Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
1st Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 137, Issue 152
Thursday, June 17, 1999
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker
Table of Contents
- The Honourable Marian Maloney
- The Honourable Mary Butts
- Business of the Senate
- Public Sector Pension Investment Board Bill
- SENATORS' STATEMENTS
- ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
- QUESTION PERIOD
- ORDERS OF THE DAY
THE SENATE
Thursday, June 17, 1999
The Senate met at 2:00 p.m., the Speaker in the Chair.
Prayers.
The Honourable Marian Maloney
The Honourable Mary Butts
Tributes on Retirement
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I remember so well, a little over a year ago, walking into this chamber with Senator Lucie Pépin and the newly appointed Senator Marian Maloney when some of the members of the gallery got a little boisterous. They were up in the north gallery, as I recall. In fact, one of the women present, a former cabinet minister, got really carried away, giving Marian a two-fingered whistle salute.
Honourable senators, the whistle salute was a fine tribute to Marian, but it was about a lot of other things as well. It was about the long struggle after the "Famous Five" and the good fight of 1929. It was about a new order in politics, which women like Senator Maloney have worked so hard all their lives to bring about. It was about a woman who has supported the causes of many worthy women in political life, women who have struggled against the current, women who have helped bring new levels of understanding, compassion and fairness to political life in this country.
I remember an old friend describing Senator Maloney as a second mother to her, and describing Marian's Toronto home as always open to her. She put it this way:
When you go into her house, you find kids from the Ontario Youth Orchestra making cookies, you find Boy Scouts in the living room, and everyone is coming in the front door. It's incredible, she has enough mother love for the whole country.
All honourable senators will know what that means. If you really think about the wonderful observation that God could not be everywhere and therefore he made mothers, you can take Marian as the living, breathing personification of that old proverb.
Throughout her busy life, Marian has worked tirelessly, as a businesswoman and community organizer in her beloved Thunder Bay, always giving much more than she had to, whether it was for the St. Joseph's Hospital Auxiliary or the Thunder Bay Big Brothers, whether it was for the Toronto Chapter of the Canadian Kidney Association or the Chronic Care Hospital at Runnymede, whether it was as chairman of "Thunderama," which is the celebration of the amalgamation of Fort William and Port Arthur, or as an interviewer for Channel 7 Maclean Hunter. Whatever task she took on, Marian always went beyond her fingertips to really make a difference.
(1410)
In this chamber, she has shown the same drive and determination on the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Child Custody and Access, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, as well as the Special Senate Committee on Transportation and Security. Senator Maloney is also a member of several international parliamentary associations and is a director of the Canada-United Kingdom Inter-Parliamentary Association.
Senator Maloney, you have worked all your life for a better and a fairer society. The dramatic increase in the number of women who have successfully contested seats at both the federal and the provincial levels can significantly be attributed to you.
Nellie McClung wrote many decades ago that a woman's place in the new order is to bring vision and imagination to work on life's problems. If she were here today, in that gallery up there with your extended family, she, too, might get a little boisterous. After all, it is not every day - nor very often - that we retire someone with enough mother love for the whole country.
To you and your beloved husband, Justice Bill, and your extended family, we wish good health and much happiness in your retirement from this job.
Honourable senators, the professor emeritus of political science at University College of Cape Breton often ended her night classes at 9:30 p.m. One of her students recalled a short time ago that, "She would then drive through the streets to ensure that there was no one out on the street - a homeless person, or whatever. If there were, she would stop, put them in her car and take them to a shelter."
It would not be unheard of, witnesses attest, "for her to go right into the homes of some of these children, who were not in great shape, and get right in the middle of it. She would bring them dinner if they needed dinner, and if mom and dad needed a little bit of counselling or help, she would pitch right in there, too."
In fact, Senator Sister Peggy Butts' compassion for the poor and the disadvantaged has always been legendary in Cape Breton, in our part of the world. Born in Bridgeport, Glace Bay, Peggy worked in soup kitchens, counselled unwed mothers and, throughout her wonderful life, became a shining light in the community. Her home was about a Mark McGuire home-run distance from where I was brought up as a child. This distinguished professor of political theory understood the dangers and the insecure lives of coalminers and their families. She knew all about the hardships of their daily lives. She was living testimony to the spirit of Cape Breton - a place where, as the song goes, "If you come back broken, they would see that you mend."
Senator Butts, when you first came to this chamber only two short years ago, I said that your life's work had been based on an unconditional pledge to the well-being of your community and our people. Honourable senators, when I first met Mary Alice Butts on the frozen bogs of Bridgeport, she was a tom-boy, a hockey player and a hockey lover but, first of all, she was a coalminer's kid - not just in her heart, but in her finely trained and disciplined mind, so well respected in my part of the world.
Like Father Jimmy Tompkins and Moses Coady of the Antigonish movement, Sister Peggy always had a vision of revitalizing people and their communities. She had enormous faith in the power of individuals to become "Masters of their own House." Monsignor Coady believed a person learned by doing. He knew that real democracy would only develop if people could manage their own affairs and work overtime in their own interests. His teachings gave little people a glimpse of what is possible. He always said that to give a person a fish was to revive food for a day, but to teach them how to fish was to provide self-sufficiency for a lifetime.
Senator Butts carried this message of liberation and empowerment with her throughout a career marked by humanity and compassion. However, her strong, critical and analytical powers were an equally impressive component of Peggy's arsenal, and have been much in evidence in her work in this chamber, as part of the committee looking into the operations of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, as a valued member of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries, as deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, and as a member of the National Child Agenda Caucus, among many other special causes.
"Teach us to give and not to count the cost," said Ignatius Loyola. In many ways, Senator Butts personified in this chamber an ideal of justice and community service, which are the hallmarks of true leadership - the kind of leader who, as someone once said, is the servant of the people, and walks with humility behind the people.
It seems too short a time since I asked you, Peggy, at a time when you were just starting to settle into your new life here, whether you had anything to occupy some of your time. That was the night before you were sworn in, when I dropped you off at a local hotel. With a twinkle in your eye, you handed me the 1997-98 National Hockey League yearbook, which you intended to pursue and read cover to cover that night. Now, as you return to your other unpaid job, I must tell you that a lot of your admirers in this place, Canadiens fans or not, will really miss you.
I have plans, and you have plans that will keep you busy every day and every week. A thousand thanks, and God bless!
Hon. James F. Kelleher: Honourable senators, I, too, rise to pay tribute to the Honourable Senator Marian Maloney, who will be leaving the Senate at the end of this session. Despite her relatively short opportunity to serve in this chamber, the senator's conduct of office was weighted with an outstanding history of community activity, entrepreneurial spirit and volunteerism. I am confident that during her time here, many of us have benefited from knowing and working with her.
Of note is the senator's abiding pursuit of women's equality in the practice and participation of politics. As a result of her enlightened stewardship of the Judy LaMarsh Fund of the Liberal Party of Canada, the profession of politics has become more accessible to women, some of whom otherwise may not have come to this great institution known as Parliament. It is fitting that she herself was called to serve her country as a parliamentarian.
It is said that retirement is the time of life when we work harder at loafing than we used to loaf at working. It is with certainty that I say that Senator Maloney fits neither description, and will continue to be a positive force in Canada for years to come.
On a more personal note, I am also sorry to see her leave because, like me, she is from Northern Ontario. Goodness knows, the Senate is a better place because of we people from northern Ontario! Her departure will reduce our honoured ranks to two, namely myself and Senator Poulin. I can only hope and trust that the government will see fit to replace Senator Maloney with another distinguished person from Northern Ontario.
(1420)
I would also mention that Senator Maloney's husband, the Honourable Mr. Justice Maloney, is here in the gallery today. For many years he practised law in the north, was subsequently appointed to the Supreme Court of Ontario, and later rose to be the regional judge in charge of the north, where he presided with great distinction.
Honourable senators, I wish them both many happy years to come.
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, many years ago, our colleague Senator Butts professed the vows that pertain to membership in the Congrégation de Notre-Dame. However, members of that religious order have never been required to take vows of humility. It is therefore okay - as Senator Graham has done and as I propose to do - to lavish praise upon her head without worrying about causing an occasion of sin.
It has been our good fortune on the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to have Senator Butts as a member for the past couple of years and, latterly, as our deputy chairman. Senator Butts' academic credentials in education, political science and government are at least as impressive as those of the experts and specialists who appear before the various Senate committees.
What distinguishes Senator Butts from our witnesses and, let it be said, from many parliamentarians is the depth of her experience. What she has brought to the committee, in addition to her knowledge of public policy and her analytical skills, is her personal knowledge of the problems of single parents, the poor, the hungry and the homeless, the unemployed and the discouraged. For Sister Peggy Butts, these people are not abstractions; they are her people. They have names, faces, family histories and personal circumstances which she has helped them to confront.
When Senator Butts returned on weekends to Holy Angels Convent in Sydney, it was to resume her life's work with them and with those who care about them, work that was interrupted most weeks by her duties in Ottawa. She went about those senatorial duties with extraordinary thoroughness and resolve. Perhaps she followed the example of the founder of her religious order, a founder of education in Canada, Marguerite Bourgeoys. It is recorded of Marguerite Bourgeoys that, after she had been in Montreal for some years and she had lost her great patron de Maisonneuve, who had been recalled to France, she became concerned about putting her congregation and its educational work on a more permanent, legal foundation. Accordingly, a petition was taken up in Montreal and sent to France for the necessary Letters Patent.
When two years had passed without a response, this nun got on a boat and went back to France. On her arrival in Paris, she discovered that the court of Louis XIV had repaired for the season to Dunkerque, so she turned around and went to Dunkerque. She stayed at the royal court, a somewhat improbable figure, lobbying until she had tracked down the great French minister Colbert. Finally, in 1671, she emerged with what she had come for - Letters Patent establishing her congregation and its educational work by royal decree, personally signed and sealed by Louis XIV himself. Such was the grit and determination of Marguerite Bourgeoys.
Honourable senators, after two years' experience with Peggy Butts, there are ministers, political assistants and bureaucrats in Ottawa who would recognize the style.
We would all like to think that Peggy has found some common bond, or at least no grave inconsistency, between her life's vocation and her recent service in politics and Parliament. I will not press her on this point today, but we may hope she will have something reassuring to say about it and about us when she writes a memoir of her two years in this sometimes ungodly place.
In our committee she has shown an unsurpassed understanding of how public policy affects the condition of real people in the real world. As for her qualities, let me come back to her founder and repeat what the historian Francis Parkman said of Marguerite Bourgeoys:
Her qualities were those of good sense, conscientiousness and a warm heart.
It has been a pleasure for all of us to work with Senator Butts. My only regret is that she did not arrive here earlier, nor was she able to stay longer. I confess that the previous government was guilty of overlooking the strong Tory lineage in her family tree. I do hope she has derived a great deal of pride and satisfaction from her service here. If there are more like her in the religious congregations of the nation, I trust their names have been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Hon. Lucie Pépin: Honourable senators, it is always difficult to say au revoir to colleagues who have made a real difference through their vision and insight, through their thoughtfulness and humour, through their sense of collegiality and respect, through their hard work and commitment. We are saying au revoir to two such individuals today, Senators Maloney and Sister Peggy Butts.
Each has left an indelible mark on the landscape of this country. Senator Maloney has helped put in place mechanisms and changed attitudes to ensure that more women can successfully participate in political life. She is a leader and a role model for the generation of women who follow her.
Sister Butts has worked tirelessly for social justice in Canada. She has done so with a very soft touch and a very strong will. She has showed us that compassion and understanding are the most effective tools for social change.
While their time in this place has been brief, they brought with them new perspectives, vast experience and great commitment to the people of Canada. These contributions will be sadly missed. Given their energy and drive, I know that their life's work will not end here.
I wish them both great happiness and success in future endeavours.
Hon. Lois M. Wilson: Honourable senators, I wish to pay tribute to Senator Maloney. She and I were appointed at about the same time a year ago, almost to the day. We did not know each other that well but we knew of each other because we have the distinction that we both spent our summers in Thunder Bay, north of Lake Superior. That is a fairly small community so that is how we knew about each other.
Marian Maloney has several things to commend her. First of all, she is the right height. When she delivers her speeches she gets up, says what she needs to say, makes her point and sits down. She always has a joke or a bit of humour in her speeches, which I think is very commendable.
(1430)
It is important to say that hardly anyone in Thunder Bay would know who you were talking about if you said "Marian" Maloney. They all know her as "Babe" Maloney. Just last week, the citizens there threw a huge party for her. She was featured on the front page of The Chronicle-Journal , the paper serving Thunder Bay, with an excellent tribute. The people of Thunder Bay know, more than any one, who she is and what she can do.
One of Babe's main contributions has been in the area of volunteerism and her love of people. When I asked her what she would miss most about the Senate, she said, "I will miss people." We will miss her too.
She is also a whiz at raising money, in case any of you did not know that. If you need some money, go to Babe and she will get it for you.
Senator Maloney, we will miss you. We wish you joy in your retirement from this chamber.
Hon. John B. Stewart: Honourable senators, when I was teaching at Saint Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, I had a fair number of students who had been taught by Sister Butts at what we then called the junior college down in Sydney. They talked to me about Sister Butts, about what an inspiring teacher she was and how hard she worked them. They told me many favourable things about her. It was obvious from their performance that someone, I suspect Sister Butts, had had a major influence on those students. The explanation I formed was that Sister Butts knew her subjects and that she was keenly interested in her students.
Thus, at second-hand, for I had never met Sister Butts, I formed the view of her as a truly devout person. As I came to know Sister Butts in her new persona, that of senator, I concluded that my earlier view was correct. I have observed her most especially in the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries where, as Senator Comeau will attest, she demonstrated that she knows the subject. She also showed that she is keenly interested in her people, especially the people in Canada's coastal communities. We and they will miss her.
[Translation]
Hon. Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Honourable senators, I wish to add my voice to those of my colleagues on both sides of the house in paying tribute to the two senators about to leave us, and especially to Senator Butts, whom I have got to know somewhat better than Senator Maloney.
Senator Butts was first a teacher at Marymount Secondary School with the Montreal Catholic School Board. It was not an easy school. Its student body included a large number of immigrants as well as francophones, and there was a lot of friction among the children there. She was an unparalleled educator. Her departure left a great void.
I want to thank her especially for supporting me during debate on Bill S-29. It is too bad that she is leaving before it is referred to a committee. I will keep her informed of developments. Senator Butts understood that this bill was not about euthanasia, but about the protection of care givers and those receiving care. There must be no confusion between the two. If there is to be a debate on euthanasia, someone will have to introduce another bill. People must understand this. Senator Butts understood it from the start.
She contributed very positively to a number of other committees. We appreciated the work she did as deputy chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
I am sure that Senator Butts will not be resting on her laurels. She must continue to be active in her community. I am delighted for her, because Nova Scotia also has specific needs in education and in all other areas as well.
Senator Butts, I thank you for your contribution to the Senate and wish you all the best in the years to come. I am sure you will spend them just as productively as you have the years gone by. I wish you much happiness and success.
[English]
Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, if I seem to have been on my feet in this place quite a bit recently, it is because I have been losing many friends from this fast turnover corner of the Senate.
Sister Peggy, your deep compassion for the people of the Maritimes, and particularly for your fellow Cape Bretoners, has come ringing through, along with your very realistic assessments of what should be done and what cannot be done to help them. As your seat-mate, I have been privileged to share your clear eyes and acerbic comments upon many of the actions in this place and your often sharp dissection of the people involved on both sides of the chamber.
Honourable senators, when my husband, Ross, was here last week, we ran into Sister Peggy in the first alcove to the right in the parliamentary restaurant. Ross and Peggy were immediately involved in a deep discussion of some sport or another. I think it is played on ice, Senator Mahovlich, and it is basically Canadian. In fact, Ross is cheering for some team that is typically Canadian, located in a city just south and east of Niagara Falls, with many of the players born in Canada, but with a goalie who emigrated from the Czech Republic. They are playing in the United States for big bucks. Sister Peggy was telling him about that contest - typically Canadian. I must tell you, Senator Butts, that Ross was fairly quiet about his team until Tuesday night.
Perhaps I should not do this, but I will let the Senate in on a little secret of the Liberal Senate caucus. Sister Peggy's reports to caucus were always the very best - short and sharp, usually just one or two sentences that went straight to the heart of the matter, no fooling around whatsoever. She set an admirable example for the rest of us.
Sister Peggy, you have been a breath of fresh, cold Atlantic air blowing through this place. Your office here has been wide open to all comers. You have dispensed tea and sympathy to all, including my own staff when they needed it. On their behalf, I thank you as well.
To many of us, being here in the Senate is the culmination of a life's work, but to Sister Peggy it has been an interruption. We all will miss you, but I know you are happy to be leaving the Senate interlude behind and to be going home to your real life's work.
I will stay on my feet for a while longer because I want to add something to the tributes to my friend Senator Maloney - perhaps a short reference to her pride, not an overweening personal pride but a self-effacing and justified pride in what she has accomplished in her life.
Marian may seem like a rather small dynamo, but she has a justifiable pride in both her Irish and Saskatchewan heritage, pride in her strong attachment to the Thunder Bay area, pride in her fierce political partisanship, in her effective and efficient community activity, in her belated calling to the Senate, and most particularly, in her family and her beloved husband, Bill, the Honourable Mr. Justice Anthony William Maloney.
(1440)
Senator Marian, you have been a loyal and feisty friend to so many of us in the Liberal Party for a very long time. I thank you for all of you have done, but I have to tell those senators who have not run afoul of your sometimes rather fiery Irish temper that there is one transgression they must never make. Never, ever spell Marian with an "O." A well-known Liberal told me yesterday that he made that mistake once - just once - and he was the admiring recipient of an obviously well-practised litany on the facts of life. The female version Marian, according to our Marian, is always spelled with an "A," and Marion, the male version, is spelled with an "O." Furthermore, if she had been male, her father would have spelled her name with an "O."
As Senators Graham, Kelleher and others have said, Marian, through your fund-raising efforts on behalf of female candidates, you have done more to encourage women to take a full part in the electoral process than anyone else I know. I thank you and congratulate you for that, too. I know that you plan to continue your fund-raising.
For any Liberal senator who has forgotten, Marian has an event planned for next Wednesday, June 23, the First Annual Judy LaMarsh Golf Tournament. Tickets are $200 if you intend to play golf, $100 if you are just there for dinner.
Marian, my friend, here is my cheque.
Hon. Aurélien Gill: Honourable senators, by way of a tribute to Senator Butts, I will set aside the countless accomplishments of a long and illustrious career. Instead, I will relate a personal story about the year she and I studied, travelled and explored the world together, discovering ourselves and the incredible wealth and diversity of our country along the way.
The time was 1977 at the Fort Frontenac Theatre in Kingston. Senator Butts and I were both enrolled in the National Defence College. Our class, the college's thirty-first course, consisted of people from varied backgrounds and numerous countries: military, civilian, diplomatic, Canadian, British, Australian and American. As some of you may know, the purpose of the National Defence College was to train senior military and civilian officials for high-level appointments by having them study several aspects of national and international affairs in relation to Canada's security.
During the intense year we spent together as classmates, Senator Butts and I attended some 600 conferences, travelling to all continents, landing in such far-off and exotic places as Honolulu, Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai, Calcutta, and several places throughout Africa, Europe and the Middle East.
As we were discovering much about the world and ourselves together, strong and lasting personal bonds began to emerge. That is how Peggy, a nun from Cape Breton, Norm Bélanger, a superintendent with the RCMP, and I, as a chief from the Masteuiatsh/Point-Bleue Reserve, grew very close. The three of us, though from completely different backgrounds, became inseparable, even playing a few pranks together, like the time we were at the Berlin Wall, secretly taking pictures. Being with the RCMP, Norm knew a thing or two about this, and had carefully given us some pointers. The communist guards at Checkpoint Charlie never even suspected that we had snapped a few souvenir photos.
Travelling around the world at a dizzying pace often left us wondering where we were, at times even making us a little homesick, but the friendship that had developed between Norm, Peggy and I quickly dispelled any clouds that might have gathered. Besides, since we were three peaceniks surrounded by so many military people, the bonds linking us became even stronger.
The year we studied together is filled with wonderful memories of learning and discovery. I could relate many anecdotes of the great times we had together. For instance, I remember the time we were in Lahr, West Germany, when our supervisor asked for a volunteer to go up as a co-pilot in a CF-104 jet fighter. One of the first to put up her hand, displaying her great courage, was Senator Butts. She threw on a pilot's uniform, jumped into the cockpit, and tore off into the bright blue sky, even taking over the plane's controls for a while. Closer to thee, my Lord! Peggy, indeed, knew how to display her faith and courage.
On another occasion, we were flying to Yugoslavia in a Hercules airplane, caught in a storm, drinking Mouton Cadet. The plane pitched and tossed as the storm raged outside, but we were not worried. We knew Peggy's prayers would pull us through and bring us to a safe landing.
One episode which very much embodied our friendship in my mind took place one evening in a quaint little bar in Lisbon. Norm Bélanger, being somewhat of a poet, musician and showman, sat down at a piano and entertained us with songs by Brel and Aznavour. Together, we sang the night away, delighting in much-needed time off from our exhausting schedule.
Of course, I will never forget the time we were in Calcutta when Peggy introduced us to Mother Teresa.
A year is a very short time, yet more than enough to discover the world's manifold wonders, forge lasting friendships, and fill the heart with splendid memories whose echoes resound vividly to this day. Indeed, the time that Peggy, Norm and I spent at the National Defence College was exceptionally memorable and very rewarding.
The sad note in this story is that Norm died some years later. Afterwards, our lives and careers followed different paths, and we lost sight of each other. However, absence does make the heart grow fonder, and I remember how delighted I was to hear that Peggy had been appointed to the Senate in September of 1997. I kept the press release announcing the good news for a long time, telling myself I absolutely had to get in touch with her. It was only when I was appointed here myself a year later that I had the pleasure of seeing her again.
Honourable senators, I will conclude by saying that whether it was as her classmate at the National Defence College or as a fellow senator, Peggy Butts never failed to impress me through her wonderful qualities and her complete authenticity.
Dear Peggy, I remember how disheartened I was when we took leave of each other at the end of our term at the National Defence College. Today, I once again am faced with a deep feeling of loss. Your wisdom, your heart, your kindness, and most of all your wit, will be sorely missed in this place. In the words of Lord Byron:
Fare thee well. And if forever, still forever, fare thee well.
[Translation]
"Adieu! et quand ce devrait être pour toujours, eh bien! pour toujours adieu!" And in our case, au revoir!
[English]
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I did not realize it was the role of the Speaker to hear confessions, but I will now hear the Honourable Senator Cools.
(1450)
Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I join colleagues from both sides of the house in paying tribute to our retiring Senators Maloney and Butts.
Both of these senators are splendid women. I would add that they are women of pleasant nature and disposition. I would also add that their lives have been remarkably different and yet similar in many respects.
In Toronto, Senator Maloney is called as "Babe," Babe Maloney by those of us who know and love her. Babe is many things, but the one thing she is, is a very kind and generous woman. En passant, Babe and I share many friends and supporters who included the late Judy LaMarsh and the late Margaret Campbell. A few weeks ago, as a matter of fact, Babe and I attended Margaret Campbell's funeral in Toronto. I wish Babe and her husband, Mr. Justice Maloney, a most distinguished jurist, and their families all the best in her retirement.
About my dear friend Sister Butts I wish to say that she is a remarkable and highly educated woman, who, as a nun, served God and the community. Where Senator Maloney is married to an earthly justice, Sister Butts is married to the highest justice of all.
Sister Butts is deeply devoted to her church and God, and deeply devoted to Christian public service and the great sense of the common good. I often call Senator Butts "Mother" as nuns were called by their students. Many of us have long forgotten the enormous influence and power that women used to hold in the churches. Many of us have forgotten the old Mother Superiors. However, when I was a young girl, we did not say "Sister," we said "Mother."
I should like to wish Sister Butts well in her retirement.
I note that these two women were born one day apart. One was born on August 15, 1924 and the other on August 16, 1924.
In closing, Senators Babe and Mother, your love touched us all. Your presence in this chamber enriched us all. We are all privileged and blessed to have had you with us, albeit for a short time. To both of you, and to all of your supporters, I say, Godspeed and good luck to you in your next assignment.
Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, this morning on CBC radio in the introduction to a news broadcast, the reporter uttered a headline, "Nice returns to Ottawa," and I thought spontaneously, "Oh, they are talking about Marian Maloney."
I am one of the newer arrivals in this place. However, I am sure that all honourable senators remember feeling a bit strange when they first arrived here. I felt stranger than most, I imagine, because my career had been so completely different. Everybody was welcoming and wonderful, but Senator Maloney was one of the most welcoming and wonderful members of this chamber.
One cannot meet Marian Maloney without immediately liking and trusting her. I did not get much farther than that. I just thought "This is a wonderful, gentle, nice and lovely human being," and I would turn to her for little words of advice, which she would give in a good humoured and often self-deprecating way.
I was floored to realize that this tiny, perfect human being had also been a tiny, perfect political organizer for decades. She is the kind of person who gives political organizers a good name. She has been my companion on a daily basis on the way to work whenever we have been in town, and has helped me face the day with good humour and good sense. I have been grateful for her warmth and for the privilege of her friendship, however brief.
I now turn to Senator Butts. I learned quickly not to sit beside Sister Butts in any meeting where it was important to preserve senatorial decorum because, as a number of speakers have noted, her vision of Christian charity does not encompass suffering fools gladly. Whoever sits beside Sister Peggy Butts receives a non-stop commentary on the affairs that are going on at the centre of the room, frequently consisting of things like, "That fool's already made that point, why doesn't he sit down?"
I once spent a few short weeks in the clutches of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame. It was not an experience that lasted long. I am sure that they were very glad to see the back of me. However, it was long enough for me to learn that, in that order, the pursuit of excellence is a daily affair. To pursue excellence in all fields is what one is supposed to do with one's life.
Sister Butts is a daily reminder of how important and how valuable that work is. She has brought honour to her order. I am not surprised, because she is a Nova Scotian, and all of us who hail from Nova Scotia, whether originally or permanently, know that Nova Scotians are a special breed.
These are two women who, to a newcomer to this chamber, have exemplified much of what is most precious: integrity, good humour, intelligence and a belief in the search for what is right. I count it a true privilege to have had some time together with them.
Hon. Nicholas W. Taylor: Honourable senators, it is a pleasure for me to join a host of others today to say a few fond goodbyes to Senators Maloney and Butts. They come from this corner. One has been a seat-mate of mine since she came to the Senate; the other is just one seat removed, so we have had many good times together.
We in this corner are a little miffed that Senators Maloney and Butts were moved up to the centre of the house in order to receive their accolades. Really, we should have liked to have had the television cameras shining back into this corner, where all the talent is. However, I can understand, publicity being what it is, that it was necessary to have two such talented individuals in the middle so that they could be seen.
As a seat-mate of Senator Maloney, I have had the benefit of hearing some of her jokes and comments. Most of them are repeatable. It has certainly been a most enjoyable time.
I have known of her reputation for some time. She is legendary, both as a doer and as a loyalist. For some years we in the west not only knew that she was from Saskatchewan, but have always looked upon the residents of the Lakehead as really being westerners. It was a mistake in Confederation in a way that Northern Ontario was not interpreted as being "west" and was somehow added to that highly industrialized, smokey, smog-ridden area called Ontario.
To think of Senator Maloney retiring is no more possible than to think of Gordie Howe retiring. I can imagine her circling the Liberal nets and firing shots over to the opposition for years to come. I hope that she does so, and that I shall meet her often while doing so.
(1500)
Sister Peggy Butts was a great deal of fun. She brought back memories of when I went to a high school run by nuns out west half a century ago. At that time, a good many of our school-teaching nuns were imported from Cape Breton, which is why Sister Butts brought back many fond memories.
Senator Murray broke faith, in a way. I do not know if he was giving away secrets of the confessional, or just secrets, by saying she may have some Tory lineage. That could hurt, senator.
When Sister Butts had only been in the Senate about a week, a notoriously mathematically challenged columnist published a list in The Ottawa Citizen indicating that Senator Butts had been absent 90 per cent of the time. Obviously, he did not know that she was a new appointee, and he had done his calculation based on the entire year. I will not expand on what Sister Butts said when I asked her what she would tell Mother Superior about being missing 90 per cent of the time.
Seeing the joy that Sister Butts got from protecting the Bluenose caribou in the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources almost made it worth being on that committee for the year.
Senator Butts will not be retiring. She will continue to work very hard.
Senators Maloney and Butts are perfect examples for the argument that the retirement age of senators should be changed to 80.
Hon. Landon Pearson: Honourable senators, I feel privileged to have worked with Senators Maloney and Butts. It is a great loss that they must leave us so soon.
Senator Maloney joined the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access shortly after her appointment, and brought her clear-eyed sense of what really matters to our challenging work. I found her a great help as we picked our way through political and emotional minefields, and was always comforted when I looked up and noted her strong presence at the other end of the table. She reminded me then, just as she has reminded us all during her regrettably short time here, what it means to be a true Liberal.
Sister Peggy and I served together on the caucus committee concerning the National Child Agenda, where she always brought us back to real families struggling with real poverty. Sister Peggy's categories have not hardened with the years. Her shrewd and lively eye distinguishes clearly between the true and the not so true. We will miss her in this corner of the chamber. We will miss them both. We have been fortunate to have them with us.
Hon. Dan Hays: Honourable senators, I wish to say a few words of tribute on this both sad and happy day.
Following Senator Wilson's example, I should like to say that Senator Maloney is the right height, but she is also of the right party. That is how I have come to know Marian-with-an-"A" Maloney. I am one of those who made the mistake, perhaps even twice, of spelling her name with an "O," although I will blame someone else for the second occasion.
Senator Maloney has been a marvellous example to all who are interested in politics and public life. I refer to her fierce dedication to the cause of increasing the number of women in the Parliament of Canada. She has promoted this cause in many ways. Her support of the Judy LaMarsh Fund has been mentioned, but that is only part of what she has done to ensure that today we have more women in the Parliament of Canada than we ever had before.
That is a happy circumstance, in part because, for the last year, she has filled a seat in this chamber, but more so because, through her support for the cause of increasing the number of women in Parliament, she has raised the confidence of women to run for office. As well, she has given them the financial means to run and win.
Much has been said about you today, Senator Maloney, but I wish to emphasize that aspect in particular. Thank you very much for that. I wish you continued success in that cause.
Congratulations to you on your good work here, and to your family and friends who are present today.
I have come to know Senator Butts only in her time here. I will never think of Tuktut Nogait National Park without thinking of Senator Butts. Now that I know she was a CF-104 pilot at one time in her career, I can see from where her determination and tenacity come. Of course, it is from her life's work. It has been a privilege to have her example here. I have certainly learned from it, as I know we all have.
Congratulations and best wishes to you, Senator Butts. Thank you for your example, and for all the hard work you have done for Canadians.
Hon. John G. Bryden: Honourable senators, before having met Senator Maloney, I walked into the reading room where she was holding court. When I entered, she said, "Oh, young man," which raised her in my esteem immediately, "Would you please bring me that little plate of crackers and cheese. I have to eat quite frequently, you see, because I have a small problem with diabetes." That was my introduction to this wonderful woman, and that is the informality with which I imagine she has treated people all her life.
Senator Maloney and I had the opportunity to get to know each other on the occasion of the farewell dinner in the foyer. I was seated with Senator Maloney and her son, along with Senator Pépin, Senator Mahovlich, and Senator Poy. The one thing we did not talk about that night was politics. We talked of many other things. It was a most enjoyable time which I will remember for the rest of my life.
I wish you and your family all the best in your retirement.
When I first came to this place, some viewed me as being somewhat combative; indeed, some may even have said partisan - so much so that in his welcoming comments, Senator Lynch-Staunton instructed me that "This is a place of cooperative wisdom and not a partisan one." It is interesting to note that those were the only non-partisan words I heard from him in the next two years.
Nevertheless, with that instruction, I tried to be a model of decorum. However, try as I might, occasionally that little red devil sitting on my shoulder would get the upper hand and make me interrupt, or heckle someone.
Then came Sister Peggy Butts. The little red devil disappeared and I had a Catholic nun sitting on my right. Instead of that little red man, when folks on the other side were waxing eloquent, I would hear Sister Peggy whispering, barely audibly, "That's rubbish. That's not right. They can't get away with that."
When we return to this place in the fall, fellow senators, I do not know whether the little red man will be back but, unfortunately for me, Sister Peggy will not be sitting nearby. I will miss you, Sister Peggy, as will we all.
[Translation]
Hon. Marie-P. Poulin: Honourable senators, today we pay tribute to the Honourable Senator Butts and the Honourable Senator Maloney. They are leaving us much too soon, but both of them leave behind a valuable legacy. They have shown a generous willingness to be available to others, a solid sense of ethics, a deep respect for others and, above all, a passion for Canada.
[English]
(1510)
Honourable senators, since these two women share so many common values, may we conclude that their fine minds and great hearts found their nourishment in the regions from which they come - Senator Maloney, from Northern Ontario, and Senator Butts, from Cape Breton Island.
Let it be known before they leave that both of them are "betting women." When you bet with Senator Butts, you are in for a surprise. She bets "decades" - sometimes, a full rosary! I must admit that I have lost a few, so I have had to recite a few. Senator Maloney, ever faithful to Northern Ontario, bets nickels to remind us all of the importance of the mining industry and the big nickel in Sudbury.
Warmest regards to both of you. It was both an honour and a pleasure to serve with you in the Senate of Canada.
Hon. Joyce Fairbairn: Honourable senators, this afternoon you have heard all of the things that Marian has done with her life. It is an exhausting list to contemplate. In a weak moment at her farewell reception the other night, her spouse, Bill, confided in me that he is in a state of considerable agitation at the thought that she will be home, again, working three phone lines, 24-hours a day, to keep in touch with all her contacts - which she will do because, for Marian Maloney, people are everything.
We have been good friends for a very long time; in fact, as we came into the chamber today, Marian said that it was certainly a longer time than either of us would care to admit. It has been a joy to have her in the Senate, where she has left an impression, as others have said, of kindness and warmth. I must tell you that she also has worked enormously hard. In the end, whenever I think of Marian, I think of laughter.
One thing that I want to say as well today - as has been mentioned strongly by others and, in particular, by our colleague Senator Hays - is that the core of Marian's contribution has been the intensity of her desire to promote change by helping others to get up and get going, to use their abilities in life to the fullest. Much of that determination has been exerted within the Liberal Party of Canada, to its great good fortune.
I do not hesitate to use the words "politics with pride." The political process, after all, is at the heart of our democracy and we should not be timid in acknowledging that fact.
There is nothing timid about Marian. For her, our politics has been a process with a flaw. For so many years, women were almost characterized by being welcomed only on the sidelines, when they did their little "supportive thing" for the benefit of male leadership. That is not an exaggeration. Marian has lived through it, going back decades. She has done more than any single person within our party to encourage and to assist women to aim for the top. She is the mother of the Judy LaMarsh Fund, on which my husband, Mike, has served so proudly with her for so many years. Through that fund, she has enabled women in our party not only to get nominations, but also to actually win. There are 36 of them sitting over in the House of Commons now and a lot of the credit goes to Marian. All of us owe her a huge "thank you" - particularly when we know that, as long as she breathes, she will never stop her efforts.
It is a joy to have you here, Marian. We are sorry to see you go. I know we will miss you here, but we will meet constantly on the trail.
Next, there is Sister Peggy Butts. All I can say is: What a woman! What a disciple! What a leader! How lucky we have been to have had the pleasure and the stimulation of working with her in the Senate. She has brought with her a tremendous background, in terms of the activism of caring for those who need help the most, and she has offered it generously in the work she has done in this place.
Sister Peggy is tough. We have heard that this afternoon. She cloaks it all in a sense of humour. The combination is potent, which I learned early on in one of our first caucuses when she conveyed to me that some of the words I had used in the heat of a political moment might best have been tempered or left unsaid. I immediately concluded that this rebuke was coming from a higher authority and have tried to modify my vocabulary ever since.
Sister Peggy broke new ground in coming to this place. Her all-too-brief engagement here will remain forever a point of history of how much our public life is enhanced by the experience, wisdom and sheer grit - if I may use that word - of citizens from every part of our society, including religious orders.
It has been said that Sister Peggy does not suffer fools gladly. She also does not mess around with mindless rhetoric. She gets to the point and does the job, and truth and honesty had better be at the foundation of any equation, as I learned from some of the work we did together.
I spoke to her two days ago about how sad I was that she could not stay. She told me not to worry. She said, "It doesn't matter where you are." Her motto has always been that, in her life, she has tried to help as much as she can wherever she is.
Sister Peggy is a realist. She knows that, in this life, none of us is perfect. May I say, Sister Peggy, that I think you are very nearly perfect. I hope we will have time to meet again as you continue to pursue your special work with all of those thousands of sisters in your order.
[Translation]
Hon. Léonce Mercier: Honourable senators, obviously, everything has been said. You are both calm and admirable women whose beauty shines through. You are therefore worthy of being held up you up as an example to others.
I wish to present you with a certificate of appreciation from the Prime Minister. In French, it reads as follows:
C'est avec un grand plaisir que je vous offre mes chaleureuses félicitations à l'occasion de votre retraite. Votre service à l'endroit du Canada est très apprécié.
My colleague Senator Pépin will read the message in English and make the presentation.
[English]
Senator Pépin: Honourable senators, I have a certificate that is addressed to the Honourable Sister Peggy Butts, The Senate of Canada. It states:
It is with great pleasure that I offer you my warmest congratulations on the occasion of your retirement. Your exemplary service to Canada is appreciated.
Jean Chrétien Prime Minister of Canada Ottawa 1999
(1520)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable Senator Butts, is it your pleasure to add to the confessions?
Hon. Mary Butts: Honourable senators, I want to thank all of you for your kind words. You must know that this is not the first time I have retired, nor do I expect it to be the last.
I want to especially thank those who have been so helpful and, at times, inspirational to me. I am particularly grateful to our leader, Senator Graham, for his patient leadership, and to Senator Stewart, who was my sponsor and who has been very supportive ever since.
I want to recognize Senator Comeau, the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries, who led that committee through many rough waters; and to Senator Murray, the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, who brought our work through some difficult discussions to what I believe is a worthwhile concluding report.
I want to thank the Speaker for his patience and the clerks and commissionaires for their cheerful assistance. I want to thank my one and only assistant, Claire, for her unfailing devotion to our work.
I also want to thank the pages for their kind attention and to wish them success in their studies, and light on the road to their futures.
I want above all to thank all of you for your support and your friendship. I may be one of those who leave this chamber of sober second thought more sober than when I entered it. I may be one who leaves it less comfortable than I was when I was sworn in. Let me mention a few of the things I have learned in two years in this chamber.
I know that there are not just cold wars and hot wars, there are also wars of words.
I have learned that Prime Minister John Diefenbaker was correct when he said that Robert Stanfield was the only one who believed that Question Period was about asking questions and giving answers.
I learned that it takes a long, long time to get something done, and that one cannot be in a hurry here. I spent almost five months of my two years trying to retain the original boundaries of a park in the North because I learned that caribou mothers and babies needed the place. I will never know whether they did get to enjoy it, but neither will I know whether the stockholders of Falconbridge and Darnley Bay get a smaller return on their stocks because they did not get the land for mining.
What I did get for that effort was a promotion to the rank of Mother Superior from some of my colleagues. I did not say, "Been there, done that," since my promoters had no jurisdiction outside these walls, anyway.
I look back at the time I spent on the question of what one should call a Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod when a woman takes the job, and how important is it to the people we serve whether in the English language the word "sufficient" can ever mean "majority" and how we can ever make the word "compensation" into a synonym for "compassion."
Each evening when I have gone home from here, I have asked myself what I have done for Canadians, especially the marginalized among us. More often than not the answer has been very, very little.
One positive thing, I have decided, is that senators do not have to worry about any abolition movement from the far east of this nation. When I accompany Senator Graham in bringing some finances or cutting ribbons or eating cake, someone there will invariably say:
We never heard of the Senate until you two came here.
Of course, that is a tiny, positive result of having no members of Parliament on the government side. For my part, I quiver when I think of the poor job I made in teaching Canadian government for 26 years. The problem is that the textbook makes it look easy when it describes the process. However, it cannot describe the personalities, the practice, the craft and the conflicts of interest that interfere to slow it up. I intend to do some lectures at my university, and I will be able to tell them how it really works.
My greatest going away present was the final hoop through which I believe I jumped successfully this morning to get the finances for food for a breakfast program for hungry children in up to 30 elementary schools in my region.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Butts: This will be set up in September, I hope, with the help of school officials and parents. This program will be evaluated every six months to show whether it is a worthwhile investment for taxpayers' money.
I will also return to my church office and try to help the needy, one on one and hands on. As I do that, I promise to keep all of you in my prayers and good wishes; that you will make merit-driven decisions and, as we pray daily, serve ever better the cause of peace and justice in our land and throughout the world.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Hon. Marian Maloney: Honourable senators, one year and two days ago, I was installed in this great chamber. I considered it an honour then and I consider it an honour now.
It has been a very memorable year. So many people went above and beyond the call of duty to assist and guide me. I really needed their help. Most new senators do. I have known our Speaker and our leader in the government for many years. They have been so kind to me. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate that.
Before I came here, I knew a lot of people but I did not really know Senator Sharon Carstairs. I had been to a fund-raiser for her many years ago in Manitoba. That was my only real exposure to her.
I must tell you, Sharon, that I leave here with you as my heroine, because I think that you work long and hard and with such great dedication that I will never forget you.
I do believe in family. I think the Senate is a family. I want you to know that the other side has also been very good to me. In fact, Senator Di Nino saved my life. I went to Senator Bosa's funeral and, as I was leaving, I fell. Senator Di Nino came running over to help me and I was so grateful - that is, until yesterday when he told me that he had come running to help because he had heard that Mulroney had fallen. I appreciate it, anyway.
(1530)
I could not leave this place without telling you that I think that every member of the staff is wonderful. I mean that sincerely. There was nothing they would not do or a time when they were not there. I appreciate everything that they have done for me over the past year. They have been wonderful.
I could not leave without expressing my thanks to these wonderful pages. I happen to think that the future of Canada is in good hands with such intelligent, hard-working and wonderful young people.
A long time ago, some one asked me, "Why are you a volunteer?" As you know, my main theme this year has been the Year of the Older Person and volunteerism. I am a volunteer because I have been given so much in my life that I feel I should give something back. I have attempted to do that. I do not really know what the word "retirement" means, so I will probably continue to do what I can to make this country a better place to live, although it is so wonderful right now.
The day of my swearing-in ceremony was a wonderful occasion. My family were all here. I was sworn in with such wonderful people. However, at the reception afterwards when all the pictures were being taken, my three sons were very busy having their picture taken with Frank Mahovlich. They wanted their chance to meet their hockey hero. I finally had my picture taken with Senator Mahovlich's sons, which I hung proudly in my office.
Senator Butts is so perfect. I must confess that I have supported women and will continue to support women. However, I supported Senator Hays when he ran for president of the party against a woman. That is my confession for the day, Sister Butts.
I did not know until today how much Senator Butts and I have in common. I have told a few senators from Quebec that they could not leave because if they did, I would get the Montreal Canadiens. Now I understand that Senator Butts shares my enthusiasm for that hockey team. Whenever we were out and there was a hockey game on, I was the one who had to get the scores and know what was going on. When Montreal was out of the play-offs, I was out of the play-offs. Let me tell you that that was not easy, living in Toronto.
My Senate life has been wonderful. I have learned so much from all of you. You have been all very kind. When I travelled across the country with Senator Forrestall and his committee, everyone looked after me as if I were their little girl and not the mother. I appreciate that so much.
Senator Forrestall: You were a joy to have with us.
Senator Maloney: Thank you.
Honourable senators, it was a great honour to serve with Senator Pearson on her committee. I know that her children's agenda will always be of interest to me. If I can be of any help, I am sure you know that I will be there.
I will not forget this place. I have enjoyed working with every one of you. I thank all of you for being so kind. Before I go, I must tell you that I am completely grateful to my own staff, to Anna and Angie and now Anthony. I could not have managed without them. They kept me on the straight and narrow. Anything that I did right was done right because they were there.
There is something I told every one when I came, and I have repeated it several times, is that -
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Acting Speaker): Honourable senator Maloney, I regret that I must interrupt you, but I must call the deferred vote.
[Later]
Senator Maloney: Honourable senators, I have only one more thing to express, and that is my thanks. When I entered this chamber, I told everyone that it was the fifth happiest day of my life. I made a mistake - it was the sixth. There was the day I was married, the days my three sons were born, the day that my son Michael gave me my first beautiful daughter-in-law, Lisa, and this is number six.
Honourable senators, I want to thank the Lord for all he has done for me and my family, and for all of my friends and neighbours. I believe that no one has been more blessed than I.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I should like to apologize to Senators Butts and Maloney for interrupting Senator Maloney and the flow of the tributes. I hope they will understand that there are certain basic rules of this place that must be followed. It was only for that reason that I stood up, and with great discomfort, at that.
I am most appreciative of the work that the two senators have done. I knew that by interrupting it would upset them both. That was not the intention. It is just that certain rules must be followed, otherwise the rule book might as well be thrown out. It was in that spirit that I interrupted. It was not meant to be personal whatsoever. I apologize for any distress it may have caused both honourable senators.
Business of the Senate
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, according to a previous order, we have a recorded division at 3:45 p.m. preceded by a 15-minute bell. I am in your hands as to whether we proceed with the bell right now or, if there is unanimous consent, we allow Senator Maloney to finish her statement and then proceed to the vote with a 15-minute bell.
Is there unanimous consent for Senator Maloney to finish her statement?
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, on a point of order, I think this is highly irregular. There is a house order for a vote at 3:45. Arrangements have been made on both sides to honour that schedule. I find it highly irregular and improper that we should change the rules at the last minute.
With all due respect to the outgoing senator, it is highly improper and irregular, and we object.
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, we will proceed, then, to the recorded vote, to respect the previous order. Even though we are five minutes late, I hope we have consent for a 15-minute bell, so that we can keep to our schedule as closely as possible.
Do I have the agreement of all honourable senators?
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, the Acting Speaker cannot change the rules like that. The order was that the bell would ring at 3:30 p.m. and the vote would be at 3:45 p.m. He has violated the house order. I do not think he can say at the last minute, "Let us have leave to do it at another time." This is an important vote for both sides, and we have arranged our schedules accordingly.
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with the greatest of respect to Senator Lynch-Staunton, there are senators who are waiting to hear the bells ring. They know that they have 15 minutes to get here, because it was to be a 15-minute bell.
Like Senator Lynch-Staunton, I think we should have started the bells at 3:30 p.m. However, having not started at 3:30 p.m., I think that we must now let the bells ring for 15 minutes.
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: We will proceed, then, to the recorded division deferred to 3:45 p.m. We will have a 15-minute bell, after which the vote will take place.
Call in the senators.
(1550)
Public Sector Pension Investment Board Bill
Third Reading-Motion in Amendment Adopted
On the Order:
On the motion of the Honourable Senator Kirby, seconded by the Honourable Senator Butts, for the third reading of Bill C-78, to establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada Post Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act;
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Stratton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, that the bill be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce so that the committee may monitor discussions between Treasury Board and affected unions over matters contained in the letter of the President of the Treasury Board referred to in the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce on Bill C-78; and
That the committee report back to the Senate no later than September 7, 1999.
Motion in amendment adopted on the following division:
YEAS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS
| Andreychuk Angus Atkins Balfour Beaudoin Berntson Bolduc Buchanan Cochrane Cohen Comeau DeWare Di Nino Doody Eyton Forrestall Ghitter Grimard Gustafson Johnson Kelleher Keon Kinsella Lavoie-Roux Lawson LeBreton Lynch-Staunton Meighen Murray Nolin Oliver Pitfield Rivest Robertson Roche Rossiter Simard Spivak St. Germain Stratton Tkachuk-41
|
NAYS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS
| Adams Austin Bryden Butts Carstairs Chalifoux Cook Corbin De Bané Fairbairn Ferretti Barth Fitzpatrick Fraser Gauthier Gill Graham Hays Hervieux-Payette Joyal Kirby Kroft Lewis Losier-Cool Mahovlich Maloney Mercier Milne Molgat Moore Pearson Pépin Poulin Robichaud (L'Acadie-Acadia) Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent ) Rompkey Ruck Stewart Taylor-38
|
ABSTENTIONS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS
| Prud'homme Wilson-2
|
(1600)
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
National Defence
Proposal to Reduce Reserves
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, my reason for rising today is to review what has been recently released by Canadian Press under the provisions of the Access to Information Act concerning militia units in Canada.
We have been very vocal for some time about what the present government is doing with respect to the militia. We have complained that it is apparent that it is being cut to the bone. At a time when we cannot even fulfil our 1994 white paper commitments, when we are facing Y2K problems, and at a time in which we are facing other serious difficulties, we now have the identification of 36 of our militia units as being non-viable.
The document mentioned in the CP wire story released yesterday, entitled "Army gives 36 Units `non-viable' description," makes a number of things very clear. First, this is a financially driven process to restructure the chaos in which the Canadian Armed Forces finds itself.
Second, the Canadian Armed Forces need a major influx of cash. Estimates by the Conference of Defence Associations suggest a need in the neighbourhood of $1 billion in operations and maintenance budgets to cover a forces-wide shortfall, and $1 billion in capital expenditure if we are to avoid a complete rust-out.
In the Land Force Central Area Restructure Working Group Minutes of Meeting May 19, 1998, it states:
The process is once again mired in bureaucracy. On 27 May Reserve Adviser Staff will be briefing Mr. Genco -
He is a political assistant to the minister.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, could we have some order, please, so that we may hear the honourable senator? If there have to be conversations, I ask honourable senators to please conduct them outside the chamber.
Senator Forrestall: It continues:
...and affected MPs on our proposal for the Simcoe/Brantford and Kitchener/Cambridge rationalization.
This is a clear indication that the minister and his political advisor, a provincial candidate in the recent election in Ontario, are in this mess up to their necks. A number of Liberal MPs in Ontario are there along with them. I have not been invited to any meetings, nor have other affected senators, although we very specifically asked for briefings here on the floor of this chamber a couple of months ago.
The document entitled "Comments-38 Brigade Group Unit Evaluations," dated December 20, 1997, states in the third paragraph:
The initial process and the 1997-1998 Interim Evaluation is the most important of the three evaluations. This is the one that will identify units at risk of being either zero-manned, re-rolled or tactically grouped due to their being "Non viable."
Honourable senators, I now turn to the main document.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable Senator Forrestall, I regret to interrupt you, but your allotted three-minute speaking period on statements has expired.
Are you requesting leave?
Senator Forrestall: Yes, Your Honour.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is leave granted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Forrestall: Thank you, honourable senators.
Suffice it to say that this nation has relied on its militia throughout its history to support its government objectives when the use of military has been required. They are to be reduced to non-viability, to be rolled in together and to be decimated. We can no longer hope, in any fashion that I can see, to raise a third or even fourth battle group, something that is required if we are to honestly meet the commitments we have given the forces that serve Canada today.
It is wrong. It is unjust. It is hasty. It must be reviewed.
If honourable senators care to take the time to go through this document, they will see that it is almost a royal cleansing when one looks at the units being downgraded.
China
World Bank-Western Poverty Reduction Project-Violation of Fourth Geneva Convention
Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, the executive directors of the World Bank are scheduled to vote on Thursday, June 24, on funding a population transfer scheme that would move nearly 60,000 Chinese settlers up on to the Tibetan plateau and into the Mongolian Autonomous Prefecture.
The Western Poverty Reduction Project, as it is known, would move mainly poor Chinese farmers into an arid area that has been productively used by Tibetan and Mongolian herders for hundreds of years. The World Bank project would be the first time an international financial organization has funded Chinese transmigration of peoples into the Tibetan plateau.
His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, has identified the Chinese influx as the greatest threat to the survival of the Tibetans as a distinct people and culture. The Tibetan government in exile has issued a public statement calling for the World Bank to reconsider its involvement in the project.
Also, the International Committee of Lawyers for Tibet has also expressed its concern and has indicated that the mass transfer of Chinese people into Tibet violates the fourth Geneva Convention.
I understand that the Honourable Paul Martin will be attending these meetings. I appeal to him to reconsider this project. We know in our own country that displacing people for whatever motives into other populations is rarely successful. For proof, we need only look to our own projects in Newfoundland and the aboriginal peoples in the North, projects that did not succeed. We can also look to the former Soviet Union and the mass migrations that occurred there.
I appeal to the honourable minister and the government to reconsider their position when it comes time to vote on June 24.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Dimensions of Social Cohesion and Globalization
Report of Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee on Study Tabled
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the twenty-second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. It is the final report on the special study on social cohesion.
On motion of Senator Murray, pursuant to rule 97(3), report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.
(1610)
Present State and Future of Agriculture
Agriculture and Forestry Committee Authorized to Extend Date of Final Report
Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(f) I move:
That notwithstanding the rule of the Senate adopted on November 24, 1998, to examine matters relating to the present state and future of agriculture in Canada, the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry be empowered to present its final report no later than October 28, 1999.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.
QUESTION PERIOD
Justice
Extradition Act-Alleged Contributions to Bill to Amend by Chief Prosecutor of International Court-Government Position
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question to the Leader of the Government returns to the same subject that I raised earlier this week. That is, has the minister been able to determine whether Madam Justice Louise Arbour was at all involved in either the consultation, the preparation or the drafting of Bill C-40?
I put this down as a written question three weeks ago, but I raise it orally because Madam Justice Arbour has been named to the Supreme Court and is to be sworn in on September 15. I hope, for her sake, that the air can be cleared on this matter.
Evidence was given before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to the effect that Justice Arbour supported the bill. The evidence given here suggests, by the dates - I will not go into the details - that perhaps she might have had knowledge of the bill before it was tabled and ordered printed in the House of Commons.
I hope that that conclusion is wrong. I should like to know if the Leader of the Government could confirm that that interpretation is wrong. If not, does that mean that she was involved in the process that led to the bill being given first reading?
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, that interpretation is wrong, and my honourable friend will receive later this day a delayed answer to that effect.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I thank you.
Agriculture
Farm Crisis in Prairie Provinces-Possibility of Government Support
Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson: Honourable senators, I have a question for the Leader of the Government on the very serious crisis situation that agriculture is facing.
I have had discussions with many senators on both sides of the house about this crisis situation. The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has heard many witnesses through the past winter and spring who indicate that a very serious crisis problem is at hand, especially for grain farmers.
The most serious problem is the fact that commodity prices are so low, having dropped 41 per cent in two and a half years. What other industry could survive a 41 per cent drop in their income?
The Europeans are subsidizing their industry to the tune of 45 per cent of the European farm income. The United States is subsidizing its farmers to the extent of 35 per cent of the American farm income. Canadian farmers are quite below 15 per cent and they cannot survive.
My question to the Leader of the Government is as follows: Will the government stand by the farmers? I realize that the minister has carried this issue to the Prime Minister and to cabinet several times, and I appreciate that. However, as the Senate and the government proceed to recess for the summer, the government must make a decision. Will the Government of Canada stand with the farmers as other countries have supported their farmers, or will they not?
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the answer would be very much in the affirmative.
On June 11, 1999, the Minister of Agriculture visited affected areas in both Saskatchewan and Manitoba. He met with producers and local leaders to obtain a firsthand understanding of the situation. During the visit, he made a commitment to work with his provincial colleagues and the agricultural industry in order to be innovative and flexible with the programs in place to assist farmers through this very unfortunate and stressful time.
Senator Gustafson: Honourable senators, the reference of the visit of the minister to Saskatchewan and Manitoba refers to the water problem. That only compounds the greater problem of low commodity prices. That situation is very serious.
I have spoken to farmers and had daily phone calls from both Manitoba and Saskatchewan farmers who indicate that less than 5 per cent of the crop will be seeded. Even farmers near Regina, Saskatchewan, that far west, they have done little seeding as of today.
That situation compounds the problem. I hope it does not distract from the more serious problem of low commodity prices.
The government must decide whether it wishes to have a small, farm-based industry or whether large farms and monopolies will take over farming in Canada.
I ask again, will the minister, at the close of the Senate today, convey to his cabinet colleagues as they meet through the summer the serious need for a government commitment to stand by the farmers? We need cash input and a long-term program that will work for agriculture.
Senator Graham: Honourable senators, that is a commitment which I shall give to Senator Gustafson. Since his visit, the Federal Minister of Agriculture has spoken to the Ministers of Agriculture in both Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Together, they have made a commitment that no stone will be left unturned in their efforts to assist the farmers of that stricken area.
Shortcomings in Agriculture Income Disaster Assistance Program-Request for Changes
Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I wish to follow up on the government's position. I appreciate that the Leader of the Government has taken this matter seriously, however, somehow or other, his efforts have not had an impact on the government.
There continues to be statements from the government that the AIDA program is working elsewhere, but not Manitoba and Saskatchewan. What is the problem? One size does not fit all. There should be in this country an ability to treat all farmers equally and to allow them to work within their potential.
I ask again, could this program be revised so that it takes into account the income, cash and expenditures of farmers? It seems to take into account other factors. Therefore, those who need it most are not receiving help.
(1620)
Perhaps three-year averaging is necessary elsewhere in Canada, and I would not want to disrupt the program for them. However, it is simply not working in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate not ask the government to review the AIDA program, as requested by the premiers of both Manitoba and Saskatchewan? The problem is compounded, of course, by the flooding.
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, Minister Vanclief and the Saskatchewan Minister of Agriculture have announced changes to crop insurance to extend the seeding deadlines. This will make it easier for farmers to switch their insurance coverage to early maturing crops.
With respect to the possibility of revisiting the AIDA program, which provides $1.5 billion in aid to western farmers and was announced last December, I shall again bring to the attention of my colleagues and the Prime Minister, at the first opportunity, the very serious representations by both Senator Andreychuk and Senator Gustafson.
Senator Andreychuk: Honourable senators, again I hear that we will revisit the AIDA program at a later date. Farmers are telling me that they cannot afford to pay accountants to fill out the forms required for that program. I know that the agriculture minister has said that it is not a great expense. However, every $100 counts. It may not count for that much with larger farmers, but for small farmers that is a lot of money. They need help today or they will not be here in the fall.
I will be talking about an entirely different problem in Saskatchewan if the package is not changed immediately. I do not know how to get that message across to the minister. I appeal to him to bring that message to the government again.
Senator Graham: Honourable senators, I certainly undertake to do that. As Senator Andreychuk would know, in addition to the AIDA program, producers are being assisted through NISA. The Minister of Agriculture has instructed the administrators of NISA to expedite access to those funds.
Once again, I shall be meeting with my honourable colleague the Minister of Agriculture very soon. As a matter of fact, I shall attempt to get in touch with him by telephone as soon as we adjourn today.
National Defence
Proposal to Reduce Reserves- Future of Certain Regiments-Government Position
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, the 1st Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery and the 35th Service Battalion have been deemed non-viable. Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate prepared to take up the cudgel to ensure that they are not amalgamated, rerolled, or reduced to nil strength? Also, what does the future hold for the Halifax Rifles?
Second, can we expect an announcement from the government before the end of June about the shipborne helicopter replacement program, now that both Sikorsky and Cormorant have announced that they are preparing their bids?
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, they are not the only ones preparing bids, as I understand it. I am not privy to any inside information, but I know that the minister is working diligently with respect to this proposal. With regard to any companies that may be seeking contracts, I have available to me only what Senator Forrestall and others read and hear in the media.
I am sure there are many interested bidders with respect to the Reserves, the Halifax Rifles and others. I shall again bring that matter to the attention of the Minister of National Defence and other colleagues who may be involved.
Foreign Affairs
Conflict in Yugoslavia-Plans for Post-Conflict Reconstruction-Government Position
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) : Honourable senators, could the Leader of the Government in the Senate share with the Senate the policy of the government, and particularly how it will unfold during the next couple of months when we are not in session, with respect to reconstruction in Kosovo and Yugoslavia?
Yesterday, Minister Marleau announced an additional contribution by Canada to that area. If I understood her correctly, that contribution will be made to the UN High Commission for Refugees.
Will the assistance that the Canadian government is intending to give be restricted to contributing through agencies such as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, or will there be state-to-state contributions from Canada to Kosovo, or Canada to Yugoslavia?
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, that matter is being closely considered at this time. Rebuilding Kosovo, economically and politically, will require a combined international effort. A comprehensive assessment by the international community of how much this will cost and what form it should take has only just begun.
Justice
International War Crimes- Efforts to Pursue Fugitives-Government Position
Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, I have a supplementary question on the situation in Kosovo. Slobodan Milosevic has been declared a war criminal, a declaration with which I completely agree, and the Government of Canada was very supportive of this action.
What are we doing as a government to pursue others in leadership who are committing atrocities against their people?
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the International War Crimes Tribunal is, of course, on the front line of such investigations. Canada is totally supportive of the role being played and the work that has been done by the tribunal thus far.
Senator St. Germain: Honourable senators, are we putting pressure on the UN International War Crimes Tribunal to pursue others who are committing atrocities against their own people, as is Milosevic, or have we decided to single out only this individual and ignore the rest?
This is reminiscent of the Hutus and the Tutsis in Rwanda, and various other situations in the past.
Will we take a real leadership role in this, or will we back off after declaring Milosevic a war criminal and allow the others to carry on?
Senator Graham: Honourable senators, the Honourable Senator St. Germain can rely on Canada to take a leadership role in attempting to bring all of these alleged war criminals to justice.
Representations on Behalf of Stanley Faulder in Texas
Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, on another matter, I question why we are sending delegations to Texas on behalf of Mr. Faulder who is on death row there. I see this as interference in their legal process.
The due process of Texas law has been followed. I am sure that we recognize the legal process in the state of Texas and in the U.S. as a whole as a bona fide system that operates fairly.
It does not seem rational that, at the same time as we are sending delegations to Texas to interfere in their legal process, we were prepared to risk killing innocent people in Serbia with bombing raids.
(1630)
I come from a riding where 13 children were killed. Understand this, honourable senators: Clifford Robert Olson killed 13 young children. If I were to explain in this place how he did it, it would horrify you. I do not believe we need to go through that again. He sits in prison, from where he wrote nasty little letters to me when I was in the other place about my supporting capital punishment. That is why I bring this matter up to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It seems that the victims and their families are totally ignored in our system. It seems as well that, all of a sudden, there are those who ride white horses to try to save people in situations where they are convicted of murder time after time, yet often the victims and the victims' families do not receive half the attention. It is impossible for me to rationalize this.
Could the minister explain why these delegations are going to Texas?
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, a lot of the delegations are unofficial. Representations have been made with respect to the fact that international law and custom was breached, in the sense that Canada was not notified at the time of the alleged crime.
Senator St. Germain: They did not know his family.
Senator Graham: I understand the concerns and the views that have been expressed by Senator St. Germain. I certainly shall bring his representations to the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and others who might be responsible in this area.
Representations of Behalf of Stanley Faulder- Request for Costs
Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, I have a supplementary question. At the same time, could the minister bring to the attention of this chamber the cost that Canadian taxpayers have borne in this issue, in trying to represent Mr. Faulder?
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am sure that Senator Di Nino would not expect me to have such a figure at hand. I shall be happy to look into the matter and bring forward an answer, if there is one available.
Customs and Revenue
Cape Breton as Suggested Location of New Agency- Government Position
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, a news release from the Prime Minister's office a couple of days ago announced the appointment of the commissioner of the new Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. There remains an important decision to make, namely, the location of the headquarters of that new agency.
As I said the other day - and as the Leader of the Government knows - this is a matter of political will, as it was in the 1970s, when a Liberal government located the Department of Veterans Affairs in Charlottetown; and as it was in the 1990s, when the Mulroney government located the GST centre near Summerside. Does the political will exist to locate the headquarters of this agency in Cape Breton?
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am not aware that such a move would be contemplated, but it would not be for the lack of representations made here by Senator Murray and me, with my appropriate colleagues who would be responsible for such an action. At the same time, however, I would not want to raise false hopes.
I am one who is very much in favour of decentralization. I recall very well the positive effects that that decentralization has had on certain regions of the country. I recall the movement of Veterans Affairs Canada to Charlottetown, the GST centre to Summerside, and the Philatelic Centre to Antigonish. The centre was first moved there by the Trudeau government, cancelled by the Clark government - of which my honourable friend Senator Murray was a member - and then restored again by the Trudeau government in its reincarnation. I recognize the value of such decentralization.
While I am not aware that such a move is being contemplated, I will continue to make, representations in this respect.
Senator Murray: Honourable senators, my friend expresses some doubt as to what may or may not be under contemplation by the government. Is it not a fact that a decision must be made as to the headquarters of this new agency? That decision must be made pursuant to a clause in the bill that was given Royal Assent. That clause provides that the headquarters shall be located at a location in Canada to be determined by the Governor in Council.
Has that decision been made? If not, when does my friend expect it to be made?
Senator Graham: Honourable senators, I am not aware in a definitive way that the final decision has been made in that respect. I could anticipate the pressures to keep the agency where it is because most of the agency's employees are residents in the Ottawa area. However, my honourable friend is quite correct in saying that the act provides that the agency could be located at any place in Canada. I shall, again, raise the question with my colleagues.
Senator Murray: Honourable senators, would it be fair to say that the decision is still before the government?
Senator Graham: Honourable senators, I would have to make further inquiries to determine definitively whether that is so. I must say that I have not yet been encouraged by the representations that I have been made, but I shall continue to do so.
Hon. Edward M. Lawson: Honourable senators, since this is a kind of open-bidding process, would it be appropriate to locate it in British Columbia? The minister comes from that province. However, if that is considered to be too political and it is not possible to do so, then I would yield and add my support regarding a move to Cape Breton.
Senator Graham: I thank the honourable senator for his support.
Delayed Answers to Oral Questions
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have a number of delayed answers, and I believe this will bring them to a close.
I have a response to a question raised in the Senate on May 6, 1999, by the Honourable Senator Terry Stratton, regarding income tax, basic personal exemption, influence on number of low-income earners on the tax role; a response to a question raised in the Senate on May 11, 1999, by the Honourable Senator Terry Stratton, regarding income tax, influence of inflation on changes; and responses to questions raised in the Senate on May 13, 1999, by the Honourable Senator Noël A. Kinsella and by the Honourable Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, regarding the comments by Minister Dion, request for clarification. I have a response to a question raised in the Senate on June 10, 1999, by the Honourable Senator Brenda M. Robertson, regarding the 1999 La Francophonie Summit in Moncton, New Brunswick, responsibility for security. I have responses to questions raised in the Senate on June 10, 1999, by the Honourable Senator Noël A. Kinsella, by the Honourable Senator Lowell Murray and by the Honourable Senator John Lynch-Staunton, regarding the agreement between Canada and the United States on periodicals. I have a response to a question raised in the Senate on June 14, 1999, by the Honourable Senator J. Michael Forrestall, regarding the Kosovo peacekeeping force, state of Leopard tanks.
National Revenue
Income Tax-Basic Personal Exemption-Influence on Number of Low-Income Earners on Tax Roll-Government Position
(Response to question raised by Hon. Terry Stratton on May 6, 1999)
It is essentially true that the majority of those 600,000 taxpayers would not have been taxable if the exemptions had been fully indexed since 1993. However, the large deficit and growing debt which the government inherited when it took office meant that full indexation of the tax system was not affordable at that time.
Despite this, each of the government's budgets has provided targeted tax relief to achieve key social and economic objectives. Targeted support was directed to education, low-income families with children, charities and Canadians with disabilities.
With the elimination of the deficit in 1997-98 the government began to provide broad-based tax relief not paid for with borrowed money - for the first time since 1965.
The government's objective is to provide substantial tax relief in the fairest way possible.
Together, the two budgets will provide tax relief totalling $3.9 billion in 1999-2000, $6 billion in 2000-2001 and $6.6 billion in 2001-2002, totalling $16.5 billion over three years.
The government will continue to provide additional tax relief in each future budget in line with available resources.
Income Tax-Influence of Inflation on Changes in Brackets
(Response to question raised by Hon. Terry Stratton on May 11, 1999)
It is true that the threshold at which the 26 per cent tax rate starts to apply would have risen to about $32,650 if the bracket had been fully indexed since 1993.
It is also true that Canadians with taxable incomes at $32,650 are paying $243 more in federal tax because the $29,590 tax threshold has not been indexed since 1993.
However, the large deficit and growing debt which the government inherited when it took office, meant that full indexation was not affordable at that time.
The government did not - and still does not - have the luxury of moving toward a fully indexed tax system.
With the elimination of the deficit in 1997-98 the government began to provide broad-based tax relief not paid for with borrowed money - for the first time since 1965.
Together, the 1998 and 1999 budgets will provide tax relief totalling $3.9 billion in 1999-2000, $6 billion in 2000-2001 and $6.6 billion in 2001-2002, totalling $16.5 billion over three years.
The government's objective is to provide substantial tax relief in the fairest way possible.
Foreign Affairs
Organization of Meeting Between President of Mexico and Premier of Quebec-Government Position
Intergovernmental Affairs
Comments by Minister Dion-Request for Clarification
(Response to questions raised by Hon. Noël A. Kinsella and Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin on May 13, 1999)
Our federation is one that is flexible and this government believes in relations with the provinces that are founded on respect and collaboration. In keeping with that spirit, we concluded, last February, an agreement on the social union and another federal-provincial-territorial agreement on health. Although we are disappointed that the government of Quebec chose not to participate in the first agreement, the federal government has, since 1993, made significant progress in addressing the concerns of Quebecers, including the following:
- passing a resolution in Parliament recognizing the specificity of Quebec;
- passing a law that gives Quebec a veto over all constitutional amendments;
- amending the constitution to end denominational schools and create linguistic school boards in Quebec;
- signing a labour market training agreement;
- withdrawing from forestry and mining;
- withdrawing from the area of recreation.
These changes prove that this government has set the stage for increased and more effective cooperation with Quebec and the other provinces in the future.
Solicitor General
1999 La Francophonie Summit in Moncton, New Brunswick-Responsibility for Security
(Response to question raised by Hon. Brenda M. Robertson on June 10, 1999)
The RCMP will be in complete control of all security issues regarding the Francophonie Summit. The RCMP is the police force of jurisdiction in Moncton, New Brunswick, and more than 1500 RCMP members will be deployed from the Atlantic and Central Regions of the RCMP to assist in providing security for the summit.
With respect to the carrying of firearms by Foreign Security Officers, the RCMP maintains its position that these individuals will not be allowed to carry firearms while in Canada, and that their main role will be that of providing liaison assistance to Canada's Security Officers. However, in accordance with section 7(1)(c) and (d) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act:
"7.(1) The Commissioner may
...
c) where the Commissioner is requested by any department of the Government of Canada or considers it necessary or in the public interest, appoint for a period not exceeding twelve months at any one time special constables supernumerary to the strength of the Force for the purpose of maintaining law and order; and
d) designate any member, any supernumerary special constable appointed under this subsection or any temporary employee employed under subsection 10(2) as a peace officer."
in some instances, negotiations could take place. Each request will be reviewed in accordance with existing policies under the Act.
At no time will any of the Foreign Security Officers be given authority in the deployment of security measures to ensure the security of the Heads of State and delegations attending the summit.
International Trade
Agreement Between Canada and the United States on Periodicals-Departmental Responsibility for Oversight
(Response to questions raised by Hon. Noël A. Kinsella, Hon. Lowell Murray and Hon. John Lynch-Staunton on June 10, 1999)
There will be no transfer of staff between the two departments as a result of the transfer of responsibility. Current staff at the Department of Canadian Heritage will perform the investment reviews, and, if required, additional staff will be hired by the Department.
Under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, the Government has the authority to transfer or divide duties under federal acts. The authority to review and approve foreign investments in the cultural sector has been transferred to the Minister of Canadian Heritage by way of an Order-in-Council.
The cultural sector, or more precisely business activities relating to Canada's cultural heritage or national identity (as provided for in subsection 15(a ) of the Investment Canada Act), has been defined in the Investment Canada Regulations as:
1. Publications, distribution or sale of books, magazines, periodicals or newspapers in print or machine readable form;
2. Production, distribution, sale or exhibition of film or video products;
3. Production, distribution, sale or exhibition of audio or video music recordings.
This definition continues to apply.
It is true that some businesses have activities that relate to both cultural and non-cultural activities. If any part of a business is cultural in nature, then it will be treated as a cultural business for the purposes of subsection 15 (a) of the Investment Canada Act.
The regulations under the Investment Canada Act will not be changed. The agreement with the US provides that Canada will use policy guidelines to specify the tests to be used in the review of any new investments in the magazine industry. Similar policies already exist in the areas of books and films.
National Defence
Kosovo Peacekeeping Force- State of Leopard Tanks-Government Position
(Response to question raised by Hon. J. Michael Forrestall on June 14, 1999)
Deployment of Leopard Tanks to the Balkans
As part of its most recent commitment to the NATO-led peace implementation force in Kosovo, Canada will be sending the following Leopard vehicles:
4 main battle tanks (two fitted with mine ploughs and two with mine rollers) plus one spare;
2 armoured engineer vehicles;
one armoured bridge-laying vehicle; and,
one armoured recovery vehicle.
In anticipation of the deployment to Kosovo, new armour-piercing ammunition is being procured. The new ammunition has the capability to perforate both the hull and the turret of the latest generation of Armoured Fighting Vehicles likely to be encountered.
Additional armour modules are also being added to the tanks, which will provide protection from perforation by medium (20 to 30mm) calibre cannons firing the most modern ammunition, and from tanks comparable to the Leopard C1. This armour will also provide protection from the types of hand-held anti-armour weapons currently in service in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
The Leopard C1 is equipped with suspension enhancements to allow better mobility in rough terrain. The Leopard 1 has been used in mountainous regions of FRY, Norway and Greece. Denmark has employed Leopard 1 tanks in Bosnia since 1994.
The Leopard vehicles fitted with mine ploughs and mine rollers could be used to breach minefields.
It is expected that Canada's armoured vehicles will be used for force protection and mine clearance tasks within the Canadian Battle Group.
Answer to Order Paper Question Tabled
Extradition Policy- Contributions to Bill to Amend by Individuals and Organizations Outside Federal Government
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government), tabled the answer to question No. 148 on the Order Paper-by Senator Lynch-Staunton.
The Senate
Tributes to Departing Pages
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before I call the Orders of the Day, I must report to you a rather unpleasant little duty, namely, to report on the pages who will be leaving us because this is the end of the session. We have a high regard for our pages, however, in the normal course of event, there must be a change and new pages must replace those who are leaving us.
On behalf of all honourable senators, I wish to thank those who have been with us and call them forward.
[Translation]
Jeannine Ritchot is a Métis from La Salle, Manitoba. She has just completed an Honours B.A. in history. She is leaving us to work in Minister Boudria's office. She hopes one day to return to Manitoba to work with Métis students in the field of education.
Mylène Ménard, from Nova Scotia, is a communications student at the University of Ottawa. She is leaving our Senate family to continue her education, taking with her fond memories of her valuable experiences here and the many people she met.
Denis Poirier comes from Burlington, Ontario. Next September, he will be in his final year of political science and public administration at the University of Ottawa. Denis also received a grant from the Canada-France Parliamentary Association that will take him to France this summer.
[English]
(1640)
Andrew Turner has recently completed his studies at Carleton University, having received a Bachelor of Arts with highest honours in history and a minor in French. In September, he will begin his studies for a master's degree at Carleton's Norman Paterson Institute for International Affairs. Andrew hopes to spend his career in public service of one form or another. I might point out that he is from the province of Newfoundland.
Sarah Wells is from Chester, Nova Scotia. Sarah has just completed her criminology degree with a concentration in women's studies. After leaving the Senate, she is looking forward to travelling, more studying, and enjoying life.
Vicky Wong, our current deputy chief page, is leaving the program after three years. She came to Ottawa from Riverview, New Brunswick, and now studies at the University of Ottawa. Vicky has a major in health and sports studies.
[Translation]
Michel Thériault, our chief senior page, is from Bouctouche, in New Brunswick, and is ending his third and final year with the page program. He also just completed a B.A. in political science and public administration at the University of Ottawa. After one year of well-deserved rest, Michel expects to start studying toward a masters degree in administration, and then get a law degree.
Dear pages, on behalf of all honourable senators, I thank you for your good services. I hope that your time with us will have been productive and will have helped you significantly improve your knowledge of the parliamentary system, and that you will leave us as good ambassadors for the Senate.
[English]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Criminal Code
Bill to Amend-Third Reading
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government) moved the third reading of Bill C-82, to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving and related matters).
She said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-82. This piece of legislation, in and of itself, is not the solution to impaired driving. It is simply one part of a broadly based program so that Canadians of all ages and all walks of life can understand that impaired driving is a crime. It is not a social condition; it is not a disease, although disease can often be the underlying cause of their state of impairment. It is, honourable senators, a crime; a crime that is, like all crimes in our society, unacceptable.
The increase of minimum fines, the increase in length of driving prohibition and an increase in the minimum penalties for incarceration are all examples of setting the serious tone that impaired driving is a crime.
No one who has not suffered, like Senator Marjory LeBreton and her family and so many others, can truly understand but we can empathize. I will never forget the morning I showed up to finish report cards to learn that four of our high school students had been killed while driving home the morning after graduation. They had driven to Banff to watch the sunrise. On their return, exhausted and impaired, they went off the road. The tragedy of four young lives snuffed out in a moment. It was the reason why I became involved in safe graduation programs after I moved to Manitoba. When students arrive at the all-night graduation party, they hand in their keys to parents who, in the morning, drive both them and their cars home.
It provided a couple of sleepless nights for John and me and all the other volunteers when our daughters graduated from high school, but they and all their fellow graduates arrived home safe and sound.
It is a program like this, as well as safe driving programs, advertising programs, safe ride campaigns, addiction programs, and many other similar programs which will help to solve this curable problem. However, honourable senators, this legislation will also help. I give it my full support.
Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Honourable senators, as I have indicated here in this chamber, and privately to the minister yesterday, the government house leader, my colleagues and many others, I am truly honoured to have been intricately involved in the moving of the so-called drunk driving bill, Bill C-82, through Parliament.
As the Minister of Justice so eloquently said yesterday before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs:
...this unfortunate problem...in spite of 20 years of good work on the part of many in this country does not seem to be abating.
...there are 1,300 Canadians who die every year in situations that are 100 per cent preventable. There are 1,300 Canadians who lose their lives every year, and their families are destroyed, in the single most preventable offence in our country.
Honourable senators, this bill represents a major step because it is a signal to Canadians that the crime of driving drunk will not be tolerated, and that to do so has serious consequences.
As the minister pointed out, and as my colleague on the other side just said, these changes to the Criminal Code are meant to address the seriousness of these crimes. However, we must all work to ensure that measures are taken to address the problem of driving drunk well before the situation warrants the full force of the Criminal Code.
There is so much to do and the responsibility falls to all of us to ensure that federal and provincial policy development initiatives and public awareness programs are undertaken. In the long run, these measures are likely to have the greatest impact on saving lives in our country.
As I said when I spoke on second reading, there is a high degree of ignorance of our impaired driving laws both federally and in the provinces and territories. I was most encouraged to learn that the minister will be addressing these issues at the next federal-provincial meetings of attorneys general. Certainly, as was evident at the committee yesterday, there is a strong need and desire for public awareness and education programs. It is to be hoped that all levels of government will draw on the expertise and experience of the police, traffic safety experts and victims groups in the development of such programs.
As the minister pointed out in her testimony yesterday, she and her officials will also be working with the provinces to promote the use of all available technologies in the apprehension of drunk drivers, all of which will be extremely valuable in the enforcement of the law.
The minister specifically suggested that others should follow the lead of Alberta and Quebec in using ignition interlock devices. Other technologies that should be placed high on the list of consideration by federal, provincial and territorial governments are passive alcohol sensors and new roadside breathalyzers and screening devices, such as digital breathalyzers.
At the upcoming meeting of the attorneys general, serious consideration must also be given to expanding police powers to allow the admissibility of evidence such as roadside sobriety tests and police videotaping, and making it mandatory that breath or blood-testing for alcohol be obtained at all crash scenes involving fatalities or serious injuries. I feel confident that all of the issues will be moved to the forefront of discussions on how to make our roads safer and to put an end to this totally preventable crime.
Honourable senators, many ask me how I have managed to personally deal with this situation, and many other victims seek out my advice. Really, there is no simple answer. When confronted with a tragedy, we must all find our own way.
Last fall, I was asked to chair a session at the MADD meeting in Halifax. The session I headed up was called, "What is moving on?" In preparing for the session, I answered a lot of my own questions. I told those who gathered for the session that, first and foremost, you do come to the realization that life does go on. I told this group that, although I realize that my family and I had gone through a life-altering experience, our personalities are basically the same. We have the same beliefs, the same interests, the same hobbies and, yes, the same faults.
For example, among other things, I told them that I was, and still am, a proud political partisan and that I would continue to be so. I urged them to do everything in their power to resist being pulled into a vortex of self-pity, hopelessness and self-defeating anger. In other words, do not let the drunk driver add the survivors to his or her list of victims. Rather, it is important to celebrate the lives of their lost loved ones and to do whatever they can, according to their own ability and desire, to prevent this from happening to others. However, I also cautioned that we are all different and they were not to be made to feel guilty if they were unable to do so. The important message was to do only what they were comfortable in doing.
(1650)
Honourable senators, society evolves and attitudes change as people live through experiences and try to communicate the impact to others. Information and our ability to communicate knows no bounds. I fervently believe that the level of awareness in our society as a whole, and with our young people in particular, is much higher than it has ever been, and growing. Some of these young people are our next police officers, lawyers, Crown attorneys and judges. The changing attitudes will be reflected in them.
With this in mind, at the suggestion of my friend John Hoyles, who is Executive Director of the Canadian Bar Association, our family decided to establish a living memorial in the name of Linda and Brian. It is called the LeBreton-Holmes Memorial Scholarship Fund. It was established to provide scholarship funds for law students expressing an interest in the fields of criminal prosecution, criminal law reform and Criminal Code drafting.
Urged on by my dear friend the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, who supported me in this endeavour with his moral and financial support, the fund was established under the patronship of Mr. Mulroney, our own government house leader here in the Senate, Senator Graham, the Honourable Flora MacDonald, the Honourable Barbara McDougall, John Hoyles and Dean Sanda Rodgers from the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa. Thanks to their efforts and the generous donations from people all across the country, including many in this chamber, and the hard work done by John Ouelette, Director of Major Gifts, and Bonnie Morris, Associate Vice-Rector, Alumni and Development, at the University of Ottawa, this fund has thus far raised almost $300,000 and will support at least four students every year forever. Last year, two young women were the recipients of the first LeBreton-Holmes scholarships.
My husband Doug, my son-in-law Ed Holmes, Steven LeBreton-Holmes and Jenna LeBreton-Holmes, my son Michael Bruce and his family, and all of our relatives are gratified for the opportunity to have something positive result from this tragedy. It has certainly helped in the healing process.
Honourable senators, this is an important piece of legislation that deserves the support it has been given. As I said at the beginning, it is an honour to have been part of this debate and the passage of this bill.
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, before going to the vote, I want to recognize and thank Senator Carstairs for, in effect, allowing Senator LeBreton to initiate second reading of this bill. This showed, to my mind and to the minds of others, great sensitivity to a personal tragedy with which we are all too sadly familiar. The purpose of my saying these few words is to record in Hansard Senator Carstairs' great courtesy towards our colleague.
The Hon. the Speaker: In that same vein, honourable senators, before I proceed to call the vote, when I read the vote, I picked, as I do automatically, a government member to second the motion. I picked the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool. With leave of the Senate, I should like to change the motion to read "the Honourable Senator LeBreton."
Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Hon. the Speaker: It was moved by the Honourable Senators Carstairs, seconded by the Honourable Senator LeBreton, that Bill C-82 be read the third time now.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.
[Translation]
Royal Assent
Notice
The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the following communication had been received:
RIDEAU HALL
17 June 1999
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that The Right Honourable Roméo LeBlanc, Governor General of Canada, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 17th day of June 1999, at 8:00 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
[English]
Business of the Senate
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I rise on a point of order. As I sit at the end of the chamber, it is difficult to follow the Table Officer calling the Orders of the Day, and to hear Senators Carstairs and Kinsella standing various items. Some senators are reading the Order Paper a little more slowly than items are being called. Members of the staff are doing, as usual, a fabulous job, but it is difficult to follow the order of business at this end of the house.
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with the greatest of respect to Senator Prud'homme, when an item stands in the name of a Liberal senator or in the name of a Conservative senator, we have checked with those senators as to whether they will stand that item on that particular day. We have done our homework, sir.
Senator Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I was trying to be gentle at the end of the session. That is not what I meant at all. I just said we should have a chance to read the orders. Of course my honourable colleague does her duty. She works very hard, but we would like a chance to know where we are at. That is all.
I do not know what is going on today. I am not rushing the honourable deputy leader - far from it. I just want to know what is going on. I would be pleased to continue, but I do not understand why my colleague said so roughly that she does her homework. I do not understand this change of attitude.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Involvement in Yugoslavia-Relationship to International Law-Inquiry-Debate Continued
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Grafstein calling the attention of the Senate to the question of international law: Canada and the NATO action in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.-(Honourable Senator Kinsella)
Hon. Nicholas W. Taylor: Honourable senators, the adjournment on this Order Paper item was taken by the Honourable Senator Kinsella. If he does not wish to speak, I should like to speak to this matter. It has been on my mind for some time.
One of the thoughts I wanted to get across - and I will attempt to keep a fairly narrow focus - was on the question of international law. Senator Grafstein made a very good case for the popular view that a great evil was being done and, therefore, force was quite acceptable, and in fact necessary, to stop the evil.
(1700)
It was rather interesting to hear that form of argument put forward by Senator Grafstein. It is one that is familiar to most of us who are familiar with the Old West. If there were some wrongdoing by people in the next valley, whether it had to do with fences or stealing cattle, justice was too slow. We did not go to the United Nations. We saddled up "Old Paint," got a few neighbours together, formed a posse, and took the law into our own hands. This is the type of reasoning that I think Senator Grafstein is putting forward. We are going back to vigilante or posse justice, the reasoning being, "The courts are too slow. The lawyers may get him off. We know the guilty one and we will hang him from the highest tree."
NATO is adopting the same philosophy. It is organizing a posse. Possibly, they are right. The point is that, if the rule of law is to prevail, as it had to in the Old West, we must exercise patience in bringing culprits to justice. We have to let due process take place. Today, due process means the United Nations.
In the days of the Old West, when vigilante justice and getting a posse together to get someone who was not conforming was the order of the day, we did not go over and destroy the family. To get a husband to start behaving, we did not go over and wreck the kids' bicycles, trample through the wife's garden, and blow up the house. Yet that is exactly what was done in this case. We took it upon ourselves to get the man who caused the crime to fall in line by bombing women and children and by getting rid of their infrastructure.
Of course, the type of jingoistic philosophy that takes over once you are in a war makes it hard to reason with anyone. I am older than most people here, and I have always been interested in politics. I remember how this philosophy of getting the public to change its mind came about. I was small enough to remember when the Russian bear invaded Finland before the last world war. The Russian bear was always shown in cartoons as slavering at the lips and poor little defenceless Finland was shown fighting back to keep the Russian invasion down. That was in 1937-38.
Five years later, in 1943, lo and behold, Uncle Joe - Uncle Joseph Stalin, that is - was now on our side. It was said that he was a lovely man, the type of man that every child would want as an uncle. People then said that the Russians had never done anything wrong and that the Finns had turned out to be bad characters because they joined the Nazis.
Five years later, poor Uncle Joe was in trouble again. Winston Churchill made his speech about the Iron Curtain. I was ready again to bear arms to put the Russian bear back in his cage.
This type of manipulation of what we think is right and wrong has been most evident in the war in Kosovo. I am not saying that one side is right while the other is wrong. Surely, we can try to see through the manipulation of our minds that somehow or another this is causing great moral harm.
I come back to the concept of posse justice. Milosevic has been declared a war criminal. Perhaps he deserves it. Yet no one has asked if he or anyone else will defend him. We automatically assume that he is a war criminal and we are out to get him.
What bothers me in this case is the manner in which we clothe it in the cloak of international justice. We know this is a harm, and we have a posse that will go out to bring vigilante justice. We do not realize what is set in motion.
In terms of this moral issue, we are harking back to the Crusades. The moral issues were the first issues about which we fought wars. We only fought wars on territory and trade in the last 100 years. In the 1,000 years before that, there were always great moral issues. The people on the other side, particularly during the Crusades, were not Christian. They were Jews and Moslems. Therefore, they had to be removed. The same thing is true today. At least in the time of the Crusades someone called the Pope decided what was right and what was wrong. Now we have the president of the United States deciding what is right and what is wrong.
From where does NATO get the right to clothe itself in the Pope's clothing, or anything else, and say what is morally right and wrong? This is what bothers me. What have we started here? Who decides what is right? Who decides what is wrong? Who is challenging the situation to say what is right and wrong?
What we have done is gone back 500 to 700 years in history. At that time, the Pope could declare a whole group of people bad just because they were charging interest on loans. What we have is the Crusades running rampant again. People are taking it upon themselves to go out to eliminate others or to put them on the right path.
What have we set in motion for disarmament? The Russians will now do nothing to give up their nuclear arms. What is a nation to do today to defend itself against the NATOs of the world? We have now set back nuclear disarmament by a century. We have encouraged the small and unarmed nations to acquire nuclear arms and to go out to form other relationships. They say, "If big bad NATO comes after us, will you help me?"
I do not know what gives the predominantly white nations of Western Europe, which, supposedly, are Christian, the right to decide what is politically and morally right and back that up with force. We have set in motion so many things, for which we will pay repeatedly in the years ahead.
I wish there could be a debate that would take it away from the moral idea. There is nothing more offensive than a bunch of white men sitting around a fire deciding what is morally right and then deciding to use their weapons to enforce that moral right. That has been done over and over again in the past. It does not work.
[Translation]
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I imagine you understand why I wanted the items on the Orders of the Day to be called more slowly. I will not ask any questions or make any statements. I am going to make a speech. I do not have any notes; they are in my office. The reason I wanted to move more slowly was not for myself. I can follow reasonably well because after 36 years in Parliament, I have had to become somewhat familiar with the rules.
I know senators who have come and gone. They told me that things moved so quickly that they could not follow at all.
Once we are appointed, we are wished good luck, given a big reception, and then left on our own. I know that the new whip takes care of new senators, tells them about new rules, explains what is going on and what might happen.
[English]
(1710)
I tried to control my anger. I feel like going for a weekend to Meech Lake to cool off. I am glad that I stopped it because I know how Senator Taylor feels on this subject. He is not alone.
I did not have time, Senator Butts, to say goodbye to you for other family reasons. I will do it in my own way. Senator Butts, you know how much I dearly like having met you. Senator Butts is probably one of the best-informed senators in the Senate in world affairs, having gone to 26 countries to study world affairs. I hope, senator, that you shall participate and share your knowledge of the world with younger students in universities.
As for Senator Maloney, she has been a champion for the rights of women to sit in the Senate, and in Parliament and other legislatures. Senator, to you and your family, who are now celebrating, I say, "bonjour."
This motion of Senator Grafstein's gives us a chance to place our views on the record. This war, for me, represents the failure of politicians. This war represents the total failure of what I have stood for throughout my life; that is, patience and diplomacy.
It is strange how we suddenly speak about "holocaust" and "genocide" and we abuse these words so much that soon they will mean nothing for those who hold these words so dearly, the Armenian genocide and the Jewish holocaust. We now hear about holocaust and genocide every day. We should reflect on that.
Senator Taylor spoke about nuclear arms. If you want to be respected in the world, you had better have nuclear arms. If you do not have nuclear arms, you do not count any more.
I spoke in the Parliament of Albania a few weeks after they opened up to the Western World. I may not have a chance to play a role here, but I did over there.
I spoke in the Parliament of the Ukraine to over 500 parliamentarians. I told them to be careful, "Without your nuclear arms, you will not count."
We would now like the world to be dominated by very few who have nuclear arms. They say to everyone, to Pakistan and to India, to forgo nuclear arms, and sign the treaty of non-proliferation. We do not say that to Israel because that would be a criminal sin. Why?
Who introduced nuclear arms into the Middle East? Who pushed Iran, Iraq and Libya to consider having nuclear arms? They say, "Well, you deny in the West that they have nuclear arms in Israel. We know they have it, therefore we shall spend all our good money on it." What a crazy world this is.
When I said in the House of Commons that Israel tested nuclear weapons in Israel and in South Africa, I was put to the wall. South Africa now admits that nuclear tests have indeed been undertaken in South Africa. If today you do not have nuclear arms, get in line, we will tell you what to do in world affairs.
This is an unbelievable tragedy that has taken place. Hundreds of billions of dollars for NATO to arrive, with a little surprise visit, unpredictably, of 200 Russian who show up in Pristina. If that is what is protecting us, we had better get our act together. It was a surprise.
Honourable senators, controlling my anger of the day, who knows, we do not know what will happen in the future. For some, it could be the last speech. I say that we should proceed with each other with civility and patience.
Not everyone is as bright as those who occupy the front or middle benches. However, everyone wishes to contribute. That is what made me participate today. I did not wish to participate in the debate today. However, I think Senator Taylor wanted to participate.
Senator Carstairs: He did.
Senator Prud'homme: I know he did. He did because he stood about five times.
I ask for the patience of all honourable senators. Senator Grafstein spoke for 42 minutes on Monday. I will not ask for more than 15. As soon as I see the Speaker move, I will sit down. I repeat again, there will be a long silence here.
It is the failure of politicians. It is the failure of diplomacy.
[Translation]
Diplomacy takes time and patience. Politics requires humility. If we really want to make things better in the world, we must respect the least of its inhabitants. Since I do not travel much, I can defend those who will be doing so this summer, this fall and in the years to come. I believe in parliamentary relations. It is amazing how we come up with billions of dollars for wars but, when funding is sought for parliamentary exchanges so that new parliamentarians can get to know one another, it becomes a public scandal. I find this incredible. We should encourage parliamentarians to travel to new countries that want to to know what democracy was, what a speaker, a committee and a clerk were and what they did. Would you believe that that is what we are asked in over half the countries in the world? Some parliamentarians are terrified.
[English]
I used to call them chicken feathers! As soon as they see something in the headlines, they are afraid to fight back.
(1720)
For 30 years, I told the people in my district what I was up to internationally, and they were proud, because I explained it. That is the way to learn. I told them about the importance of diplomacy.
Allow me to tell you a story. I will name the man: The Honourable Gérard Pelletier, P.C.
[Translation]
Gérard Pelletier, former minister under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, ambassador to the United Nations, is sitting in a plane, in first class, travelling between New York and Paris, with Zedhi Terzi, who is the PLO permanent observer at the United Nations. There are no other passengers. They are alone in first class, but are not supposed to talk to each other, according to Canadian diplomatic rules. Obviously they talked.
For the purposes of simultaneous translation, I will speak slowly so that those not listening, I can see there are some, can hear me. Often in the Senate, speaking French is a waste of time. When I see senators not wearing their ear piece, I assume that they must understand us.
Gérard Pelletier sits down with Mr. Terzi. They talk. Five minutes before they arrive in Paris, Mr. Terzi - who is not a terrorist, but a great intellectual, an ambassador of the PLO to the United Nations - says: "I understand Canadian policy, I do not want to embarrass you in front of your staff, so I will go back to my seat."
I related this anecdote to my constituents - workers, small business people, folks I have lived with and continue to live with - in Montreal-St-Denis. They said: Are you trying to tell us that you are trying to achieve peace, and you are not allowed to speak to one another? Members of Parliament asked to go to Iraq. I will not tell you what sort of letter they got.
[English]
They received in reply a long, long letter from a very high politician, saying, "No, don't go. Don't go. It's not the time." Who is going to say it is the time, if someone wants to go and establish contact and engage in politics? Do we understand what the word "engage" means in world affairs? It means sitting down with people you may not like, or with whom you may have nothing in common, in the name of sanity and world affairs and peace, making the extra gesture to sit down with someone you might find repulsive, in order to influence events, slowly and gradually. That is what should have taken place at this time.
I will give you another example. We talk about "refugee," "refugee," "refugee," "refugee," "refugee." In my speech on Monday, I talked of billions and billions and billions, but in the Hansard, they only printed "billions" once. I thank them; it requires less paper. However, we talk about "refugee," "refugee," "refugee," "refugee."
[Translation]
Two million refugees have been waiting in Palestinian camps for 52 years. No one is looking after them. I know that Senator Taylor and I can agree on this, as we have had a lot of discussions. Who is looking after them? Suddenly refugees exist, because CNN shows them to us. If CNN had shown us a woman in Gaza obliged to keep her entire family indoors in the full heat of summer because her village had been closed off, if CNN had shown us how people live in Gaza, if CNN had shown all that, the problem would have been resolved long ago. This is unacceptable.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, Senator Prud'homme has one minute left.
Senator Prud'homme: I will conclude. I thank you, Your Honour, you are an excellent Speaker, it is a pleasure to work with you. We got to know each other better at the Parliamentarians' Union in Cuba. We had no concern about meeting with Mr. Castro and other public officials. You have been, for Marcel Prud'homme, an excellent Speaker. People can read into my words what they want, it is the truth.
[English]
The Hon. the Speaker: If no other honourable senator wishes to speak, this Order will stand in the name of the Honourable Senator Kinsella. Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Transport and Communications
Committee Authorized to Study the Information, Arts and Entertainment Media
Leave having been given to revert to Order No. 153:
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Poulin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Butts:
That the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to examine and report upon the information, arts and entertainment provided by the traditional and modern media to Canadians, given the changing nature of mass communications and technological innovation;
That the committee be authorized to permit coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings; and
That the committee presents its final report no later than June 15, 2000.-(Honourable Senator Forrestall)
Hon. Janis Johnson: Honourable senators, the object of this motion is authorize the committee to do research over the summer and into the fall that would develop a theoretical framework for an examination of the degree and calibre of information, along with arts and entertainment coverage, that Canadians are receiving from the media. This would be done at no cost to the Senate. The idea for this study arises from the communications industry itself as a result of two previous studies.
Essentially, the initial research would draw on the Davey report of the 1970s. That report consisted of an examination of the media. Almost three decades have passed since then and there have been tremendous changes within the industry, in terms of the players, the technology to disseminate information, the content itself, the manner in which it is presented, marketing strategies, and new alliances. These are just some of the elements that come to mind that I feel are worthy of study.
Honourable senators, the complexion of the country has changed, with the immigrant tide coming from Asia and the Middle East rather than from our traditional immigrant grounds of Europe. The study would look at whether these new Canadians are being served by the media as well. It is a natural follow-up to the important work that we have been doing in the Subcommittee on Communications over the past three years.
In our first report, "Wired to Win!," we examined Canada's competitive position as a result of the technological revolution, including the Internet, the World Wide Web, international treaties, and a move toward openness in global communications competition. We found that Canada was indeed well-positioned to take advantage of relaxed international regulations, in addition to having the brains and communications infrastructure to be a leading player.
The second report, which was recently released, examined convergence within the telecommunications sector - the convergence of traditional media, such as telephony, television and radio, with new media important in marketing, new alliances and technology.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, this order is standing in the name of the Honourable Senator Forrestall.
Is it to remain in the name of Senator Forrestall?
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I can advise the Senate that Senator Forrestall wanted his remarks to be made by Senator Johnson, so we are now ready for the question.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.
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 7, 1999 at 4 p.m.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, we have now reached the end of the Order Paper. As Royal Assent has been called for eight o'clock this evening, I will now leave the Chair to return at the sound of the bell at 7:50 p.m. this evening.
The sitting of the Senate was suspended.
[Translation]
Royal Assent
His Excellency the Governor General of Canada took his seat upon the Throne. His Excellency was pleased to command the attendance of the House of Commons, and that House being come with their Speaker, His Excellency was pleased to give the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act respecting extradition, to amend the Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and to amend and repeal other Acts in consequence (Bill C-40, Chapter 18, 1999)
An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and other international fisheries treaties or arrangements (Bill C-27, Chapter 19, 1999)
An Act authorizing the United States to preclear travellers and goods in Canada for entry into the United States for the purposes of customs, immigration, public health, food inspection and plant and animal health (Bill S-22, Chapter 20, 1999)
An Act to amend the Carriage by Air Act to give effect to a Protocol to amend the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air and to give effect to the Convention, Supplementary to the Warsaw Convention, for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air Performed by a Person Other than the Contracting Carrier (Bill S-23, Chapter 21, 1999)
An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, to implement measures that are consequential on changes to the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention (1980) and to amend the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and certain Acts related to the Income Tax Act (Bill C-72, Chapter 22, 1999)
An Act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers (Bill C-55, Chapter 23, 1999)
An Act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management (Bill C-49, Chapter 24, 1999)
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime) and another Act in consequence (Bill C-79, Chapter 25, 1999)
An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 16, 1999 (Bill C-71, Chapter 26, 1999)
An Act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act (Bill C-66, Chapter 27, 1999)
An Act to amend the Bank Act, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act and other Acts relating to financial institutions and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Bill C-67, Chapter 28, 1999)
An Act to establish an indemnification program for travelling exhibitions (Bill C-64, Chapter 29, 1999)
An Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain Acts that have ceased to have effect (Bill C-84, Chapter 31, 1999)
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving and related matters) (Bill C-82, Chapter 32, 1999)
An Act respecting the Alliance of Manufacturers & Exporters Canada (Bill S-18)
The Honourable Gilbert Parent, Speaker of the House of Commons, then addressed His Excellency the 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 Your Honour the following bill:
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial years ending March 31, 2000 and March 31, 2001 ( Bill C-86, Chapter 30, 1999),
To which bill, I humbly request Your Honour's assent.
His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give the Royal Assent to the said bill.
The House of Commons withdrew.
His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to retire.
The sitting of the Senate was resumed.
The Senate adjourned until Tuesday, September 7, 1999, at 4 p.m.