Hon. Gérald-A. Beaudoin: Honourable senators, a man of impeccable judgment, Lucien Lamoureux will go down in history for the outstanding job he did as Speaker of the House of Commons.

Born in Ottawa in 1920, he graduated from Osgoode Hall and became a lawyer. He was elected as a Liberal to the House of Commons in 1962, and re-elected in 1963 and 1965. He served as Speaker of the House of Commons from January 18, 1966 to May 9, 1974. He held the position for longer than any other Speaker of the House of Commons since Confederation in 1867.

As an assistant parliamentary counsel to the House from 1965 to 1969, I had the good fortune to see Lucien Lamoureux at work up close.

We have had some excellent Speakers in the House of Commons. Mr. Lamoureux, however, approached his duties with a new vision. He was not shy about running as an independent, successfully, in 1968 and 1972.

An excellent jurist and a wise man with a lively intelligence, he was truly impartial. In the Canadian parliamentary system, the Speaker must be impartial; that is his primary role.

Lucien Lamoureux had a rare command of French and English, our two official languages. Few parliamentarians in Canada have matched him.

After an illustrious career as Speaker, he held the position of Canadian ambassador to Belgium and Luxembourg from 1974 to 1980, and to Portugal from 1980 to 1985.

Honourable senators, the memory of Lucien Lamoureux will live on. He was an outstanding Speaker and one of our greatest parliamentarians.

[English]

Hon. Raymond J. Perrault: Honourable senators, his name was Lucien Lamoureux. He was the longest-serving Speaker in House of Commons history. There have been many outstanding Speakers in that place, but in the view of many he was the greatest Speaker ever to preside over deliberations there. I came to know him along with my Commons colleagues in the parliamentary class of 1968. He could easily educate all those new MPs on the rules of the House.

As has been stated by my predecessor, Speaker Lamoureux was born in Ottawa in 1920. He attended the University of Ottawa where he earned a masters degree in philosophy. In 1945, he obtained his law degree from Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. For a time, he worked on Parliament Hill as an executive assistant to the late Lionel Chevrier. He then became a senior partner in a law firm and had a practice in Cornwall.

He entered the political arena in 1962 as an opposition member for Stormont. Certainly at that time he gave no indication that he aspired to be Commons Speaker. Obviously, though, as he learned the ways of the House, he felt that he could do a competent job in the Chair. Fortunately for the Canadian parliamentary system, in 1963 he accepted Prime Minister Pearson's invitation to be named Deputy Speaker.

(1410)

At that time, he remained a member of the Liberal caucus, seemingly determined to demonstrate how a politically affiliated member of Parliament could also focus as an impartial Speaker. As one observer wrote at the time.

But it took only two Liberal caucus meetings before Mr. Lamoureux realized that for him partisanship and overseeing the rules and procedures of the House made for strange bedfellows. So he left the deputy speaker's job.

Another election, a Liberal Party victory this time, and once again a Lamoureux victory in Stormont. Prime Minister Pearson nominated Mr. Lamoureux as Speaker. Lamoureux accepted and assumed his duties a few months later. One of his first actions was to quit the Liberal Party in order to declare himself an independent.

Obviously he held the view that because a Speaker must be meticulously fair in all of his or her rulings, his status as an independent would enable him to fill the role of Speaker more effectively. One observer wrote, "It wasn't easy!"

Speaker Lamoureux played a key role in the first Commonwealth-wide Conference of Speakers and Presiding Officers to be called together for its own sake, for no other reason than to provide the gathering of Speakers with an opportunity to meet, get acquainted, and discuss matters of mutual interest.

Speaking at that memorable conference, Speaker Lamoureux said:

I believe that the Speakership is the cornerstone of the parliamentary system. The functioning of a free Parliament depends upon the integrity and dedication of the Presiding Officer.

He continued:

We are the trustees of the parliamentary liberties of our countries.

Said he:

It has long been recognized in Parliamentary countries that the preservation of democracy depends upon the protection of the rights and immunities of representative institutions. Thus, the impartial Presiding Officer is an essential feature of any system which permits free citizens to express honest differences of opinion in open debate.

That is a belief he held fervently.

Regardless of party, all members between 1965 and 1974 were impressed with the impartial way in which Speaker Lamoureux presided. He allocated Question Period time fairly and equitably. He defused emotions in the House, a rare skill on occasion. He was never challenged seriously on any point. He had the uncanny ability to read the mood of the House. He averted potential crises with skill and competence, and he was meticulously fair.

Not once did he feel compelled to eject an exuberant or overactive member from the House. As well, he acquitted himself of his additional duties and responsibilities with great skill and competence.

The Ottawa Valley lawyer had become a brilliant servant of Parliament, known and respected in both Canada and abroad. He was able to maintain order and decorum in the other place. Twice he presided over a minority government, one in which there were five parties, and the government and the official opposition were separated by just two seats, adding fuel and heat to the fires of parliamentary debate.

As the Right Honourable the Prime Minister observed yesterday in the other place:

The issues of the day were divisive, positions were deeply felt and the tone of exchanges was often angry and personal. Through it all, Lucien presided with dignity, diplomacy and wisdom.

After 3,010 days on the job, and at the age of 52, Speaker Lamoureux resigned - an outstanding role model for Speakers to come. Said Lamoureux:

I believe that I have done my share in serving my country and I now leave it up to others.

On that occasion, former prime minister Trudeau described him as "the greatest Speaker since Confederation." Lucien Lamoureux went on to serve this country with distinction abroad as Ambassador to Belgium and Luxembourg, where he served until 1980. He became ambassador to Portugal in 1980.

[Translation]

It is fitting that Mr. Lamoureux was honoured with the Order of Canada before he passed away. The honour went to a most deserving man.

[English]

He did his share for Canada, and much more than his share. Our prayers, our sympathies, and our best wishes go to his spouse Elizabeth, daughter Isabelle, and stepchildren Emmanuel and Karen.

[Translation]

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before we proceed to Senators' Statements, I would draw your attention to the presence in our gallery of a delegation from the Belgian Senate. These are members of the Senate Internal and Administrative Affairs Commission. They are accompanied by His Excellency Luc Carbonez, the ambassador of the King of Belgium. On behalf of the Senate of Canada, I bid you welcome.

[English]

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Women's History Month

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, October is Women's History Month. Women's History Month was created in 1992 to encourage greater awareness among Canadians of the historical contributions of women to our society and to recognize the achievements of women as a vital part of our Canadian heritage. The goal of Women's History Month is to write women back into Canadian history and to develop a better understanding of the diverse roles played in contemporary society.

October was chosen, of course, because of the historic significance of the "Persons Case." As honourable senators know, on October 18, 1929, the British Privy Council decided that women were persons under the Constitution with respect to appointment to the Senate.

Over the course of the month, I intend to speak about some women who have achieved some important political firsts, and I think it is therefore important that we start with Cairine Wilson, our first woman senator.

[Translation]

Sir Wilfrid Laurier often said to Cairine Wilson, during family visits in her youth, that she would one day be married to a famous politician. However, her own political career outshone that of her husband, who was a member of the House of Commons for several terms.

[English]

Her achievements are even more amazing when considering her role as a mother. Despite having borne eight children in the first 16 years of her marriage, she nonetheless found time to actively participate in politics, establishing many important party institutions for the Liberal Party and outlets for women and young people.

One of Cairine Wilson's most important contributions was her active participation with the League of Nations Society of Canada and the Canadian National Committee on Refugees during the inter-war period. Although she strove for peace during this time, she perhaps had the foresight to prepare for war. In 1938, her work with the Committee of Refugees sought to allow as many Jews as possible to enter Canada, especially children.

[Translation]

While the government of the time was more interested in the arrival of British children, the efforts of Cairine Wilson spared innumerable lives the atrocities committed by the Nazis. Her work was well recognized internationally. France awarded her its highest honour, making her a member of the Ordre de la Légion d'honneur for her work with young Jewish refugees in Europe.

[English]

International affairs were not the only interests of this formidable lady. Named to the Senate in 1930, she advocated on behalf of women's rights a vast array of topics, especially divorce law and labour force participation, where her contributions helped increase fairness.

Her legacy is well enshrined now in Canadian politics, especially here in the Senate where there are more women than ever before.

Cairine Wilson is remembered not just as our first woman senator, but also as a crusader for fairness and gender equity.

Fisheries and Oceans

Abandonment of Planned De-staffing of Lightstations

Hon. Pat Carney: I take this opportunity, honourable senators, to bring to your attention the fact that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, David Anderson, has announced that the attempt to de-staff 24 lightstations in Newfoundland and Labrador has been abandoned. You will notice that earlier this year he similarly stopped plans to de-staff the lightstations on the B.C. coast in the face of unrelenting, unanimous, and steadfast opposition from the marine community. Senator Doody has pointed out that some lightstations have been de-staffed and those are regretted.

(1420)

We should commend the minister for this action and for listening to the public on this action on both coasts. I would like to note, however, that he has failed to illuminate the reason why members of the marine community wish to keep the lightstations. In his announcement, he has stated that the major reason to keep the staffed lighthouses is that:

...they are an important part of the Canadian heritage. The vivid red and white buildings and their lights will continue to be dominant symbols on Canada's coastal landscapes as they have for over 100 years....Our lightkeepers have a long history of dedicated service. I agree with those who feel that this tradition should be preserved.

The minister, however, failed to note that the major reason people wanted staffed lighthouses had nothing to do with tradition. It had to do with public safety. It had to do with the fact that the lightstations themselves and the system of lights provided public safety nets for members of the marine and aviation community. The opposition to the automated lights was not because we are against technology but because they simply did not work. Time and time again, the automated stations did not report and could not report the key issues that were needed. If you are on the coast, you need to know the sea conditions. You need to know the visibility. The automated stations, time and again, proved they could not deliver that information.

Newfoundland Premier Brian Tobin, a former minister of fisheries and oceans, has said he is pleased that the minister did not put cost savings ahead of safety. In actual fact, as I told this house, the minister spent $2 million or $3 million on automating stations, including the ones that will now continue to be staffed. That money could have gone to improving the navigational aids so desperately needed on both coasts.

I hope, in future, that this decision will not be changed by ministers of any government. I hope that the Coast Guard motto of "Safety first, service always" will be maintained on both coasts and on our third coast in the Arctic for the foreseeable future, until such time as humans can be safely replaced with technology.

Ottawa Fire Prevention Week

Hon. Francis William Mahovlich: Honourable senators, I want to bring to your attention that this week is Fire Prevention Week. The City of Ottawa this morning named me Fire Chief for a Day. I was honoured to be in a fire truck from the year 1927, the same year the Ottawa Senators won the Stanley Cup.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Mahovlich: It wasn't the first Stanley Cup but it was a Stanley Cup. On that team was Frank "King" Clancy, who later became assistant general manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs and who managed me for a number of years while I was on that team. I am honoured to be involved in such a worthy cause, and, in particular, to bring to the attention of the Senate that it is very important for our children in this country to be reminded of fire prevention.

United Nations

World Teachers Day

Hon. Ethel Cochrane: Honourable senators, I would like to draw your attention to a significant occasion which is coming up next week on October 5. UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, has designated that date as World Teachers Day to honour the teaching profession.

Many provincial and territorial governments and many municipalities across Canada either already have proclaimed or will proclaim October 5 as World Teachers Day. A variety of activities have been planned by teacher organizations, by local associations and by individual schools to celebrate this special day.

Prior to my appointment to the Senate, I devoted 21 years to a career in teaching in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a former teacher with fond memories of my days in the classroom, I am pleased to see Canada joining with other countries around the world to give recognition to the important contributions to society that are made by those in the teaching profession.

Honourable senators, there are many challenges today facing anyone pursuing a teaching career. Our children and youth expect and deserve the best education our resources can provide. That education will provide the foundation of skills and knowledge on which they will later build their careers. Beyond that, however, their educational experience will help to supply them with the attitudes, motivation and inquisitiveness that will shape their later personal development.

Parents offer a challenge because they, too, want the best possible education and training for their children and also because they realize that they are entrusting teachers with much of the responsibility for their children's development.

Society poses a constant challenge to teachers because so much of the future prospects and progress of society rests on the foundation of education and training. Teaching is also a very rewarding profession. There is a tremendous satisfaction in seeing children and young people learn, develop and, later, succeed. There is satisfaction with the respect and admiration that children, parents and communities give to a teacher in return for that teacher's dedication. It is rewarding for teachers to receive recognition for their efforts. I know that teachers will be gratified by the international celebration of their contributions to society on World Teachers Day, next Monday, October 5.

Wherever you may be on that day, I urge you to celebrate: Take a teacher to lunch!

[Translation]

Hon. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Honourable senators, I also wish to draw your attention to World Teachers Day, October 5. This day honours over 57 million men and women throughout the world who educate the world's children, despite poverty, crises and violence.

According to the 1998 UNESCO world report on education, teachers lack the necessary resources and support to do their work properly.

[English]

Honourable senators, UNESCO's director Federico Mayor has stated:

Teachers have a pivotal role to play in preparing the young generation to help realize our hopes that the coming century will see a more socially just, more tolerant and more peaceful world.

[Translation]

Statistics show an increasingly large majority of women teachers in the world, but women are under-represented in managerial positions to varying degrees, depending on the country. Teachers in the developing countries are considerably younger than their colleagues in the industrialized countries. Although a large number of them have the secondary school education required to be a teacher, significant numbers do not.

[English]

(1430)

To highlight the deplorable conditions facing teachers in the world's least-developed countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, the report quotes a 1995 UNESCO-UNICEF survey which found that 90 per cent of primary schools in Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Tanzania have no electricity. In 10 out of 13 countries sampled, over 90 per cent of the students in the classroom will never see a world map.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, as citizens, parents and parliamentarians, it is our responsibility and duty to ensure that all children in the future benefit from a better education than this generation and those before it have received.

[English]

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Dimensions of Social Cohesion and Globalization

Report Of Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee, Requesting Authorization to Engage Services, Permit Electronic Coverage and Extend Date of Final Report, Presented and Printed as Appendix

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Honourable senators, on behalf of Senator Murray, I have the honour, to present the twelfth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, which requests that the committee be empowered to incur special expenses pursuant to the Procedural Guidelines for the Financial Operation of Senate Committees.

I ask that the report be printed as an appendix to the Journals of the Senate of this day.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is leave granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, Appendix, p. 965.)

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

On motion of Senator LeBreton, for Senator Murray, report placed on Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

State of Financial System

Interim Report of Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee Tabled

Hon. David Tkachuk, Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, tabled the following report:

Thursday, October 1, 1998

The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce has the honour to table its
FIFTEENTH REPORT
Your committee, which was authorized by the Senate on Wednesday, October 22, 1997, to examine and report upon the present state of the financial system in Canada, now tables an interim report entitled Comparative Study of Financial Regulatory Regimes.
Respectfully submitted,
DAVID TKACHUK
Deputy Chair

He said: Honourable senators, the report has obviously made it into the hands of some journalists. I know that this situation presents a question of privilege, as a report should be placed before the Senate before it is placed in anyone else's hands.

On behalf of the committee, I should like to apologize to all of you, and say that if I have anything to do with it, that will never happen again.

[Later]

On motion of Senator Tkachuk, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

QUESTION PERIOD

Fisheries and Oceans

Viability of Small Fish Plants in Coastal Communities in Eastern Canada-Government Position

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: Honourable senators, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Recently the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was quoted in The Gazette as saying:

We don't want to have something where we have so many small plants in so many small communities that it is like Eastern Canada, totally economically irrational.

One therefore has to assume that he favours big plants in large communities, as a more rational industry.

We know that Senator Graham is very familiar with the contribution of small fish plants to our coastal communities and to our way of life. Would the minister confirm whether that is the government's view of the worth of our small fish plants, and does he agree with the Fisheries Minister's vision of our East Coast way of life?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have not seen the quotation which the honourable senator attributes to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I certainly support what Senator Comeau would want me to say in terms of the value of the fish industry to all of Atlantic Canada and specifically the area of Atlantic Canada from where he comes.

As he knows, I was in that part of the country, the Pubnicos, this past summer, and there I saw a thriving fish industry and a thriving small-boat-building industry.

Senator Comeau: Honourable senators, I have a copy of the statement here for the honourable government leader so that he will know that I was not making this up. We might expect these kinds of dumb comments from the Reform Party, but not from a federal minister of the Crown.

Senator Kinsella: Why not?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: You are being generous.

Senator Comeau: Would the leader undertake, after he has read the quotation, to demand on behalf of our coastal communities in Eastern Canada that the Fisheries Minister retract his unacceptable comments and apologize to our fish plant owners, employees and coastal communities in Eastern Canada?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, I will be happy to discuss the matter with my colleague.

Transport

Development of Port of Halifax as Superport-Request for Update

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and it has to do with appropriate and adequate funding for post-Panamax operations at the Port of Halifax.

First, I shall apprise the Leader of the Government of one or two little interesting facts. On August 26 of this year, the Leader of the Government said with regard to this subject, "I am vigorously pursuing the matter with both the province and various cabinet colleagues and am continuing to monitor the situation very carefully."

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): That is an adequate quote.

Senator Forrestall: I am glad you remember. The Premier of Nova Scotia said, on September 1, 1998, "Commitments by all levels of government have assured a complete and competitive proposal."

Honourable senators, I am sceptical. You know how long "short" is around here. "Immediately" is four years. I have a letter from the Prime Minister, dated September 10, 1988, two and one-half pages of response, a beautiful letter, well written -

Senator Graham: 1988?

Senator Forrestall: But not one mention of funding.

Senator Graham: You mean 1998, not 1988.

Senator Forrestall: Yes, 1998, but it would not have made any difference.

Senator Graham: Yes, it would have made a difference, I believe.

Senator Forrestall: I also have a letter from our dear friend, the Mayor of HRM, who is about to lop off all his tentacles now. It is dated September 14, and reads as follows:

(1440)

I understand that the federal government...is currently assessing its role in the project.

Halifax Port Corporation, September 24, 1998:

I understand that the federal government is presently reviewing the project in depth, and we can expect a decision in the near future.

Honourable senators, the consortium which called for proposals for a deep water East Coast Atlantic port had suggested that they wished to select a port as quickly as possible and develop its capacity so that savings might be built into the system.

My question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the minister responsible for Nova Scotia, is simple: Is the federal government funding in place for the Port of Halifax's bid for post-Panamax operations?

Senator Graham: Let me begin by thanking the honourable senator for drawing this matter to the attention of all of our colleagues. Let me also say that if the Halifax Port Corporation is not successful in its bid, it will not be the fault of the Government of Canada.

I have continued to pursue this proposal since its inception. Indeed, I met with an all-party delegation from the province, including the Minister of Finance, Mr. Downe, a representative of the Official Opposition, Mr. Darrell Dexter, and Dr. John Hamm, who added a good deal to the discussions. We have not only met on the issue; we have discussed the matter by telephone as well.

I have had discussions with the Prime Minister and all of my cabinet colleagues on this issue. I have not received one negative response.

This is not a Halifax problem, nor is it a Halifax proposal. It is a Canada versus the United States issue. There are thousands of jobs at stake. Not only will there be jobs during the construction phase, but afterwards for all of Nova Scotia, for New Brunswick, and also for Quebec and Ontario. The spin-offs will benefit the whole country.

I wish to give Senator Forrestall my total assurance that this situation is being monitored not only week by week but on a daily basis. I thank him for bringing it to the attention of all of our colleagues, who I am sure will continue to show support for this very worthwhile and important endeavour.

Senator Forrestall: My concern, of course, is that Premier MacLellan has said he would resign if he did not bring in a balanced budget. We learned last night that Nova Scotia is $81 million in the hole. What will he do? Whom are we to believe?

If I understand correctly what the minister just said to us, does that mean that it is all words, it is all camera, that it is all smoke and mirrors? Is there a document in place? Did a document go from the federal government, together with a proposal, guaranteeing that we will be able to move on this endeavour and put in place the necessary structure? We are talking figures that range from $300 million to $500 million, up to $1 billion. Do you mean to say that nothing is in place?

I would not award a contract to a bidder who could not demonstrate that they had their business plan and financing in place. I would find that highly irresponsible. If I were an investor in the consortium which is seeking that type of facility, I would not place much credence in that sort of showing by a bidder. Failure will not be the federal government's fault. It will not matter whose fault it is. It will be the Port of Halifax, and the thousands of people who are employed directly and indirectly by that port,who will pay, and they will pay the hard way, with their jobs.

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, the deadline for the bid was, I believe, sometime in mid-August. Several days prior to the submission of the bid, as I indicated earlier, the Minister of Finance, Dr. Hamm, and a representative of the New Democratic Party in the province came to Ottawa to meet with several ministers, including myself. They wished to be satisfied before the bid went forward that there would be federal support at the appropriate time - this was the desire of all parties in the Province of Nova Scotia. That undertaking was given, and they were thus satisfied.

Senator Forrestall: Is that written down anywhere?

Senator Graham: They were satisfied that there was solid support at the federal government level in order for them to proceed with the bid.

Senator Forrestall: There is no funding in place at this time?

Senator Graham: I am not aware that there is any specific funding at this time. I do know that there are undertakings by the Government of Canada. I assure my honourable friend that all of the departments have looked at this proposition, whether it be the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council office, the Department of Finance, the Department of Industry or the Department of Transport. Their officials are examining the proposal. We will be ready when the time comes.

Senator Forrestall: Then perhaps the minister would reassure me by answering a couple of quick questions. What is Canadian National doing by filing a separate bid? That is the first question.

The second question is: What is the present status of privatization of the Port of Halifax? Are we waiting to see who the players will be before we see how much money we put up front?

Senator Graham: In response to your first question, Senator Forrestall, you must ask Mr. Tellier, the Chief Executive Officer of CN, who indicated that it was a complementary bid with respect to the privatization of the Port Corporation. That bid is proceeding on track.

Senator Forrestall: Who are the players in that situation? Then we might get some idea of the funding.

The Environment

Explosion on Highway Near Sudbury, Ontario-Request for Public Inquiry-Government Position

Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, early last August, near Sudbury, there was a huge explosion of a truck on the Trans-Canada Highway. The truck was carrying hazardous materials. It blew a 30-metre hole in the road, scattering debris for two or three kilometres and closing the highway for 12 days. Provincial and minicipal officials, as well as other groups, called for a public inquiry, but the jurisdiction is divided here. The province regulates trucks; the federal government regulates dangerous goods.

Transport Canada is doing its own investigation, but that is not right. The regulator is investigating its own regulations; something that would not happen when train, plane or shipping accidents occur. It would be the Transportation Safety Board.

You will recall that an amendment to extend powers of the board to trucking accidents, initiated in this house, was rejected by the Senate. Since the Transportation Safety Board does not have the authority to investigate trucking accidents, is the federal government intending to call a public inquiry into this matter, as requested?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): I must take the honourable senator's question under advisement. It is a worthwhile question, and I shall certainly bring forward an answer at the earliest opportunity.

Monitoring of Pipeline Safety by National Energy Board-Report of Auditor General-Government Position

Hon. Mira Spivak: On a related front, the Auditor General has also revealed that the National Energy Board does not have the staff or resources to properly monitor Canada's aging pipeline network. The National Energy Board has just one person monitoring the environmental impact of 40,000 kilometres of pipeline, 60 per cent of which is more than 20 years old, and the number of incidents per thousand kilometres of pipeline has increased by 73 per cent.

(1450)

The Auditor General suggests that the staff is overworked and unable to cope with the flow of work. When they did a random search for documents, the staff were unable to find them. This is not an abstract question for me. A serious incident involving a gas pipeline explosion was investigated near Winnipeg some time ago.

What, if anything, is the government planning to do to respond to the Auditor General's concerns here?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, as I said yesterday and the day before, the government welcomes the recommendations of the Auditor General in all of the departments addressed in this particular report. The government has accepted all of his recommendations on matters within its control in relation to the National Energy Board, and will act on them.

I wish to tell you that pipelines are safe in Canada. However, I acknowledge that there has been an increase in the number of pipeline incidents since 1994. The number of major incidents - that is, the ones that involve a significant risk to the public - has steadily declined since then.

I want to say to Senator Spivak and all honourable senators that ensuring public pipeline safety is a key element in the National Energy Board's mandate. The board has already confirmed that it will address all of the Auditor General's concerns, including those related to pipeline safety.

The National Energy Board, as I am sure Senator Spivak would agree, is a well-respected, independent and quasi-judicial regulatory body which operates at arm's length from the government.

Senator Spivak: Does this mean that we can be assured not only that they will increase the number of inspectors for 40,000 kilometres of pipeline from one to something approaching adequacy, but also that their pay will be increased? The turnover in 1997-98 was 18 per cent. Those who left cited the relatively low pay that they received by comparison with the private sector in Calgary. Will these matters be looked at?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, I cannot say anything about salaries or recompense, but I am sure that that matter, as well as the number of inspectors, is being reviewed at the present time and will be addressed in a positive way.

Justice

Sale of Airbus to Air Canada-Allegations of Comments Made by Prime Minister-Possibility of Public Inquiry-Government Position

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Honourable senators, I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I am continuing today the line of questioning of yesterday - that is to say, the trampling of the rights of individual Canadians.

Today, I am referring to Canadian citizen Brian Mulroney. It is reported today in Le Droit, Le Soleil and The Ottawa Sun that Prime Minister Chrétien openly discussed the Airbus matter and former prime minister Mulroney's alleged involvement in it in the summer of 1995. This is a startling revelation, and every Canadian should be concerned, including the Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats and even the Reform.

We all know that on September 29, 1995, as my colleague said a couple days ago, the offending letter was sent to the Swiss authorities. We have on the record many times the denials of the Prime Minister, the then Solicitor General Mr. Gray, and the then Minister of Justice Mr. Rock, all claiming to have no knowledge of the investigation or the letter. Indeed, on November 20, 1995, in Tokyo, two days after the story broke, the Prime Minister said, "I am not aware of anything." In reference to the Justice Department letter he said:

It is a police investigation, and they do their job and they don't send any information, and I am not requesting any information.

In response to questions that the Justice Department's investigation appeared to be based on news reports and flawed statements and was a fishing expedition, the Prime Minister said:

I don't know anything about it, so I'm not in a position to make any comment.

Now we find out that, according to a conversation the Prime Minister had with an acquaintance in the summer of 1995, he had thought about ordering a public probe on the sale of Airbus jets to Air Canada. William Kaplan writes in his just-released book, Presumed Guilty that:

After expressing great envy about Brian Mulroney's lifestyle and post-prime ministerial professional and financial success, Chrétien confided to a prominent Ottawa businessman, a man he had known for years, that he had been thinking about calling a royal commission into Airbus but decided against it.

This is shocking and very disturbing. It is also a sad commentary on the actions of the government. Where is the fairness and tolerance in which we pride ourselves? Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate, on behalf of the Prime Minister, come clean and tell us exactly what happened, when it happened, and how on earth it was allowed to happen?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have not read the articles to which the honourable senator refers. As she knows - and as I stated - under the terms of agreement, when the settlement was made between the former prime minister and the Government of Canada, it was acknowledged that there would be an ongoing investigation. That investigation is being carried out by the RCMP, and I am not aware of what Senator LeBreton is referring to. I have not seen any articles and I have not seen the book to which she refers. The matter is in the hands of the RCMP and I do not think I can comment further.

Senator LeBreton: I am dating myself, but this government reminds me of Sergeant Schultz in Hogan's Heroes, who often said, "I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing."

Earlier this week, in London, Ontario, the Prime Minister boasted about the integrity of the government. If this is integrity, I would hate to see the alternative.

Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate ask his government to demonstrate this so-called integrity by calling an independent inquiry to look into the abuse of the rights of Canadian citizens and, as well, the relationship between the Prime Minister's Office, the cabinet and the RCMP?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, the answer is "No." I am taking increasing offence to the allegations of the Honourable Senator LeBreton, whom I regard as an honourable person. To talk about the integrity of this government in the cavalier way in which she does is partisanship at its most blatant. I expect better from Senator LeBreton because of her experience in matters around this place.

When we talk in this way, we impugn the integrity of all parliamentarians. I am sure that in due time Senator LeBreton will regret the course of her questioning.

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I need to take no lessons from anyone on that side.

The fact of the matter is that we have a serious trampling on the rights of a Canadian citizen. No one on this side ever suggested that the RCMP should not conduct their investigation. We said from the very beginning that that was their role. What we suggested was that they had no right, without any evidence whatsoever, to call the former prime minister a crook. I think it will be those on that side who will be regretting what they said, rather than people on this side.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, the Leader of the Government takes umbrage at a challenge to the integrity of the government. Where wars the integrity in the Airbus affair? Where was the integrity in the helicopter deal? Where was the integrity in the lies that resulted from the unfulfilled promises in the Red Book?

More important, where was the integrity of the Government of Canada when it authorized a letter three years ago, accusing three innocent Canadians of engaging in "criminal activities"? The letter is still out there. Where is the integrity of the Government of Canada in allowing that letter to be out there still, after apologizing and paying huge damages to at least one of the complainants. Is that what you call integrity? What is your definition of "integrity"? That is certainly not mine.

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, as I said, the responsibility for carrying out further investigations is in the hands of the RCMP. It will be up to them to recommend whether or not that letter should be withdrawn.

(1500)

You talk about integrity. I will tell you about integrity. Integrity is living up to the promises made by this government to get this country on the right fiscal track, to balance the books, to eliminate the deficit and put this country in the best shape it has been in for many years.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, this government has the ability to lay off all its responsibilities on either agencies or staff, as we have seen with the Prime Minister blaming members of his staff for certain directives given to the RCMP.

That reminds me. How dare the Prime Minister's Office, or even the Prime Minister himself, suddenly become responsible for the RCMP when the RCMP's jurisdiction belongs to the Solicitor General? That is another question I might raise when we return from the Thanksgiving recess.

The RCMP did not send the letter. The letter was sent by the Department of Justice, on Department of Justice letterhead, approved by Department of Justice officials and, no doubt, approved by the minister at the time. Why blame the RCMP for an action taken by a member of the government?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, the former minister of justice has already indicated publicly that he was not aware of that particular letter, and Mr. Rock is a man of integrity. It is the responsibility of the RCMP to indicate whether they want that letter withdrawn, and so far, they have not given that indication.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Can the minister tell us why the letter is not being withdrawn? Does the government believe the accusations that Mr. Schreiber, Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Moores have engaged in criminal activity? Does the fact that that letter is still out there mean that the government believes those accusations are valid?

Senator Graham: It is the responsibility of the RCMP to make the recommendation on whether the letter stays as it is or whether it is withdrawn. So far, they have indicated that they want the letter to stay.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, as the minister should know, the RCMP did not write the letter. It was authorized under the direction of the minister of justice of the time. It is up to the minister of Justice and your government to retract it. By not doing so, the government is complicit in the condemnation of the reputation of three innocent Canadians.

Sale of Airbus Aicraft to Air Canada-Withdrawal of Letter Written to Swiss Authorities-Government Position

Hon. Pat Carney: Honourable senators, could the Leader of the Government in the Senate give us his authority for stating that it is the responsibility of the RCMP to withdraw the letter that was issued by the Department of Justice? Could we have the authority, please? As a former minister of the Crown, I find that unprecedented.

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the Leader of the Opposition is correct. The letter was sent by an official in the Department of Justice. Under the terms of agreement with the former prime minister, it was agreed that the investigation would be ongoing and would be carried out by the RCMP. Part of that ongoing investigation is the letter that was sent to the Swiss authorities. When the RCMP determines that that investigation is finished, they will recommend that the letter be withdrawn.

Solicitor General

Commission of Inquiry into Treatment of Protestors at APEC Conference by RCMP-Preponderance of Liberal Party Supporters on Public Complaints Commission-Government Position

Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, I should like to continue on the question of integrity. Last week, I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate to present a list of members on the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. He has not done so. Therefore, with the help of Peter MacKay of the other place, I obtained the list, which I will submit with this question.

Would the Leader of the Government in the Senate tell this house how many members of the commission that is investigating the security arrangements at the APEC conference were Liberal appointees and how many of them have made financial donations to the Liberal Party of Canada?

Integrity!

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, obviously, Senator Stratton was either not in his place yesterday or was not listening. I answered the question yesterday about the members of the commission who were investigating this case in British Columbia.

Having anticipated a question of this nature, I can tell him that I do not know how many of the appointees were appointed by the present government. However, I will be happy to find out.

I did provide a list yesterday of the names of those who are responsible for this particular investigation.

Senator Stratton: Honourable senators, I was working with Senator Cools on another matter at the time the Leader gave that answer. I apologize that I did not hear that statement yesterday.

According to Peter MacKay's press release, all but one of the 13 members are Liberal appointees. Five of them made financial donations to the Liberals, including the commission chair, Shirley Heafey.

Bearing integrity in mind, considering that the Liberal Prime Minister and the RCMP are being investigated by a commission which is over 90 per cent Liberal-sympathetic, how can the government state that this commission is at arm's length?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, one of the great things about Canada is our democratic system wherein people can have a stake in and can contribute to the party of their choice. Some people contribute to more than one party.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Like some senators.

Senator Graham: Maybe the Leader of the Opposition can be counted among those. Maybe we should check.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I plead the Fifth Amendment.

Senator Carstairs: I even voted Tory once.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Put that on the record.

Senator Graham: I must remind the Deputy Leader that she is not allowed to respond to questions during Question Period.

Senator Kinsella: What was your point?

Senator Graham: The point is that I am about to give Senator Stratton the actual figures of what the people responsible for this particular investigation contributed. Shirley Heafey, Chair of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, contributed $154.40. Graham Stewart contributed $200 and Ronald S. Noseworthy contributed $163.32.

I do not know if they contributed to other parties, but I congratulate them on contributing to the democratic process in our country.

Senator Stratton: Honourable senators, I have a supplementary question.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable Senator Stratton, the time for Question Period has expired, but I will allow you to complete your question.

Senator Stratton: Honourable senators, what is bothering me is that a pattern seems to be evolving behind the independent reviews that have been held. The Prime Minister appoints an independent review, the recommendations come forward and they are ignored, or, like the Somalia inquiry, they do not even get a chance to finish their work properly. What happened to the recommendations of the Krever inquiry into hepatitis C? What happened to the recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal into pay equity?

What is the point of having the RCMP Public Complaints Commission look into this matter and make recommendations when the likelihood is they will be ignored?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, the RCMP Public Complaints Commission has been in existence for over 10 years. Over that time, it has become known nationally and internationally for its fairness and its integrity. The hearings begin on Monday. Let us await the results.

Delayed Answer to Oral Question

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have a response to a question raised in the Senate on September 23, 1998, by the Honourable Senator Spivak regarding the efficacy of the drug approval process, changes in policy relating to the Food and Drugs Act.

Health

Efficacy of Drug Approval Process-Changes in Policy Relating to Food and Drugs Act-Government Position

(Response to question raised by Hon. Mira Spivak on September 23, 1998)

This concerns allegations of change to the policy regarding the fundamental mandate for the human food safety requirements related to a veterinary product under the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations.
The Food and Drugs Act was designed as a consumer protection statute and is considered to fall within the ambit of Canadian Criminal law. From the point of view of human safety and health, relevant scientific information concerning potential human food safety associated with a veterinary product is scrutinized by Officials of my Department based on the articulation of the Health Protection Branch (HPB) Risk Determination Model.
The HPB's Risk Determination Model consists of risk assessment and risk management components. Risk assessment involves hazard identification, risk estimation, development of options and option analysis. Risk management includes decision, implementation, monitoring and review.
The protection and safety of the health of Canadians is a government's first and foremost concern. There has been no change in our policy as, for most food, drug, cosmetic and medical device commodities, the application of the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations is consistent with the HPB's Risk Determination Model.

Answer to Order Paper Question Tabled

National Defence-Acquisition of Armoured Personnel Carriers

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government) tabled the answer to Question No. 124 on the Order Paper-by Senator Forrestall.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Competition Act

Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Order Stands

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Callbeck, seconded by the Honourable Senator Poy, for the second reading of Bill C-20, to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, this item stands in the name of the Honourable Senator Oliver. As honourable senators know, second reading debate commenced only yesterday. Senator Oliver is studying the remarks made at second reading by the proponent of the bill from the other side. He has advised me that he would be ready to present his second reading address when we return from our short recess on October 20.

Order stands.

[Translation]

Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration

Twenty-Fifth Report of Committee Adopted

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the twenty-fifth report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (Senate Supplementary Estimates 1998-99), presented in the Senate on September 30, 1998.

Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, I move the adoption of this report. If my honourable colleagues have questions for me on this subject, I am prepared to answer them. I brought some notes with me.

Hon. Eymard G. Corbin: I would like to hear what Senator Nolin had to propose.

Senator Nolin: Honourable senators, I am asking you today to adopt the twenty-fifth report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration concerning the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year 1998-99.

Supplementary funds are requested to cover unforeseen operating expenditures that have to be made this year. These expenditures have been made necessary by external factors that could not be foreseen at the time the budget was prepared. Allow me to outline the main areas where funds are required.

[English]

First, the committees. A significant part of the Senate's role is to carry out in-depth studies of issues in committees. The report I presented yesterday outlined the kind of work our committees are doing. This year's studies have included an examination of the Canadian financial system, issues relating to the harvest of our boreal forests, the state of transportation safety, issues relating to custody and access arrangements after separation, aboriginal self-government, and security and intelligence questions.

It is the established practice of both Houses of Parliament to fund special studies, special committees and joint committees from Supplementary Estimates. The total amount sought for committees is $1.2 million.

[Translation]

Work is needed on the committee rooms, necessitating additional expenditures. This represents the second major area for which supplementary funds were requested in the report. Work is required on the sound systems and security must be improved in all our committee rooms so that the public can observe the senators at work.

We must improve the interpretation systems in public areas to meet the requirements of the Official Languages Act. We would like our committee rooms to be equipped for videoconferences. Our committees will continue to try out this technology, which saves on the cost of public hearings and reduces the amount of travelling required of witnesses. So far, it has been a success. We have used it for various committees, including the special committee on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, the Standing Committee on Fisheries, the Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, and the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs considering the resolution to amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada. We think this technology will be used increasingly in future. For all this work on the committee rooms we are seeking approval for $230,000 and thank you for granting it.

[English]

Third, broadcasting and communications. As all committee chairs know by now, the Internal Economy Committee has been emphasizing that if committees are to ask for budgets to properly conduct their mandate, they must be prepared to communicate their work to Canadians. We strongly believe that, if Canadians understood the value of the work that Senate committees are doing on their behalf, the image of the Senate would improve. Our Internal Economy Committee is committed to giving to committees the tools that they need to reach out to Canadians.

Obviously, television is an important communication medium. Therefore, the Senate has recently entered into an agreement with CPAC and with the House of Commons broadcasting branch to provide for the broadcasting of Senate committees. The funds required for broadcasting and communication, including the purchase of relevant equipment, is $463,000.

[Translation]

Funds are required to cover the shortfalls in the budgets of some parliamentary associations. Supplementary funds totalling $58,200 are required to cover the cost of two parliamentary association activities over and above those funded through the Main Estimates. They are, first, the creation of a Canada-United Kingdom friendship group and, second, the provision of funding for the chair of the Association parlementaire de la Francophonie. The funding of these two items was recommended by the Joint Senate-House of Commons Interparliamentary Council.

[English]

Fifth, other expenditures. As our report mentions, the remaining $1.31 million of the requested Supplementary Estimates covers upgrades to information technology to keep the Senate compatible with the parliamentary Internet system, as well as funds for additional research expenses and tenant services not expected when the Main Estimates were prepared 12 to 18 months in advance.

[Translation]

Let me explain our reporting policy. Some of the money you give us comes from previous years' funds. In 1993, the government established a new reporting policy that allows organizations to apply a portion of funds not spent in previous years to subsequent years. The Senate is entitled this year to the $1,273,000 that was not spent in 1997-1998. Accordingly, although the total amount in supplementary funds sought is $3,261,200, new funds represent only $1,988,200.

[English]

(1520)

Honourable senators, I would have said your Internal Economy Committee recommends that senators approve this request for Supplementary Estimates for fiscal year 1998-99. Instead, I thank you for the decision you have just taken. If honourable senators have questions, I am ready to answer them.

[Translation]

Senator Corbin: During his discussion on the broadcasting budget for committees, Senator Nolin used the expression "for the broadcasting of committees." Am I to understand this to mean the retransmission of the proceedings of committees which have obtained prior Senate consent?

Senator Nolin: Absolutely. There is no question of their being broadcast without the committee having requested it, and the committee cannot request this if this Chamber has not granted permission. That said, we strongly recommend that all committees obtain such authorization.

The committee is asking the House for funds. The broadcasting of committee proceedings will give Canadians an idea of the quality of the work done in committee.

Senator Corbin: Does the amount you mentioned assume that all committees would request broadcasting of their proceedings or does it reflect the traditional requests from certain committees only?

Senator Nolin: I will break down the amount. The amount requested for the contract with the House of Commons is $115,000, mainly to pay the salaries of the technical and production people. If no committee asks for its proceedings to be broadcast, the $115,000 will remain unspent. Then there is $75,000 for installation of fibre optics between the committee rooms, the National Press Building, and the main control centre in the House of Commons. There is another $225,000 for the purchase of broadcast equipment, and $48,000 for the communications equipment required to make the project operate efficiently.

The Hon. the Speaker: If no other senator wishes to speak, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and report adopted.

Alberta

Existence of Political State Within Canada-Inquiry-Debate Adjourned

Hon. Douglas Roche rose pursuant to notice of Tuesday, September 29, 1998:

That he will call the attention of the Senate to the Political State of Alberta within Canada.

He said: Honourable senators, it is an honour for me to take my place in this historic Chamber.

[English]

This chamber was established by the Fathers of Confederation as a house of reflection. I take my place humbly, but with determination to contribute with all my strength to the development of a spirit of reconciliation in Canada.

Our country and our world are badly in need of healing. We are buffeted by the twin forces of globalization and regionalism. The disaffections of our time must be countered by a more concentrated political effort to end the shocking economic and social disparities in our midst, correct the inequality of representation in the Senate, and foster a more dynamic role for Canada in building the conditions for peace and security.

These three themes - equitable economic and social development, reform of the Senate, and setting out a forthright Canadian policy to support the abolition of nuclear weapons - are central to my views on the healing processes needed to rebuild Canadian unity and advance a human security agenda for the twenty-first century.

First, I wish to recognize the strong economic development now taking place in Alberta. Under the leadership of the Government of Alberta, we have had the fastest growing economy in Canada since 1992. Last year, the provincial economy grew by 5.5 per cent, and 44,200 new jobs were created. Our unemployment rate is the lowest since 1981. Alberta's population grew by 2.7 per cent last year, the highest growth rate in Canada. The Alberta advantage continues to draw more and more people to our province.

The twin pillars of Alberta's economy remain oil and gas and agriculture, but our economy is increasingly diversified with new manufacturing, technology, software, and biotechnology companies being established every year by Alberta entrepreneurs.

Many of our young Albertans, educated at some of the finest secondary institutions in Canada - the University of Alberta in Edmonton, the University of Calgary, the University of Lethbridge, NAIT, SAIT, Grant MacEwan Community College, and Mount Royal College - no longer must leave Alberta to find well-paying, challenging jobs in their chosen fields.

Many of the new companies are now public on the Alberta Stock Exchange, which has emerged as Canada's leading stock exchange for junior companies and entrepreneurs.

Alberta has been in the forefront of deficit and debt reduction policies. Provincial budgets are now balanced, and the debt is being repaid. Albertans do not want future generations to pay for excessive government spending today. Over the last four years, the net debt has been reduced by $6.8 billion, and annual debt servicing costs have been cut by $450 million.

However, fiscal management has come at a cost. Cuts in health, education, and social spending have had a deleterious effect on our society, particularly on the most vulnerable people: Those in low-paying jobs, the aged, the ill, children, and single parents.

(1530)

I was a member of the Quality of Life Commission which listened to Albertans to discover how the changes and cutbacks had affected people's lives. We identified a sense of increased polarization resulting from the growing gap between the rich and the poor. Many people feel stressed and fearful, and have a sense of powerlessness over the decisions that affect their lives. Their sense of hope, self-determination, health and well-being are hurt by the increased handing off of government tasks to unequipped family members and cash-strapped non-profit organizations.

As the Edmonton Social Planning Council points out, we have allowed our social programs to be dismantled by those who see poverty as an individual failing, instead of the much more complicated problem that it is. Now that our fiscal accounts are in order, on behalf of the disadvantaged in our society, I call for a restoration of health and education spending as an investment in the continued development of our people.

While the responsibility for the delivery of social programs rests at the provincial level, there are actions needed at the federal level. We need national social standards that will define the minimum that Canadians can expect from each other in times of stress, such as unemployment, family violence or mental illness. We need a federal-provincial funding formula based on those national standards and we need the dollars to back it up.

Second, reform of the Senate is an issue of great concern to Albertans. I share that concern. I am for a Canadian Senate elected directly by the people of each province. I note that I am in good company in this view, because our Speaker co-chaired the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform, which concluded that an appointed Senate no longer meets the needs of the Canadian federation.

I support your committee in its findings:

An elected Senate is the only kind of Senate that can adequately fill what we think should be its principal role - the role of regional representation.

Your committee wisely conjoined to your call for elections the need for fairness in the distribution of seats. Your committee added:

Our proposal would...give the four Western provinces together as many seats as Ontario and Quebec jointly.

We have the excellent report of your committee, together with many other helpful reports on this subject. We do not need to start from scratch. We can build a consensus for Senate reform, but that consensus must not be lost, as it was before, in a mix of other constitutional issues. Fairness is the essence of Senate reform.

The frustration in Alberta over this matter has led to an election for "Senators in Waiting" via a ballot attached to regular municipal elections scheduled for October 19, 1998. However politically desirable this election may be for some, the election is not legitimized by the Constitution. The Constitution provides that the Governor General shall summon qualified persons to the Senate, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Good order and stability in our country demand that constitutional change be brought about through due process involving the federal government and provincial and territorial governments. The Constitution cannot be changed by piecemeal acts in any one province. Such attempts will surely lead to other provinces also attempting unilateral acts. National unity would then give way to disorder. Honourable senators, that reason alone is enough to reject the election.

Another equally important reason is that legitimizing such an election under the present allocation of seats would lock in the unfair distribution of Senate places, which would, in turn, hurt Alberta more than almost any other province. Alberta, with a population of 2.8 million people, has six Senate seats. The four Atlantic provinces, with a population of only 2.4 million, have 30 seats. Each Atlantic senator represents 80,400 people. Each Alberta senator represents 474,500 people. This is not equality.

By moving to elections without reforming the number of seats, we would be enshrining inferior representation for Alberta forever. That would be a betrayal of everything for which the great Alberta leaders of the past have fought. I will not be a party to disadvantaging Alberta even more as Canada's population shifts westward in the twenty-first century.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Roche: Some say we should use as a precedent the experience of the United States, where election to the Senate came about by pressure from a majority of states. Such proponents forget a basic fact: In the United States Senate, states already had equal representation when the change from appointment to election was made.

While it is true that most people in Alberta want an elected Senate, it is not true that the majority support the current "election." Only one political party is even contesting it. The public generally senses that the system needs comprehensive - rather than piecemeal - reform. I will work for that. I hold out my hand to all political parties. I will listen to all Albertans.

In my short time here, I have already had good and productive meetings with the government and opposition leaders in the Senate, and with the leaders of all the political parties in the House of Commons. I will continue to meet in good faith with the representatives of all parties in an effort to develop a consensus on Senate reform.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Roche: Third, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the high potential for a significant Canadian contribution to international peace and security. We are an important middle-power country, and our leadership is needed in addressing the most compelling problem faced by the world community today. The continued existence of 30,000 nuclear weapons almost a decade after the end of the Cold War is an affront to humanity. Five thousand of these weapons are on alert status, meaning they are capable of being fired on 30 minutes' notice.

The New England Journal of Medicine recently warned:

The risk of an accidental nuclear attack has increased in recent years, threatening a public health disaster of unprecedented scale.

(1540)

I was part of a Project Ploughshares team that conducted roundtables on the subject of nuclear weapons for community leaders in 16 cities in 10 provinces during the month of September. These two-and-a-half-hour roundtables were attended by 378 persons representing a wide range of Canadians: members of Parliament, members of provincial legislatures, mayors, municipal councillors, school board members, business and religious leaders, and so on. These informed Canadians want the Government of Canada to take an unambiguous stand in support of new, worldwide efforts to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

The International Court of Justice, the highest legal authority in the world, says nations are obliged to conclude negotiations leading to such elimination. Former military leaders, presidents, prime ministers, and foreign ministers around the world are calling for a global ban. The Abolition 2000 movement, supported by 1,000 non-governmental organizations, many of them right here in Canada, want negotiations completed by the year 2000. That would lead, then, to an international treaty that would take, perhaps, a quarter of a century to implement. The essential point is that failure to negotiate future eliminations now is leading to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

By testing their nuclear weapons a few months ago, India and Pakistan have exposed the cracks in the non-proliferation regime. As long as the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council - the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China - maintain their arsenals of nuclear weapons, other states will naturally seek to acquire them.

Since nuclear weapons have become the currency of power, how can we expect aspiring states not to acquire them? The current breakdown in the preparatory process for the 2000 review of the non-proliferation treaty reveals the central problem the world faces: Either there will be a global ban on nuclear weapons or they will spread to more nations, with escalating danger to the world.

Thus, a New Agenda Coalition of eight important states - Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa, and Sweden - was formed this summer to seek an unequivocal commitment from the states possessing nuclear weapons to start immediately a process of negotiation leading to the elimination of those weapons.

Canada has so far refused to join this new coalition. Why? Because NATO continues to insist, despite the logic of the post-Cold War era, that nuclear weapons are "essential." That is NATO's word. Trying to be loyal to NATO, Canada thus votes against resolutions at the United Nations calling for the commencement of negotiations. That has to stop. The vast majority of Canadians want an end to the terrible spectre of nuclear weapons. They want Canada to take a leading role in working with like-minded states to get negotiations going. I support the efforts of the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

This week, the Middle Powers Initiative, a network of seven prominent, international, non-governmental organizations specializing in nuclear disarmament, sent a delegation to Ottawa. They were met by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, and were received by the Prime Minister. The delegation urged the Government of Canada to vote at the United Nations this fall for a new resolution sponsored by the New Agenda Coalition which would call upon states possessing nuclear weapons to start, and bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons. Canada should vote "yes" on this resolution.

There is not a shred of justification for NATO to keep its nuclear weapons in this new age of East-West partnership. NATO, which still has a valuable role to play in security questions, does not need nuclear weapons, and Canada should work to get nuclear weapons out of NATO.

Honourable senators, 14 years ago, I made what I thought was my last speech in Parliament. Taking my leave of the House of Commons after 12 years of service, I said:

Canada, with its history and geography, its freedom and democracy, its resources and technology, and its space and industry, is ideally placed to work for the conditions of peace.

By the unforeseen twists of fate, I now re-enter Parliament, and my first words are to repeat my call for Canada to work for peace, reconciliation and social justice in the world.

In my career as a journalist, author, parliamentarian, diplomat, and educator, I have been in every region of the world. There is no land more blessed than Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Roche: The United Nations regularly attests to that fact. I love this country. I love Alberta, my home province. I love Quebec, the province of my birth. My children live in four different cities across Canada. I love St. John's, and the whole of Newfoundland. I love Victoria, British Columbia, and the whole of Vancouver Island. I want this country to stay together. I want our people to work together. I want our political process to come together.

There is too much alienation in our society, too much polarization, too much confrontation. I want to contribute to a spirit of reconciliation, an atmosphere of healing, a new basis of hope, as we prepare for the third millennium.

We simply must find ways of offering genuine hope to young people so that they can truly benefit from a more equitable economy, a reformed Senate and a more dynamic role in world affairs.

(1550)

Conscious that I am only one person, I will contribute all my strength to moving Canada forward. Together, we in this historic place can help build Canada anew.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

On motion of Senator Kinsella, debate adjourned.

Privacy Commissioner

Annual Report-Motion to Refer to Committee of the Whole-Debate Adjourned

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition), pursuant to notice of September 30, 1998, moved:

That the Report of the Privacy Commissioner for the period ended March 31, 1998, tabled in the Senate on Tuesday, September 29, 1998, be referred to a Committee of the Whole for the purpose of hearing witnesses and making a report; and
That the Committee report no later than February 15, 1999.

He said: Honourable senators, the 1997-1998 Annual Report of the Privacy Commissioner was tabled in this place earlier this week. I have concluded, having read the report, that all honourable senators would want to invite at least the Privacy Commissioner to come before this chamber in Committee of the Whole in order to ask him some questions about this report which is pregnant with very important public policy issues that need to be given the attention and focus they deserve.

Honourable senators are aware that the Privacy Commissioner is an officer of Parliament. Therefore, his report is a very special report in our parliamentary system, since it is a report to us. It is also set out in the Privacy Act that this report must be tabled in both Houses of Parliament. This report has now been tabled in the Senate, as required by statute.

I wish to draw to the attention of honourable senators a number of things in the report to make the case that we should hear the Privacy Commissioner in Committee of the Whole. Based on what he tells us in answer to some of our questions, it may help us to determine whether or not we wish to have the matter referred to one of our standing committees.

I will begin with the letter of transmittal. I know His Honour might have a special interest in the manner in which it was transmitted to the Senate. The letter is dated July 1998 and is addressed to the Honourable Gildas Molgat, Speaker of the Senate. It states:

Dear Mr. Molgat:

For honourable senators the office of Speaker of the Senate is a very special office. Our friend who is the present occupant of the Chair exercises all the functions of that office in a most special way. If one were to examine the Table of Precedence in Canada, one would see that the office of Speaker of the Senate is a senior position under our Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. We have a duty to insist on the integrity of all the offices of Parliament, that the Table of Precedence be respected, and that public etiquette which speaks to it as an expression of our civility must be respected. I do not say this to be critical of the current Privacy Commissioner, although it did catch my attention, since it is on the first page of the letter of transmittal.

The second page of the letter of transmittal is a letter to the Speaker of the other place and it begins:

Dear Mr. Parent:
Not having the experience of other members of this house who have served in the other place, I am not overly familiar with the etiquette of that chamber. However, I do feel that the etiquette that is appropriate for this chamber when writing to our Speaker is to address him as "Your Honour" or "His Honour Senator Molgat."

I notice that the letters of transmittal from the Information Commissioner, who is also an officer who reports to Parliament, begin with the same kind of salutation, which I am arguing is not appropriate.

I looked also at the letter of transmittal from the other officer of Parliament, the Commissioner of Official Languages. In that letter of transmittal dated March 1998, one page to the Speaker of the House of Commons begins "Mr. Speaker" and the letter of transmittal to the Speaker of the Senate begins "Mr. Speaker." It may be helpful for us to determine the appropriate etiquette that we should insist upon.

At page 9 of the report, the commissioner writes:

The Privacy Commissioner's office is an orphan. Despite his status as a parliamentary officer, Parliament makes only occasional and cursory examinations of the issues and our operations.

To the best of my knowledge, based upon the research I have done in the last day or two, which has not been extensive, I do not believe that we have ever taken under examination, either in any of our standing committees or Committee of the Whole, the report of the Privacy Commissioner. I am not sure about the Commissioner of Official Languages. However, because there is a joint committee, the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages might have received some detailed examination in the past.

As an officer of the Parliament of Canada, the Privacy Commissioner is our watchdog over the privacy rights of Canadians. It is for us to provide the oversight of the work that the Privacy Commissioner is doing on behalf of Canadians. The Privacy Commissioner has a very important role to play in defending our respective rights to privacy. Upon reading this report, honourable senators will, I am sure, want to call Mr. Phillips to appear before us as soon as possible.

The Privacy Commissioner in this particular report notes that advances in computer technology have revolutionized information collection and management. With this new technology, however, comes the potential for great misuse and abuse of professional confidential information.

In his report, the commissioner notes that the Internet presents Canadians with new problems, such as controlling pornography trafficking, and he goes on to state that the government's efforts have been commendable in this regard. In other cases, however, the commissioner notes that the government's performance has been somewhat lacklustre. He states at page 1:

Strong arm initiatives such as these -

He is referring there to encryption controls.

- might well prove a suffocating inhibition, and destroy much of Internet's value as an open and wonderfully flexible method for the world to communicate.

The commissioner also indicates that we face a real challenge around the whole area of medical information and privacy. He speaks of a medical Internet where there is considerable concern that the management of Canadian doctors' medical files may, if not protected by sufficiently adequate privacy safeguards, lead to a serious breach. I refer here not only to doctor-patient confidentiality but, indeed, to an eroding of the public's confidence in the inappropriate sharing of the kind of information that physicians must have because of their relationship with their patients.

In terms of the Privacy Act itself, the commissioner's report seems to be arguing - and I would like to ask some questions about what he is driving at - for the need to update this federal statue which defines the mandate of the Privacy Commissioner.

The report notes:

Perhaps lost in the shadow of these grand projects is the now-pressing need to modernize the existing Privacy Act.

Again, because he is an officer of Parliament making a suggestion about the statute and the need to modernize the statute, we might be able to do good work in that regard.

(1600)

Allegations that Revenue Canada was engaged in sharing confidential income tax information with British Columbia in order to determine who was eligible for the B.C. family bonus, is but one example of a serious problem of breach of privacy that the commissioner alludes to in that report. I am sure that all honourable senators would be interested in asking him some questions, as they relate to issues in their own provinces.

Although outside the jurisdiction of the Privacy Commissioner's mandate, his report expressed concern with the practice that a person's social insurance number must be provided to unions despite the restrictions in the Privacy Act.

I have two points on that matter: First, we examined that issue somewhat when we looked at Bill C-19, which amended the Labour Code, last spring. The bill passed, but all honourable senators were alerted to the amber light that was flashing as a result of the committee's observations. Honourable senators will recall that the concern was with the privacy of Canadian workers. However, the decision was taken that there was a public interest in having that particular mechanism available under the amendments to the Labour Act. We may wish to ask the Privacy Commissioner for his recommendations, at a level of some specificity, or at least how we would deal with the new Labour Act. Second, we saw in the news recently the Auditor General's reference to there being in circulation more social insurance numbers than there are people. He might speak to some other issues of privacy around the SIN.

Another point mentioned in the report that I wish to probe further deals with the comment that the Treasury Board Secretariat, as employer of the public sector, allows the monitoring of an employee's electronic transmissions under two conditions; if it receives a complaint or if its routine analysis of electronic networks leads it to suspect that a person is misusing the network. Although preventing misuse of computer resources is justifiable, the Privacy Commissioner expressed concern about the heavy-handed monitoring of all federal employees, most of whom can be trusted to act responsibly.

"Allegation" would be too strong a word, but he has made the observation that we should get to the bottom of this practice, and the only way to do that, it would seem to me, is to have him appear before us so we can ask him some questions.

The Privacy Commissioner does make reference to the matter which we will have the opportunity to delve into in our examination of Bill C-3 when the Senate resumes after Thanksgiving. That is the matter of the proposed DNA databank and the necessary controls over the misuse of genetic materials if placed in that bank.

The Hon. the Speaker: I regret to interrupt the honourable senator, but the time has elapsed. Are you asking for leave?

Senator Kinsella: As the proponent of this motion I thought I had more than 15 minutes, but I shall only need a couple of minutes more.

Perhaps I could ask for a ruling as to whether or not, as the mover of a motion, I have more than 15 minutes?

The Hon. the Speaker: It is rule 37(3):

The sponsor of a bill and the first Senator speaking immediately thereafter shall be permitted not more than forty-five minutes...

Senator Kinsella: It applies to bills, not to motions.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: If you wish a ruling I will give you a ruling. I refer to page 39, 37(3). The 45 minutes applies only to the mover of a bill and the first person speaking after the mover.

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, this is a good report. It is a report of an officer of Parliament. We regrettably have never examined a report submitted to Parliament by the Privacy Commission.

I suggest that we give the report careful examination. This commissioner is in his seventh year. As you will recall, we participated in extending his term by two years a few months ago. It would be timely, and, indeed, I believe it should be the practice that we give appropriate examination to reports of the officers of Parliament. Not knowing which committee would be the appropriate committee to which to refer this report, considering the success that we have had in Committee of the Whole, honourable senators might wish to have that forum examine the report, hear witnesses and, in particular, Mr. Phillips, the Privacy Commissioner.

Therefore, I urge your support for the motion.

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the suggestion is an interesting one. We will certainly discuss it among our colleagues, and on that basis I will take the adjournment.

On motion of Senator Carstairs, debate adjourned.

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, October 20, 1998, at 2 p.m.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

The Senate adjourned until Tuesday, October 20, 1998, at 2 p.m.

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

1st Session, 36th Parliament, Volume 137, Issue 82

Thursday, October 1, 1998

The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker

THE SENATE

Thursday, October 1, 1998

The Late Honourable Lucien Lamoureux, P.C. Q.C.

Tributes

Visitors in the Gallery

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Women's History Month

Fisheries and Oceans

Abandonment of Planned De-staffing of Lightstations

Ottawa Fire Prevention Week

United Nations

World Teachers Day

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Dimensions of Social Cohesion and Globalization

Report Of Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee, Requesting Authorization to Engage Services, Permit Electronic Coverage and Extend Date of Final Report, Presented and Printed as Appendix

State of Financial System

Interim Report of Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee Tabled

QUESTION PERIOD

Fisheries and Oceans

Viability of Small Fish Plants in Coastal Communities in Eastern Canada-Government Position

Transport

Development of Port of Halifax as Superport-Request for Update

The Environment

Explosion on Highway Near Sudbury, Ontario-Request for Public Inquiry-Government Position

Monitoring of Pipeline Safety by National Energy Board-Report of Auditor General-Government Position

Justice

Sale of Airbus to Air Canada-Allegations of Comments Made by Prime Minister-Possibility of Public Inquiry-Government Position

Sale of Airbus Aicraft to Air Canada-Withdrawal of Letter Written to Swiss Authorities-Government Position

Solicitor General

Commission of Inquiry into Treatment of Protestors at APEC Conference by RCMP-Preponderance of Liberal Party Supporters on Public Complaints Commission-Government Position

Delayed Answer to Oral Question

Health

Efficacy of Drug Approval Process-Changes in Policy Relating to Food and Drugs Act-Government Position

Answer to Order Paper Question Tabled

National Defence-Acquisition of Armoured Personnel Carriers

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Competition Act

Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Order Stands

Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration

Twenty-Fifth Report of Committee Adopted

Alberta

Existence of Political State Within Canada-Inquiry-Debate Adjourned

Privacy Commissioner

Annual Report-Motion to Refer to Committee of the Whole-Debate Adjourned

Adjournment

1st Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 137, Issue 82