggested in his message of congratulations last evening, we all look forward to interesting times in the Alberta legislature.

National Defence

Absence of Canadian Forces from NATO Initiative in Kosovo, Serbia

Hon. Michael A. Meighen: Honourable senators, I rise on a serious issue which, I believe, calls into question this government's commitment to being an active, constructive member of the international community at a time when the environment remains highly unstable and uncertain.

As honourable senators know, Canada was the only NATO air power that did not take part in mock raids over Kosovo's neighbours, a military exercise intended to send a strong and much-needed message to Serbian president Milosevic. In fact, Luxembourg, Iceland and Canada were the only NATO members that did not participate - little comfort, honourable senators, since neither Luxembourg nor Iceland have any fighter aircraft.

The reason for Canada's absence appears to be due primarily to the fact that our forces no longer have an airborne refueling capacity, which is necessary to sustain our CF18 squadron, since this government scrapped our last refueling jet last year This decision flies in the face of a key recommendation of the 1994 Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence Policy, on which I had the honour to serve, the recommendation being that the government improve, over the medium term, its air refueling capability, a recommendation of which the Minister of National Defence himself seemed to be blissfully unaware this week.

Honourable senators, our absence did not go unnoticed by our alliance partners. Indeed, the U.S. has now reportedly agreed to our request to provide a tanker aircraft, thereby, thanks to them, enabling us to fulfil, however tardily, our NATO obligations.

Honourable senators, the lack of commitment of this government to the Canadian Forces is demonstrated every time Canada fails to live up to its obligations and responsibilities as a G-7 country and member of the NATO alliance. This lack of commitment raises serious questions as to why this government fails to place a priority on maintaining a unified, combat-capable, multi-purpose armed force, one that is properly equipped and funded, an objective to which this government had ostensibly subscribed. Furthermore, this government continues to shave the proverbial military ice cube, thereby ensuring that Canada has the worst of all possible outcomes: a small armed force, lacking in equipment and without the capability to be quickly deployed; a lack of commitment, honourable senators, that puts at risk Canada's ability to fulfil its international obligations and responsibilities and which will, in my view, in the end, harm our national interests, both politically and economically.

Honourable senators, Canadians can have the best of all worlds: a small force, well equipped, and well trained, one which can respond quickly in support of our national interests. All this is possible, but only if this government lives up to its commitment and exercises a degree of leadership which, up to now, has been sadly lacking.

Halifax, Nova Scotia

Celebration of Birthday

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore: Honourable senators, I rise today to make a statement with respect to the birthday of Halifax, Nova Scotia, my home town, which is to be celebrated on Sunday, June 21 next. That day marks the 249th anniversary of the day a new governor of Nova Scotia, Lieutenant Colonel Edward Cornwallis, 36, a slender, handsome, battle-hardened and incorruptible blue-blood from London, led a dozen ships carrying nearly 2,600 settlers up between the forests that flanked one of the world's finest natural harbours and founded what generations of Canadians would come to love as the city of Halifax.

The history of the city of Halifax is astonishingly rich. It is a history that not only Nova Scotians but all Canadians should celebrate. Halifax prepared the soil for the very sprouting of Canada. By the early 1800s, when "Muddy York," the future Toronto, had barely graduated from being a bunch of tents in a settlement of 70-odd cabins, Halifax was not only the bastion of British power in North America and the strongest fortress outside Europe, but a bustling, cosmopolitan port of 10,000 residents boasting architectural treasures like Government House, the town clock, St. Paul's Church, as well as three newspapers, crowded theatres, a taste for balls, banquets, fireworks and parades, and a reputation as the home of beautiful, bejeweled and fashionably dressed women.

I am not knocking Toronto, but for swashbuckling, rip-snorting, seafaring, warfaring, international history - for heroes, scoundrels, adventurers and buccaneers - Toronto cannot come within a nautical mile of little old Halifax.

No city in Canada felt the deprivation, agony, horror, excitement and thunder of the Second World War more than Halifax. No city was more in the war or aroused so much affection and loathing amongst soldiers and sailors from across the nation - and I have not even mentioned the Titanic, the Halifax explosion or the VE Day riots.

To His Worship Mayor Walter R. Fitzgerald, the councillors and citizens of the city affectionately known as "The Warden of the North," I say happy birthday. In doing so, may I add words of appreciation and encouragement to Mr. Jack Keith and his committee of volunteers who are busy at work preparing for Halifax's 250th birthday next year.

I acknowledge the help of the noted writer Mr. Harry Bruce in these remarks.

Health

Increase in Government Funding to Breast Cancer Initiative

Hon. Janis Johnson: Honourable senators, I want to commend the government today on its announcement that $45 million will go to breast cancer research over the next five years. This is excellent news. I applaud as well the Medical Research Council of Canada for the moneys they are contributing to a fund for scientists working on breast cancer prevention and treatment. As well, the news that the core funding for the Canadian Breast Cancer Initiative, which is $7 million a year, will be reviewed automatically after five years is tremendous.

It is easy to say that this is not enough, and, of course, I, like others, would like to see more. However, I give much credit to the women of Canada for the progress on this issue, more so than to any politician or government, to organizations such as the Women's Health Research Foundation of Canada, situated in Winnipeg, which has been raising money for research into women's health needs for 15 years and of which I have the honour to be the patron; the Genesis Foundation of Toronto, a leader in the efforts to put more research dollars into health problem particular to women; and all the women's groups and breast cancer survivors across Canada who are responsible for putting this issue on the public agenda. Only in the last decade have we truly had an impact on the public consciousness, and on politicians, and researchers to focus on this devastating health problem.

(1610)

Honourable senators, 4 per cent of all research dollars goes to research and to health problems specific to women, outside of just the major killers. This is a stunning figure. Women have suffered for years because of it. However, we are now on the public agenda in a significant way.

Research is the key to our problems, and others. Awareness and detection is the answer to early treatment and health. The research dollars targeted for advanced work in the field of breast cancer research this week will mean that the 19,000 women diagnosed every year have a better chance at survival, and that the figure of one in nine women dying of the disease will lessen.

I hope in the near future that this government will make better efforts to promote other research into other serious health problems affecting women, particularly heart disease, ovarian cancer and mental illness - all problems assuming greater proportions every day.

National Integrated Health Care System

Hon. Wilbert J. Keon: Honourable senators, I rise today to call your attention to the provincial governments' recent request for substantial increases in transfer payments to deal with their floundering health care systems.

Despite the federal government's initiative to increase the Canada Health and Social Transfer from an annual rate of $11 billion to $12.5 billion this fiscal year, the provinces have recently united to demand an additional $6.2 billion in federal health and social transfers. While its intentions of bridging the gap between the richest and the poorest provinces are well placed, this year the government plans to transfer a total of $26 billion to the provinces and territories under the Canada Health and Social Transfer in support of health care, post-secondary education, social assistance and social service programs. As we all know, the proposals for significant increases in transfers and equalization programs are not unprecedented.

Honourable senators, the Canada Health and Social Transfer, which you all know replaced how the government financed health care prior to 1996 - through the Established Programs Financing transfer and Canada Assistance Program - is a block fund which gives provinces flexibility in program design while upholding the criteria and conditions in the Canada Health Act. This transfer, which is provided in the form of both cash transfers and tax point transfers, is estimated to deliver an extra $7 billion to the provincial governments between now and 2003.

What troubles me is that there seems to be no guarantee that an increase in federal transfers would go to health care because the CHST is a block fund which the provinces can spend where ever they please, including tax cuts, if they wish.

Honourable senators, I need not emphasize that our health care system constitutes one of the most treasured and respected social programs for all Canadians. I have brought to the attention of this chamber on numerous occasions the fact that the current state of health information in this country is not in good shape. The need for developing a national strategy for an integrated information system is critically important, but that system must also serve as the foundation for a national integrated health system. I commend the government and the Minister of Health for undertaking this initiative through the establishment of the National Advisory Council on the Health Info-structure to develop a system that will serve the general population, scientists, patients and providers.

Our health system itself is also in great need of integration to provide a coordinated continuum of services to a defined population and then to be held clinically and fiscally accountable for the outcomes. I believe the best way that this could be achieved would be through the establishment of a national institute of health, similar to our American neighbours. Such an organization would serve as a dynamic and diversified institution which would coordinate the gathering and distribution of information on research and new medical techniques with an emphasis on health promotion and disease control, ensuring that Canadians benefit from the latest medical advances, as well as assisting the development and publication of national health care targets and goals on behalf of the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

There remains no doubt that our cherished health care system is experiencing some serious problems. It is true that some of these problems would be solved with increased federal funding. However, let us not settle for this simplistic solution which will not achieve the kinds of improvements we all want to see. Let us insist that the federal government show true leadership in developing an integrated health system that will set standards and demand accountability for health outcomes through financial expenditures.

The Senate

Tributes to Pages

Hon. Mabel M. DeWare: Honourable senators, as our work in this place comes to an end for the summer, it is my pleasure, on behalf of my colleagues, to extend a vote of thanks to our young people in this place, our pages. We wish to thank them for their dedication to us here in the chamber and in our committee work. We also appreciate the way they have served us with such a pleasant manner, and the respect they have shown to us and to this place. I wish them all a very pleasant, fun-filled summer.

The Philippines

Centennial of Declaration of Independence from Spain

Hon. Dan Hays: Honourable senators, on June 12, 1998, at about 7:30 a.m., in Cavite at the Kawit Shrine, which was once the home of General Emilio Aguinaldo, founder of an independent Philippines, the centennial of the Declaration of Philippine Independence from Spain was marked. I had the pleasure of representing Canada at the centenary and did so at the invitation of the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The ceremony was conducted before the people of the Philippines and in the presence of heads of state, ministers and envoys from around the world. The air of celebration was evident in Manila and throughout the country. It was my good fortune to witness the rich displays of culture and heritage and the national pride that was so evident during the festivities commemorating this significant international milestone.

The marking of this centenary is important to Filipinos and to all citizens of the world community. The Philippines stands today as an example of peace, security and prosperity that is possible only in the context of the freedom and democracy that now exists in the Philippines. His Excellency President V. Fidel Ramos made this point very eloquently at the vin d'honneur given at Malacanang, the presidential palace, last Friday. Indeed, his remarks merit consideration by all who value the virtues of freedom and friendship. He noted that "while the cradle of our...identity will always be...our...homeland, the crucible in which we will be tested and where we can actualize all that we can be is the world - the global community."

[Translation]

The President referred to the Philippines' desire to be an independent and dynamic partner in the international community and expressed the hope that all countries and peoples might enjoy peace and prosperity. In this vein, it is interesting to note that the Philippines was one of the first countries to ally itself with Canada's initiative, which led to 122 countries signing the international treaty banning antipersonnel land mines at the meetings in Ottawa on December 2 to 4, 1997.

[English]

We should be very impressed with the success of the Philippines. Although the Philippine peso is experiencing the same stress facing other Asian currencies, the impact of the Asian currency crisis has clearly had a less adverse effect on the Philippine economy than on those of its neighbours. This, in turn, has placed the Philippines in a good position to deal with the El Niño induced drought that has caused so much difficulty in the region.

It is my observation, honourable senators, that the Philippines went through a difficult period of adjustment some years ago, well in advance of the current financial crisis in Asia. Now, as other countries struggle with similar challenges, a more mature Philippine economy is benefiting from its previous efforts, demonstrating not only greater stability but also displaying increasingly well-entrenched democratic traditions and values.

[Translation]

Let us take, for example, the accomplishments of this proud nation during the six-year term of the outgoing president. Under the direction of Fidel Ramos, the Philippines freed itself from a program of the International Monetary Fund and joined the World Trade Organization. It encouraged international investment and broke up monopolies in agriculture, telecommunications and energy production.

[English]

(1620)

The Philippine economy continues to grow. Infrastructure requirements are being met. The work force is skilled, and there exists a greater degree of transparency in the financial sector. As well, the principle of government accountability is maintained through the representation of opposition parties in the congress and by the presence of a free press.

Perhaps most telling, honourable senators, is the fact that the average life expectancy of Filipinos rose a full four years, to 69, and the number of citizens living below the poverty line dropped by a full 10 per cent.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I must inform Senator Hays that his time has expired. Is leave granted to allow the Honourable Senator Hays to continue?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Hays: Honourable senators, most commentators attribute these successes to the government's commitment to democracy and its policies of liberalization and privatization. The Ramos legacy of political stability and economic reform speaks well of the democratic means that his administration employed in the pursuit of the public good.

In closing, honourable senators, let me share my observation that Filipinos are justifiably proud of their country's successes. Their journey from a colonial state to a free and independent land was long and difficult, but even as they have resisted dictatorial rule, so too have they overcome the disunity and economic difficulty that held them back for so long. As President Ramos prepares to give way to his successor, President-elect Joseph Estrada, on June 30, Filipinos have every reason to be optimistic about the next 100 years.

At this time, colleagues, I ask you to join me in honouring the centennial of the declaration of Philippine independence and in wishing both the outgoing and incoming presidents and their governments every success in the future.

Business of the Senate

Clarification for the Record

Hon. Marcel Prud'Homme: Honourable senators, I was in my office yesterday when I heard Senator Grafstein speak about the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group. When I ran upstairs, I was out of breath, and during the course of my remarks in the chamber, I misspoke. Given that I have received a nice letter from my dearest friend, Senator Gauthier, I wish to resolve this matter right away.

On page 1831 of the Debates of the Senate of yesterday, Wednesday, June 17, 1998, at the top of the second column, I stated:

...I have a project to write...

I was incorrect. I have been asked by the inter-parliamentary council to write a project. It was not my suggestion.

As I indicated, Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier sent me a letter in which he stated that if that is what I wanted to do, I did not understand the importance of the AIPLF.

Honourable senators, I want Senator Gauthier to know that I understand his concern. At no time have I ever considered abolishing all parliamentary associations and retain only the Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Association. I do not believe in that.

[Translation]

Senator Gauthier, the idea of abolishing all parliamentary associations except the U.S. one never crossed my mind. I was only trying to rank them. Second, he cannot accuse me of not knowing how the IAFSP works and the important role it plays. He plays a large role in that association, but what is also worth noting is that Jean-Robert Gauthier reads the proceedings of the Senate. He read the proceedings and discovered that gem; therefore I want to correct any error I might have made yesterday and tell him that it was not my intention. I will do what I was asked to do, but I am in no way contemplating the abolition of the other inter-parliamentary associations. My objective is simply to put some order in the parliamentary associations and friendship groups.

---

[English]

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Royal Assent Bill

Report of Committee

Hon. Lorna Milne, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented the following report:

Thursday, June 18, 1998

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its

TWELFTH REPORT

Your Committee, to which was referred Bill S-15, An Act respecting the declaration of royal assent by the Governor General in the Queen's name to bills passed by the Houses of Parliament, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, June 9, 1998, examined the said Bill and now reports the same with the following amendments:

1. Page 1, Clause 2: Replace lines 12 to 14 with the following:

"is the first appropriation bill presented for assent in a session."

2. Page 1, Clause 3: Replace lines 17 to 20, with the following:

"ment by the Speaker of that House or by the person acting as the Speaker."

3. Page 1, New Clause 3:

a) Add after line 14, on page 1, the following:

"3. A declaration of royal assent in the form and manner referred to in paragraph 2(a) must occur on at least one occasion in each calendar year."

b) Renumber the subsequent clauses accordingly.

4. Page 1, New Clause 7: Add after line 29, the following:

"7. No royal assent is invalid by reason only that section 3 is not complied with in any calendar year."

Respectfully submitted,

LORNA MILNE
Chair

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

Senator Milne: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(g), I move that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration later this day.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Are copies of that report being circulated?

Senator Milne: I will see that they are circulated.

Motion agreed to and report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration later this day.

Information Commissioner

Report of Committee on motion to approve Appointment Presented

Hon. Lorna Milne, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented the following report:

Thursday, June 18, 1998

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its

THIRTEENTH REPORT

Your Committee, in accordance with Section 54 of the Access to Information Act, Chapter A-1, R.S.C. 1985, that the Senate approve the appointment of the Honourable John Reid, P.C., as Information Commissioner, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, June 16, 1998, heard from the Honourable John Reid, P.C., and recommends that the Senate approve his appointment as Information Commissioner.

Respectfully submitted,

LORNA MILNE
Chair

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

On motion of Senator Milne, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(g), report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration later this day.

Federal Child Support Guidelines

Interim Report of Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee on Study Tabled and Considered-Debate Adjourned

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, which deals with the implementation and application of Chapter 1, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act, and the associated Federal Child Support Guidelines.

Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 97(3), I move that the report be taken into consideration now in order to let me speak for 60 seconds by way of explanation.

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

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, perhaps I can get a clarification from the Chair. If leave is granted for Senator Murray to speak, at what stage are we with respect to the report once he concludes his remarks?

(1630)

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Senator Murray has moved, with leave, that the report be taken into consideration now. He indicated to the chamber that he wishes to speak for some 60 seconds approximately. Of course, the house would need to grant leave.

Honourable senators, is leave granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Murray: Honourable senators, in this report, the committee draws preliminary observations and identifies areas for further study about the impacts and implementation of the guidelines that came into effect on May 1, 1997. Some members may remember that the study arises from the committee's previous consideration of Bill C-41, the bill that amended the Divorce Act and provided for the guidelines to be introduced by regulation. Although our work has come early in their implementation, all members on the committee would agree that the effort was worthwhile, and the testimony of our witnesses, through 13 meetings, was compelling.The committee intends to return to the subject within the next 18 months because of the importance of the guidelines and the interest of our members.

Our interim report contains 12 recommendations. Key among them is that the section of the guidelines dealing with extraordinary expenses should be clarified. Most of our witnesses identified this provision as very problematic. We have recommended an interpretation of the section which makes sense to us, and we have suggested a definition of extraordinary expenses that we believe would help lawyers, litigants and judges solve some thorny problems.

The Divorce Act requires the Minister of Justice to conduct a comprehensive review of the guidelines to be tabled in Parliament at the five-year mark. In our report, we urged the minister not to wait that long before making changes to the guidelines if the need for change is apparent. We distinguished between those areas that we thought needed immediate attention and those that require more time for their impact to be assessed. We also make recommendations about post-secondary education expenses in particular, and shared parenting, undue hardship and enforcement.

I thank honourable senators for their indulgence.

On motion of Senator Cools, debate adjourned.

Canada Grain Act
Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act
Grain Futures Act

Bill to Amend-Report of Committee

Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson, Chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, presented the following report:

Thursday, June 18, 1998

The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has the honour to present its

SIXTH REPORT

Your Committee, to which was referred the Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Grain Futures Act, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference on Tuesday, June 16, 1998, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

LEONARD J. GUSTAFSON
Chairman

Third Reading

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

Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson: Honourable senators, notwithstanding rule 58(1)(g), I move that the bill be read the third time now.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.

Canada Labour Code
Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act

Bill to Amend-Report of Committee

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the eleventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on 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.

I ask that the report be printed in the Journals of the Senate of this day.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate.)

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

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): With leave of the Senate, later this day.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Is leave granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

On motion of Senator Carstairs, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading later this day.

Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration

Twenty-Second Report of Committee Presented and Adopted

Hon. Bill Rompkey, Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, presented the following report:

Thursday, June 18, 1998

The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its

TWENTY-SECOND REPORT

The Constitution Act, 1867, subsection 23(5), states that a Senator "shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed." This means that Senators whose primary residence is more than 100 kilometers from Parliament Hill incur additional living expenses for which they should be reimbursed when they are in the National Capital Region.

Members of the House of Commons are entitled to claim a maximum allowance of up to $6,000 to cover living expenses incurred when they are away from their primary residence. The Blais Commission recently recommended that this amount be increased up to a maximum of $12,000 per year.

In addition, the Blais Commission recognized that Senators also incur living expenses when they are in the National Capital Region and recommended that they too be eligible for reimbursement. Your Committee notes that the Senate has the legal authority, pursuant to subsection 63(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, to provide for the reimbursement of expenses of this nature incurred by Senators.

Your Committee therefore recommends that:

(i) a policy be established to reimburse eligible Senators for actual living expenses incurred in the National Capital Region; and

(ii) your Committee be empowered to establish the terms and conditions of this policy and adjust it periodically.

Your Committee notes that amounts reimbursed to Senators for living expenses in the National Capital Region will be disclosed in the Public Accounts of Canada.

Respectfully submitted,

WILLIAM ROMPKEY
Chair

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: When shall this report be taken into consideration, honourable senators?

Senator Rompkey: With leave, now.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and report adopted.

(1640)

Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders

Sixth Report of Committee Tabled

Hon. Shirley Maheu: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

On motion of Senator Maheu, report placed on Orders of the Day for consideration on Tuesday, September 22, 1998.

[Translation]

Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration

Twenty-third Report of Committee Presented

Hon. Pierre-Claude Nolin, Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, presented the following report:

Thursday, June 18, 1998

The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its

TWENTY-THIRD REPORT

The 1998-99 Senate Estimates, adopted by the Senate on February 26, 1998, included an amount of $500,000 to fund additional research for the party caucuses, subject to further discussion. Such funds which are provided to recognized parties in the other place are necessary to better assist senators in the performance of their parliamentary duties.

Your Committee now recommends that effective April 1, 1998 the amount of $500,000 be allocated in fiscal year 1998-99, as follows: (i) independent senators, up to $5,000 each; and (ii) the remaining monies to be shared equally between the Government caucus and the Official Opposition. These funds are to be used for research assistance and related equipment needed to perform this function.

Contracting for human resources will be fashioned after the model for Senators' global budgets. Individuals will fall within one of the following three categories: (i) short-term contracts for a specific project; (ii) term contract for less than six months; and (iii) term contract for more than six months. Contracts will be renewable every April 1st.

Office spaces, supplies and telephone lines will be provided by Senate administration. Other services such as messenger, postal and printing services will be extended to research centers.

Expenses will be incurred by the Senate administration upon receipt of signed documentation. The Leader of each party will delegate signing authority to two senators from that party. Each independent senator will exercise signing authority up to the maximum amount allocated.

This policy will be reviewed by your Committee before the next fiscal year.

Respectfully submitted,

WILLIAM ROMPKEY
Chair

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

Senator Nolin: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 59(1)(g), I move that this report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration later today.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

On motion of Senator Nolin, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration later this day.

[English]

Merchant Navy War Service Recognition Bill

First Reading

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall presented Bill S-19, to give further recognition to the war-time service of Canadian merchant navy veterans and to provide for their fair and equitable treatment.

Bill read first time.

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

On motion of Senator Forrestall, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading on Tuesday, October 6, 1998.

[Translation]

Developing Countries

Status of Education and Health in Young Girls and Women-Notice of Inquiry

Hon. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 57(2), I give notice that on Tuesday, September 22, 1998, I will call the attention of the Senate to the population, education and health, particularly of young girls and women, in many developing countries.

---

[English]

QUESTION PERIOD

Business of the Senate

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board-Assurance to Deal with Motion-Government Position

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It deals with the Canada Pension Plan.

Today, members of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce unanimously urged the Senate to immediately adopt Motion No. 73 on the Order Paper, standing in the name of Senator Carstairs. I moved that motion on June 8 and it was adjourned by Senator Carstairs. I do not think that adjournment of the debate should be used to indefinitely postpone the motion.

Could this motion be dealt with today, since we will be leaving this place tomorrow for our summer recess?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, there is full agreement on this side to deal with that motion later this day.

National Defence

Readiness of Canadian Forces to Participate in NATO Initiative in Kosovo, Serbia-Government Position

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. What is the position of the government with regard to sending military forces to Kosovo in face of the recent Serbian military movements to reinforce their position with heavy armour in the area of Prizren Road?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, as you know, Canada has supported the tactics that have been taken by our NATO allies. As well, we support Russia's efforts to secure a negotiated settlement. The fundamental aim, of course, is to end the fighting.

I think our NATO allies have sent a clear signal to the Yugoslav government that ongoing fighting in Kosovo is unacceptable. The question whether Canadian personnel should be involved is under review at this time.

Senator Forrestall: Honourable senators, could the government leader tell us whether arrangements have been completed to place at the disposal of our allies a number of Canadian war aircraft? If so, how would they be delivered?

(1650)

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, I am sure the people responsible for such matters in the Department of National Defence are fully aware and ready to take part at a moment's notice, if they are so instructed by the Government of Canada.

Senator Forrestall: My question is more basic than that.

We made this commitment a long time ago. We had no way of getting them there. I am asking specifically: Do we have a way of ferrying them to that part of the world?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, my understanding is that the matter has been totally reviewed by the military and that measures have been taken to ensure that they will be ready, as they would be, at a moment's notice.

Senator Forrestall: If they are parked on the tarmac at Cold Lake, they are not much good there.

Allegations of Mistreatment and Abuse by Members of Armed Forces-Comments of Minister Before Completion of Investigation-Government Position

Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It concerns the case of Ann Margaret Dickey. As you are aware, Miss Dickey alleged that she was raped by fellow soldiers at the recruitment base in St-Jean, Quebec. Specifically, the 25-year-old woman has alleged that a master seaman and a master corporal beat and kicked her, then raped her at one point while telling her to beg for her life.

These allegations have led to an investigation by the military police. In response to her allegations, the Defence Minister has been quoted as saying in the Ottawa Sun on June 12, 1998, that:

My understanding is that she has brought different information at different times to police authorities, either revised or new information, on an on-going basis, so that additional examinations and investigations were required.

Do you agree that it is improper for the Minister of Defence, whose department is investigating this case, to comment on the case before the investigation is complete?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I believe that the Minister of National Defence acted appropriately. There was a question on this matter the other day. I said that I would look into the matter and it is being investigated thoroughly by the military police. We hope that a report will be forthcoming in the very near future.

Senator Oliver: Does the honourable leader not agree that the minister intervening and making comments against the victim in the way he has undermines the impartiality of the investigation and places it in jeopardy?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, I am not aware of any comments that have been made in that respect by the minister.

Senator Oliver: I just read to the leader the comments that were reported in the press. Should the minister not resign?

Senator Graham: No.

Delayed Answers to Oral Questions

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have a response to a question raised in the Senate on March 25, by the Honourable Senator David Tkachuk, regarding changes to rules in the Guaranteed Income Supplement regarding casual earnings of seniors; on June 8, by the Honourable Senator Mira Spivak, regarding the aid and information supplied to purchasers of CANDU reactors; on June 9, 1998, by the Honourable J. Michael Forrestall, regarding the purchase of clothing and equipment in public sector for troops; on June 10, by the Honourable Senator Orville Phillips and by the Honourable Senator Raynell Andreychuk, regarding the present status of Perley and Rideau Veterans' Health Centre; on June 11, 1998, by the Honourable J. Michael Forrestall, regarding the training and deployment of reserves, inadequacy of food allowances; and on June 11, 1998, by the Honourable Senator Consiglio Di Nino, regarding accusations of mistreatment and abuse by members of the armed forces.

Hon. Orville H. Phillips: Honourable senators, may I ask the Deputy Leader of the Government to read the reply to the question asked by myself and Senator Andreychuk regarding the Perley and Rideau Veterans' Health Centre?

Senator Carstairs: Certainly. However, I do not have the reply because I just gave it to the page. If I may have it back, I will be delighted to read it into the record.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, while we are waiting, are the answers to the Order Paper questions being distributed to those who asked them? The Deputy Leader of the Government has, I believe, six or seven dating from some time ago. Those who asked the questions would like to see those answers.

Senator Carstairs: I assume, honourable senators, that they are being distributed as quickly as they can be distributed. The pages have been given an adequate number of copies.

Veterans Affairs

Present Status of Perley and Rideau Veterans' Health Centre-Government Position

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, this is the response to the question raised by the Honourable Orville Phillips on June 10, 1998.

The care and well-being of veterans is a primary importance to Veterans Affairs Canada. Almost $2 billion a year is dedicated to veterans programs, approximately $200 million of which is expended on long-term care for veterans.

As is the case with all similar care institutions, Veterans Affairs has closely monitored the care provided to veterans at Perley and Rideau Veterans' Health Centre. A Quality of Care Review was undertaken by Veterans Affairs and the Ontario Ministry of Health in April of this year. That review confirmed that veterans are receiving satisfy care at the Perley. Veterans Affairs will continue to monitor at the Perley and, should circumstances warrant, Veterans Affairs will take the action required to ensure that quality care is maintained.

Veterans Affairs carefully considered the possibility of intervening in the legal action undertaken by Perley. The conclusion reached was it was solely a matter between the Perley and Ontario. The Ontario Court (General Division) was informed of that opinion.

National Finance

Changes to Rules on Guaranteed Income Supplement Regarding Casual Earnings of Seniors-Government Position

(Response to question raised by Hon. David Tkachuk on March 25, 1998)

The changes to Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and Spouses' Allowance (SPA) "income definition" were intended to bring the definition of income more into line with that of the Income Tax Act and to permit the program to provide similar treatment as that for the Child Tax Benefit, the Repayment of Social Benefits and the Age Exemption.

However, partially due to discussions initiated by committee members and advocacy groups, it was brought to the government's attention that this measure may have unintended consequences on the GIS/SPA payments of a small number of seniors.

On 25 May, 1998 the Department of Finance issued a press release which indicated that it would not proceed with this change and another one which would have introduced a new calculation formula for GIS/SPA payments. This announcement is supported by Human Resources Development Canada.

The government proceeded with the Budget Bill (C-36) unchanged, but will ensure that these two changes do not come into force.

Atomic Energy of Canada

Aid and Information Supplied to Purchasers of CANDU Reactor-Safeguard of Signing Non-Proliferation Agreement-Government Position

(Response to question raised by Hon. Mira Spivak on June 8, 1998)

As the matter is before the courts, it would be inappropriate to comment at this time.

National Defence

Purchase of Clothing and Equipment in Public Sector for Troops-Government Position

(Response to question raised by Hon. J. Michael Forrestall on June 9, 1998)

On Feb 25 1998, a request from Land Force Quebec Area Headquarters in Montreal to procure combat boots at a local store was received at National Defence Headquarters. At that time the Forces were faced with a shortage of specific sizes of combat boots and a total of 2,063 recruits was expected between 16 March and 29 June 1998 at the Canadian Forces Recruit School in St-Jean. The staff in St-Jean had found a military surplus store in the Montreal area that had new combat boots (bought directly from a manufacturer) in stock. Although the boots were subsequently found to be seconds which had initially been rejected by the DND technical authority, it was decided to be an expedient way of meeting the requirement on time for the first recruits and 579 pairs were purchased. In addition, supply instructions were issued to move several hundred pairs from other DND locations to St-Jean and a contract for 900 pairs was arranged with a manufacturer for delivery before the end of April 1998. A major contract was let in April 1998 for 23,000 pairs with a weekly delivery of 1,000 pairs. Deliveries from this contract began on 5 June 1998.

A combination of factors would appear to explain the recently experienced shortage of combat clothing and combat equipment. The most illustrative one is the increased use of combat clothing as dress of the day by the majority of land personnel, and the elimination of garrison dress in an effort to rationalize Army dress and eventually reduce costs. Other factors include: increased use of combat clothing by other elements; bankruptcy of the contractor who was weaving the cloth used in combat clothing, and subsequent difficulties experienced in finding another contractor who met DND requirements; and increased requirement of combat clothing for reservists due to their increased involvement in operations.

To rectify this situation, the Department awarded contracts for combat shirts, pants and boots worth approximately $8.1 million in the last six months to replenish combat clothing stocks and re-adjust to the new level of combat clothing requirements. In the interim, as stated above, various measures have been taken to meet the demands of deployed units, units preparing for deployment and recruit training.

Training and Deployment of Reserves-Inadequacy of Food Allowance-Government Position

(Response to question raised by Hon. J. Michael Forrestall on June 11, 1998)

The Canadian Forces Food Services Section is authorized to provide food to all Reserve and Regular Force personnel undergoing training or engaged in operations in amounts that satisfy most appetites and virtually all nutritional requirements at no cost for the member. A menu that provides choices and generous portions of most foods is the norm. If soldiers are undertaking training that is very arduous, the Commanding Officer has the authority to request an increment to the standard allowance to provide for additional caloric needs for the group during a specific period. The Canadian Forces has a well-deserved reputation for providing its members with a very high standard of food services, both at home and abroad.

Accusations of Mistreatment and Abuse by Members of Armed Forces-Government Action

(Response to question raised by Hon. Consiglio Di Nino on June 11, 1998)

Ann Margaret Dickey's case is currently under investigation by the National Investigation Service (NIS) of the Canadian Forces. She has made some very serious and complicated allegations, and the NIS is the best mechanism to ensure that all the facts are collected and that a thorough investigation is completed.

The NIS was established in September 1997 as an independent organization. It was established in response to Chief Justice Dickson's review of the military justice services as well as a recommendation made by the Somalia Commission.

Answers to Order Paper Questions Tabled

Department of Justice-Letter to Swiss Authorities Regarding Claim of Criminal Activity in Airbus Purchase

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government) tabled the answer to Question No. 82 on the Order Paper-by Senator Lynch-Staunton.

Confirmation Regarding Purported Humanitarian Medical Shipments to Mexico by Senator Andrew Thompson

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government) tabled the answer to Question No. 84-by Senator LeBreton.

Energy-Department of Revenue-Conformity with Alternative Fuels Act

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government) tabled the answer to Question No. 104 - by Senator Kenny.

Transport-Tolls on Trans-Canada Highway

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government) tabled the answer to Question No. 112 -by Senator Oliver.

Auditor General's Report on Immigration

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government) tabled the answer to Question No. 114 -by Senator Oliver.

Department of Citizenship and Immigration-Request for Reports

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government) tabled the answer to Question No. 118 -by Senator Oliver.

The Senate

Tributes to Departing Pages

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before I call Orders of the Day, I should like to introduce and say "farewell" to pages who will be leaving us before we meet next time.

Today, we are losing not only two senators but also five pages from our present group. First, there is Issie Berish, from Côte-Saint-Luc, Quebec. He has now graduated from the University of Ottawa with a degree in political science, and he hopes to continue his studies in law in September, 1998.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, Alexandre Cloutier is from Alma, Quebec. He has been a Senate page for the past two years. He is studying civil law at the University of Ottawa. We hope he has a pleasant trip to Costa Rica this summer.

[English]

Next is Hamish Kidston, who is responding today to all the questions about "What happened to your elbow?" He is from Maple Ridge, British Columbia. He has also graduated from the University of Ottawa, with a degree in business administration. He hopes to continue his studies in law.

We also have Aneel Rangi from Ottawa, Ontario. She is studying criminology at the University of Ottawa. Next year, though she will not be a page, she will still be working in the Senate. She will be working in the office of Senator Corbin as a research assistant.

Unfortunately, the fifth page had to leave for another meeting. That is Geoffrey Sisk.

[Translation]

Born in Quebec City, Jeff grew up in Fredericton, New Brunswick. He is majoring in economics at the University of Ottawa, and is completing his second year in the page program.

On behalf of all the senators, I wish to thank all the departing pages for their excellent service. We wish you good luck in whatever you undertake to do.

---

[English]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Parliament of Canada Act
Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act
Salaries Act

Bill to Amend-Third Reading

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government), moved the third 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, I defer to Senator Simard.

Hon. Jean-Maurice Simard: Honourable senators, at the outset, and at the risk of being branded as a "pension pig" and a "double-dipper" and classified with the Reform members in the other place, as some English-speaking reporters earlier called Preston Manning's colleagues, I would ask my fellow English-speaking senators to hear me out at length in French.

(1700)

I have informed the leadership on both sides of this house earlier today that I will be proposing an amendment to this bill. I have also informed both parties in this chamber of the nature of the amendment.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I know that my speech will exceed the time allowed any senator at this stage. I recall Senator Carstairs saying that the Senate would set aside all the time necessary for a serious and thorough study of this bill. I ask honourable senators in advance for leave to exceed the time allowed.

The opinions I expressed in my speech at third reading of Bill C-47 are only those of the senator from Edmundston, but they are still a defence of the Canadian political class.

Honourable senators, when we agreed to sit in this chamber, we also agreed to be true to the noble duties we were given: our duty to the Senate as an institution, which we have a responsibility to make effective and relevant; our duty to our respective political parties, which are the primary vehicles of our action and our public commitment; but the most important duty we have accepted is our duty to the Constitution of this country, which gives us weighty responsibilities vis-à-vis the people of the regions we represent and the Canadian public generally.

I have never been in any doubt that this sacred duty towards Canadians had to take precedence over all the others, and, with all it involves, what this responsibility ultimately means is that we, as parliamentarians, must be not only opinion leaders, but also staunch defenders of the democratic values fundamental to the very existence of this country.

It is in this spirit, honourable senators, that I wish to take part in this debate on Bill C-47, to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act, and to offer my comments on the report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the remuneration of parliamentarians and the Blais commission's recommendations.

On Tuesday, June 16, 1998, I gave a brief speech at second reading of the bill, drawing attention to and criticizing members' hypocrisy and the rarely used procedure in the other chamber of ramming a bill through after less than two hours of debate, almost on the sly, and at the last moment before the summer recess.

I cannot help but tell you my profound disappointment, not to say my indignation, at what I can only call cowardliness and hypocrisy on the part of the members of the five parties represented in the other place.

I do mean the five parties. This includes my own Progressive Conservative Party, although I am prepared to believe that, in its case, it may be a simple case of a mistake made by young members, since 18 of the 19 members were elected for the first time in the June 1997 election.

I am not alluding to the content or the provisions of a bill with which I fundamentally agree, except for a few major reservations that I will mention later on. What upsets me is the shameful way in which these elected representatives, these people chosen among many others to protect the interests of Canadians, these people who, every day, enjoy the benefits of democracy, chose to hide like common conspirators when the time came to pass a bill that could make them unpopular.

This way of doing things could be interpreted like this: we will take taxpayers' money to increase our personal income, and we think this is perfectly justified.

However, the real message that these people conveyed to their constituents is one of shame and deceitfulness. They said to those who put their confidence in them: We are taking your money, but we cannot tell you why. You are not intelligent enough to understand.

What an insult! What a shame! No wonder they did this in secret.

Democracy is based on truth and transparency. Freedom of speech is meaningless if, inside Canada's most venerable symbol of that freedom of expression, these supposedly democratically elected members get together to tamper with the procedure, for the sole purpose of hiding the truth.

Honourable senators, forgive me if, at my age, after 30 years of active public life, I still seem to have certain illusions.

I have lost some of them since the late 1940s when, as a teenager, I came to Ottawa as a boarder to study under the Oblate Fathers. I quickly developed a passion for parliamentary life. At the time, I was excited to come to Parliament several times a year to watch the debates in the House of Commons, at the invitation of my member of Parliament.

This closeness to the political power fuelled the passion in our political debates as college students. Through the eyes of the teenagers that we were, everything seemed so easy. In those eight years, we managed to solve all the problems of students and of our country, not to mention some world conflicts, when we had a few hours on our hands to debate these issues.

Together we made major decisions about our personal future, such as becoming millionaires before turning 40, and entering politics some day.

As for me, a native of Rivière-Bleue, I had already decided that I would become the leader of my party in Quebec, that I would never be a full-time politician, and that I would not spend more than 10 years in active politics. I and my friends sure knew what politics were all about, or so we thought.

(1710)

Fifty years later, I can tell you I never became a millionaire, never got to be leader of my party in Quebec. My political career was in New Brunswick, and I have done nothing else for 30 years now.

There is one thing I am sure was not a mistake: that was to choose an MP as my role model: Jean-François Pouliot, the Liberal standard-bearer for the riding in which I was born, Rivière-du-Loup-Témiscouata for more than 30 years, believe it or not.

He was not elected, and re-elected eight times, for no reason. Among the flock of Liberal sheep at that time playing at being Quebec MPs, this was a man of great frankness and political courage, one who never hesitated to put the good of his constituents before that of his party. He even went so far as to run as an independent Liberal in 1945, which did not even reduce his comfortable majority.

I learned my first real, rather than dreamed, political lesson in the June 25, 1968 election, when I ran as a Progressive Conservative under the direction of the Right Honourable Robert Stanfield. I ran up against the phenomenon known as Trudeaumania, coupled with a Liberal opponent by the name of Eymard G. Corbin, a young journalist and a professional like myself. I had opened a chartered accountant firm 9 years before in Edmundston, with offices in Grand-Sault as well.

Despite the defeat, which still stings after 30 years, I am greatly pleased to find that same opponent here in the person of the honourable senator from Grand-Sault, Eymard G. Corbin, who has been a model of devotion to the people of his region, his province, and Canada as a whole, over the past 30 years. I greet him today and offer him congratulations on behalf of all the people of our province.

My clearest memory of June 25, 1968, is that he won with honour, as I accepted my defeat with honour. The voters did not forget that, in either of our cases. Within a few months, I became president of the provincial Progressive Conservatives, and on October 26, 1970, under the leadership of Richard Hatfield, I was elected MPP as we wrested power from a seemingly invincible Liberal adversary, the Honourable Louis Robichaud, the first Acadian to be elected premier and another senatorial colleague whom I salute and thank on behalf of all the people of my province.

During the next 15 years of uninterrupted term of office, I had the opportunity to be part of the cabinet of the late premier, the Honourable Richard Hatfield, who became an example of tolerance and dynamism throughout Canada. In June 1985, I had the honour of being appointed to the Senate and of defending the interests of my region nationally.

Throughout those years of active politics, I am proud to say that I have always wanted to closely follow the day-to-day concerns of my electors and those of my colleagues in both Houses.

I learned that Canadian voters are much more intelligent than observers and political strategists would have us believe. Voters are quite capable of taking things into consideration and drawing their own conclusions, often far more brilliantly than the political wizards.

I have always tried to act openly. Sometimes this approach caused me certain short-lived problems. I have never feared the truth. The voters of Edmundston placed their trust in me four times, each time with 55 per cent of the vote.

The Edmundston voters also re-elected a federal Liberal for 16 years. Don't tell me that this is not a sign of intelligence, that these people do not know which members defend the voters' interests ahead of those of the party. I did not doubt for one minute that people could tell the difference between propaganda and courage, between smoke screens and honesty and between subterfuge and truth. When parliamentarians are courageous enough to provide a direct explanation, voters, even though they may disagree with their representatives, appreciate, first and foremost, their courage to speak the truth.

Richard Hatfield, myself and our government were far from perfect. But people in New Brunswick knew what we stood for. Acadians believed us when we told them the renewed Progressive Conservative Party, a party which had been hostile to them for so many years, was now ready to recognize their rights. Richard Hatfield's government honoured its commitments.

Acadians returned the favour, and in 1982 Richard Hatfield's government was voted in for the fourth consecutive time in a landslide election, winning several ridings in Acadian areas.

By re-electing us in 1982, Acadians were rejecting the then Liberal leader, Doug Young. Do not tell me voters in New Brunswick did not have foresight.

With regard to the bill before us today, I have a confession to make to you, honourable senators, and to my constituents. Senators in this room, including Lowell Murray, will recall that on July 12, 1993, the Senate voted to rescind a decision made on June 23 granting an additional monthly travel allowance of $500, in Ottawa, with supporting vouchers. I chose to abstain.

I have always regretted not having had the courage to explain why I abstained. People in Edmundston, in New Brunswick and across Canada deserved better.

I will not make the same mistake twice. This is the main reason why I have been participating so extensively in this debate. I will not remain silent in front of the deplorable maneuvering on the part of members in the other place. I fully intend to explain openly and clearly to my constituents and Canadians as a whole why I support the bill in general and why I strongly disagree with some of its provisions.

How ironic, honourable senators, that the title of the report of the Blais commission should be: "Supporting Democracy."

How sad it is to realize that the honest work of this Commission to review allowances of Members of Parliament was so quickly and so unscrupulously reviled by the very parliamentarians it sought to redeem in the eyes of an increasingly skeptical public.

In a few hours of mental aberration, the five parties in the Commons ruined everything.

The Blais commission wrote, on page 28 of its report, and I quote:

Yet a full understanding of Parliament's role in our system of government means recognizing that confrontation and criticism are inherent and indeed essential in fulfilling Parliament's responsibilities, including holding government to account for its decisions and actions and ensuring disclosure of information important to the public interest, allowing parliamentarians - and all Canadians - to reach informed opinions and decisions on matters of public policy.

Nice words, but do they still mean anything today? Can we blame people for being cynical towards parliamentarians and politicians in general? What should we make of their commitment to the public interest when the representatives of all five parties sign a secret pact, hold a two-hour phoney debate in the House of Commons, and pass a bill which concerns them directly without a formal vote. And this just before they adjourn for a three-month summer recess?

We are not surprised that the present government should choose to introduce such a plan. But I was flabbergasted when all four opposition parties blithely supported such disgraceful tactics.

And what about the Reform Party, now the perfect symbol of hypocrisy, whose members used to turn down all perks. This leader who did not want to live in Stornoway, who rejected the car and driver that were offered by Parliament, is the same one who is now accepting all of these things. He now gets his clothes at taxpayers' expense, on top of the fact that he conspires with the "Liberal devil" to get a severance package which, after 12 years in the House, could be worth $300,000 for Mr. Preston Manning.

The masks have dropped to show the true face of these reactionaries.

As I said, I am fundamentally in agreement with the provisions of Bill C-47 and with the Blais commission, and I quote:

The compensation of a member of Parliament should adequately reflect the actual expenses associated with a life of seven-day work weeks, frequent and often long-distance travel, family separation, and required attendance at public events and ceremonial occasions. This compensation must be just and fair, considering the economic situation and the value attached to political life.

As the Honourable Don Boudria said so eloquently:

Compensation should not be a financial godsend, but a just and realistic compensation comparable to that of society as a whole, so that members of Parliament will not face financial difficulties.

One can hardly disagree with the principle on which the Blais commission based its recommendations. So I consider that, in view of the fact that comparable raises were granted in the public and private sectors, the 2-per-cent raise provided for in Bill C-47 is not excessive, even though the Blais commission did not recommend any raise for the time being.

However, as we know, a tax-free spending allowance is added to this sessional allowance. In fact, it is equal to a third of an MP's total compensation package. The Blais commission suggested eliminating this tax exemption and increasing the sessional allowance in such a way that the net, after-tax remuneration would remain the same.

I regret that the members of the other place chose to reject that recommendation, which would only have given parliamentarians the same status as all other Canadian taxpayers.

I am particularly offended by the excuses given to justify that refusal. The members of the parliamentary committee that studied the proposal were concerned by the public "perception." What were the taxpayers to think if they learned that the salary of their member of Parliament would go from $64,400 to more than $106,000 under the new formula recommended in the Blais Commission report? Worse yet, what would voters say on learning that, in real terms, their MP has been making $106,000 a year since 1991, since that is the equivalent of their salary plus their sessional allowance and their non-taxable incidental expense allowance?

The Blais commission calculated that a member of Parliament's salary and expense allowances combined represented a total taxable salary of $106,000. Once again, our colleagues in the other place are not concerned with justice and transparency, but with image and propaganda.

The committee tried to explain its refusal with the most absurd of arguments. According to that committee, such a change in salaries for members of Parliament would have been unfair considering the various levels of remuneration paid to the members of the different provincial legislative assemblies.

In other words, some members would pay more income tax than others.

Can you imagine members of Parliament being treated the same way as their constituents? We cannot allow such a scandalous situation to happen.

I hope you will forgive the sarcasm, honourable senators, but I am losing my cool.

The reasons invoked by the Blais commission to eliminate this outrageous fiscal privilege granted to parliamentarians were excellent. There would be two advantages to implementing this measure, and I quote from page 32 of the report:

It would establish greater transparency in members' remuneration by providing a single sum, instead of a sessional indemnity and an incidental expense allowance, and making the entire amount subject to income tax.

It would improve comparability between members' remuneration and that of other Canadians, thus responding to one of the principal objections we heard from Canadians - that provision of a tax-free expense allowance gives Members of Parliament an unfair benefit that is not available to other Canadians.

I regret to conclude that, in light of their actions, members of the other place were only true to themselves in rejecting this recommendation.

Having said that, I do support another measure recommended by the Blais commission, which was adopted by the House of Commons. I am referring to the increase in the travel status expense allowance, from $6,000 to $12,000 a year for each MP. The fact that members will have to justify their claims makes it easier to support this measure.

All Canadians have the right to be well represented, and their elected representatives should not be penalized because they live far from Ottawa and have to maintain two residences, a rather exceptional situation.

Also, honourable senators, I still agree, as I did in 1993, that senators should be reimbursed for the expenses incurred in Ottawa. I think this reimbursement should be based on the same formula used for MPs.

I congratulate Senator Rompkey and the other members of the Senate's Internal Economy Committee for tabling a report yesterday that contained a recommendation along these lines. It is important to discuss the retirement scheme so criticized by the Reform Party members, who are now apparently all in favour of it. Another of their grand principles gone by the board.

I seek agreement, honourable senators, to discuss and debate, out in the open, in due course, the Internal Economy Committee's report and each of the provisions in Bill C-47, including the amendment regarding the supplementary severance allowance.

I am not naïve and I realize that, by speaking to this issue today, I am also exposing myself to criticism. I plead guilty to being one of the notorious double dippers. I receive a pension from the New Brunswick government, in addition to what the Senate pays me. I am not afraid to address this in due course in the Senate, in my province and in the media.

But the risk I run is insignificant compared to the terrible damage to public opinion resulting from the absolutely unacceptable behaviour of these elected representatives who have secretly joined forces in a shameful pact to deceive their constituents.

In conclusion:

First of all:

Whereas after several months of study, the Blais commission made certain recommendations, several of which were rejected, in secret, by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs;

Second:

Whereas all five parties agreed to resort to a rarely used procedure that would not allow Canadians to know how individual members had voted;

Third:

Whereas it appears to me that Bill C-47 deserves serious and thorough consideration by MPs and senators;

Fourth:

Whereas it would be improper for the Senate to give its approval hastily at the 11th hour before the summer recess, thus falling in with the MPs' scheme;

Motion in Amendment

Hon. Jean-Maurice Simard: Honourable senators, I move, seconded by Senator Orville H. Phillips:

That Bill C-47 be not now read the third time but that it be read the third time this day six months hence.

[English]

(1730)

The Hon. the Speaker: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Simard, seconded by the Honourable Senator Phillips, that Bill C-47 be not now read the third time, but that it be read the third time six months hence.

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

Some Hon. Senators: No.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the "nays" have it. I declare the motion in amendment lost.

The Hon. the Speaker: If no other senator wishes to speak, I will call the motion for third reading.

It was moved by the Honourable Senator Carstairs, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bacon, that this bill be read the third time. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: I see that only one senator has risen, and that is not enough to call in the senators.

Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.

(1740)

Mi'kmaq Education Bill

Third Reading

Hon. Mary Butts moved the third reading of Bill C-30, respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education.

Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Bill

Third Reading

Hon. Jean B. Forest moved 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.

Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.

National Defence Act

Bill to Amend-Second Reading

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C. (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), for the second reading of Bill C-25, to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Hon. William M. Kelly: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-25. First, I should like to congratulate Senator Rompkey for his presentation on this bill. I will try not to repeat what has already been said.

Honourable senators, our armed services have certainly been confronted with a great deal of criticism from the press in recent times. The press seems to be bent on savaging institutions whenever a few members of an institution are found to have committed offences of various sorts. I do not mean to suggest that there has been no wrongdoing within the armed services, but I do suggest that to tarnish a whole institution because of the misdeeds of a few is grossly unfair.

Since the Second World War, I have maintained a connection with the services. When I talk about our armed forces, I am talking about thousands of fine young men and women, well over 90 per cent of whom serve honourably and well. When you compare the coverage of the misdeeds of a few with the wonderful efforts of our forces during the Manitoba flood and the recent ice storm, it is clear that the coverage of the misdeeds has been far in excess of the coverage of the events in Manitoba and Eastern Canada.

Honourable senators, as a result of all this, it is clear that Canadians both inside and outside the services have become convinced that something is terribly wrong throughout the service as a whole. This may or may not be true. However, people need to be reassured that legal frameworks are in place to deal immediately and appropriately with misdeeds when discovered. I believe that there is every possibility that Bill C-25 will go a long way towards accomplishing this most important objective.

Because of the current feeding frenzy on the part of the press, morale in the forces is understandably at a low ebb. This must be corrected for the sake of those who serve in our forces and for the sake of their families.

Honourable senators, I urge immediate passage of this bill at second reading and that the bill be moved to committee without delay. The bill is complex and should be examined in considerable detail. In addition to other witnesses, I believe the committee should hear from appropriate members of the service itself, not only from the senior ranks but from NCOs and enlisted men and women. Further, it is my hope that the committee will work through the summer and be in an position to report this bill as soon as the fall session opens.

I ask for cooperation in moving this bill to committee as soon as possible.

Motion agreed to and bill read second time.

Referred to Committee

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

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

Business of the Senate

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I think there is agreement in the house to go to Motion No. 67 on hepatitis C standing in my name. When that debate and votes are completed, we will follow the Order Paper.

Health

Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada-Motion to Comply with Recommendations-Motion in Amendment-Point of Order-Debate Adjourned to Await Speaker's Ruling

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the Honourable Senator DeWare:

That the Senate endorses and supports the findings and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada;

That the Senate for humanitarian reasons urges the Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces and of the Territories to comply with these findings and recommendations; and

That a copy of this motion be forwarded to each federal, provincial and territorial Minister of Health,

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator DeWare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Kinsella, that the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended in paragraph two by removing and replacing the words "to comply with these findings and recommendations" with the following:

"to not exclude in determining compensation any person who has contracted Hepatitis C from blood components or blood products.",

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Berntson, seconded by the Honourable Senator DeWare, that the motion be not now adopted, but that it be further amended in paragraph one by removing the words "the findings and recommendations" and replacing them with "Recommendation 1"; and adding after the words "in Canada," "and recognises the role of the Government of Canada in contributing to its implementation."-(Honourable Senator Carstairs).

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I rise this evening to speak to the motion, its amendment and its subamendment.

Honourable senators, the final report of the Krever commission told Canadians a very detailed story about how the blood system in Canada has operated over the last several decades and recommended extensive structural reform to improve both risk management and operational aspects of the blood system.

One of the areas to which Justice Krever gave particular attention was the transmission of hepatitis C through blood. His report gives a detailed history of how hepatitis C came to be identified, the uses of surrogate testing in Canada and other countries, and the present state of play with respect to safety in this area. His analysis and other work in the field highlight the importance of the 1986-1990 period during which the United States implemented surrogate testing for hepatitis C and Canada did not.

On March 27 of this year, federal, provincial and territorial governments announced that they were prepared to offer financial assistance to those infected by the blood system during the period 1986 to 1990. The settlement that was offered could involve up to 22,000 Canadians and up to $1.1 billion. When federal, provincial and territorial governments agreed to offer assistance to those infected in the 1986 to 1990 period, it was on the basis of certain principles and not because of the numbers. The key principle was that it was appropriate to offer help to those harmed at a time when the blood system could have made certain risk reduction decisions but did not.

Since the announcement of this important offer, there has been considerable debate about how to assist Canadians infected with hepatitis C outside the 1986-1990 period. Ministers of health have recently met and tasked a working group with the review of a number of options for addressing this question, including the maintenance of the status quo. Certain provinces, for example, Quebec and Ontario, have argued for the extension of cash assistance.

The federal government, having taken a leadership role in the development of the 1986-1990 offer, is working with provinces and territories to determine whether a national approach to assistance beyond 1986-1990 is possible. Health Minister Allan Rock has indicated that discussions with the provinces and territories are ongoing and that there may be grounds for a new consensus.

Key to the ongoing requirements of those who suffer from hepatitis C is the availability of services. Among the requirements of this community are drug coverage, home care coverage, centers of excellence, and research. Some of these services are available in provinces and territories under medicare and supplementary health benefits programs, but not all. There are gaps, but there is the scope to work with provinces and territories to address such gaps.

(1750)

It is often the case that our health systems have to be modified and updated to accommodate new problems and new demands. The demands for hepatitis C-related services that have arisen as a result of the past functioning of the blood system are a case in point. Just as the problems evolve, so the systems should evolve, and the federal government has been consistent in its efforts to push for this type of evolution.

There is a variety of ways in which new problems and new demands can be handled. In the past, we have addressed some of the public health issues associated with hepatitis C - for example, through more work on consensus building vis-à-vis case tracking and notification of affected parties.

Another step in the evolution of an approach to the requirements of the hepatitis C community might involve the development of a national strategy for hepatitis C, such as those we have seen for AIDS and breast cancer. Such a strategy could include new research efforts, new technology efforts, and planning for new services.

Another step in the evolution of such an approach might involve investments in efforts to fill existing gaps in service provision - for example, pharmacare and homecare.

An important consideration in this type of approach is the possibility of pulling together a variety of contributions to the well-being of those who suffer from hepatitis C in one place or several places across the country - for example, in the form of centres of excellence. This would have the advantages of concentrating expertise and allowing for the development of new initiatives requiring a certain critical mass.

One of the federal government's ongoing concerns is that the best policy is only likely to emerge from a pooling of efforts from provincial and federal governments, other stakeholders concerned with the blood system, notably the Red Cross, and representatives of those affected.

Another concern that the federal government has is with the superficial attraction of solving complex problems simply with money. Cash is seldom a complete and sufficient solution to anything more than superficial wants. In the health area, there are many things that cannot be bought or can only be bought at enormous cost. No one can purchase the helping hand of a friend. Fortunately, in this country, no one can purchase a liver transplant, and that is as it should be.

Indeed, we risk undermining our valued medicare system and our social safety net by an excessive tendency to treat the elements of humanity as a commodity. For many years now, governments have recognized that there are better ways to assist those in need than straight cash. Cash has its uses and we are all aware of them, but straight compensation where there is no fault would set an enormous precedent.

As the Prime Minister has said, there are other options. Existing programming, including programming for medical services, can be enhanced. We have vehicles already in place to deliver medical and social services and income support to Canadians in need. Their power and potential should be fully explored as we address the hepatitis C issue.

One of the virtues of such an exploration would be to solve the blood crisis through existing levers so that we do not remain paralyzed by the high cost of, and delays associated with, venturing into the new and as yet unexplored territory such as that associated with generalized no-fault schemes.

We may dream of a perfect world where we can escape from the pressures of responsibility and accountability, but we in this place know that politics is the art of the possible. Canadians do care about those affected by the blood system and, as expeditiously as possible, we will use tried and true mechanisms to their best effect to remedy the problems that have emerged from the past.

The federal government has already displayed leadership in expediting the resolution compensation for the 1986 to 1990 period invoking a negotiated court-approved settlement which is both fair and final. It shall, in all its discussions with the provinces and territories, endeavour to build upon existing excellence to achieve further timely approaches to the problems posed by hepatitis C.

We in this place await the conclusion of discussions with the provinces and territories with anticipation. These are tough problems, and they deserve careful solutions that enhance the cohesiveness of Canadian society.

Honourable senators, I want to be perfectly clear as to our intentions on this motion. As senators are aware, we are currently debating the subamendment proposed by Senator Berntson to the amendment proposed by Senator DeWare. As it is not possible to move a further subamendment at this time, it would be our intention to vote against the subamendment and against the amendment, and then to move another amendment to the main motion, which I hope will be acceptable to both sides of this chamber.

Honourable senators, it is our intention that, following votes on the subamendment and the amendment, Senator Kirby will move an amendment.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I have already spoken to the subamendment, but I believe I am entitled to ask Senator Carstairs a question. She realizes, of course, that by saying that she and her colleagues will vote against the amendment, in effect, they are voting against the whole purpose of our motion. Anything she wants to substitute for the amendment that she and her colleagues will defeat must be at least as strong as the subamendment, otherwise we will vote against her subamendment. I suspect that she will propose a watering down of the minimum that we are suggesting. I hope she can assure us that what she will propose will be at least as strong as, if not stronger than, the subamendment she has announced that she and her colleagues will vote against.

Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, the amendment that we will propose, in my view, is the correct amendment to make at this time to allow discussions between the provinces and the federal government to take place in an orderly and logical fashion.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, if no other honourable senator wishes to speak, I will proceed with the question.

It was moved by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the Honourable Senator DeWare, that the Senate endorses -

Hon. Senators: Dispense!

The Hon. the Speaker: And it was moved in amendment by the Honourable Senator DeWare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Kinsella, that the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended -

Some Hon. Senators: Dispense!

The Hon. the Speaker: And it was further moved in amendment by the Honourable Senator Berntson, seconded by the Honourable Senator DeWare, that the motion be not now adopted, but that it be further amended -

Some Hon. Senators: Dispense!

The Hon. the Speaker: Will those honourable senators in favour of motion in amendment No. 2 please say "yea"?

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: Will those honourable senators opposed to motion in amendment No. 2 please say "nay"?

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

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

And two honourable senators having risen.

The Hon. the Speaker: Call in the senators.

Honourable senators, I am advised that there is agreement for a 15-minute bell. Is there agreement as well that I not see the clock?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: In that case, the vote will take place at 6:15 p.m.

(1810)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question before the Senate is on the motion in subamendment by the Honourable Senator Berntson.

Motion in subamendment (Senator Berntson) negatived on the following division:

YEAS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Angus, Atkins, Berntson, Buchanan, Cohen, Comeau, DeWare, Di Nino, Doody, Forrestall, Grimard, Johnson, Kelleher, Kelly, Kinsella, LeBreton, Lynch-Staunton, Meighen, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Phillips, Rossiter, Simard, Spivak, Stratton, Tkachuk-27

NAYS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Adams, Bacon, Bryden, Butts, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Fitzpatrick, Forest, Gigantès, Grafstein, Graham, Hays, Hébert, Hervieux-Payette, Johnstone, Joyal, Kenny, Kirby, Kolber, Kroft, Lewis, Losier-Cool, Maheu, Mahovlich, Maloney, Mercier, Milne, Moore, Pépin, Poulin, Robichaud (L'Acadie-Acadia), Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), Rompkey, Ruck, Stewart, Taylor, Watt-43

ABSTENTIONS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Nil

The Hon. the Speaker: I declare the motion in subamendment lost.

The question before the Senate now is the motion in amendment by the Honourable Senator DeWare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Kinsella.

Shall I dispense with the reading of the motion?

Hon. Senators: Dispense.

(1820)

The Hon. the Speaker: Do honourable senators wish to have another vote or are you prepared to apply the same division?

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): We wish to apply the same division.

Senator Carstairs: Yes, we will apply the same division.

Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator DeWare negatived on the following division:

YEAS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Angus, Atkins, Berntson, Buchanan, Cohen, Comeau, DeWare, Di Nino, Doody, Forrestall, Grimard, Johnson, Kelleher, Kelly, Kinsella, LeBreton, Lynch-Staunton, Meighen, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Phillips, Rossiter, Simard, Spivak, Stratton, Tkachuk-27

NAYS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Adams, Bacon, Bryden, Butts, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Fitzpatrick, Forest, Gigantès, Grafstein, Graham, Hays, Hébert, Hervieux-Payette, Johnstone, Joyal, Kenny, Kirby, Kolber, Kroft, Lewis, Losier-Cool, Maheu, Mahovlich, Maloney, Mercier, Milne, Moore, Pépin, Poulin, Robichaud (L'Acadie-Acadia), Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), Rompkey, Ruck, Stewart, Taylor, Watt-43

ABSTENTIONS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Nil

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, we are now back to the main motion.

Motion in Amendment

Hon. Michael Kirby: Honourable senators, I move, seconded by the Honourable Senator Carstairs:

That the motion be not now adopted but that it be amended by removing all the words after the word "supports" in paragraph 1 and replacing them with the following:

"recommendation 1 of the Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada which calls upon provinces and territories to respond to the needs of those who suffered due to the management of the blood supply system;

That the Senate recognizes the leadership role played by the Government of Canada in formulating a Federal-Provincial compensation package for those infected with hepatitis C through the blood supply system between 1986 and 1990;

That, in view of the fact that Federal and Provincial Governments have agreed to revisit the original agreement to seek a greater consensus concerning our response to this national tragedy, the Senate urges the Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces and Territories to take positive action to address the needs of those who suffer ill-effects from hepatitis C contracted through the blood system; and

That a copy of this motion be forwarded to each federal, provincial and territorial Minister of Health.

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

Point of Order

Hon. Orville H. Phillips: Honourable senators, I rise on a point of order. I believe the amendment is out of order in that it changes the intent and purpose of the original motion, which our rules prohibit. I would like Your Honour to take that under consideration and to rule upon it.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, on the point of order raised by Senator Phillips, I believe that Senator Phillips is right. I would refer to Beauchesne's 6th edition at page 175, paragraph 567 which states:

The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question.

Paragraph 579 at page 176 of Beauchesne's reads:

(1) An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.

I refer His Honour to that guidance which we have in Beauchesne's. We are all cognizant of the fact that Beauchesne's speaks more to what happens in the other place but, from time to time, we do draw some guidance from it.

Our own rule 48 deals with motions. In the early part of our rules it also says that if we need to find guidance on matters which are not clearly articulated in our rules from time to time, it is quite appropriate to go to the procedural literature, and I would invite His Honour to do so in ruling on this matter.

I believe that the motion, as we heard it presented, is more than the opposite of what Senator Lynch-Staunton proposed. It is a different kind of proposition. It is different in substance and it is different in thrust.

The motion of Senator Lynch-Staunton, as we tightened it up with the two subamendments, dealt with a particular course of action which the Senate was being asked to endorse and send forward to the appropriate federal and provincial ministers. This motion in amendment undertakes to do something quite different both in thrust and in content. It is contrary - one might even say contradictory - and therefore cannot be accepted.

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the purpose of the original amendment, I believe, and that of the motion proposed by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, was to support the report of the Krever inquiry. The Krever inquiry was very clear. It said that the provinces and territories had a responsibility.

This motion supports that recommendation, in other words. It certainly modifies it. It is acceptable under paragraphs 565 and 567 of Beauchesne's. I suggest that this amendment is in order.

The Hon. the Speaker: There being no other honourable senators who wish to speak to the point of order, I will take the matter under advisement and rule later.

---

Visitor in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I should like to welcome a distinguished visitor in our gallery, in the person of the Speaker of the House of Commons.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

---

[Translation]

Canada Labour Code
Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act

Bill to Amend-Third Reading

Hon. Shirley Maheu moved 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.

She said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to introduce to you this important bill relating to the Labour Code.

[English]

I will begin with a quote from one of the witnesses who appeared before our committee only a few days ago. She said:

What is before you is a historic event, in that the employers and the trade union movement in the federal jurisdiction have found some place to come together.

[Translation]

This places our debate in the proper context. From start to finish of its drafting process, Bill C-19 has been the object of numerous examinations, comments, consultations and compromises. It has now been in gestation for three years.

All imaginable stakeholders have had the opportunity to raise their points of view, and virtually all possible options have been analyzed, debated and then selected. Parliamentarians have twice had the opportunity to debate the wording of this bill, first as Bill C-66 and now as its successor, Bill C-19.

Certain concerns had been raised by senators relating to Bill C-66 and the government has responded to those concerns. Last week, the committee offered a variety of interest groups the opportunity to make their opinions known.

[English]

Yet, when all was said and done, those who were in on this bill's formulation from the beginning, the labour and management stakeholders who are most directly affected by its provisions, reached enough of a consensus to say: This is something on which we can jointly agree.

(1830)

It is true that the items that were controversial in the beginning remain controversial, but the controversy, I believe, lies not in the choices the government has made about this provision or that, but rather, in the subject matter being debated. The government sought compromise, but where this was not possible, it had to decide. Let me give a few examples.

First, replacement workers. Honourable senators, if you read the transcripts of parliamentary and committee debate, you will find members putting forward diametrically opposed arguments. Some opposed outright the use of replacement workers; others wanted no restriction on their use. Can you imagine the extent of the outcry that would be generated if we proposed either of these two options?

The government has chosen a middle road, allowing their use except where an employer would do so to undermine a trade union's representational capacity. We did take heed of the previous Senate report on this matter, having the provision of the replacement workers reflect the full wording and intent of the Sims task force majority recommendation.

As for remedial certification, we have taken into consideration and responded to the Senate's original report on this issue. We have repeated the essentials on this many times. That majority support will remain the basis for union certification. However, in the rare occurrence where there is employer subversion or intimidation, which would hinder an employee's options and rights to consider joining a union, then, through the auspices of an independent and neutral board, there is a remedy to such unfairness. The minister has committed to monitoring the application of these provisions of this legislation.

As for grain, it is true that many parties wanted a broader-brush treatment, but it was never the government's intention to rewrite labour legislation in broad strokes for the transporting of goods through our ports. Neither was it nor will it be the intention to adopt a more interventionist stance in the collective bargaining process.

Whatever merits are contained in the arguments to somewhat guarantee delivery of any or all commodities into ships' holds, the sole intention of this provision is, as the minister put it to the standing committee, to remove the one trigger point that has caused so many problems: grain. In fact, the executive director of the Western Grain Elevator Association confirmed this to our committee on Tuesday, when he said:

The purpose of this legislation is to have a labour negotiation environment which encourages balanced negotiations between employer and employee and thus have a situation where in the vast majority of contract renewals, agreement is reached. The legislation simply takes grain out of the bargaining equation for both sides.

I would also note that the prairie pools, representing 100,000 farmer members in the Prairie provinces, also support and urge the passage of Bill C-19 with proposed section 87.7 intact, as does the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union.

The minister has acknowledged objections from some quarters concerning section 87.7. Here, too, he has committed to reviewing its effectiveness next year, after the completion of the next round of West Coast longshore bargaining.

I am convinced that the provisions which have given rise to such heated debate contain enough safeguards built in that the concerns raised in opposition will not come to pass. The sky will not fall.

What is most telling is that stakeholders, despite having concerns about certain parts of this bill, still urge its passage, without further amendments. I think we may take our guidance from them.

Let us take a look at the position of FETCO, the organization representing the Federally Regulated Employers in Transportation and Communications. As a group, they represent companies employing 60 per cent of the employees in federal jurisdiction. That is no small percentage, honourable senators, in key sectors of our economy. This is what the president of FETCO had to say to our committee hearings last week:

We have had a highly consultative process and we, as the largest employers' group involved, participated freely and actively and are for the most part satisfied that what is created here reflects a balanced approach to a review of legislation. It is, for the most part, competitive, and our members can live with it....

In summary, we believe that we have been through a process here that can be endorsed as a model for how legislative reforms should occur.

Lets us take a look at a group that we can acknowledge comes from a different ideological persuasion, namely, the Canadian Labour Congress. In its brief to our committee, they noted that in October, 1995, at the first labour-management meeting, the task force chairman saw that all members shared a number of common beliefs, namely, that the existing Canada Labour Code, Part I, basically continues to serve its constituencies well; that pendulum-like changes to the code are neither necessary nor desirable; and that consensus between the parties is the best basis for decision-making on legislative change. They went on to say that the task force report held to these premises or that, as they put it, Bill C-19 basically stays the task force's pragmatic course.

[Translation]

The bill therefore is truly a historic document and to a large extent a compromise. It provides us with a new industrial relations board with new powers to speed matters along, to streamline the conciliation process and to maintain safety and protect public health in the event of a strike or lockout. This bill affords the minister of the day a forum to meet from time to time with experts and representatives of employers and workers to discuss matters concerning industrial relations. Finally, the bill deals with such tough questions as replacement workers and certification as recourse and proposes reasonable compromises that reasonable people can agree to.

[English]

Honourable senators, we have dissected, debated and discussed the provisions of this bill. We have covered the territory. We can agree on many items and agree to disagree on a few, but the time has come to move on and pass Bill C-19. To fail to do so would be to fail the hundreds of thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on fair and up-to-date labour legislation. Let us not let them down by delaying this bill any longer. Let us make Bill C-19 the law of the land.

(1840)

Motion in Amendment

Hon. Erminie J. Cohen: Honourable senators, I move:

That Bill C-19 be not now read the third time, but that it be amended.

With leave of the Senate, I ask that I be permitted to distribute copies of my 22-page motion to all honourable senators, and that it be taken as read, unless honourable senators would prefer that I read the 22 pages.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed that the amendment be distributed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Lowell Murray: I do not wish to object to any initiative to accommodate honourable senators, but is my friend planning to speak to her amendments so that we will know what they are?

Senator Cohen: Yes.

Honourable senators, I will now speak to this motion which seeks to address the government's surprising failure to correct the many instances of gender-specific language contained in Part I of the Canada Labour Code.

For example, there were numerous references to the minister as "he" or "him." There are then references to "fishermen" and "businessmen," among others. I am sure all present will agree that this is in no way a true reflection of Canadian society today. If we pass this motion, honourable senators, we can assist the government to truly bring Part I of the Canada Labour Code into the 1990s and beyond. These amendments are certainly consistent with the stated intentions of the government.

In a press release last November 6, the Minister of Labour promised that Bill C-19 would modernize the code. Yet gender-specific language remains in the code, despite Bill C-19, and I do not think anyone would agree that such language could be considered modern.

I wish to also point out that it is particularly important to ensure gender-neutral language in the Canada Labour Code, for, like the Canada Human Rights Act and unlike a number of other statutes, the code serves widely as an educational and teaching tool in our schools, universities and workplaces. It is a living and social document that has wide applicability and enduring relevance in the critical field of Canadian labour relations. It certainly does not collect dust on many shelves.

I also remind honourable senators that ensuring that federal statutes reflect gender-neutral language is a process that began over a decade ago. Amending Bill C-19 to correct the gender-specific language which persists in the Canada Labour Code would be a logical continuation of that important process. In its present form, honourable senators, Bill C-19 ignores 10 years of progress in achieving gender-neutral language in federal statutes.

In December 1997, a bill to bring into force the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1995, became law. It provided the authority to go through all the statutes of Canada and revise the language in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

When the Revised Statutes of Canada were published, in 1995, it was found that the problem of gender-specific language had not been corrected in many of the statutes and it was obvious that extra vigilance was needed. Obviously, it still is.

Honourable senators, I urge you to support this motion in amendment.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Cohen, seconded by Honourable Senator Angus, that Bill C-19 be not now read the third time, but that it be amended -

Hon. Senators: Dispense!

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

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment will please say "nay."

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

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

And two honourable senators having risen.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Call in the senators.

Honourable senators, the whips advise me that they require a five-minute bell. The vote will be held at 6:50 p.m.

(1850)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question before the Senate is the motion in amendment moved by the Honourable Senator Cohen.

Motion in amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Angus, Atkins, Bernston, Buchanan, Cohen, Comeau, DeWare, Di Nino, Doody, Forrestall, Grimard, Johnson, Kelleher, Kelly, Keon, Kinsella, LeBreton, Lynch-Staunton, Meighen, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Phillips, Rossiter, Simard, Spivak, Stratton, Tkachuk-28

NAYS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Adams, Bacon, Bryden, Butts, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Fitzpatrick, Forest, Grafstein, Graham, Hays, Hébert, Hervieux-Payette, Johnstone, Joyal, Kenny, Kirby, Kolber, Kroft, Lewis, Losier-Cool, Maheu, Mahovlich, Maloney, Mercier, Milne, Moore, Pépin, Poulin, Prud'homme, Robichaud, (L'Acadie-Acadia), Robichaud, (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), Rompkey, Ruck, Stewart, Taylor, Watt-43

ABSTENTIONS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Nil

The Hon. the Speaker: I declare the motion in amendment lost. We are back to the main motion.

Hon. Orville H. Phillips: Honourable senators, I rise on a point of order. I know the time allowed for the bells to ring is set by the whips, but the time set, five minutes, will not allow those in the Victoria Building to get over here, particularly in view of the construction going on; nor is it sufficient to allow those in the East Block to get to the chamber. Anyone with a handicap cannot get here in five minutes. In consideration of all honourable senators, I would like to see the period extended.

The Hon. the Speaker: I take note of the Honourable Senator Phillips' comments, but I regret that I cannot take them as a point of order. However, the whips may take them as a suggestion.

Hon. Mabel M. DeWare: Perhaps I owe my former whip an apology, but we thought everyone was nearby. We will take Senator Phillips' point under consideration.

Honourable senators, it is with sadness and with a tremendous sense of responsibility that I rise it speak to third reading of Bill C-19 on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the chamber. The sadness comes from disappointment at the response of the Minister of Labour and our colleagues on the government benches to our efforts to improve this bill. Despite repeated calls from Canadians for positive changes, we are, unfortunately, almost back to where we started with the introduction of Bill C-66. Bill C-19's progression through the Senate has simply been the latest in a round of missed opportunities to truly bring Part I of the Canada Labour Code into the 1990s and beyond.

The first missed opportunity came during the drafting of Bill C-66. The government missed a second opportunity last summer, during its hurried consultations to patch up a couple of the most glaring defects. A third chance was largely ignored when Bill C-19 was in the other place. Yet another opportunity came and went yesterday, when a majority of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology voted against a series of well-thought-out and, as we felt, necessary amendments.

That brings me to the sense of responsibility that I believe must be shared by all members of this chamber. We still have one more kick at the can, because Bill C-19 is not yet law. Before it becomes law, we as legislators must do everything in our power to ensure that it is the best law possible. We owe that much to federally regulated workers and their employers, and to Canadians generally. I urge all present to carefully consider what I will say, as I reiterate some of the major concerns that we have with this legislation.

I ask you to keep in mind as well that the standing committee report on Bill C-66 is as relevant today as it was last year. Indeed, our colleague Senator Maheu acknowledged that when she spoke on second reading to Bill C-19 a couple of weeks ago, and that addendum is attached to our report which will be presented by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology this evening.

Honourable senators remain deeply concerned about the discretion that Bill C-19 gives the Canada Industrial Relations Board to allow union certification, even if the majority of employees are opposed.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: It is appalling.

Senator DeWare: This makes it possible for a minority of workers to impose their will on the majority, which is not at all consistent with the principles of democracy that Canadian legislatures are entrusted to uphold.

We also still have serious reservations about Bill C-19's provision regarding the release of the names and addresses of off-site workers to union organizers. We agree with the Sims task force that off-site workers should be given the opportunity to consider the benefits of collective bargaining. We believe that privacy and security should be better protected and, although we appreciate the concessions that the government has already made in this area, we do not feel they go far enough. The privacy and security of off-site workers could be better ensured if the Canada Industrial Relations Board were required to obtain their express consent to the release of their names and addresses rather than simply give them a chance to refuse.

(1900)

Honourable senators, despite the change to the wording of Bill C-19's replacement worker provision, we continue to worry that it is not clear enough. You will all think that I am beating the drum again, but I still have a concern, so I must express it here tonight. We think further clarification is needed to ensure it is not interpreted by the board in such a way that it undermines the company's right to stay in business during a work stoppage. Indeed, this provision should reflect more faithfully the spirit of the Sims report recommendations.

We believe Bill C-19's provision to ensure the continued shipment of grain in the event of work stoppages at Canada ports should also be given more attention. Again, I must say that my colleagues and I have no problem whatsoever with providing special protection for such a key commodity. This provision is also consistent with the lead role Ottawa has traditionally taken in ensuring the movement of grain. We are, however, concerned that the government may not have properly considered other important commodities that flow through Canadian ports, such as potash and dried alfalfa. We would not like to see Bill C-19 close the door on the possibility of expanding the scope of this provision. We are looking forward to the Estey report that should come out in the fall.

Another item of concern continues to be the power that Bill C-19 gives the Canada Industrial Relations Board to impose changes to the seniority rights provisions of collective agreements. Anyone with even the most superficial understanding of labour relations will realize that seniority rights are key to the terms of employment between workers and management; thus, allowing any changes to seniority rights to be imposed would seriously undermine the collective bargaining process.

Honourable senators, as I pointed out at second reading, I and my colleagues on this side of the chamber believe that Bill C-19 contains a number of positive measures that could be of significant benefit. However, it is the potentially harmful parts of the bill with which we must now be concerned. We cannot allow the objectives of this legislation to be undermined by provisions that could harm labour relations in Canada's key industries for years to come. The stakes are simply too high.

Honourable senators, this is a labour-driven bill. Representatives of the Canadian Federation of Labour and the Canadian Labour Congress appeared before our committee and said, "Pass the bill without amendment. It is a good bill for the workers in this country." Of course it is a good bill for the workers in this country. When have we ever seen a federation of labour come before the government and agree with anything that the government does? It is a labour-driven bill. Where is the balance in this bill? Several parts of the code talk about unfair labour practices, but the unfair labour practice is against the employer. It does not mention the fact that trade unions and employees also sometimes deal in unfair labour practices.

Bill C-66 was sent to us from the House of Commons three or four weeks before the house adjourned. We have had six sitting days to deal with Bill C-19, a very important bill.

Some Hon. Senators: Shame!

Senator DeWare: This is the seventh sitting day on which we have dealt with this bill. We are expected to pass an important piece of legislation dealing with labour legislation in this country in seven sitting days. I wish the minister good luck.

Motion in Amendment

Hon. Mabel DeWare: Honourable senators I move, seconded by Senator Kinsella:

That Bill C-19 be not now read the third time but that it be amended,

(a) in clause 2, on page 3, by replacing lines 17 and 19 with the following:

"(5) The Chairperson, Vice-Chairpersons and two-thirds of all other members of the Board must have experience and expertise in industrial relations.";

(b) in clause 7, on page 12, by replacing lines 28 and 29 with the following:

"lective agreements respecting expiry dates, or amend other such";

(c) in clause 33, on page 23, by replacing lines 33 and 34 with the following:

"75.(1) The Minister may extend the time";

(d) in clause 37, on page 30, by adding after line 37 the following:

"(4) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, extend the application of this section in order to provide for the continuation of services normally provided to ensure the tie-up, let-go and loading of vessels for commodities other than grain and the movement of the vessels in and out of port.";

(e) in clause 42, on page 32, by replacing lines 19 to 24 with the following:

"(2.1) Where the use of replacement workers in a dispute is demonstrated to be for the purpose of undermining the trade union's representative capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives and is declared by the Board to be an unfair labour practice for that reason, no employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use the services of a person who was not an"; and

(f) in clause 50, on page 37, by replacing lines 4 to 10 with the following:

"(a) seek the consent of each employee to the giving of their name and address to the representative of the trade union that the Board authorizes and, if the employee consents, transmit that name and address to the authorized representatives; or"

The Hon. the Speaker: It is moved by the Honourable Senator DeWare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Kinsella, that Bill C-19 be not now read the third time -

Hon. Senators: Dispense.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

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

Senator DeWare: I would ask that we record the same division as on the other vote.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreeable to record the same division?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Lowell Murray: No, no, no. Are there members standing?

Some Hon. Senators: Do it on division.

Senator DeWare: On division.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it on division?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: The motion in amendment is defeated, on division.

We will now deal with the main motion.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, we all have the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on this bill, and I commend your attention to it because a number of observations were unanimously adopted by members of the committee last evening. However, as you read the report, you will see that not all members of that committee are in complete agreement with this bill.

I think it important to underscore the process that we followed when we received this bill about a week ago. As Senator DeWare has mentioned, the House of Commons had this bill for eight months. We had it for about a week. It is a complicated piece of legislation. As Senator Maheu has indicated, it is the result of many compromises by the various stakeholders and much work done by officials in the ministry. We were told of consultations that took place between the Minister of Labour and his counterparts in the provinces. We are given a week to deal with an important piece of government legislation.

Senator Simard: Shame!

(1910)

Senator Kinsella: Let me share with you, honourable senators, what we did with that bill. We studied it very carefully in the short period of time that we had it before us. We examined each and every clause of that bill. We examined each and every sentence of that bill. The amendments that have been defeated, as introduced by my colleague Senator Cohen, are prima facie evidence that we examined every word in that bill.

In committee, under the able leadership of the chairperson Senator Murray, we conducted what I consider to be the appropriate conduct of a committee examining a bill at clause-by-clause study. We literally went through every clause of that piece of legislation.

When the opportunity presented itself and members of the committee felt that there was a flaw in a given clause, an appropriate remedy was sought by honourable senators raising amendments to the given clause and we voted in committee on that clause. That is all in the record of the proceedings of that committee.

On the issue of gender-sensitive language in legal drafting, the minister, when he appeared before us, agreed with us that that is how legislation must be drafted. Thus we have that paragraph in the report that has been tabled and is before you. Honourable senators, that is an achievement of which this chamber can be justly proud. We have brought to the attention of the government, to the attention of all members of this house, and I hope we have brought to the attention of our friends in the other place that they must examine legislation in a detailed manner looking to both the substance and the form.

In particular, we must look to the form of a piece of legislation that does not end up on the shelves of the library only being read by judges and lawyers. The Canada Labour Code is widely read. Many Canadian workers read it. It is almost an educational tool in and of itself, which is why it is most important that that kind of statute be written in very careful language. It should be in "plain speak," as my friend Senator Gigantès would say, and gender-neutral language as well.

I hope that this experience has sent a signal to those in the Department of Justice who act upon the receipt of drafting instructions from the given ministries. I hope they realize that, when a bill amending a statute opens up a given section of the statute, they must go back and read the whole section which has been opened and seize that opportunity to amend that section of the statute to ensure that it meets the test of gender neutrality.

We have made that point. We have made a contribution on that point alone because we did undertake a careful study of this important piece of government legislation.

There is a substantive issue which troubles me. It is found in clause 46. Clause 46, honourable senators, at page 35 of the bill, reads as follows in reference to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board:

99.1 The Board may certify a trade union despite a lack of majority support...

That is what I have described as "a democracy override." I think that is an apt description of what we are facing. I want to place on the record my view that, if this clause is passed, it will be struck down by the courts as not being compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Kinsella: My simple explanation as to why it does not meet the test of the Charter is this: The Charter provides in section 2 that all of us have the right to freedom of association. The courts from pre-Charter days have clearly established that the right to association includes the right not to associate, but we all remember the days of Mr. Justice Rand, a great New Brunswick jurist, and his famous Rand formula. When the majority agrees to a trade union and you are forced into association, you do not have to become a member but you have to pay the fees so that the union is able to meet its obligations as the exclusive bargaining agent for that certified group of employees.

That forced association or that limit on freedom of association is justifiable because the union has been established by the democratic principle of majority interest expressed through a vote. Typically, that majority vote is determined by the trade union signing up the cards of more than 50 per cent of the members or by the board conducting a representational vote. The limitation on our freedom of association is based upon a situation where the majority has determined that limitation. So it is that we all have to pay taxes even though we did not support this government, and we were right in our view not to support the government, but the majority rules.

However, in this instance, clause 46 will bring about a limit on the right of association when a minority have expressed the view that they do not want to be in that association.There is no justification for that limitation in my judgment. That, indeed, is the spirit and the thrust of the recommendation that this honourable house has made not once but twice now. We made it in our seventeenth report when we examined Bill C-66 and we are saying it, honourable senators, on page two of the report that is now before us.

Honourable senators, all I can say is that we are not unfamiliar with the way this town operates. We are not unfamiliar with how things come up through ministries. We know that a cabinet document is prepared, a decision is taken by cabinet, a legislative measure is brought into the other place, the majority is forced to support the government and a bill is passed in the other place by the majority. Then the bill comes to this place. We recognize the nature of the majority as it now unfolds in this place.

It is very important, honourable senators, that we resist, whether the sides are switched or not. Yes, from time to time, it is important for government to function with the majority support in both houses. That makes our system work. From time to time, though, honourable senators, we cannot allow those in the Langevin Block to dictate what ought to happen when we analyze legislation. It seems to me this is one of those times when a fundamental, democratic principle is square and centre on the table in front of us and we must either toe the line on the basis of the instructions from across the street, or do the right thing and say that the principle of democracy is far too important for us to allow this particular provision to be cleared through this house.

(1920)

We should simply expunge that section from the bill because it will not interfere with the ability of the new Canada Industrial Relations Board to do its job. There is a whole menu of other remedies available to that board if they apprehend unfair labour practices. For example, given the circumstances of an egregious situation, they can conduct themselves in the manner that they deem appropriate, such as holding a representational vote. The only way in a democratic environment to assert the will of the majority is by a secret ballot. There is no other way.

Motion in Amendment

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Therefore, honourable senators, I move, seconded by the Honourable Senator DeWare:

That Bill C-19 be not now read the third time, but that it be amended

(a) on page 35, by deleting clause 46; and

(b) by renumbering clauses 47 to 97 as clauses 46 to 96, and any cross references thereto, accordingly.

The Hon. the Speaker: If no other honourable senator wishes to speak I will put the question.

It was moved by the Honourable Senator Kinsella, seconded by the Honourable Senator DeWare, that Bill C-19 be not now read the third time, but that it be amended -

Hon. Senators: Dispense!

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

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: Will those honourable senators opposed to the amendment will please say "nay"?

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

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

And two honourable senators having risen.

The Hon. the Speaker: Call in the senators.

Honourable senators, the whips have advised me that they have agreed on a 15-minute bell. Therefore, the vote will take place at 7:40 p.m.

(1940)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question is on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Kinsella.

Motion in amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Angus, Atkins, Berntson, Buchanan, Cohen, Comeau, DeWare, Di Nino, Doody, Forrestall, Grimard, Johnson, Kelleher, Kelly, Keon, Kinsella, LeBreton, Lynch-Staunton, Meighen, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Phillips, Rossiter, Simard, Spivak, Stratton, Tkachuk-28

NAYS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Adams, Bacon, Bryden, Butts, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Cook, Corbin, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Fitzpatrick, Forest, Gigantès, Grafstein, Graham, Hays, Hébert, Hervieux-Payette, Johnstone, Joyal, Kenny, Kirby, Kolber, Kroft, Lewis, Losier-Cool, Maheu, Mahovlich, Maloney, Mercier, Milne, Pépin, Poulin, Robichaud (L'Acadie-Acadia), Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), Rompkey, Ruck, Stewart, Taylor, Watt, Wilson-42

ABSTENTIONS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Nil

The Hon. the Speaker: I declare the motion in amendment lost.

The question now before the Senate is the motion for third reading of Bill C-19.

If no other honourable senator wishes to speak, I will proceed.

It was moved by the Honourable Senator Maheu, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ferretti Barth, that Bill C-19 be read the third time.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Hon. Mabel M. DeWare: Honourable senators, could we have the previous division apply to this motion?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the division will apply in the reverse.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Adams, Bacon, Bryden, Butts, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Cook, Corbin, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Fitzpatrick, Forest, Gigantès, Grafstein, Graham, Hays, Hébert, Hervieux-Payette, Johnstone, Joyal, Kenny, Kirby, Kolber, Kroft, Lewis, Losier-Cool, Maheu, Mahovlich, Maloney, Mercier, Milne, Pépin, Poulin, Robichaud (L'Acadie-Acadia), Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), Rompkey, Ruck, Stewart, Taylor, Watt, Wilson-42

NAYS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Angus, Atkins, Berntson, Buchanan, Cohen, Comeau, DeWare, Di Nino, Doody, Forrestall, Grimard, Johnson, Kelleher, Kelly, Keon, Kinsella, LeBreton, Lynch-Staunton, Meighen, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Phillips, Rossiter, Simard, Spivak, Stratton, Tkachuk-28

ABSTENTIONS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Nil

Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.

Health

Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada-Motion to Comply with Recommendations-Motion in Amendment-Point of Order-Speaker's Ruling

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the Honourable Senator DeWare:

That the Senate endorses and supports the findings and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada;

That the Senate for humanitarian reasons urges the Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces and of the Territories to comply with these findings and recommendations; and

That a copy of this motion be forwarded to each federal, provincial and territorial Minister of Health.

And on the Motion in Amendment of the Honourable Senator Kirby that the motion be not now adopted but that it be amended by removing all the words after the word "supports" in paragraph 1 and replacing them with the following:

"recommendation 1 of the Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada which calls upon provinces and territories to respond to the needs of those who suffered due to the management of the blood supply system;

That the Senate recognizes the leadership role played by the Government of Canada in formulating a Federal-Provincial compensation package for those infected with hepatitis C through the blood supply system between 1986 and 1990;

That, in view of the fact that Federal and Provincial Governments have agreed to revisit the original agreement to seek a greater consensus concerning our response to this national tragedy, the Senate urges the Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces and Territories to take positive action to address the needs of those who suffer ill-effects from hepatitis C contracted through the blood system; and

That a copy of this motion be forwarded to each federal, provincial and territorial Minister of Health.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the Honourable Senator Phillips earlier today. I wish to thank honourable senators for giving me the time to carefully read the motion in amendment. I compared it with the original motion and I was also able to consult Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms.

Senator Kinsella referred to paragraph 567, which I have carefully considered, was as well as other paragraphs, including those regarding inadmissible amendments, such matters as cannot be resolved in the negative, and so on.

Paragraph 567 states:

The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question.

As I look at the amendment, I find that it is indeed a different proposition which will increase its likelihood of passage. However, it would change the original motion. In a sense, it is a clarification. It does not negative the previous motion; it simply accepts one of the recommendations rather than all of the recommendations as put forward in the motion.

Therefore, I do not find it to be out of order. I agree with paragraph 567 of Beauchesne's. It is in order.

Motion to Comply with Recommendations, as Amended, Adopted

The question before the Senate is on the motion moved by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the Honourable Senator DeWare, that the Senate endorses and supports -

Hon. Senators: Dispense.

The Hon. the Speaker: And the motion in amendment moved by the Honourable Senator Kirby, seconded by the Honourable Senator Carstairs, that the motion be not now adopted -

Hon. Senators: Dispense.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable Senators, I should like to speak to the amendment because, even though I felt initially that it might be in contradiction to the original motion, the more I read it the more I find it might be compatible with the original motion and its two amendments.

When we finally refined our original motion with the two amendments, we limited the support of this chamber to recommendation 1 of the Krever report. Senator Kirby's amendment reads that the Senate endorses and supports recommendation 1 of the Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada, which calls upon provinces and territories to respond to the needs of those who suffered due to the management of the blood supply system.

Those are the exact people we wish to support. I want to draw to the attention of honourable senators exactly who it is Mr. Justice Krever was talking about and how he arrived at his conclusion.

In Volume 3, chapter 39, he goes into a long explanation leading up to recommendation 1. I wish to quote two or three extracts which I think summarize his thinking, which is the thinking that we are asking - and I hope the amendment also is asking - to support. He states:

As I pointed out in my Interim Report, it is of little consolation or even relevance to those unfortunate members of our society who suffer from infection caused by blood transfusions or blood products that the blood supply now is adjudged relatively safe. A system that knows that these consequences will occur and what brings them about has, at the very least, a moral obligation to give some thought to the question of appropriate relief for those affected by the inevitable events.

At the end of this chapter, at page 1045, he states:

Until now, our treatment of the blood-injured has been unequal. After years of suffering devastating financial losses, many persons infected with HIV from blood or blood products, or their surviving family members, finally did receive financial assistance. Other Canadians who have suffered injuries from blood therapy have not received any compensation. Yet the needs of those who have been harmed are the same, regardless of their cause, and whether or not fault can be proved. Compensating some needy sufferers and not others cannot, in my opinion, be justified. The provinces and territories of Canada should devise statutory no-fault schemes that compensate all blood-injured persons promptly and adequately, so they do not suffer impoverishment or illness without treatment. I therefore recommend that, without delay, the provinces and territories devise statutory no-fault schemes for compensating persons who suffer serious adverse consequences as a result of the administration of blood components or blood products.

(1950)

These are the people of whom we are speaking; not all those infected with hepatitis C but those who contracted hepatitis C through negligence - some of it willful - by the authorities responsible for the blood supply in this country, through tainted blood or blood products because donors were not tested prior to their donations.

I admire the leadership which Minister Rock took on compensation, but unfortunately he limited it to from 1986 to 1990. During that period there was a proven testing procedure which the government, the Red Cross and others did not adopt until 1990. However, before that there were other testing procedures. There was a testing procedure as early as the 1950s. It was rudimentary and primitive, yes, but it existed.

There was a system devised long before 1986. It has now been shown that those two testing procedures, when used together, were about 60 per cent effective for detecting hepatitis C. This was long before 1986. As a matter of fact, the New York Blood Centre, in 1982, adopted one of those testing procedures. In the Krever report, the director of the Greater New York blood program said that the test as a test is just fine, that the technologies are extremely good and that it is not an absolute indicator for NANB hepatitis. There was no known terminology for hepatitis C so they just said that it was non-A/non-B hepatitis. He went on to say that it is the only thing we have to identify donors who are at high risk for transmitting this type of hepatitis.

It was not foolproof. Even today's testing procedure is not foolproof. At that time it was less foolproof, but it existed and we did not adopt it. We did not adopt it because we thought we would save a few dollars. The reason for that, based on Krever and on the testimony of those responsible, was that they believed at the time that there were so few affected that the investment in the testing of blood donors would be too costly for the number that might be affected.

It is a tragedy for which we are all responsible. Let us not point the finger at a certain minister or deputy minister. It is a societal responsibility which we met for HIV victims and which we met for the victims of the thalidomide tragedy. It is one of those terrible human errors that we made.

Our amendment to the motion was that recommendation 1 of Krever be adopted. This is what the government side is agreeing with. This is the key to the amendment. If they are serious and will confirm it, I will be the first to enthusiastically support the amendment. Recommendation 1 reads as follows:

It is recommended that, without delay, the provinces and territories devise statutory no-fault schemes for compensating persons who suffer serious, adverse consequences as a result of the administration of blood components or blood products.

It sets out no time limit. It is very well to express the hope that those infected will be compensated, but it will be very hard in many cases to prove that the infection was caused by tainted blood. However, if Senator Kirby's amendment really means that we are not satisfied with the compensation package as presently devised because the time-frame is limited from 1986 to 1990, then I would support this amendment with great enthusiasm.

The rest of the amendment speaks of recognizing the leadership role. I recognize the leadership role played by Minister Rock. I feel sympathy for him. After his predecessor said that she would not be in favour of compensation, and after many provincial ministers of health said they would not be in favour of compensation, he said that we should devise something. There are people who are known to be victims of neglect. I congratulate Minister Rock for doing what he did. Having gone this far, I ask him to take the last step. The last step is to make all victims eligible.

The rest of the amendment, which is also in line with the government's thinking, is to address the needs of all victims of hepatitis C. I would hope that is being done now. We do not need a resolution to do that.

Honourable senators, I should like Senator Kirby or Senator Carstairs to confirm my interpretation of this amendment, which is that the Senate of Canada will support the establishment of a program of compensation which will make all who became victims of hepatitis C as a result of tainted blood or tainted blood products eligible, no matter when they were infected. That is my interpretation of the amendment. If that is the intent of the government side, it will show once again that the spirit of understanding and compassion still reigns in this place.

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, we stand by the amendment.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, I should like to ask Senator Carstairs whether my interpretation of the amendment is accurate or inaccurate.

Senator Carstairs: I believe that the amendment is very clear. I do not want to get into a game of semantics this evening. I am tired and Senator Lynch-Staunton is tired.

The amendment says that we support recommendation 1 of the Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada which calls upon provinces and territories to respond to the needs of those who suffered.

Is Senator Lynch-Staunton prepared to go so far as to provide compensation to people who have not suffered anything? There are hepatitis C victims who have no symptoms. If they have not suffered, I do not think they should be paid compensation.

The amendment has been amended to say that those who have suffered should be compensated. It goes on to do what Senator Lynch-Staunton has argued. The federal government has indeed taken a leadership role on this matter. It says that the provinces and territories should take positive action to address the needs of those who suffer from the ill effects from hepatitis C.

That is my understanding of the amendment. I hope that is Senator Lynch-Staunton's understanding. I hope that is the understanding of the entire chamber. If it is, this motion will pass and it will be sent to the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I think there is a meeting of minds here. I will read the recommendation once more because the words here pretty well repeat what Krever said. Recommendation 1 reads:

It is recommended that, without delay, the provinces and territories devise statutory no-fault schemes for compensating persons who suffer -

- the same word as in the amendment -

- serious, adverse consequences as a result of the administration of blood components or blood products.

Krever does not put a time limit on it.

Senator Grafstein: That is correct.

(2000)

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Neither does this amendment. That is what I am asking. You are going exactly where we were going through two amendments.

Senator Gigantès: What is your objection?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I am not objecting. I want to ensure we are talking about the same thing. We have a young boy, a hepatitis C victim, who, at age 11, is bicycling across the country trying to raise a million signatures to have this recommendation endorsed. Surely to God we can spend a little time here - only 75 of us - to support him.

What is missing - and, unfortunately, the amendment should have said this - is "under continuing leadership of the federal Minister of Health." I hope that that is implied. If Senator Kirby would like to add that to his amendment, it would make it more precise. As I read it and as Senator Carstairs reads it, I think we are talking about the same intent, and certainly we are hoping that this will be realized.

The Hon. the Speaker: The question before the Senate is on the motion by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the Honourable Senator DeWare that the Senate endorse and support the finding -

Hon. Senators: Dispense!

The Hon. the Speaker: The amendment proposed by the Honourable Senator Kirby and seconded by the Honourable Senator Carstairs is that the motion be not now adopted but that it be amended by removing all the words after -

Hon. Senators: Dispense!

The Hon. the Speaker: Those in favour of the motion in amendment will please say "yea."

Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: Will those opposed please say "nay"? Not hearing anyone say "nay," in my opinion, the "yeas" have it.

We are now back to the main motion, as amended. Shall I dispense?

Hon. Senators: Yes.

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

Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: Those opposed please say "nay." As there are no "nays," the motion carries.

Motion, as amended, adopted.

Information Commissioner

Report of Committee on Motion to Approve Appointment Adopted

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the thirteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented in the Senate on June 18, 1998.

Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, I move the adoption of the thirteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and report adopted.

Excise Tax Act

Bill to Amend-Third Reading-Motions in Amendment-Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Di Nino, seconded by the Honourable Senator DeWare, for the third reading of Bill S-10, to amend the Excise Tax Act.-(Honourable Senator Maheu).

Hon. Shirley Maheu: Honourable senators, I should like to begin by commending the Honourable Senator Di Nino for his bill, as it forced us all to look into the issues surrounding literacy in Canada.

[Translation]

Since its introduction in the upper chamber, this bill has received the support of a large number of senators, myself included. Yet, when it was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, certain senators were not convinced it would encourage literacy.

[English]

From the moment this bill was presented before the upper chamber, it gained the support of many colleagues in this chamber, myself included. However, as the bill went before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, many senators became convinced that this bill, in fact, will not do a great deal to promote literacy. I agree with them.

I feel strongly that literacy is a serious problem and it can no longer go unattended. Illiteracy poses a threat to securing Canada's placement in the global market-place.

Your Honour, could we have order, please? I cannot hear.

The Hon. the Speaker: Order, please! Those honourable senators who must have conversations should conduct them outside the chamber!

Senator Maheu: I suggest that the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology consult with the individual provinces to bind them to an initiative to fight illiteracy in Canada. I should like to see the end of the millennium accompany a plan to end illiteracy.

Though there has not been concrete proof that the removal of the goods and services tax from reading materials will result in a significant decline in the literacy rates in Canada - and Peter Gzowski happens to agree with me on this one - even if the removal the GST has a minor impact in giving either a child or an immigrant the tools required in order to learn how to read, then Senator Di Nino's bill is worthwhile.

Unfortunately, many questions and provisions lingered inside my head, as well as in the heads of many senators on the committee. The key problem with Bill S-10 was that there was no definition of "reading materials" given in the bill.

The first of my three amendments, which I will propose shortly, deals with the exclusion of certain forms of what some people deem to be literature. I would refer to them as trash. However, court rulings and the Constitution limit our ability to censor materials.

In conjunction with the Law Clerk, I examined the issue of violent pieces, hate literature, obscenity and pornography. We have prepared an amendment that would exclude items which contain an age restriction imposed by law on its sale, purchase or viewing, or falls under section 163 of the Criminal Code dealing with obscenity and pornography. Items of a violent nature, though still a major concern, will have to be restudied at a later date.

The second amendment proposes to limit the periodicals, magazines and newspapers that can be exempted from this legislation by imposing a maximum advertising limit of 5 per cent, as it currently exists in the legislation that exempts libraries from the GST. I am in favour of giving smaller publications a break - and, yes, I am aware that the federal government does collect the GST from the sale of advertising. However, for instance, The Ottawa Citizen costs $2 on a Saturday, which is $1.87, plus the GST.

Honourable senators, do you honestly believe that Conrad Black will lower the cost of his newspaper if the GST is removed, especially when the price already includes the GST? I think not.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: What about The Toronto Star?

Senator Maheu: We heard that one before. For the first week, perhaps.

This piece of legislation was introduced for the purpose of combating illiteracy in Canada, not to give a tax break. I will not support anything which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. I know that there are certain worries and that this amendment could possibly capture several smaller publications, specialty magazines, and third-language periodicals.

Honourable senators, I want to quickly put your minds at ease. Senator Di Nino and I have discussed this topic. Smaller publications such as community newspapers are usually - not always but usually - given away and are paid for by the advertising revenues, so they do not have to worry. Third-language periodicals and newspapers are not affected, due to the fact that the majority originate overseas and are not subject to the GST. I am sure that there would be some concern regarding magazines geared towards men, women, minorities, children and aboriginal people. However, most educational and professional documents contain less than 5 per cent advertising revenue. Therefore, they, too, will be exempted.

(2010)

The third amendment included focussing on educational texts required to be purchased by parents in order for a child to meet the requirements of the class to be taught. An example would be language arts workbooks and second language supplementary texts. Reading materials encompass a variety of items used in the classroom. I feel that, should a child be struggling in school, a parent should be allowed to go out and buy supplementary texts without paying the GST. Workbooks and other materials that are approved by the various provincial authorities regulating the materials to be used in a classroom should also be exempt.

I wish to congratulate Senator Di Nino. He has demonstrated his desire to fight the problem of illiteracy. I wish to inform all honourable senators that I join him in his fight and I give him my conditional support for Bill S-10 with the addition of my amendments.

Motion in Amendment

Hon. Shirley Maheu: Honourable senators, I move, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ferretti Barth:

That Bill S-10 be not now read the third time but that it be amended in clause 1, on page 1, by replacing line 8 with the following:

"ture or other reading material, including any pictorial representation or other expressive media approved for use by an educational institution in its programs, but not including any material that

(a) contains an age restriction imposed by law on an its sale, purchase or viewing;

(b) is either obscene within the meaning of section 163 of the Criminal Code, or of a pornographic nature; or

(c) contains more than 5 per cent advertising.

The Hon. the Speaker: It has been moved by the Honourable Senator Maheu, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ferretti Barth, that the bill be amended by -

Hon. Senators: Dispense.

[Translation]

Hon. Marisa Ferretti Barth: Honourable senators, I rise today to support the amendments moved by Senator Maheu with respect to third reading of Bill S-10. Before going any further, I wish to say that I support the bill and congratulate Senator Di Nino on his initiative. Like him, I believe that Canada should facilitate access to reading material.

If we wish to encourage people to read more, we must ensure that they have access to reading material at reasonable prices. I think that Bill S-10 could help in the fight against illiteracy. I am, however, concerned about the definition of reading material in this bill.

It is too vague. Our amendment would ensure that the bill would not contribute to the accessibility of publications requiring a parental warning because of language, scenes of nudity or violence.

[English]

Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable colleagues, let me first thank Honourable Senator Maheu and Honourable Senator Ferretti Barth for their support. We have attempted all along to make this a non-partisan, non-political issue and we continue to do so.

I have no problem with the amendment of Senator Maheu with regard to adding to the material which would be excluded from the GST other than specific word on paper which is approved by an educational institution. That is a good addition and I thank her for that.

I also have no problem with the other two components which would exclude material that would be imposed by law which would contain an age restriction. That is fair. Some of these publications should not be exempt from the GST.

We have already discussed where the Criminal Code addresses obscenity. Senator Maheu added the word "pornographic" with which I agree, although it will be difficult for those who must interpret this to enforce this.

My concern with Senator Maheu's amendment is the exclusion of reading material or material that contains more than 5 per cent advertising. Please bear with me for a few moments. This is an important subject and I will not take very long.

Some of the practical problems dealing with the 5 per cent rule include creating an artificial distinction between periodicals that serve an essentially similar role in society but happen to have different rates of advertising content. It would also create an administrative burden at newsstands or other locations where periodicals are available for sale. How would a retailer know whether a publication had 5 per cent, more or less, of advertising?

Senator Murray: This month versus last month.

Senator Di Nino: This month it may be more, last month it may have been less.

The 5 per cent rule would penalize those publications which are most successful in raising GST revenue. If a publication increases revenue to 20 per cent of advertising revenue, it would be penalized. This would create a disincentive for publications currently below the 5-per-cent threshold to improve their financial stability by adding advertising revenues.

Some points in principle are that the argument for the amendment seems to be that publications that carry advertising are overly commercial and, therefore, unworthy of zero-rating. Information on publisher profit margins collected by Statistics Canada does not support the view that advertising-supported publications generally have huge profits. On the contrary, margins are narrow. We were told that repeatedly. Clearly, advertising revenue allows costs to readers to be kept affordable, which is certainly a valid social objective.

An analysis of Canadian publications does not support the view that advertising supported periodicals are less worthy in their objectives or contributions to society than others. The ability to solicit advertising is mostly a factor of size, which is a consequence of consumer appeal.

Some of Canada's most important titles such as Saturday Night, Maclean's, L'Actualité and Chatelaine, to name a few, would all exceed the 5 per cent threshold as would many publications serving smaller market niches. What is the yardstick? The real issue is whether the possible amendment would add or take away from the objective of Bill S-10.

As far as we can tell, the amendment would undermine rather than support the principal argument in favour of zero-rating publications; that is, promoting literacy, building a knowledge-based economy, eliminating the inequities and hardships created by the GST within the publishing sector.

Honourable senators, what are we really talking about? What is the reality? All honourable senators know of, read, support and buy local publications of the small towns and the communities where we live. Most of these publications are owned and run by local citizens who are not making huge profits but who provide a tremendous service of community involvement for those areas.

As well, Canada is enriched by a multitude of people from around the world, men and women who have made Canada their home, who have come from every corner of the globe. Most of them have at least one and may need more than one publication in their own language. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of third language publications across the country, most of which, I suspect, make little or no money. These publications are usually not free. Some publications are free; however, the majority are sold.

(2020)

People need some income and revenue to be able to afford to carry these things. Let me give you some specific examples of the magazines that would be excluded. I could give you 150 but I will give you just a few.

Aboriginal Voices, The Voice of the Canadian Aboriginal People, costs $21.40 for four issues, in case someone is thinking that they will give it away for free; Azure, Developments in Canadian and International Design, costs $19.95 for six issues.

I will not give you all the prices. These things are all for sale.

Green Teacher, Global and Environmental Awareness For Children; The Nation, The News and Cultural Magazine of the James Bay Cree; Family Health, Promoting Healthy Lifestyles and Injury Prevention; Books in Canada, Canada's Book Review Journal.

You will notice I am only reading one or so from each page.

Kindred Spirits of PEI, The Life and Works of L.M. Montgomery; Matrix, Featuring New and Established Canadian and International Writers; NeWest Review; Kinesis; Shift Magazine; Ryerson Review of Journalism; Vice Versa; Windspeaker; Equinox: all these magazines would exclude more than 5 per cent if we accept this bill. They have more than 5 per cent of their revenue in advertising.

Let me finish by showing honourable senators four or five of these magazines. This is the Aboriginal Voices I spoke of before. Who wants to say to them, "No, you cannot be treated the same as some of the other publications."

There is V Art, Arts Atlantic, Prism International, QUEPASA, MIX ZEDOROR, the magazine on Ukrainian issues. These are all great Canadian magazines.

What are we talking about, honourable colleagues? The amendment. Senator Maheu must accept that reading is literacy. The amendment Senator Maheu proposes is a good one, except where she suggests that those publications that receive 5 per cent or more of their revenue from advertising should not be included.

Regretfully and respectfully, I disagree, and I wish to propose a subamendment to Senator Maheu's amendment, which is very simple. All it does is delete the last line of her amendment, which is paragraph (c).

Motion in Subamendment

Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: I move, seconded by Senator Kinsella:

That the motion in amendment be amended

(a) by adding the word "or" after paragraph (a);

(b) by deleting the word "or" after paragraph (b); and

(c) by deleting paragraph (c).

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Hon. the Speaker: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Di Nino, seconded by the Honourable Senator Kinsella:

That the motion in amendment be amended -

An Hon. Senator: Dispense.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question is on the motion in subamendment.

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I say this in a definitely non-partisan way. There are important issues here and I would like to adjourn this debate.

The Hon. the Speaker: Did you wish to speak, Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton?

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Yes, I wish to speak, unless you are going to deny me the adjournment.

The Hon. the Speaker: When two honourable senators rise, and one is for the adjournment, I always inquire as to whether the other wished to speak .

Senator Di Nino: I wish to speak on the adjournment motion.

The Hon. the Speaker: An adjournment motion is not debatable.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I wish to speak before the adjournment motion is put.

The Hon. the Speaker: I have not put the motion yet.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, as briefly as possible, I should like to remind our friends opposite of the stand they have taken on this issue in the past. The bill which Senator Di Nino is putting forward is word for word the same bill that Senator Frith presented in this chamber and which was never brought to a vote. Senator Frith, at the time, was opposition leader sitting in this very chair. He did it on behalf of his colleagues and, I assume, on behalf of the Liberal Party which, later, during the election promised us they would remove the GST on everything, as you recall.

The background to his bill to remove the GST from reading material goes to November 1990 when, during the GST debate, the Liberal opposition presented eight amendments to the GST bill, which was known as Bill C-62. The first amendment was proposed by the then leader of the opposition, Senator MacEachen, who we were told not too long ago is a national resource, who is available for consulting, who is still inhabiting, as far as I know, the Taj Mahal suite in the East Block, and who obviously, once he takes a stand sticks to it. He, seconded by Senator Frith, moved an amendment to Bill C-62, the excise bill which implemented the GST, to exempt reading material from the GST. Twice in this chamber the Liberal Party has recommended the removal of the GST from reading material without qualification, without reference to content, without reference to advertising revenues. To confirm that, when the amendment was proposed, Senator MacEachen issued a press release in which he said:

Of all the things that are wrong with the GST, surely a tax on reading stands out as the most regressive and offensive cultural and educational measure ever introduced by a government.

Senator Berntson: The national treasure.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: In anticipation of being asked why we did not do anything about it at the time, I must remind you that Finance Minister Wilson said:

We will not accept those amendments, but once the GST had been in place for some time we will look at it again and if the exemptions can be well supported we will certainly implement those exemptions.

Senator Hébert, who was identified in the press release as a founding member of a prominent publishing house and, therefore, with direct knowledge of the industry, was quoted as saying:

The impact of the GST on reading materials will be devastating, with decreases in employment and sales.

Senator Hébert went on:

Ironically, the decline will be felt most sharply in those areas where the government has targeted its priorities on cultural and social grounds, writing by Canadians on subjects of interest to Canadians.

There was a forceful argument put forward by leading members of the party sitting in this place. During the debate itself, which I urge members across to read before they vote on this bill, the most convincing arguments were made by their colleagues.

Senator Gigantès: They did not convince you last time.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Senator MacEachen said:

It seems reasonable to us that an amendment that would restore in a sense the status quo that would protect or safeguard printed materials against the GST would be appropriate.

It would maintain a system that is presently in effect in Canada and, at a minimum, would give a fighting chance to the publication industry in Canada. The arguments being presented today by Senator Di Nino are the same ones which were invoked then and were rejected by the Conservative government at the time with the qualification that, after several years' experience with the GST, a revision could be made, including, as Minister Wilson said at the time, the removal of the GST from reading material.

(2030)

Senator Hébert, in speaking to this amendment, said:

As far as I am concerned, I will limit myself to talking about the catastrophic impact of the GST on the book industry. Newspapers and magazines will be hit as well, but it is the book which is the base of our cultural development.

Senator Fairbairn quite naturally became involved in the debate because of her constant and most admirable and persistent work on behalf of literacy in this country. She has a personal as well as political interest in seeing that, as much as possible, literacy is encouraged, and one of the ways to do that is to remove the GST from reading material. At that time, speeches were quite lengthy but did not lack substance. I will quote one paragraph. She said:

I guess the question we have to ask today is this. Why wait? Our amendment to zero rate books and printed materials gives the Government of Canada a golden opportunity to remove that tax right now. I think it would be an honourable response to public concern.

Here we are, eight years later, faced with the same facts, the same arguments, and 23 Liberal senators who, at the time, voted in favour of the amendment to remove the GST from reading material. Since most of them are here, it would be appropriate to remind them of the vote they took at the time. I know that consistency, while never one of their great qualities, is still something they like to affirm on occasion.

Senator Gigantès: You amaze me. You voted to impose the tax last time.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: We voted in favour of the GST on reading material at the time, and Minister Wilson said that, in time, the entire GST process would be revisited and reading material would be one of the first items to be subject to exemption. It is all on the record.

What is also on the record are those Liberal senators who are still here today who voted massively and enthusiastically in favour of the removal of the GST from reading material: Senators Adams, Austin, Bosa, Cools, Corbin, De Bané, Fairbairn, Gigantès, Grafstein, Graham, Hébert, Kenny, Kirby, Kolber, Lewis, Lucier, Molgat, Perrault, Louis Robichaud, Stewart, Stollery, and Watt. I invite them all to join with us to support, once again, the principle of removing the GST from reading material.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I move the adjournment of this debate.

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

Senator Di Nino: No. It is a delay tactic. That is all it is. Shame on you.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: Will those who oppose the motion for adjournment please say "nay."

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

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

And two honourable senators having risen.

The Hon. the Speaker: Call in the senators.

I am advised by the Whips that they have agreed to a 10-minute bell. Therefore, the vote will take place at 8:45 p.m.

(2040)

The Hon. the Speaker: The question before the Senate is the motion by the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gigantès, that debate on third reading be adjourned to the next sitting of the Senate.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned on the following division:

YEAS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Adams, Bacon, Bryden, Butts, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Cook, Cools, Corbin, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Fitzpatrick, Forest, Gigantès, Grafstein, Graham, Hébert, Hervieux-Payette, Johnstone, Joyal, Kirby, Kroft, Losier-Cool, Maheu, Mahovlich, Maloney, Mercier, Milne, Pépin, Poulin, Robichaud (L'Acadie-Acadia), Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), Rompkey, Ruck, Sparrow, Stewart, Taylor, Watt, Wilson-40.

NAYS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Angus, Atkins, Berntson, Cohen, Comeau, DeWare, Di Nino, Forrestall, Grimard, Kelleher, Keon, Kinsella, LeBreton, Lynch-Staunton, Meighen, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Phillips, Rossiter, Simard, Spivak, Stratton, Tkachuk-24.

ABSTENTIONS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Nil

(2050)

Royal Assent Bill

Consideration of Report of Committee-Motion in Amendment-Debate Adjourned

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the twelfth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill S-15, respecting the declaration of Royal Assent by the Governor General in the Queen's name to bills passed by the Houses of Parliament) presented in the Senate earlier this day.

Hon. Lorna Milne moved the adoption of the report with amendments.

She said: Honourable senators, regarding the amendments that were agreed to by the committee, the purpose of the first amendment, which is to clause 2 of the bill, is to clarify that the traditional Royal Assent ceremony is required for the first appropriation bill presented for assent in the session.

The changes to clause 3 delete the requirement that a written declaration of Royal Assent be reported to each house of Parliament within 15 sitting days. Following from that, a new clause 3 was inserted, added to ensure that the Royal Assent ceremony would occur for at least one bill in each subsequent calendar year in a session.

The remaining clauses of the bill were then renumbered, down to clause 6, and a new clause 7 was created to ensure that the written declarations of Royal Assent would not be invalid if the requirement for a traditional ceremony in the subsequent years of the session are not met.

However, honourable senators, as I mentioned during our committee hearings, although this was passed in committee, I have some reservations about the bill, either as amended or not. I firmly believe that Royal Assent, with all the trappings of the ceremony involved, is the last traditional vestige remaining of the original reason for having an Usher of the Black Rod and of an important stage in the development of the parliamentary system of democracy which we enjoy.

Also, it is a fine piece of theatre and more Canadians should know about it.

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, as a member of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I listened and reviewed the evidence of the only two witnesses before the committee on Bill S-15 proposing to renovate the Senate practice of Royal Assent. I abstained from voting for the recommendations in that report. I remain unconvinced that the symbolic consequences of reducing Royal Assent in the Senate through the proposals in this bill have been fully considered.

While I certainly welcome the Leader of the Opposition's initiative in bringing to the attention of the Senate the erosion of the practices of Royal Assent, I cannot fail to note that, if the late and much-revered Right Honourable John Diefenbaker glanced down from his perch on high, he might not be kindly disposed to his party cohorts, because they may have rattled his spirit as a result of their conduct, which may seem more than curious to him.

As I told the committee yesterday, it is passing strange for those of us on this side to feel compelled to recall the ghost of John Diefenbaker, but, in the Senate, all things are obviously possible. In the circumstances, I believe the best course of conduct is to refer this bill back to committee so that in the fall the committee can allow fuller and more adequate input from the public and the Senate who can make their views known about the role of the Crown, her representative, the Governor General, in his exercise of his highest constitutional duty, Royal Assent, which facilitates the passage of legislation into the rule of law in Canada under which both the Crown and country serve.

Motion in Amendment

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Therefore, honourable senators, I move, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pépin, that this report not be accepted and that the bill be referred back to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for further consideration.

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I congratulate my friend Senator Grafstein on an excellent speech. I have not had an opportunity to reflect on the amendment he has proposed, but I was planning to make a few brief remarks at this stage with a view to adjourning the debate.

I would begin by reminding some honourable senators that a bill very similar to this one was before the Senate during the life of the previous Conservative government. That bill died here because the then Leader of the Opposition, Senator MacEachen, saw that it went to the bottom of the legislative pile, as it were.

I would not presume, even now, to speak for Senator MacEachen, but I think it is fair to say that his objection to the bill was that, in virtually abolishing the Royal Assent ceremony in the Senate, the House of Commons and the government of the day were taking just another step to downgrade the role and importance of the Senate as one of the chambers of Parliament. That was his view, and as I say, he saw to it, as long as he commanded a majority in this chamber, that the bill went nowhere.

Honourable senators, I must confess that, privately and personally, I saw some merit in his arguments, and when the situation in this chamber changed and the Conservative government had a majority here, I did not take any steps to revive the bill. However, it is here again, thanks to the initiative of my friend, the Leader of the Opposition.

Honourable senators, I tend to sympathize very much with the position taken by Senator Grafstein. That being said, I have another confession to make. For seven and a half years I attended just about every Royal Assent in this chamber because it was my duty to do so. I was struck then, as I am sure honourable senators have been struck since, by the sparse attendance of senators in the chamber for that ceremony, and struck also - indeed, "scandalized" would be a better word - by the even sparser attendance of members of the other place. It frequently happens, as honourable senators know, that only either the Speaker or the Deputy Speakers and perhaps a couple other members of the House of Commons are present behind the bar. The crowd you see there is composed largely of Table officers, pages and the like.

I confess that, since 1993, I have attended exactly one Royal Assent in this chamber. That being the case, I think it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to insist too much that the ceremony be maintained as it has been.

While I am very sympathetic to the position of Senator Grafstein, I cannot in all conscience say that I will, or that I would, vote against this bill as a matter of principle.

There is, however, one concern I wish to raise, and it is a matter that my honourable friend, the dean of the Senate, Senator Phillips, and I have been discussing with respect to this bill. Perhaps if Senator Phillips does not mind, I will speak for him, and if I misstate his position, he will certainly correct me very quickly. He is of the view, and I agree, that sending a bill to Rideau Hall for Royal Assent should require something more than its being taken out there by a messenger or even by one of the clerks or even by a Speaker.

(2100)

We are of the view that it would be obligatory, if we are to change the practice, that there be a representative of the government and a representative of the opposition from both houses present for any Royal Assent under the new dispensation, if this bill or a bill similar to it were to pass.

I was going to adjourn the debate, and I can still adjourn the debate on Senator Grafstein's amendment. I make that proposal right now.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Before we leave the issue, honourable senators -

Senator Grafstein: He has moved the adjournment. Let us speak to the adjournment.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Will you not allow me the courtesy?

Senator Grafstein: Senator Murray has moved the adjournment of the debate.

Senator Di Nino: His Honour has not put the question.

The Hon. the Speaker: Order, please!

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, in the spirit of collegiality which I thought we had tonight, I think we would certainly agree to support Senator Murray's motion to adjourn the debate. However, I do not think we want to cut off anyone who wishes to speak to this matter. If Senator Lynch-Staunton wishes to speak to this matter, I think we should give him that opportunity.

Senator Di Nino: Senator Cools wishes to speak as well.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the normal practice in this house is that, if a motion to adjourn a debate has been proposed but another honourable senator wishes to speak, then the courtesy of being allowed to speak is extended to that individual. Two senators rose, Senators Lynch-Staunton and Cools. Although Senator Murray moved the motion to adjourn the debate, I did not put the question to the Senate. Therefore, I am prepared, unless the Senate disagrees, to hear the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton.

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I wish to ask the presenter of the report a few questions, if I may.

The Hon. the Speaker: What is it you wish to do, Senator Cools?

Senator Cools: I want to make some brief inquiries about the report. If we proceed in a certain way, then the chairman of the committee brings a report to us and, quite often, we are allowed to ask a few questions about it. I have a few questions which I want to put to her, with leave.

The Hon. the Speaker: I cannot allow Senator Cools to put questions to the mover of the original motion since we have now moved beyond that point.

[Translation]

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I would have loved to give a very vigorous speech on this, but for some reason or other, possibly the time of night, I do not feel capable of speaking for long. All the better!

[English]

However, I would like to be on the record as having said that I have always been and will remain a profound traditionalist, attached to the British parliamentary tradition. I have always said - and I cannot change after 35 years - that anything that takes away or diminishes our traditions should be not be taken lightly.

I have had discussions with a senator who sits on the other side of the house, a senator who is a great scholar, a teacher and a professor. We discussed whether or not the number of members required for Royal Assent from the other place could be reduced. It is possible. Someday we should debate that issue. I have said that no law could be passed without members from the other place being duly called for Royal Assent. If the opposite were the case, such laws would be found invalid in court.

I will not debate the issue tonight. I have had this discussion with Senator Nolin and with with Senator Stewart. They know my views.

If this debate is adjourned it will afford us more time to think about the issue.

I am honoured as a French Canadian to stand up for the British tradition. We have a new Usher of the Black Rod. Are we thinking now that because some members do not show up we will scrap this tradition? Tough luck. That is what makes us so different from the others. Some say it is a time-consuming ceremony. These ceremonies mean something. Before we get rid of these ceremonies, we should reflect a little bit longer.

Hon. Orville H. Phillips: Honourable senators, since my seat mate has referred to our discussion, I would point out that I distinctly recall the discussion in various committees when the Conservative Party was considering a similar bill.

Great emphasis was placed upon who should deliver the bill to Rideau Hall. I believe it was Senator Frith who gave an explanation of the British system where the bill is delivered to Her Majesty. It is delivered by members of the Privy Council. I remember Senator Frith making the particular point that the opposition had to be represented in presenting that bill to Her Majesty because it emphasized that the opposition is a part of Parliament and has a part to play. Presenting a piece of legislation to the Queen, or to the Governor General, should signify that all of Parliament took part in its passage.

Honourable senators, I suggest that, if we do not wish to have a member of the Privy Council take the bill to Rideau Hall, then it would be appropriate for the Speakers of the two houses to take the bill to Rideau Hall. I would surely be glad to accompany them because usually when we visit Rideau Hall, they open the champagne. I am sure both Speakers or Deputy Speakers would enjoy that.

I support the idea that the bill be sent back to committee for this reason. With regard to the report tabled this afternoon, the third amendment states that Royal Assent must occur on at least one occasion in each calendar year.

Amendment No. 7 states:

No Royal Assent is invalid by reason only that section 3 is not complied with in any calendar year.

Yet, the proposed section 3 to which I have referred states that there must be a Royal Assent once a year.

There is no way that these two amendments can be reconciled. For that reason, I support the bill's going back to committee where some of these considerations may be further discussed.

I am not sure as to where my colleague's motion for adjournment of the debate stands. If it is invalid by now, I would be happy to move the adjournment of the debate.

On motion of Senator Phillips, debate adjourned.

[Translation]

Royal Assent

Notice

The Hon. the Acting Speaker informed the Senate that the following communication had been received:

RIDEAU HALL

18 June 1998

Sir,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Ian Binnie, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 18th day of June, 1998, at 9:45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.

Yours sincerely,

Judith A. LaRocque
Secretary to the Governor General

The Honourable
        The Speaker of the Senate
                Ottawa

 

Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration

Twenty-third Report of Committee Adopted

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the twenty-third report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, tabled in the Senate on June 18, 1998.

Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, I move the adoption of this report.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and report adopted.

[English]

Transport

Lerner Report on Cancellation of Pearson Airport Agreements-Inquiry

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator LeBreton calling the attention of the Senate to the Report entitled: "Cancelling the Pearson Airport Agreements," by Stephen D. Lerner.-(Honourable Senator Tkachuk).

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, it has been three years since the Special Senate Committee on the Pearson Airport Agreements was formed. In the months of July, August and September, members investigated the cancellation of the contract to develop Pearson airport and to lease such development to a consortium called Paxport and, later, the Pearson Airport Corporation.

As a conservative by nature and intellect, I respect and fear the power of government. In a democracy, we are often blind to that. We believe that somehow democratic governments are less prone to abuse power. In fact, democracy has always been simply the best of the lot. It gives people the right to vote. Once elected, people have been known to behave in all kinds of ways not beneficial to the public good.

I believe that the perpetuation of the allegations of corruption and favoritism made against Paxport by the media - another pillar of power that abuses it as regularly as does government - and then by the Prime Minister, the then leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, is an example of propaganda at its worst. That is what history will record and it will be studied as an example of how to perpetuate falsehoods, because it was one of the best examples of abuse of power in this country that I have ever seen.

For a while one can excuse ignorance, as in the case previous to the election. However, when the Liberal government assumed power in the fall of 1993, it immediately chose a course that would perpetuate the falsehood against Paxport and the Pearson Development Corporation rather than seek the truth. Without the actions of this much maligned place - the Senate - this would have forever hung over the reputation of those people and those companies.

We must wonder why they chose one particular individual, one particular company and one particular family from the city of Mississauga in the province of Ontario, Canada. They chose Don Matthews, who was simply the head of a construction company, the Matthews Group. He was 66 years of age and he belonged to a political party. There was nothing in his record, his reputation or his actions as a human being throughout a lifetime of work and success that would cause him to be identified by a group of people and then chosen as the scapegoat, the person who had perpetrated something close to a criminal act. In fact, his only sin was that he belonged to a political party and chose to serve that political party in high office. He served it well in the early 1970s as the president of the party under Robert Stanfield. He then chose to raise money for the party and to work hard for the democratic process.

We hurt ourselves, fellow senators, when we misuse power and attack political parties without reason. It is because of such attacks that the people of Canada now believe that if you have had connections to the Liberal Party, you are a bad choice for appointment to the Senate. It does not matter what you did in your personal life, only that you happened to serve a political party. In the case of Senator Mahovlich, his wife served a political party, and that is perceived as a bad thing to do.

The frenzy of accusations was shameful. When powerful people use power to destroy reputations and the financial security of people and their families, which took a lifetime to accumulate, the punishment should be severe. However, in fact it was the taxpayers who paid the price through losses in the courts, through the loss of jobs at the airport in 1993, and through the loss of time in the development of the airport. The innocent paid. Media people who won prizes because they exposed the supposed corruption did not give their prizes back. Stevie Cameron still walks the streets, where she belongs. The politicians who perpetuated this state of affairs are still elected.

I want to refer to the study by Mr. Lerner which was published in the last issue of the international industry legal journal, Annals of Air and Space Law. Mr. Lerner, who has a Master of Laws degree concludes in his study that, as a result of the cancellation of the Pearson Development Corporation agreements, legal proceedings were launched against the federal government which were recently settled for $45 million in out-of-pocket expenses and $15 million in interest and legal costs. Approximately 750 people lost their jobs and the anticipated employment of up to 1,000 people during the redevelopment process did not occur. In the interim, Pearson airport has continued to deteriorate for four years and the federal government will receive $328 million less in revenue over 20 years as a result of the cancellation of the Pearson Airport Agreements. The federal government will receive $300 million less in revenue over 20 years as a result of the devolution of Pearson airport to the GTAA and, in addition, the federal government will incur a cost of $60 million for the out-of-court settlement to the Pearson Airport Development Corporation, and $185 million granted to the GTAA in rent relief. The direct cost to the Canadian taxpayer of the federal government's decision to cancel the Pearson Airport Agreements and to devolve the Pearson airport to the GTAA is $873 million over 20 years.

(2120)

He went on to state that the Pearson Airport Agreements for the reinvestment of terminals 1 and 2, using private sector capital, should not have been cancelled. Mr. Nixon and the federal government have failed to explain why private sector-public sector partnerships could not meet public interest objectives, while obtaining private sector advantages of efficiency and market responsiveness. Specifically, Mr. Nixon and the federal government have failed to demonstrate that the $682-million redevelopment investment in terminals 1 and 2, with no burden on the public coffer, was contrary to the public interest.

Honourable senators, I wish to table the report and the article by Dr. Lerner.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is leave granted to table the report?

Hon. John G. Bryden: Before I agree, who is this person?

Senator Tkachuk: Professor Lerner obtained his Master of Laws degree at the Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. He now practices law at Taylor McCafferty in Winnipeg, Canada.

Senator Bryden: Is he a private aerospace lawyer in private practice?

Senator Tkachuk: That is correct.

Senator Bryden: I have no objection to the tabling of that report, provided I have an opportunity to express my opinion on it.

Senator Di Nino: Absolutely. We will look forward to it.

Senator Tkachuk: You will have your opportunity to reply.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted to table the report?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: If no other honourable senator wishes to speak, this inquiry shall be considered debated.

[Translation]

Transportation Safety and Security

Final Report of Transport and Communications Committee Adopted

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the ninth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications (study on the state of transportation safety and security in Canada), tabled in the Senate on June 10, 1998.

Hon. Lise Bacon: Honourable senators, I move the adoption of this report.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and report adopted.

[English]

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board

Report of Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee-Motion to Elicit Response of Government-Motion Concurred In

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cohen:

That, within 90 days of the adoption of this motion, the Leader of the Government shall provide the Senate with the response of the Government to 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 Carstairs).

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am prepared to support the motion made by Honourable Senator Tkachuk. However, I wish to bring it to the attention of the Senate that we may not be sitting 90 days hence. In fact, it is my devout wish that we will not be sitting 90 days hence. Therefore, I should like to make it clear that it would be acceptable that this document could be tabled with the clerk in order to fulfil the qualifications of the motion.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

Inter-Parliamentary union

Conference Held at Windhoek, Namibia-Inquiry-Debate Adjourned

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: Honourable senators, I wish to report on the Inter-Parliamentary conference in Windhoek, Namibia, from April 5, 1998. I will try to be as brief as possible given the hour, but I did wish to report on this very important coverage. Our colleague, Senator Taylor, was a delegate, together with Mrs. Finestone, Mrs. Catterall, Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral, Mrs. Folco, Mr. Stoffer and Ms Torsney of the other place.

[Translation]

Namibia, a sparsely populated and vast desert country, has a total population of 1.8 million. It was initially a German colony, passing to South African control in 1915, and attained independence only in 1990, after a lengthy struggle and negotiations which involved Pretoria, the United Nations, Angola and Cuba. In 1988, the negotiations, and the generation-long armed struggle ended in an agreement calling for elections leading to independence, to be held under United Nations supervision, in exchange for the gradual withdrawal of the Cuban troops stationed in Angola. SWAPO, the South West Africa Peoples Organization, under the direction of Sam Nujoma, won the November 1989 election and independence was declared the following year. The first post-independence elections were held in December 1994.

According to international observers, these elections were fair and just, and indicated that a democratic culture had taken firm hold. SWAPO obtained a 72.7 per cent majority, and President Nujoma was re-elected with 76.3 per cent of the vote.

[English]

Canada's major involvement with Namibia dates from the 1977 to 1982 negotiations on the U.N. settlement plan. Canada was active in implementing the plan in 1989-1990, providing military and peacekeepers, police monitors, election supervisors and technical experts. After independence, our observer mission became our first and only resident High Commission until the mission was closed in May, 1993, due to budgetary considerations.

Namibia is accredited to Canada through their High Commission in Washington, D.C. In October 1994, the Honourable Walter McLean was appointed Honorary Consul for Namibia in Canada, and a Namibian consulate has been opened in Waterloo, Ontario. Canada, is accredited to Namibia through the Canadian High Commission in Pretoria.

In the past, Canada has provided technical assistance to Namibia, and the organization of this conference was no exception. Two staff members from the Canadian Parliament with extensive experience in organizing international events were seconded to the Namibian Parliament for two months prior to this conference. Their contribution to the smooth operations of this event was recognized by the Speaker of the Namibian Parliament in his opening remarks.

There are often comments about the value of parliamentary associations and the work carried out at international conferences. I wish to outline special initiatives taken by our delegation.

The Canadian group saw this conference as the second step towards the realization of the goals of the Ottawa Mines Action Conference and as an opportunity to use parliamentary diplomacy to advance the cause of the ban on land mines.

Accordingly, we used various techniques to bring this issue to the fore during this conference. Participants with a long history in attendance observed that the Canadian group was successful in drawing the attention of all delegates to the urgency of signing and ratifying the Ottawa Convention on Land Mines.

(2130)

Ms Susan Walker, the new coordinator of the international campaign to ban land mines, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, served as a special advisor to our delegation and became a valuable asset to us all. Not only did she assist the Canadian participants in mobilizing a campaign to speak to delegations about the state of ratification in their countries, she also spoke on several occasions, including at the meeting of the women parliamentarians. She worked long hours during the conference and was an extremely effective resource person for all delegates on this issue.

Each of our nine delegates selected ten countries for personal contact. Over 250 copies of the background kit on the ratification process prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs were distributed. All delegates proved extremely diligent in all aspects of their work assignments. In addition, a distribution desk for the Canadian material on land mines was set up just outside the main plenary hall. Our advisor, Susan Walker, and various delegates took turns staffing the desk. Many conference participants stopped to talk about the ratification process.

The Canadian group hosted two lunches, one in English and one in French, with representatives from African countries to discuss how the ratification process might be moved along. Guests were seated at small tables, usually for four or six persons, and a parliamentarian served as host at each table.

Special guests at these luncheons included representatives of countries who had been helpful in the land mines process: Austria, Australia, Belgium, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa and Switzerland. In addition, at both luncheons, there were personal testimonies about the devastating nature of land mines, particularly the shifting nature of these mines and the ongoing death and maiming of individuals.

It was a delight to observe our Senator Taylor carry on a conversation in French with French parliamentarians and, as usual, that he could sell his ideas in any language.

The President of Namibia, the president of the conference and the president of the inter-parliamentary union, as well as the representative of the UN Secretary General spoke about the importance of the land mine treaty during the inaugural ceremony. It was evident that the subject of land mines was very topical.

Personal contact was made with all women parliamentarians and each delegation was given a copy of the background kit. Interest in this issue was so strong among the women parliamentarians that Susan Walker was invited to address the group at its final meeting.

Mrs. Finestone spoke about the importance of ratifying the Ottawa Convention, and several other delegates, including the leaders of the British and Norwegian delegations, also chose land mines as their subject.

On the first day, Susan Walker showed delegates a prosthesis from a small Thai refugee girl who had been maimed by a land mine and explained that this prosthesis had been at every negotiation and international conference on the ban of land mines. Both the leader of the Norwegian delegation and Mrs. Finestone used this prosthesis as a prop in their speeches. Thus, the prosthesis which was placed on the table of the Canadian delegation became a symbol for the conference.

The Namibian minister of foreign affairs referred to the importance of land mines in his address to the conference. Furthermore, the Speaker of the Namibian Parliament, who chaired the conference, closed the general debate with an impromptu speech about the importance of the ban on land mines.

Presentations were made at the meeting of women parliamentarians. The twelve plus group - the caucus of European countries, plus Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States - Liberal International and Parliamentarians for Global Action were also represented, as well as the Conference of Conservatives.

Canada was also admitted during this conference to the Asia-Pacific group. This is very important because up to that point we had not been a part of the Asia-Pacific group and now the Asia-Pacific countries have recognized Canada's very important place amongst Pacific Rim countries.

The Inter-parliamentary council is the decision-making body of the union. When at a meeting of the council, the Canadian delegation presented a draft resolution of the results of the parliamentary round table meetings during the Ottawa conference and on the need for urgent action. The groundwork had been laid and this motion received unanimous support.

To conclude, I have spent considerable time outlining the various activities undertaken by the Canadian IPU group to advance the cause of the land mines treaty in order to illustrate what can be done by the parliamentary association.

I would also like to point out that this was done in addition to the regular duties that we performed at the conference. These were all side jobs.

Our delegation also took part in the debate on the prevention of conflict, on HIV and AIDS, the need to protect our oceans, fisheries resources and on the external debt, upon which Senator Taylor did such a marvelous job.

I believe parliamentary associations can play a valuable role in promoting issues of importance to the people of Canada. The scourge of land mines has been an issue where Canada has played a leadership role. The Canadian IPU group is proud of its contribution to this work. We should be proud of all the works that Canadian parliamentarians did at this very important conference.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

On motion of Senator Prud'homme, debate adjourned.

Environment

Reports on Sustainable Development-Inquiry-Debate Suspended

Hon. Mira Spivak rose pursuant to notice of June 11, 1998:

That she will call the attention of the Senate to: "The Report of the Commissioner on the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons, 1998," and the Report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, "Enforcing Canada's Pollution Laws: the Public Interest Must Come First."

She said: Honourable senators, I wish to speak to the report of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development and the third report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Investment both of which severely criticized the current government's efforts to protect Canada's environment.

The commissioner's report tells us that in many areas Canada is not living up to the international commitments that under international law it is bound to carry out in good faith. Canada is failing in its commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity.

The sleeping giant on that score, as the commissioner tells us, is that the Canadian government has not kept track of its performance on the majority of its commitments on more than 230 binding international agreements and non-binding instruments. There is thus no comprehensive record of what has actually been done in Canada to implement these agreements.

The Commons committee report looks at our enforcement record at home. It looks specifically at the enforcement of the most important piece of legislation, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and at Environment Canada's duty to enforce regulations in place under section 36 of the Fisheries Act. The report found that the political will is missing and money has not been committed to allow these laws to be properly enforced. This is the House of Commons committee under the chairmanship of the Honourable Charles Caccia.

Environment Canada's overall budget has been cut by some 40 per cent. The previous government's Green Plan has died without any alternative put into place. Vacancies in enforcement staff have been left unfilled for years in some regions. The result is that compared to the enforcement staff of 300 that an internal study said was needed, in 1993, we now only have 60 staff in the regions and 22 in the national office, or 27 per cent of the staff that are needed to do the job.

What precisely is the job? I should like to remind honourable senators how the previous government saw it. On June 23, it will be five years to the day that former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney left office.

(2140)

In hindsight, Canadians are beginning to recognize that he was a Prime Minister with strong vision on the environment and that that vision was backed up with a budget and with strong measures. In June 1988, speaking to a world conference in Toronto on the changing atmosphere, which both Senator Fairbairn and I attended at the time, this is how Mr. Mulroney summed up the environmental challenge:

We are seriously disrupting our planetary system. At an unprecedented rate we are stripping the Earth of its forests, washing away its soil, creating vast deserts, eradicating untold species of plants and animals, despoiling our oceans and poisoning our skies.

The goal, he said, was to protect and restore the earth and to provide a decent, healthy and nourishing environment for all the peoples of the world. Here is a short list of some of what his government actually did.

On ozone depletion in 1987, Canada hosted the international conference which brought about the Montreal Protocol, the protocol that is preventing the destruction of the ozone layer. On bio-diversity in 1992 at the Rio summit, the bio-diversity convention was rescued from the dustbin despite U.S. opposition. On climate change, Canada committed to stabilize our greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. The government was also directed to work one-on-one with other countries, with the U.S. to fight acid rain, to protect North American waterfowl and to tighten controls on shipments of hazardous waste. The government supported an environmental centre for Eastern Europe and sealed agreements with Mexico, Germany, the former Soviet Union and China. A national round-table was created, bringing business leaders, academics and environmentalists together to change attitudes and confront the false juxtaposition of jobs versus the environment.

The International Centre on Sustainable Development was established in Winnipeg, helping decision-makers in Canada and elsewhere to have the most current information on environmental objectives. This country's first environmental assessment law was introduced and, by cabinet order, all federal departments and agencies were directed to do environmental assessments on every federal program and policy submitted to cabinet. I am delighted to see that this commissioner of the environment is pursuing that goal. The Green Plan, with more than 80 concrete projects, was created.

The House of Commons committee report tabled last week made some striking observations on one of the Green Plan initiatives. The Fraser River Action Plan was designed to protect habitat that is critical to Pacific coast salmon. On April 1 of this year, as a result of that green sweep, the Green Plan project coming to an end, the operating budget for inspection of plants and investigations of polluters will free fall by a stunning 72 per cent, from $313,000 to $87,000. Not surprisingly, the committee found these figures alarming.

The committee also heard that by starving enforcement staff of proper budgets, Canada is deprived of good intelligence on transport shipments of ozone depleting substances or imports of hazardous waste. The manager of enforcement for the Ontario region put it this way:

We cannot continue to deal with other enforcement agencies, whether they be in the United States or Canada, whether they be provincial police, federal police, state police, customs or other people, because we're looked upon to a large degree as a laughing stock because we don't have the resources or the intelligence to go along with it.

The Commissioner of the Environment on Sustainable Development also had some observations on the neglect of previous goals. On the cabinet order for environmental assessment of policies and programs issued during the previous regime, the commissioner reconfirmed what had been found two years earlier in a study published by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, that only 60 per cent of departments and agencies had made the effort and, of those, only 45 per cent had any documentation to back up their assessments. Nothing has changed in the last two years and, in some departments, according to the commissioner, officials responsible for preparing cabinet documents either did not know about the cabinet directive or did not know how it was being followed.

On Canada's commitment under the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, this is what the commissioner had to say:

Five years later an overall implementation plan - an essential tool for coordinating efforts... has not been developed.

As we know, the government has not reintroduced legislation to protect endangered species, so Canada is still without a basic part of a plan.

On the promise to reduce greenhouse gases, the commissioner lays out a checklist of 19 things that must be done.

The Hon. the Speaker: I regret that I must interrupt the honourable senator but the judge has arrived and we must now proceed to Royal Assent.

I leave the Chair to await the arrival of His Excellency.

The Senate adjourned during pleasure.

---

[Translation]

Royal Assent

The Honourable Ian Binnie, Puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, having come and being seated at the foot of the Throne, and the House of Commons having been summoned, and being come with their Speaker, the Honourable the Speaker of the Senate said:

I have the honour to inform you that His Excellency the Governor General has been pleased to cause Letters Patent to be issued under his Sign Manual and Signet constituting the Honourable Ian Corneil Binnie, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, his Deputy, to do in His Excellency's name all acts on his part necessary to be done during His Excellency's pleasure.

The Commission was read by a Clerk at the Table.

The Honourable the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give the Royal Assent to the following bills:

An Act 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, (Bill C-28, Chapter 19, 1998)

An Act to amend the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act (Bill S-2, Chapter 20, 1998)

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998 (Bill C-36, Chapter 21, 1998)

An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Grain Futures Act, (Bill C-26, Chapter 22, 1998)

An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act, (Bill C-47, Chapter 23, 1998)

An Act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education, (Bill C-30, Chapter 24, 1998)

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, (Bill C-6, Chapter 25, 1998)

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, (Bill C-19, Chapter 26, 1998)

An Act to change the name of certain electoral districts, (Bill C-410, Chapter 27, 1998)

The Honourable Gilbert Parent, Speaker of the House of Commons, then addressed the Honourable the Deputy Governor General as follows:

May it please Your Honour:

The Commons of Canada have voted certain supplies required to enable the Government to defray the expenses of the public service.

In the name of the Commons, I present to Your Honour the following bills:

An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1999, (Bill C-45, Chapter 28, 1998)

An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1999, (Bill C-46, Chapter 29, 1998)

To which bills, I humbly request Your Honour's assent.

The Honourable the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give the Royal Assent to the said bills.

The House of Commons withdrew.

The Honourable the Deputy Governor General was pleased to retire.

---

[English]

(2210)

The sitting of the Senate was resumed.

Environment

Reports on Sustainable Development-Inquiry

On the Order:

Resuming the debate on the inquiry by the Honourable Senator Spivak calling the attention of the Senate to "The Report of the Commissioner on the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons, 1998," and the Report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, "Enforcing Canada's Pollution Laws: the Public Interest Must Come First."

Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, as I was saying, the commissioner laid out a checklist of 19 things that must be done to get to the goal of the reduction of greenhouse gases. In five years, the government has done three of them. It has not clearly defined the leadership role of the federal government. It has not delivered on its promised public awareness program. It has not analyzed the costs and benefits of action and inaction. It has not developed a portfolio of measures. The list goes on.

Two years ago, the Sierra Club delivered this message to the current Prime Minister:

Prime Minister Chrétien must send a signal that his environment minister has his full support on issues from endangered species to climate change.

In June 1998, in the same speech to the world conference, Brian Mulroney said:

By embracing the philosophy of sustainable development, we are not putting a brake on economic development. On the contrary, sustainable development is closer to hard-nosed economics than it is to environmental theology.

Essentially, here is the question: If the present government can continue the previous Progressive Conservative's policy on free trade, on the GST, and on a host of other economic policies that were seen in retrospect to be sound, why not follow an environmental strategy which not only make good economic sense but may prevent increasingly destructive practices?

There is still time in this mandate to do that.

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

Transportation Safety and Security

Establishment of Special Senate Committee

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall, pursuant to notice of June 11, 1998, moved:

That a special committee of the Senate be appointed to examine and report upon the state of transportation safety and security in Canada and to complete a comparative review of technical issues and legal and regulatory structures with a view to ensuring that transportation safety and security in Canada are of such high quality as to meet the needs of Canada and Canadians in the twenty-first century;

That the committee be composed of seven Senators, three of whom shall constitute a quorum;

That the committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses, to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;

That the papers and evidence received by the Sub-Committee on Transportation Safety of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications taken on the subject and the work accomplished during the Second Session of the Thirty-fifth Parliament and the First Session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the committee be empowered to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of its study;

That the committee be authorized to permit coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings;

That the committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within and outside Canada;

That the committee present its final report no later than March 31, 1999; and

That, notwithstanding usual practices, if the Senate is not sitting when the final report of the committee is completed, the committee shall deposit its report with the Clerk of the Senate, and said report shall thereupon be deemed to have been tabled in this Chamber.

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

Senator Forrestall: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate, pursuant to rule 30, I move that the motion be modified by adding, after the second paragraph thereof, the following:

That, notwithstanding rule 85(1)(b), the members of the special committee be the Honourable Senators Adams, Bacon, Fitzpatrick, Forrestall, Johnson, Mercier, and Roberge.

The Hon. the Speaker: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Forrestall, seconded by the Honourable Senator Johnson, that with -

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Dispense!

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Forrestall: Honourable senators, I will be very brief because of the lateness of the hour.

I thank those who have cooperated in allowing the subcommittee of the Standing Senate Committee on Transportation and Communication chaired by our colleague the Honourable Senator Bacon to go ahead and complete the work of the subcommittee.

(2220)

We have spent the last year and a half collecting some very vital and critical information with respect to present and future transportation safety in Canada, looking toward the next millennium.

I am grateful to those who have indicated their willingness to serve on the committee. We will hopefully complete our work in rapid course. We have a lot left to do.

I invite honourable senators to a meeting in room 256-S immediately upon the adjournment of the Senate today.

The Hon. the Speaker: If no other honourable senators wishes to speak, I will proceed with the motion.

It was moved by the Honourable Senator Forrestall, seconded by the Honourable Senator Johnson -

Hon. Senators: Dispense.

The Hon. the Speaker: It was further moved in amendment by the Honourable Senator Forrestall, seconded by the Honourable Senator Johnson -

Hon. Senators: Dispense.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure to adopt the main motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Committee Authorized to Study Dimensions of Social Cohesion in Canada

Hon. Lowell Murray, pursuant to notice of June 15, 1998, moved:

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; and

That the Committee present its report no later than June 30, 1999.

He said: Honourable senators, it is my contention that social cohesion in this country is under considerable pressure and strain under the forces of globalization and technological change. It is my contention that these pressures, added to the fault lines of language, culture and geography which we have known only too well for so long, pose a serious risk to the long-term well-being of Canadians.

Honourable senators are aware that, through most of the 1980s and through the 1990s, both the private sector and the public sector in this country have been through a wringer. Monetary policy was reoriented in the late 1980s in order to get inflation under control for the long term. A lengthy period of federal spending restraint was instituted. The Free Trade Agreement with the United States and then NAFTA were negotiated. There has been privatization and deregulation and all the other policies that have been introduced in order to reinforce the competitiveness of Canada and of the Canadian economy.

I have many times argued the necessity for these initiatives. I am as convinced of their necessity today as I was 10 years ago.

As a result of these policies, government budgets are in balance; trade is booming; profits are soaring; the stock market is mostly rising. The economy, superficially, looks to be doing very well, but the challenge that policy makers have to face today is that there has been a spectacularly uneven distribution of the benefits of all of these economic developments. The two words that are used in the motion and that are most often associated with the concept of social cohesion are trust and reciprocity. Trust and reciprocity deal with our obligations to each other and with the obligations of the state, that mutual sense of obligation.

While all has been going superficially well with the economy, most people do not see any improvement in their living standards. Family incomes have been stagnant. Income equality has been widening. Poverty has been increasing in this country all the while.

I invite honourable senators to reflect how long social cohesion can endure and whether trust and reciprocity can endure in an environment of ever-widening inequality.

As you all know, ever-widening inequality has not been the experience in Canada historically. The contrary has been true but it is true today. It is true today that we have a problem of ever-widening inequality. So, honourable senators, there are many dimensions to this question of social cohesion. I do not know at all that a standing Senate committee can arrive at many answers, but I do believe that we can identify some of the right questions and that we can place these squarely before Parliament and the people of Canada. I would certainly like us to try. I commend this motion to you for your support.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Hon. the Speaker: If no other honourable senator wishes to speak, I will proceed with the motion.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

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

Leave having been given to revert:

Hon. Lorna Milne rose pursuant to notice of June 2, 1998:

That she will call the attention of the Senate to the journey of a Parliamentary delegation to the Tenth Annual Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Seminar held in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.

She said: Honourable senators, in the interest of brevity, I ask further leave to table my full report and just give you a brief description.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Milne: I would briefly describe my trip to Charlottetown to attend the Tenth Annual Commonwealth Parliamentary Association seminar on behalf of the Parliament of Canada from May 21 to 26, 1998. When we flew into Charlottetown, we came down out of the clouds just in time to see the red cliffs of the southeastern shores of the Island and the bright red and green fields. It was an incredible sight and one I will not soon forget.

Bob Speller, the MP from Haldimand, Norfolk and Brandt, and I were the only two representatives from the Canadian federal government. The other Canadians were from Alberta, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan, the Yukon and, of course, P.E.I. There were large contingents from the Indian subcontinent and the Caribbean nations. Delegates also came from the United Kingdom, Malta, Kenya, South Africa, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Jersey and the Falkland Islands. I was interested to find out that Barbados was the only country present that also has an appointed Senate.

The second session consisted of a discussion of the Canadian federal government system and our Constitution. Bob Speller presented this and the delegates were particularly interested in the so-called "Quebec issue."

Arthur Donahoe, former speaker of the Nova Scotia provincial government, presented the next session. Mr. Donahoe is now serving as the Secretary General of the CPA. He gave a masterful run-down of the history and the present role of the association. He described it as a solution seeking rather than a decision-making body, which represents all political forms of government. There are currently 54 member countries, one-third of the countries of the world representing one-quarter of the world's population. In the last five years, 17 new countries have joined the Commonwealth association and five have returned after being expelled or leaving voluntarily.

The fourth session was chaired and presented by Professor Douglas Boylan from the University of Prince Edward Island. Professor Boylan gave us a humorous presentation about the history of the Island's government and the development of their parliamentary procedures. One of his more interesting tidbits was about the 1864 conference that led to Confederation and which led to P.E.I.'s nickname of the "cradle of Confederation." Originally the 1864 conference was planned to consider, yet again, maritime union.

However, the parliamentary process in the united provinces in Upper and Lower Canada was at a complete deadlock at that time, so the Canadian politicians got themselves invited down to the Charlottetown meeting and expanded the discussion to the creation of a larger union. The conference was held in Charlottetown:

...because if you want the Islanders involved, you must go there for they will not leave the Island. It is summer time and the circus is coming to town!

The next session was a discussion of the Speaker's role in Parliament, which seems to differ widely across the Commonwealth.

Another session was about the United Kingdom committee system, which is extremely complex. Rather than discuss it more thoroughly, I have tabled a description of it today.

On Sunday, the delegates visited the east and the north ends of the Island. Near Murray River, our old friend Senator Bonnell's hangout, we visited the Atlantic Mussel Growers Corporation. Six partners farmed the products, and the mussels really are delicious. One of the owners produces 1.2 million pounds of mussels a year. The corporation employs, directly and in spin-off jobs like trucking, about 850 local people. They are proud of being North America's largest processor of rope-cultured mussels. Mussel farming represents a growing industry on the Island and P.E.I blue mussels are shipped throughout Eastern Canada and the United States.

Unfortunately, what should have been one of the best parts of the trip ended up being the worst. Green Gables, the old farmhouse which Lucy Maud Montgomery used as a setting for Anne of Green Gables, I must admit, quite frankly, was a huge disappointment. A fire destroyed the front rooms of the old house just over a year ago and apparently Parks Canada got experts to advise them on the so-called "restoration." When you enter the front of the house, you are almost blinded by the florid William Morris style wallpaper in the front hall, and the floors were covered with wall-to-wall swirl-pattern carpeting. What appeared to be modern, synthetic lace drapes trailed at least a foot on the floor in typical 1990s designer fashion. Can you imagine a strait-laced Prince Edward Island Scottish spinster allowing that to happen? Her neighbours would be horrified. Quite simply, the reconstruction is a disaster.

Luckily, it appears that the rest of the house, other than just the front rooms of it, were not damaged so extensively, so these other rooms were much more appropriate to the area and the era.

A brand-new version of a huge bank barn has been built over the original access road to the house, and to get to the house you have to walk through the barn. I am willing to bet it is the only example of its type on P.E.I. I was told authoritatively that the original farm had no such barn.

The worst part was the gift shop. It was set up in another brand-new building blocking access to the house, and it was crammed with the tackiest stuff I have ever seen. There was not even one tiny little corner exhibiting some of the excellent work being done by the local artisans. I felt it was a disgrace to Parks Canada and it could have been so easy and much less expensive to remain true to the original furnishings of that kind of farmhouse in a rural Scottish community. I should add that our new Senator, Senator Archie Johnstone, and his lovely wife Felicia make great tour guides, but I will still be in a bit of hot water with our former colleague, the Honourable Lorne Bonnell: The bus simply would not stop as we drove through Murray river.

The chair of the seventh session was Sue Edelman, an MLA from the Yukon. The session discussed private members and their relationship with the executive. One of the countries we discussed in that session was Trinidad and Tobago. They started their party system in the 1950s and then developed their constitution. They currently have a bicameral system with 39 senators and 40 members of Parliament. The MPs serve only part time, so they have no pension or support system, which may be appropriate to discuss today. Apparently, there are no backbenchers whatsoever on the government side. They are all cabinet ministers or parliamentary secretaries. Parliament meets only on Fridays but can meet on Mondays and Wednesdays, if required.

The eighth session was a discussion of members' pay allowance and support services. This was all very appropriate. A Speaker from one of the states of India pointed out that civil servants in India receive much higher pay than MPs, which sounds familiar too. His private secretary gets two times his own salary and had phoned the previous week to tell him the good news that the secretary had received another raise. However, the low salary is camouflage for all the perks the Speaker does receive there. Also, each MP in India receives 10 million rupees a year to hand out to projects within his own territory - theoretically to be used under strict guidelines.

Conflict of interest was the topic of another session, and there are many different ways of managing this problem, ranging from the Dominican situation where members of the police, the military or the clergy are not allowed to run for office without resigning, to the British situation where some MPs apparently feel that, if they declare or register a conflict of interest, the declaration then excuses any subsequent behaviour whatsoever.

My last day was another day of sightseeing. In the morning, we visited the Elite Seed Potato Farm on Fox Island where we learned that absolutely no potatoes are allowed on to the farm from anywhere else, lest they bring in contaminated soil. The farm's entire output of seed potatoes is grown from aseptic cuttings. I learned that enough seed potatoes could be produced from one single plant, through nodal cutting and continued propagation over a single winter, to supply all the seed potato needs of the entire Island.

We drove over the Confederation Bridge - I was pretty close to Senator Bryden's home - and it is a most awe-inspiring construction. We drove through a lot of beautiful areas along the sea coast and up into the P.E.I. mountain region, where the hills are about 150 feet high. Can you imagine a 150-foot-high hill with a triple-chair ski lift? It was quite a sight. The hills around were covered with the greenest grass I think I have ever seen.

I came back to Ottawa the next morning for a vote and I was sad to be at the end of a wonderful experience in such beautiful surroundings.

I found the exchange of information about the many systems of governance in the different countries of the Commonwealth extremely interesting, and it became quite clear that information about the Canadian experience is a great help to countries that may be newer to democracy. This was definitely a learning experience that I would like to have again, and I am eager to return to that beautiful part of the country.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Hon. the Speaker: If no other honourable senator wishes to speak, this inquiry will be considered debated.

Adjournment

Leave having been given to revert to Government Notices of Motions.

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 Tuesday, September 22, 1998, at 2 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

Business of the Senate

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators before I proceed with the adjournment motion itself, I noticed there were some eyebrows raised when I interrupted Honourable Senator Spivak. I would refer you all to rules 135(8) and (9). The Speaker has no alternative under the rules.

Hon. Jacques Hébert: Honourable senators, I move that the Senate do now adjourn.

The Senate adjourned until Tuesday, September 22, 1998, at 2 p.m.

---