Previous Sittings

Order Paper and Notice Paper

Previous Sittings

Journals of the Senate

Previous Sittings

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Download as PDF

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

2nd Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 138, Issue 27

Tuesday, February 15, 2000
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker

SENATORS' STATEMENTS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
- Aboriginal Governance
  - Report of Committee on Study Tabled
- Census Records
  - Presentation of Petitions
QUESTION PERIOD
ORDERS OF THE DAY

THE SENATE

Tuesday, February 15, 2000

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

Prayers.

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

national Flag Day

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham: Honourable senators, today is Canada's Flag Day. Given the importance of the subject and in the event that I go slightly over the allotted three-minute time period, may I have leave now in order to continue?

Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh!

Senator Kelleher: Do not be shy.

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, in the early moments of the 21st century, it seems difficult to imagine that our flag, the red maple leaf, was ever the subject of controversy. Yet for those who recall the very heated and lengthy debate over the subject of choosing a national flag for Canada — as I do — it was a very meaningful chapter in the story of a great country still coming to terms with its identity.

Honourable senators will recall that only three years before the celebration of its centennial, Canadians were still struggling to unite around one of the most important symbols of nationhood — a distinctive national flag. That is not to say that the new flag raised on Parliament Hill on February 15, 1965, the red maple leaf, was a novelty in our rather complicated heraldic history; it certainly was not. The maple leaf was a symbol of Canada as early as 1700, an identification stemming from Canada's aboriginal peoples who gathered maple sap every spring.

[Translation]

It was in 1834 that the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society proposed the red maple leaf as the emblem of Canada.

[English]

In 1860, it was adopted as our national emblem on the occasion of the visit of the Prince of Wales to Toronto. Shortly thereafter, the brilliant harbinger of the Canadian autumn was put to music in The Maple Leaf Forever. Our Olympic athletes wore it proudly as early as 1904.

In two World Wars, our Canadian troops wore the red maple leaf on their military badges, over time becoming the dominant symbol used by many Canadian regiments. They wore it in the victory at Vimy and in the heroic hours at Normandy, in the tragedies at Somme and Dieppe, in the liberation of Sicily, and in the valiant push to clear Europe of the horrors of Nazism. On land, in the air and on sea, our brave Canadians wore it as a badge of courage during some of the darkest hours of modern history as they fought for freedom and for a better world.

Yet, though our athletes and many of our fighting personnel wore the maple leaf with pride, it was not until 1964 that a veteran of World War I, Prime Minister Lester Pearson, took up the difficult task of persuading Canadians to formalize their private love affair with the red maple leaf in a new national flag.

(1410)

In a speech before the national convention of the Canadian Legion in 1964, Mr. Pearson recalled going overseas in 1914 and serving with comrades named Cameron and Gleidenstein, de Chapin and O'Shaughnessy. I am quoting from Mr. Pearson himself, who said:

But we didn't fall in, or fall out as Irish Canadians or French Canadians or Dutch Canadians —

— the former prime minister recalled.

We wore the same uniform with the same maple leaf badge, and we were proud to be known as Canadians, to serve as Canadians and to die, if it had to be, as Canadians. We are all Canadians — and unhyphenated; with pride in our nation and its citizenship, pride in the symbols of that citizenship. The Flag is one such symbol.

Today, honourable senators, we celebrate that symbol. Today is Canada's Flag Day. We celebrate the flag of a nation that represents hope and promise for millions of people the world over — a special star in the constellation of nation states which signifies peace and freedom and compassion and respect for human rights. Whether it is carried proudly by our Olympic athletes or worn as the badge of our wonderful peacekeepers around the world, it is, by its very presence, a glimpse of what is possible in countries where hope has often been forgotten.

As someone who has been privileged to serve in the cause of democratic development in countries from Namibia to Nicaragua, I have often had cause to reflect on what our flag means to the millions around the world who are dispossessed and hungry — to little people around the world struggling for freedom and for life itself.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is leave granted to allow the honourable senator to continue?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Graham: Today, as we remember that raw day in February 35 years ago, I think of them. I think of our ancestors who, through their belief and their commitment, built this beautiful and generous nation at the northern end of the world. I think of all those who died too young in foreign wars so that we may be free.

Honourable senators, today, along with all Canadians, we celebrate the miracle of the red maple leaf. We celebrate a nation filled with hope and promise. We celebrate the values that bind all Canadians together, whether they be from Quebec or Ontario, Saskatchewan or Nova Scotia — the values of a great and talented people who have always understood that what unites us will always be much stronger than that which divides us.

[English]

We pray, honourable senators, for our children — the children born under a flag loved and respected across the planet, the children of the red maple leaf. We pray that their spirit will be strong and that they will carry the torch so that this century will be strengthened and empowered by the ideal of strength through diversity — the beautiful ideal which Canada is and always will be.

Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, I am delighted to add to Senator Graham's wonderful presentation on our flag. I rise today with particular pleasure and great pride to mark National Flag Day in Canada.

Honourable senators, 49 years ago I came to this country as a young man. I was one of the millions who left post-war Europe — in my case, Italy — to begin a new life in another country. Despite almost five decades, I retain a strong affection for my country of birth, but Canada is now my home, "ma patrie." I am proud — indeed very proud — to be a Canadian, as are my children and my grandchildren.

Honourable senators, the flag we see flying on top of the Peace Tower each day is more than an emblem. It is a symbol of our national unity. Our flag is a sign of our common purpose and commitment as a nation. It is a sign that despite our many political, cultural and regional differences, our petty animosities and enmities, we have succeeded in building a country — one of the greatest in the world.

Canada's flag is known universally. Unlike so many flags, the red maple leaf does not represent oppression, tyranny, fear or war, but peace, stability, tolerance and a willingness to work and live together.

Unlike our wonderful neighbours to the south, we Canadians are not much given to waving our flag in public. That is too bad. Personally, I think it would not be a bad thing if we did a little more flag waving. We certainly have no difficulties on Canada Day and during international sporting events. Our collective self-effacement hides the fact that we are a nation with an abiding respect for one another and a deep admiration for what we have accomplished together. We are proud to be Canadians, and rightly so.

Honourable senators, the newspapers today reveal that the original Canadian flag — first hoisted aloft here on Parliament Hill in 1965 — has been found. The details of its whereabouts since that time are not relevant here today. However, I suggest that today might be a fitting occasion for the Prime Minister to take the necessary steps to ensure that this flag, our flag, be given back to the people of Canada to whom it rightly belongs.

[Translation]

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, on February 10, I attended a meeting, unfortunately arriving late for the sitting of the Senate. The Honourable John Buchanan showed the civility that is possible between senators from all over the country by doing me the honour of calling attention to my 36 years of parliamentary life.

[English]

He mentioned two long-time parliamentarians, one of whom was Bob Muir, a former senator, who informed him that on February 10 I was celebrating my thirty-sixth anniversary. The other was the Honourable Bob Coates. I should like to pay tribute to those who really deserve such tributes.

Bob Coates and former senator Bob Muir informed Senator Buchanan that I was here 36 years ago, which proves that we can be friends across party lines.

Having thanked Senator John Buchanan, I regret that every time something nice happens to me I am late for the occasion. I came into the chamber 10 minutes after Senator Buchanan gave his homage. Senator Bolduc, my new seatmate, said, "You should have been here."

Honourable senators, I wish to speak now about the Canadian flag. It may be of interest to you that only three surviving parliamentarians were present for the flag debate. If any student or any scholar should like to know what the debate was all about, I would be more than honoured to tell them. We three parliamentarians are alive and, hopefully, kicking. The other two parliamentarians are in the House of Commons: the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien — my friend since 1953, which has nothing to do with politics — and the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Herb Gray. We are the three parliamentarians left in either House who voted for a national flag in December 1964.

Honourable senators, our flag was raised on February 15, 1965, and it was a great event for me.

(1420)

I was pleased to hear Senator Graham's words. What has happened to this country? You are lucky that I am no longer allowed to give passionate speeches, as I used to do. It is totally forbidden by my doctor. However, I sometimes tend to get carried away. What has happened to this country? What has happened to all of us? What has happened to les Canadiens-français who have given so much to Canada?

Senator Graham mentioned that back in 1834, les Canadiens-francais were the people who put forward, via la Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, the idea that we should adopt the maple leaf as a symbol of Canada. We tend to forget that it was another Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste from the City of Quebec that asked Calixa Lavallée to write the music and Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier to write the words of "Ô, Canada," which is sung differently in English than in French. Perhaps today, when we celebrate the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Canadian flag, we should reflect on what has happened in the past when considering the present. We are at a time when those who supported it the most are those who use it the least.

The Late J. Angus MacLean, P.C.

Tribute

Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Honourable senators, it is with profound sadness that I rise to pay tribute to an exemplary Prince Edward Islander and an outstanding Canadian who passed away today. The Honourable J. Angus MacLean attained legendary status in his home province. He was revered as a grassroots politician of the highest order — a man who always fought for what he thought was right for the people he represented.

Angus MacLean was also a genuine war hero, shot down in Europe during World War II while serving with the RCAF. He spent what must have been a harrowing 10 weeks behind enemy lines before he successfully escaped. Many of his exploits were recounted with great fervour in Mr. MacLean's memoirs entitled Making It Home. The stories contained within those pages are awe-inspiring — a testament to the man's drive, determination and commitment.

J. Angus MacLean would have been remembered as a remarkable Islander even without his unparalleled exploits in the world of politics, but it was as a politician that his reputation was cemented as a great man and a great Canadian. First elected in the by-election of 1951, he was re-elected a staggering nine times, with his last federal election victory coming in 1974. Mr. MacLean was appointed Minister of Fisheries in 1957 and served there until 1963. His career as a federal politician was one any person would look upon with a great deal of respect, but I always had the feeling that his heart was closer to home. He resigned from the House of Commons in 1976, the same year he was chosen to lead the Progressive Conservative Party of Prince Edward Island. He was sworn in as Premier of Prince Edward Island and President of the Executive Council on May 3, 1979. Mr. MacLean retired as premier in 1981 but continued to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly for 4th Queens until the following year.

J. Angus MacLean was a truly special individual, a man I was honoured to know. Rarely has someone achieved such levels of success in so many different venues. He was a war hero, a successful politician — both federally and provincially — and a great man. To his credit, he valued friends and family more than anything else.

At this time, I should like to offer my personal condolences to his wife, Gwen, and their children. Prince Edward Island has lost one of its greatest statesmen. He will be missed.

National Defence

East Timor—Use of Land Mines

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, perhaps, in a sense, this is not the day to bring this matter forward. Nevertheless, we learned this week that Canadian soldiers in East Timor have been and were equipped with remote-controlled antipersonnel land mines. A spokesman from the Department of National Defence confirmed that about 100 claymore land mines had been sent over with Canadian troops in October of last year.

The Defence Department has said that these types of claymore mines, the positive-control antipersonnel fragmentation devices, are exempt from the treaty that Canada signed with the rest of the world because these mines must be detonated deliberately by Canadian force personnel only upon identifying the target. They have said that these land mines are not indiscriminate. However, the Department of Foreign Affairs lists the claymore mine on their "SafeLane" Website under the category of "Indiscriminate Killers", along with other land mines. The United States does use claymore land mines with trip wires to booby trap the enemy, particularly in defensive positions.

While it is true, honourable senators, that these claymore mines are exempt from the treaty, the patent hypocrisy of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the government is all too apparent.

Honourable senators, in May of 1996, Canada announced it would host an international meeting to develop a strategy for moving towards a total ban on all antipersonnel land mines. Canada passed the legislation banning land mines in November of 1997. On second reading of Bill C-22 in the other place, the minister said:

Here was a prime example of how the weapons themselves are not just a threat to fire up lands but in fact pose a danger to our own Canadian peacekeepers around the world. That is why our own army and our armed forces have taken such an active role in places like Cambodia and Bosnia to try to eliminate the land mines.

The government claimed they were supporting the principles of the land mine treaty when they destroyed almost all land mine stocks more than a month before the convention to ban them was presented for signatures. According to documents from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Canada retained a small number of mines —

...solely for mine awareness and demining training purposes as provided under Article 3(1) of the Convention.

Yet today, honourable senators, we have 100 Canadian land mines floating around East Timor. Our Armed Forces are currently deployed on 21 overseas operations in the Balkans, in the Middle East, in Asia, and in other troubled regions of the world. I think Canadians are entitled to know how many of our land mines are involved in these operations. Whether or not these mines are being used as a matter of military strategy, and people will have conflicting philosophies regarding this issue, it behooves the government to at least inform the Canadian public of their true intentions and give them the facts.

Honourable senators, if the Canadian Forces had been properly equipped for overseas peace enforcement operations, they would not have any use for claymores. This is the ultimate hypocrisy, and one that I hope can be answered.

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I should like to introduce to you some distinguished visitors in the gallery. They are speakers from provincial legislatures. I will introduce them in the order in which their province joined Confederation.

The first is the Honourable Murray Scott, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Hon. the Speaker: The next is the Honourable George Hickes, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

(1430)

The Hon. the Speaker: The next is the Honourable Anthony Whitford, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories.

Two other honourable provincial speakers were here yesterday. However, because of matters in their own province they, unfortunately, cannot be with us this afternoon. They were the Honourable Bev Harrison, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, and the Honourable Ron Osika, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. I received them last night on behalf of all honourable senators. They were accompanied by their clerks, whom we welcomed as well.

I bid them all welcome on behalf of the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Aboriginal Governance

Report of Committee on Study Tabled

Hon. Charlie Watt: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, which deals with aboriginal self-governance. It is entitled, "Forging New Relationships: Aboriginal Governance in Canada."

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

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

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

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

Census Records

Presentation of Petitions

Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table 59 petitions addressed to the Parliament of Canada from both Canadian citizens and citizens of the United States and the United Kingdom calling upon Parliament to enact legislation to preserve the post-1901 census records, remove them to the National Archives and make these, as well as future census records, available to the public after 92 years, as is presently consistent with the many provisions of the privacy legislation and time limits now in force. These petitions contain 2,607 signatures.

QUESTION PERIOD

Foreign Affairs

Civil War in Sudan—Request for Clarification of Diplomatic Policy

Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, in light of Minister Axworthy's comments yesterday, would the Leader of the Government in the Senate advise me as to Canada's policy with respect to Sudan?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I wish to thank the honourable senator for her question. The minister has indicated that various measures will be put in place to assist in Sudan. In response to the Harker report, he has announced a series of new Canadian initiatives. Canada will support the return visit to Southern Sudan by the United Nations special rapporteur and will provide financial assistance to the committee on the eradication of abductions of women and children.

The minister has also indicated that in April he will use Canada's presidency of the UN Security Council to further the efforts of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development in the peace process in that area.

As well, the Department of Foreign Affairs will be opening an office in Sudan's capital, Khartoum, with a view to more closely monitoring the situation on an ongoing basis.

Senator Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I take it from the minister's comment that he is responding to the Harker report. My question was: What is Canada's position with respect to Sudan? Does the Government of Canada believe that there are gross and persistent human rights violations in Sudan? If so, what action will Canada take?

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the minister has indicated a high level of concern about reported activity in that country. Some of the measures I spoke about in my previous answer will be put in place immediately. Canada's interest will continue on an ongoing basis. The minister will continue to use whatever authority he may have to impact on the situation in that country with a view toward fashioning some sort of response to the Harker report and the conditions generally in the country.

The questions asked earlier in the Senate had to do specifically with a company called Talisman Energy. In fact, the minister's position, and that of the government, is that the measures I have mentioned will be implemented and the government will be monitoring the situation there on an ongoing basis.

Senator Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I know from personal experience in the late 1980s that Canada's position was that there were gross and persistent violations of human rights, and that the most effective and strongest possible mechanisms had to be utilized to bring Sudan back into the fold of acceptable practice as a state. At that time, actions were being taken by the United Nations Human Rights Commission and there was ongoing bilateral condemnation. At the same time, there were implementation strategies to reinforce civil society.

I take it from the minister's response that we do not consider Sudan in that situation now and that we are only now instituting monitoring mechanisms. If that is so, for what purpose? Is it to determine what our position should be in Sudan, or do we honestly believe that a signal of some monitoring advice now would change Sudan's behaviour?

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, quite clearly, the toll arising from the Sudanese war is nothing short of horrific. I have notes indicating that nearly 2 million people have died since 1983. Obviously, that is totally unacceptable and deplorable. In excess of 4 million people have been displaced from their homes. In fact, there are few places in the world where human security is so clearly lacking as in Sudan.

Canada has vigorously supported the regional peace process of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and continues to do so. We believe that the declaration of principles by that body is the only viable means of achieving a just peace in Sudan. Our support will continue and be strengthened, assuming the presidency of the UN Security Council will allow us another vehicle to pursue this agenda even more aggressively than we have in the past.

Senator Andreychuk: Honourable senators, the minister has talked about past efforts. I am uncertain as to what efforts have been taken in the last five years in Sudan, if we are only now instituting some measures such as monitoring and if we will only now exercise our political will in the Security Council. These are not new issues.

Civil War in Sudan—Involvement of Talisman Energy Inc.

Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, the Vice-president of Talisman has indicated that the company disagrees with the contention that Talisman is contributing to the problems in Sudan.

Is it the position of the Government of Canada that Talisman did not contribute to the problems in Sudan?

(1440)

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, as the honourable senator may know, the Minister of Foreign Affairs met with senior Talisman executives in November. Talisman has acknowledged its responsibility to make a positive contribution in Sudan, including respect for all human rights.

The position of the government is that we anticipate Talisman will take these commitments they have made to the Minister of Foreign Affairs seriously, and we continue to look for other more effective ways — some of which I have described today — to apply pressure in that country to achieve an appropriate result.

Civil War in Sudan—Human Rights Violations

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, does the present government support or not support General Assembly resolution 1503?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I do not have the text of that resolution in front of me, but I can certainly find out and respond quickly. I assume that we support that resolution in general.

Senator Kinsella: As the honourable senator will discover, resolution 1503 deals precisely with gross and consistent patterns of human rights violations and lays out the steps that have been agreed upon that would be taken by all member states of the United Nations. The matter raised by the Honourable Senator Andreychuk challenges Canada to assess its position and to determine if all the steps have been taken to implement that resolution. Does the minister not agree?

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I agree — and I suspect the minister would also agree — that we must constantly reassess our position with respect to Sudan and our activity there. We must do whatever can possibly be done by Canada to end the horrific civil war in that country and end all its terrible consequences.

National Defence

East Timor—Use of Land Mines

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I wish to return to the question of claymore land mines and the conflict that is growing between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence. On the one hand, we had the Minister of National Defence saying that claymore land mines will stay with the forces in East Timor and elsewhere where they may be deployed. On the other hand, we had the Minister of Foreign Affairs launching an investigation and showing outrage.

Are they not members of the same caucus? They are not doing the Canadian Forces any great good by this cloud of secrecy and the suggestion of wrongdoing. Does the government, in fact, speak with one voice with respect to claymore land mines? If so, which minister is right and which is wrong?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the existence of land mines all over the world, particularly in the Third World, has constituted a terrible hazard, and not simply to the combatants. The ongoing problem is the horrible danger it poses and the damage it inflicts on non-combatants — namely women, children and other civilians — long after the conflict has ended.

The thrust of the land mine treaty was to deal with the situation where land mines are left in an arena that is no longer an arena of war, or even where there is still a war, because those land mines operate indiscriminately. I am not an expert, but land mines will indiscriminately detonate. The land mine treaty was the result of finding a way to deal with this danger.

Honourable senators, a distinction must be drawn here. The reason the minister said the defensive weapons in question do not breach the agreement is that they are deliberately detonated by an operator. In this case, armies have weapons that kill people, and that is regrettable.

The distinction made by the Minister of National Defence is that the land mines in question are used by an armed force as a defensive weapon and detonated against a particular enemy, much as any weapon might be fired by an armed force against an enemy. The element of indiscriminate slaughter of civilians does not exist in these situations. That is my understanding.

Senator Stratton: When is a land mine not a land mine?

Senator Forrestall: Honourable senators, I thank the minister for the lecture, but I wish he would answer my question.

Senator Di Nino: Good luck!

Senator Forrestall: Let me put it as simply as I can, honourable senators. If the Government of Canada does have a position on the issue of claymore land mines, what is it?

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the Government of Canada took a position when it signed the land mine treaty. That is as clear a position as any government could ever take. The federal government made a commitment under the treaty that they would abide by its terms, and they have. No one has informed me of any allegation that the government has breached the treaty.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: They breached the spirit of it!

Senator Boudreau: This is not a minor difference. We are not talking about a trivial distinction.

Senator Forrestall: We are talking about a public battle between Minister Axworthy and Minister Eggleton.

Senator Boudreau: We are talking about a situation where the risk was to the civilian, non-combatant population, a situation which would continue long after the combatants left the field. That is quite different from what we are talking about with regard to the specific weapon.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is concerned about the presence of any land mines, and I am sure that he will continue to work towards the elimination of all such weapons, as should we all.

Senator Forrestall: On whose side is the Leader of the Government, honourable senators? Is he on the side of Minister Eggleton or on the side of Minister Axworthy? He cannot be on both sides, which is where he conveniently has himself right now. I suggest that he have his briefers look at this issue tonight and give him a briefing note so that we might resolve this issue one way or the other tomorrow. Presumably, Ministers Eggleton and Axworthy sat on the same committee of cabinet that approved the use of land mines by Canadian Armed Forces personnel in peacekeeping operations.

Where does the leader stand? On whose side does he stand?

Senator Boudreau: I do not suppose it will shock the honourable senator when I say that I support both ministers.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: No matter what they think?

Senator Boudreau: I do not think that is inconsistent.

Senator Di Nino: Why are we not surprised?

Senator Boudreau: The Minister of National Defence has an obligation, which I support, to abide by the terms of a treaty that Canada not only signed but it led the way in achieving that very noteworthy milestone. I support Canada's continued compliance with that treaty. I repeat: There is no allegation by anyone that we are not complying with the treaty.

I am sure that the Minister of Foreign Affairs desires to see all sorts of weapons banned, and I support him. I wish to see all military weapons ultimately banned by everyone. I do not think that will happen tomorrow, but it is something I can support. Someday, my hope is that even military helicopters might be banned.

Some Hon. Senators: Shame!

Senator Di Nino: When you do not have any, you cannot ban them.

Senator Boudreau: I say to the honourable senator that I do not think the positions taken by the ministers are in conflict.

Senator Forrestall: The honourable leader does not?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is a Liberal interpretation.

Senator Forrestall: Great Liberal interpretation is right.

(1450)

Court Martial of Sergeant Mike Kipling

Hon. Norman K. Atkins: Honourable senators, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I understand the reasons behind inoculating Canadian military personnel against biological weapons. However, I do not understand why, now that Sergeant Mike Kipling has left the Canadian Forces and ended his career, the military continues with its court martial. This court martial continues despite the fact that it is clear that Canadian Forces personnel were not properly inoculated, that they were inoculated with outdated vaccine, and that they were inoculated against legal and medical advice.

Can the Leader of the Government explain to the Senate the government's reasoning on this court martial and how this is in keeping with real military justice?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I appreciate the honourable senator's concern and the fact that he raises this with us here in the Senate. However, I feel some reluctance to comment in detail on that issue since it is presently the matter of a judicial proceeding. It is a military judicial proceeding but, nevertheless, a judicial proceeding. Any arguments which may be available will presumably be used on behalf of the individual, and the matter will be resolved in the due course of military justice. I would be reluctant to interfere with that or even comment on it.

Senator Atkins: In view of the fact that Sergeant Kipling was given an honorary discharge, why does he continue to be charged in a military court? Should he not be dealt with in a civilian court?

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I cannot answer that question. One would presume that if the jurisdiction and the approach are wrong, competent counsel on behalf of Sergeant Kipling will raise the objections and they will be successful. I hesitate to comment.

Foreign Affairs

China—Detention of Catholic Archbishop

Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators are all aware that there is a debate ongoing in this chamber regarding religious freedom and human rights abuses in China. Some of our honourable colleagues have suggested that religious freedom is not much of a problem there.

Since Canada has maintained that we are very good friends with China, would the Leader of the Government share with us the government's position on the recent jailing of a Chinese Catholic archbishop by the government in Beijing for refusing to renounce his loyalty to the Pope and become a humble sheep of the state-approved Catholic Church?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am not in a position at this stage to indicate the position of the government. However, I will take notice of that inquiry, seek the information, and return it to the honourable senator as soon as possible. I personally am always in favour of allegiance to the Pope.

Senator Di Nino: As a good Catholic, obviously.

Request for Clarification of Human Rights Policy as Between Large and Small Countries

Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, at the same time would the minister find out for us what his government's position is on China's stated policy that there are only five recognized religions in China which, by the way, does not include, among others, Judaism?

Does the government agree that its human rights security agenda includes all countries, including China, and is not restricted to only small countries?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, clearly the agenda must include all countries if it is to be meaningful.

With respect to the position on the five recognized religions, I have not been made aware of a formal response. However, I cannot imagine that the Government of Canada would view with approval a situation where a religion, Judaism being the example the honourable member gave, would not be allowed to be practised freely. In that situation, I am sure that the government would not believe that there was true religious freedom in that jurisdiction.

Senator Di Nino: Would the minister also answer the question on whether the human rights agenda is restricted only to small countries. Does the agenda include China as well?

Senator Boudreau: I believe that the human rights agenda should apply across the board to all countries. However, if I can get a more definitive response for the honourable senator, I will.

China—Detention of Catholic Archbishop

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is supplementary to that of Senator Di Nino. Could the minister, in making his inquiries, ask his colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs to ask whether the Chinese ambassador to Canada would intervene to secure the liberty of Archbishop Yang, the 80-year-old Roman Catholic Archbishop arrested in Fuzhou yesterday by the security police?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I will certainly bring that question to the minister.

Human Resources Development

Job Creation Programs—Possible Mismanagement of Funds—Distribution of Grants

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Honourable senators, on Thursday last, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, in response to a question posed by my colleague Senator Angus, stated that opposition ridings received more Transitional Jobs Fund grants and payments than did Liberal-held ridings. He said that of the 1,083 projects approved, 568, or over half, went to opposition-held ridings.

Since he obviously must have a detailed list of these projects and payments, would the Leader of the Government table a detailed list in the Senate, broken down riding by riding, indicating those held by the government and those held by the opposition?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, that issue was raised by another honourable senator in the last Question Period. I indicated at that time that I would table the information that I had in my possession. Obviously, I do not run the department. The information I have is very succinct. I have delayed tabling it because I believe that a more complete answer than I currently have in my possession is warranted. I believe that such a response will be forthcoming, but I do not have it with me today.

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, in addition to the detailed riding list, and bearing in mind that all but one of the ridings in Atlantic Canada were held by government members prior to the 1997 election, would the Leader of the Government in the Senate also undertake to table this information listed by date, specifically the month and year the program funds were approved?

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, any information I provide will be as complete as possible. Since, as I have said, that information is not in my possession, I do not know exactly what form it is in, but I will certainly provide information in as complete a manner as possible.

Transitional Jobs Fund—Unemployment Rate Qualifying Level

Hon. Ron Ghitter: Honourable senators, could the Leader of the Government in the Senate advise us as to what the level of employment must be in an area in order to qualify for a Transitional Jobs Fund grant under HRDC?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am going from recollection so I stand to be corrected, but I believe that initially the required level of unemployment was 12 per cent. It then dropped to 10 per cent because the general unemployment rate across the country declined, as we are all happy to acknowledge.

An Hon. Senator: Because of the job creation program?

Senator Boudreau: Yes, one of the reasons might be the job creation program.

That is my recollection of the situation and I hope that is correct.

Senator Ghitter: Honourable senators, perhaps the program is no longer necessary because unemployment is no longer a problem in Canada, as we often hear. However, would the Leader of the Government in the Senate explain to the chamber the theory of pockets of unemployment with regard to the awarding of HRDC grants?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: You put it in the pocket of the minister.

Senator Boudreau: First, I wish to state, as strongly as possible, that I disagree with the honourable senator's comments that the program is no longer necessary, that unemployment has been vanquished entirely throughout the country, and that we need not worry about it any longer. There are areas of this country where unemployment remains a serious problem. One of them is the area of the country where I was born and raised. I would take strong exception to the senator's comment.

(1500)

Regardless of the general area of unemployment, if you are unemployed, then the unemployment rate for you is 100 per cent.

Senator Ghitter: Answer the question!

Senator Boudreau: In those circumstances, it is a very important point to be made. It is likely one on which the senator and I disagree fundamentally. However, I wish to make that point.

In response to the question of various pockets of unemployment, it is the case that certain areas are considered by HRDC as a result of unemployment statistics. While overall the unemployment statistics may be fine within that area, perhaps because it is fairly wide geographically, there may be pockets of high unemployment. In those cases, the program can be brought to bear, as I understand it.

Transitional Jobs Fund—Unemployment Rate Qualifying Level for Edmonton West

Hon. Ron Ghitter: In 1997 and 1998, did the City of Edmonton and the constituency of Edmonton West fall into that category?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I cannot respond to that question, offhand. I could make the inquiry and get the information as to what the criteria were and how one determines a pocket within a given HRDC region.

Senator Ghitter: Could it be that a pocket for bestowing grants may be one where it is to the advantage of a minister in his or her particular riding before an election, as in Edmonton West? Prior to the 1997 election, three grants were given out in an area where unemployment was far under the thresholds that the leader stated. Could it be that the minister had some influence over the policy in order, in a tough election, to create a little more interest and support in the riding? Could one come to that conclusion by looking at these numbers?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Yes or no.

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, of course, I am not familiar with the individual grant. There are about 30,000 files and I am not familiar with all of them.

Senator Meighen: Of course not, you are busy in Nova Scotia!

Senator Boudreau: I cannot speak to individual grants. There are approximately 30,000 files. I am not familiar with all of them. The HRDC figures for the Transitional Jobs Fund indicate that over half of these grants went into opposition ridings. I am sure that some of them went into government ridings and some of them must have gone into ministers' ridings.

However, even in areas of relatively low employment, for example in Edmonton and Winnipeg, there are urban aboriginal communities, pockets that suffer incredibly high rates of unemployment. Perhaps one of these grants was an aboriginal development grant for that group. I do not know. I would maintain that one cannot jump to the conclusion that the honourable senator suggests.

Senator Ghitter: That is an interesting observation, honourable senators, considering that, I believe, in Winnipeg North, where there is a large aboriginal population with a high degree of unemployment, no grants were given. I wonder if that would have been the same if Minister Axworthy were the representative in that area.

Job Creation Programs—Possible Mismanagement of Funds—Grant to Developer of Warehouse to Store Wal-Mart Stock

Hon. Ron. Ghitter: Honourable senators, it was reported this morning that Wal-Mart's net income in the fourth quarter of last year was $1.92 billion. I do not think a developer that has Wal-Mart as a potential tenant would have any trouble going to the bank to raise money in order to put that development up for Wal-Mart.

Could the Leader of the Government please explain what possible justification there might be in the government giving a $500,000 grant to a well-heeled Canadian developer in order to place a warehouse in a particular area, this considering that any amount of money could be raised with Wal-Mart's covenant, considering their profits and the desirability of their covenant?

An Hon. Senator: Shame!

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I find that a relatively easy question to answer. Perhaps it is because I come from Nova Scotia. However, in the past, governments of all political stripes that have had a chance to govern in Nova Scotia — that would be two — have dealt with criticism precisely of that nature. Grants are given to Sobeys, Michelin, Wal-Mart and others, to create jobs. That is what it is all about, since jobs would not otherwise be created in that area. It happens all the time.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: They are loans, not grants.

Senator Boudreau: Personally, I feel better. If the government gives a grant to some fly-by-night outfit that declares bankruptcy, the criticism is: What are you doing, dealing with a business like that? Why do you not deal with a responsible business that has a track record and substance. If you give the grant to someone who is likely to use the money to create the jobs and have substance, you get criticism on the other side.

If a Wal-Mart, a J.D. Irving, a Michelin or any of those are prepared to create jobs in areas of high employment where they would not have created the jobs otherwise, so much the better. This is, perhaps, not as much a need in downtown Toronto, but it is the case in many areas of the country. I am more comfortable giving it to them than some fly-by-night outfit of which I have never heard.

Senator Ghitter: Honourable senators, the Leader of the Government has just given the very reasons why these grants should be scrapped. To suggest that one must give money to the Wal-Marts, the Sobeys, the Vidéotrons and the Bombardiers of the world is inappropriate. If the business operation works, let them do it. They do not need government grants to make it happen. That is where we differ as to what these grants are all about.

I would argue that you ought not to give money to these companies. If it works, they will do it. I can remember a government grant of $200,000 to open a tube mill in Brooks, Alberta. It did not work because the employment was not there. The tube mill closed down. You cannot artificially, by a band-aid approach, come up with these programs and suggest you are creating jobs. If it works in a business sense, it will work. You do not need government money. Wal-Mart, with its $1.9-billion net profit, does not hurt the Government of Canada. Their credit rating is better than the Government of Canada's.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to remind you that Question Period is not a period for debate. I call Delayed Answers to Oral Questions.

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, we would like to ask for leave to extend Question Period to provide an opportunity to the Leader of the Government to answer the question.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is leave granted to extend the time for Question Period in order for the Leader of the Government to reply?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Take your time.

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, as I said before, I think the honourable senator has raised the level of debate on the issue. We disagree on that point. I respect his views. I respect the position that he takes. However, I do not agree with it. There are many examples I could cite where government intervention, at an appropriate moment, in a reasonable way, has resulted in many long-term and permanent jobs. Michelin employs thousands of Nova Scotians. It has now become the largest value exporter from our province. They would not have been there without government intervention. They have been there for decades.

I cannot resist saying to the honourable senator that when the leader of his party was in Halifax just the other weekend, I do not recall any objections to the kind of job creation programs that we are talking about and that past governments throughout this country have engaged in, including Conservative governments.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Pages Exchange Program with House of Commons

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to introduce the House of Commons page who is on exchange with us this week. Her name is Christie Meadows. She is pursuing her studies in political science at the Faculty of Public Affairs and Management at Carleton University. Christie is from Labrador City, Newfoundland and Labrador.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I bid you welcome here in the Senate. We hope that you find your week with us interesting and constructive.

Criminal Records Act

Bill to Amend—Message from Commons

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, a message has been received from the House of Commons to return Bill C-7, to amend the Criminal Records Act and to amend another act in consequence, and to acquaint the Senate that the Commons have agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this bill without amendment.

(1510)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Medical Decisions Facilitation Bill

Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carstairs, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pépin, for the second reading of Bill S-2, to facilitate the making of legitimate medical decisions regarding life-sustaining treatments and the controlling of pain.—(Honourable Senator Lavoie-Roux).

Hon. Mabel M. DeWare: Honourable senators, I rise today to participate in the second reading debate on Bill S-2, the proposed Medical Decisions Facilitation legislation, which was introduced by our colleague, Senator Sharon Carstairs.

As we all know, another of our colleagues, Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux, also has a keen interest in health care matters. She has maintained that interest throughout her career and continues it through her work in this chamber. Notably, Senator Lavoie-Roux co-chaired the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, of which I was also a member. In April 1999, she introduced Bill S-29, the proposed Protection of Patients and Health Care Providers Act, which was a predecessor of Bill S-2. Bill S-29 passed second reading and was referred to committee before Parliament prorogued in September.

Honourable senators, because of this history, Senator Lavoie-Roux wanted to speak on Bill S-2 herself before it went to committee. Regrettably, however, she cannot be here in person. However, she did share with me her comments and concerns about this legislation and I should like to pass them on to you, along with some of my own comments.

Senator Lavoie-Roux is very concerned about mounting public pressure for the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. She feels strongly — as I am sure we all do — about Parliament's role in clarifying ambiguities in the law, ambiguities that can lead to misinterpretations. Witnesses who appeared before the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in 1993 and 1994 pointed out that there is confusion about the legal status of withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. This alarmed the committee, and we recommended that the law be clarified, just as the Law Reform Commission had in its 1983 report.

Key to the importance of the issue at hand is the need to exercise caution and to ensure that there are safeguards that protect the sanctity of life. Where we draw the line is one of the grey areas, which Bill S-2 seeks to clarify.

Previous attempts to address this grey area were included in Bill S-29, which was a follow-up to the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of Canada's "Report on Euthanasia, Aiding Suicide and Cessation of Treatment" and the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide's report, "Of Life and Death." Senator Lavoie-Roux told me, however, that she has since been warned about the questionable need for such legislation. That is because there have been developments in current medical practice in Canada, such as accredited training programs in end-of-life care, and because of the fact that existing law does not provide immunity to health care providers who commit wrongdoing.

There is also strong opposition to the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide, reflecting a concern that Canadian law must protect vulnerable patients. It is therefore important that any bill dealing with end-of-life treatment be sound and free of any omissions or ambiguity in the law that may risk opening the door to euthanasia or assisted suicide. As long as there is ambiguity in the law and, more important, in the minds of health care providers, there exists a threat to the lives of Canadians.

First, I wish to make it clear that Senator Lavoie-Roux recognizes the good intentions of Bill S-2 and the spirit in which it was introduced. However, she believes it could fall short of attaining its goal to protect health care providers who seek to honour their patients' wishes. She wants us to make sure that we do not in any way open the door to euthanasia or to the slippery slope that can lead to the practice of mercy killing in Canada, as in the case of Holland.

Senator Lavoie-Roux is also very concerned that Bill S-2 does not provide the necessary safeguards to ensure against such a danger. For example, Canadian Physicians for Life told her that Bill S-2 could:

...weaken the current status that protects vulnerable patients, such as the elderly, disabled or incompetent.

Of course, we all recognize that this is not what is intended by the bill.

Honourable senators, I wish also to outline key concerns with Bill S-2. The first involves what we see as a major omission. Obtaining consent from the patient, or a substitute decision-maker, is not mentioned where the administration of pain-control medication is concerned, even if the medication may inadvertently shorten the life of the patient. Clause 2 of the bill reads:

No health care provider is guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code by reason only that the health care provider, for the purpose of alleviating the physical pain of a person but not to cause death, administers medication to that person in dosages that might shorten the life of the person.

There is no mention of the obligation to obtain consent, either from the patient or from the representative, before administering medication. Requiring free and informed consent is an extra protection for patients. Not getting consent before administering medication that could bring about someone's death is called euthanasia. Senator Lavoie-Roux is therefore concerned that this bill could move Canada toward the legalization of euthanasia. She also reminds us that the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, of which we were a part, certainly did not support the idea of administering pain-control medication without a patient's consent.

In this area, I must admit that I personally feel there are definitely times when a patient's consent is not available to the doctor because of the condition of the patient; also, at times, doctors must use their own discretion in such cases.

Bill S-2 is a stand-alone piece of legislation rather than an amendment to the Criminal Code, even though it addresses criminal immunity. Preferred legal practice would be to simply amend the Criminal Code. It appears that the format of a stand-alone statute was chosen in order to include a preamble comprised of certain recommendations from "Of Life and Death." A statute, however, may not be suitable for writing up a five-year-old recommendation from a Senate subcommittee.

As Senator Carstairs once pointed out, it is not legal practice to have a preamble in a statute. If context needs to be provided, then a summary section is the standard practice. Furthermore, the bill's provisions should be clear enough to allow the reader to understand its intent.

When asked why she had introduced a bill intending to amend the Criminal Code, without simply making it an amendment to the Criminal Code, Senator Carstairs pointed out the difficulty of incorporating national guidelines, education standards and research practices into such legislation. Certainly, we can all commend Senator Carstairs' desire to promote public education about palliative care, to advocate further training of health care professionals in the field, and to encourage evaluative research.

When Senator Losier-Cool spoke to Bill S-2, she underlined the importance of improving accessibility to quality palliative care services throughout the country. I am also a strong proponent of palliative care services. I fully support the idea of re-examining, for instance, how people are cared for in their later stages of life and, as well, how we can help those caring for them, whether in hospitals, long-term care institutions or at home. What better way is there to counteract public pressure for euthanasia than by providing suitable alternatives, namely, good, accessible palliative care?

The question of palliative care and what it means is a very important one and it is one that Bill S-2 attempts to address. However, I am not sure that this particular bill is the place to enforce provisions regarding public education, training and research into palliative care. It is intended to provide a criminal defence. Palliative care reform is a separate issue entirely. However, it needs to be addressed.

Honourable senators, there is also a concern that there may be a problem with the bill's attempt to deal with advance directives and substitute decisions. Legislation concerning advance directives or "living wills," and the appointment of substitute decision-makers, falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces. I do not see a need to outline the steps by which proxies are appointed, as Bill S-2 does, thus bordering on provincial jurisdiction. Instead, the bill could require that provincial laws be honoured — that they guide the process of obtaining consent or making a request with respect to health care decisions, as Bill S-29 stipulated.

(1520)

As we know, one of the biggest challenges in introducing statutes dealing with health care is to bridge two different fields: law and medicine. The medical community understandably will be resistant to legislation formally stating that pain control medication might shorten the life of a person. Most experts will maintain that sedation, properly administered, will not bring about death. It is possible to draft legislation, as we saw with Bill S-29, that prevents such problems by omitting the phrase "that might shorten the life of a person."

The issue of creating guidelines for withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment and for administering pain control medications must also be considered. Guidelines are needed with respect to these practices, and they were a crucial element in the special Senate committee's unanimous recommendations. However, we continue to witness the reluctance of the federal government to take action to set such standards.

Senator Lavoie-Roux introduced the notion of a government obligation to set guidelines last spring. Bill S-2 hints at such a notion by giving the Minister of Health the option of establishing national guidelines in coordination with provincial — not federal — authorities and associations. For such a bill to be effective, she feels the Department of Health must set guidelines and must set them after extensive consultation with provincial and federal authorities.

Bill S-2 attempts both to provide a defence for health care providers accused of murder and to advocate the need for palliative care reform. Each of these elements does indeed have a great deal of merit. However, Bill S-2 could create a legislative patchwork that runs the risk of being unconstitutional.

For all of these reasons, Senator Lavoie-Roux told me that she will not be supporting Bill S-2.

Honourable senators, I urge you to consider these concerns, as well as the comments and observations that have been made on this legislation by others, both within and outside this chamber. When dealing with such important matters of life and death, we cannot be cautious enough. However, I wish to commend Senator Carstairs for her introduction of Bill S-2, and I look forward to the committee's deliberations on this bill.

On motion of Senator Cools, debate adjourned.

Public Service Whistle-Blowing Bill

Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kinsella, seconded by the Honourable Senator DeWare, for the second reading of Bill S-13, to assist in the prevention of wrongdoing in the Public Service by establishing a framework for education on ethical practices in the workplace, for dealing with allegations of wrongdoing and for protecting whistleblowers.— (Honourable Senator Finestone, P.C.).

Hon. Sheila Finestone: Honourable senators, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill S-13, the Public Service Whistle-Blowing Bill proposed by the Honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition. This bill attempts to deal with crucial issues in the public service and its relationship to Parliament and the public. This bill is meant to provide the mechanism for public servants who see corruption to report it, to protect from retaliation public servants who speak out on allegations of wrongdoing in the workplace, and to promote a common standard of ethics, awareness of the importance of reporting and the existence of the mechanism that permits it.

Whistle-blowing mechanisms have already been put into place in other jurisdictions. In the United States, the Office of Special Counsel has already existed for 20 years with this type of mandate. In February 1999, Elaine Kaplan, Special Counsel of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, stressed that whistle-blowing legislation and mechanisms are crucial to fighting against government corruption. She indicated:

...without effective protections for whistle blowers ... any anti-corruption effort is doomed to fail because it denies those seeking to root out official corruption the most valuable source of information about its existence — public employees.... The theory is that the public employees — because of their work — are uniquely situated to bring attention to official corruption — they are valuable instruments of good government.

The concept of whistle-blowing is relatively recent. The word itself dates back only to the 1960s. In Canada, the concept of whistle-blowing has come forward only during the last two decades as our government institutions have evolved to meet the needs of a modern technological society, a growing public service with diverse functions, a need to decentralize and delegate to make decision-making more efficient, and to get rid of red tape and to empower their managers to new levels of responsibility for interpreting and enacting public laws.

These changes have thrown old relationships into new balances and created new potential tensions between individuals — that is, public servants — and their work environment. The traditional approach to the public service sees the solution to this type of tension in hierarchical reporting relationships, where everyone reports up the chain of command, each employee implicitly obeys his supervisor, and final decisions are final. Disagreements are only tolerated, if at all, until the final decision is communicated. Those who do not fit into this framework are soon shelved or leave of their own volition. It also means that there is almost no recourse for anyone treated unfairly by a boss or who sees an illegal act being carried out by a superior. Reporting up the chain of command simply may alert the wrongdoer and enable them to take revenge. Those who go outside the chain of command face stiff penalties, no matter how just their actions. They are considered disloyal and therefore lose their protection from both managerial retaliation and partisan politics. The common law in Canada currently gives only the most narrow of protections to whistle-blowers, even when their allegations are proven to be true.

Aspects of this traditional approach are still strong within the public service but are often being challenged now by other trends. New approaches to service delivery require decentralized decision-making. The complexities of modern issues cut across old hierarchies, requiring coordination and cooperation across governments, between different levels of government, with private and voluntary sector organizations and with other countries. As government has become more involved in regulating various domains, it becomes increasingly dependent on public servants, experts and professional opinions with regard to some crucial public policy questions.

In this new environment, when government is trying to decentralize decision-making to increase efficiency, when access-to-information laws make protection of confidential material moot, what is the new role of the public servant? What responsibility do individuals have to their superiors, to the public and to themselves? As public servants are left more often to take blame for decisions, do they have any right to disclosure of how those decisions were reached? Are there not sometimes conflicts of interest between the need to give complete information and the need for loyalty to the organization? How is the public interest better served in these instances, and who will judge?

The cases most often given in the press involve clear cases of fraud or other illegal activity. In those instances, honourable senators, it is clear that the duty of every public servant who becomes aware of these illegal acts is to inform the police. At other times, the clash of interests is not so clearly resolved. An expert within a particular field may have professional standards that differ from what is found in the law or in regulations. When experts are employed as public servants, are they duty bound to make known these discrepancies and what it might mean?

(1530)

In the areas of public health and safety, many citizens might feel it is better to err on the side of caution rather than expediency. Even one error in these fields can have long-lasting and dramatic effects. The use of tainted blood in health systems is one example where a more conservative approach to testing blood and ensuring that it is free of disease would have saved lives. The earlier example of thalidomide and its horrific effects is still a powerful incentive to scientists to proceed cautiously in approving drugs for wide use.

In the United States, the Challenger disaster and the public loss of life brought to the fore the disagreements among engineers, who were public servants at that point, and their supervisors at NASA about the safety of certain parts that were subsequently shown to have caused this terrible catastrophe.

Thus, we should ask and we should clarify: What is the duty of the government expert when conflicts arise between professional standards and government regulations. How are such conflicts to be resolved when there is a disagreement on the potential risks, when government may have decentralized its operations to managers who are then tasked with making such decisions? Let us remember that there is not often the same clarity between the intent of the law and the regulations and those public servants who have to interpret the intent of the law and write those regulations.

Engineering and other professional associations have now drafted guidelines for what I call "dissenting on ethical grounds," to help individuals on how to proceed where their professional judgments differ from the instructions they are given by their supervisors. It is quite right, therefore, that this bill proposes that one of the main functions to be carried out in the public service is a similar effort at educating public servants about the ethics of decision making and the mechanisms available to them to highlight their serious concerns without being labelled as troublemakers. At the same time, because allegations of wrongdoing have serious consequences, the guidelines for how to proceed must include the criteria for how such allegations will be assessed and the penalties for making frivolous allegations.

The need for an independent public interest commissioner as proposed in this bill is also clear. Currently, if public servants perceive certain processes or actions to be wasteful or unwise, to whom do they report it? Reporting waste in programs that the government of the day does not strongly support is usually not difficult. Reporting waste in initiatives that the government has strongly supported and publicized can be more problematic. From the political level, such reports can seem to indicate lack of loyalty or commitment to the government's priorities. Therefore, it is essential to have a mechanism independent of the government through which such allegations of waste and corruption can be vetted. Without such independence, the scope of action possible after an allegation is made will be extremely limited.

Honourable senators, I come finally to the question of what happens to individuals who do attempt to report fraud, illegal acts, waste, inefficiency, risks and differences between government regulations and professional standards or harassment. Some organizations have created the position of ombudsman to investigate such claims while trying to keep the identify of the accusers protected. Human rights legislation and civil law give employees avenues to pursue harassment and discrimination issues through the courts or through human rights tribunals. These processes are, however, long, drawn out, and fraught with risk for the individual. Any pursuit of the employer is costly. When the employer is the government, its access to legal advice and assistance is endless. What happens then to the employee? In the meantime, that employee works under a cloud, being perceived as disloyal, a troublemaker, et cetera.

As U.S. special counsel Elaine Kaplan pointed out about public service whistle-blowers:

— unlike private citizens in a democracy, they are uniquely vulnerable to retaliation by the very officials and institutions whose corruption they have disclosed. At the one extreme, those officials have the power to take away a whistle blower's livelihood and destroy their professional reputation. Or they can, in more subtle ways, make their daily lives miserable by isolating them or denying them work assignments and opportunities for advancement.

The need to protect the whistle-blower, as provided for in this proposed legislation, is therefore crucial. The need for an independent public interest commissioner is reinforced, as this individual would be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of allegations made and cannot be beholden to government in carrying out the mandate of the position. Similarly, the penalties for punishing a whistle-blower who is making allegations must be powerful enough to discourage anyone from taking such a course, other than with a well-founded, well-intentioned concern for the public good.

Given the changing context of the public service and our society, given the changing values we place on loyalty to an organization compared to loyalty to a professional standard, to a strong sense of morality, or to what is called the public interest, the potential for conflict between individuals and their employer has grown dramatically. The need to protect individuals who seek to reveal information for these motives has increased correspondingly.

Even if the government acted today, Canada would not be a leader in enacting whistle-blowing legislation. In addition to the United States, as noted in the excellent research provided to us by the Library of Parliament, Australia at both the federal and state levels, and Britain, have passed legislation or regulations for the protection of whistle-blowers in the public service. We are a bit late in that regard.

In Canada, New Brunswick appears to be the only jurisdiction in which such legislation exists, although its scope is limited to the alleged violation of provincial and federal legislation, and would not cover allegations of waste, mismanagement or generally non-legislated health and safety risks to the public. Ontario, although it has passed a very good act that gives broad protection to public-sector whistle-blowers, has, under the current administration of that province, not yet had the act proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor.

For all the above reasons, honourable senators, I think that Senator Kinsella's proposed whistle-blowing bill is timely and should be thoroughly reviewed and considered. A number of issues need to be given careful thought in committee.

First, the designation of a public service commissioner as a public interest commissioner is an interesting proposal, since the commission reports to Parliament and is at arm's length from the government of the day. However, passing this framework legislation will not guarantee the necessary resources to that commissioner for the mandate that needs to be carried out. Too often in the past, governments at all levels created human rights mechanisms only to subsequently slash their resources. Creating another under-resourced structure in the public service will not increase its credibility. It will raise expectations that, if sufficiently publicized, will simply create an instant overload in the cases waiting to be dealt with. The waiting period of several years, familiar to those of us who work with human rights commissions, will soon reappear. Therefore, this issue needs to be highlighted in our deliberations. We need to call appropriate witnesses in this regard.

Second, the exception provided for disclosure of a whistle-blower's identity in clause 20(2) where the commission determines that allegations were not made in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief causes me some concern. What is reasonable belief to one person is not necessarily that to another person. This kind of criteria can be somewhat subjective and open to influence of various prejudices. If the interpretation is too strict, it will simply have the effect of chilling all complaints. This ground for disclosure should be thoroughly defined.

Third, clause 9(4) needs a similarly detailed explanation as to the meaning of "reasonable" in the phrase, "unless the employee is prompted by reasonable concerns for public health or safety." This interpretation of "reasonable" has a direct impact on the interpretation of "reasonable belief" in clause 20(2).

The kind of ethical dilemmas I have outlined in my speech already exist in the public service. It is obvious that the ethical balance between loyalty and the need for full disclosure is becoming more critical in the operations of this new and complex government.

In passing whistle-blowing legislation, we will take a major step in allowing our public service and our public servants who are hard working and well intentioned to face the growing challenges of delegated power, disclosure and the need for accountability in the use of public funds.

(1540)

This bill, with the few minor caveats I have mentioned, will, I believe, give Canada a tool to achieve this goal in a way that educates and promotes a common ethical approach across the public service, and in a way that protects the anonymity of those who come forward to identify wrongful acts and omissions. I strongly support this legislation and recommend that it go to committee for further study.

On motion of Senator Lynch-Staunton, debate adjourned.

Criminal Code

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore moved the second reading of Bill C-202, to amend the Criminal Code (flight).—(Honourable Senator Hays).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise in support of Bill C-202. Mr. Dan McTeague, the honourable member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, is to be commended for introducing Bill C-202, on motorists' flight from police, this past fall in the other place. Honourable senators may recall it was first introduced as Bill C-440 in October of 1998, during the First Session of this Parliament.

Late last year, the Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights reported Bill C-202 with certain amendments, and it was adopted unanimously in the House of Commons on February 7, 2000. I should mention that the Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights had also identified the police chase issue as a matter deserving further consideration in its twenty-first report, entitled, "Toward Eliminating Impaired Driving," which was tabled in the House on May 25, 1999.

Policing organizations such as the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and La Féderation des policiers et policières du Québec have publicly supported Bill C-202. The police community is very supportive of the progress represented by Bill C-202. The risks created by motorists who flee from police present an intolerable situation. The danger of death and injury for members of the public, the police and the fleeing motorist are very real.

On the one hand, the police feel public pressure to pursue and apprehend fleeing motorists, who often are running from a theft or committing an impaired driving offence. On the other hand, there is pressure from some who would prefer that the police not engage in any pursuits at all, thereby avoiding collisions. We can thus see that the police are under enormous pressure when deciding whether to pursue a motorist who refuses to stop, and if they choose to pursue, they are faced with the continuing decision of whether the danger has increased to the point where the pursuit must be discontinued.

Honourable senators, we know that the police do not take these decisions lightly. Often the police must make these decisions instantaneously, without the benefit of hindsight. I do not believe that we should restrict the police by telling them they must never give chase. The purpose of this bill is not to tell them that they must, at any price, capture a culprit, but to put the accountability where it should be. Accountability must be placed squarely upon those individuals who flee the police and engage the police in motor vehicle pursuits.

The member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge made motions for helpful changes to Bill C-202 when sitting with the Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights during its clause-by-clause review of the bill. As amended, Bill C-202 will add a new offence to the Criminal Code for a motorist who fails to stop for police or in order to evade police. This new offence will immediately follow section 249, the dangerous driving provision. It will include certain situations that might not amount to dangerous driving. For example, there are situations where a fleeing motorist is speeding on a flat, straight stretch of highway in an effort to evade police, and the Crown prosecutor is not able to show that the driving conduct meets the test for dangerous driving. Under Bill C-202, the failure to stop would be a criminal offence.

Originally, Bill C-202 would have created a straight indictable offence for fleeing the police, punishable by two years' imprisonment. As with dangerous driving and impaired driving offences, the new offence of flight from police will now be one for which the Crown prosecutor may elect to proceed by indictment or by summary conviction. This gives the Crown the flexibility to proceed more expeditiously where the factual circumstances and the offender's criminal record are less serious. The maximum penalty on summary conviction would be six months' imprisonment. On indictment, the maximum penalty would be five years' imprisonment. These are the same maximum penalties that exist for dangerous driving and impaired driving offences.

Honourable senators, dangerous driving already attracts severe maximum penalties. Dangerous driving that causes bodily harm or death is punishable by 10 years' or 14 years' imprisonment respectively. Bill C-202 makes it clear that such dangerous driving which also involves fleeing the police is even more serious. Where a fleeing motorist causes death by dangerous driving, the maximum penalty will be life imprisonment. Where a fleeing motorist causes bodily harm by dangerous driving, the maximum penalty would be 14 years' imprisonment. These maximum penalties would be reserved for the worst factual circumstances and the worst offenders. These maximum penalties also signal that offences involving flight from police where death or injury is caused by dangerous driving should carry a stiffer penalty than the same set of circumstances causing death or injury in which no flight from police is involved.

In conclusion, honourable senators, Bill C-202 tells motorists that they must not engage police in motor vehicle pursuits. If they kill or injure someone while driving dangerously in flight from police pursuit, the available penalties will be severe. The bottom line is that there be a separate criminal law offence for motor vehicle flight from police. The message to would-be offenders is simple: Stop for the police or be ready to face the consequences. I ask all honourable senators to give their support to Bill C-202.

On motion of Senator Kinsella, for Senator Ghitter, debate adjourned.

[Translation]

Census Records

Petitions Accepted

Hon. Fernand Robichaud (The Hon. the Acting Speaker): Honourable senators, it has been drawn to my attention that the petitions presented in the Senate earlier today were not signed entirely by Canadian citizens. I would like to quote paragraph 1035.(3) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, which states:

[English]

1035.(3) A petition signed by both Canadian citizens and foreigners has been received by the House with unanimous consent.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, is it your pleasure to consent to the tabling of these petitions as presented by Senator Milne during Presentation of Petitions?

[English]

Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, I ask for unanimous consent to present this petition, which contains a number of signatures. A small minority of them come from the United States and from Great Britain, as I mentioned when I presented the petition. The petition is in favour of the release of census records after 1901.

According to Beauchesne, the Honourable the Acting Speaker is quite correct in that I should have asked for unanimous consent to present this petition. I ask for unanimous consent now. If not granted, I will withdraw the petition and then present the vast majority of the names, which are Canadian, tomorrow.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): On behalf of honourable senators on this side of the house, we are pleased to grant our consent to the presentation of this petition in the manner in which it has been presented, in part based upon the principle expressed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As honourable senators know, we recognize those rights and freedoms to be predicated on behalf of everyone, save and except only three rights — the right to leave Canada and return to Canada, which is limited to Canadian citizens; the right to vote, which is limited to Canadian citizens; and the right to certain minority education rights, which is limited to Canadian citizens. All the other rights that we recognize, however, are predicated on behalf of everyone. A petition of this sort, notwithstanding what is contained in Beauchesne, is based upon that principle. That is why we are happy to grant our consent.

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I, too, am prepared to give agreement to Senator Milne in this particular instance. However, this is one of those questions on which we should seek clarity at some particular point in time. Unfortunately, I did not hear the earlier presentation of the petition, but I did hear what Senator Kinsella just said. I understand and I agree with the concept that rights are broadly endowed. I am not convinced totally, however, that citizens of the United States of America or any other foreign country have a right to petition the Parliament of Canada. Nevertheless, to the extent that Senator Milne has done a lot of work, I am prepared and quite happy to give her my consent in this instance.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

European Monetary Union

Report of Foreign Affairs Committee on Study—Debate Adjourned

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs entitled: "Europe Revisited: Consequences of Increased European Integration For Canada", tabled in the Senate on November 17, 1999.—(Honourable Senator Stollery).

Hon. Peter A. Stollery: Honourable senators, I should like to say a few words about our report that was tabled in November, entitled "Europe Revisited: Consequences of Increased European Integration For Canada."

Honourable senators, in putting together a few words for today, I carefully went through the report again. I wish to point out that on page 25 of the report we have an error in a section about "dollarization". Somehow we have inadvertently included Mexico with Argentina. That is not correct. I was a bit surprised at that error myself.

The Foreign Affairs Committee has had a long interest in international economic developments dating back to the 1980s and the original Free Trade Agreement, then to NAFTA and on to the European Union in the 1970s. Our committee has spent a great deal of time on international economic developments because many of the decisions being made on behalf of Canadian citizens increasingly are being made by international organizations, to such a degree that some Canadians in other countries feel they do not have much input.

Our committee has made it a habit to look at these subjects — that is, international economic developments. This report on the European Union follows work that we did in 1995 and 1996, during which our committee travelled to Europe and had an interesting schedule of meetings which contributed greatly to the excellence of this report.

Basically, this report addresses itself to two subjects: the European Monetary Union and the reform of the European Union. Anyone interested in these very important subjects will find our report most useful.

I should like to take a moment this afternoon to give honourable senators a few statistics that I think are forgotten by Canadians but are nonetheless very important.

Many people say that our profile in Europe and in the European Union is not as high as it should be. Before I address that point, I should like to give honourable senators population figures that are important for countries in the European Union and for Canada.

The Canada in which I was born had a population of 13 million people. Canada's population now stands at 31 million and is expanding rapidly. It is fair to say that it will not be long before we will have the same population as Spain, which is 40 million. Poland, an active candidate for membership into the European Union, has a population of 38 million. Canada's population, at this point, is greater than the Benelux — that is, Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg.

When we talk in terms of international trade and of Ireland, for example, Ireland has a population of 3.5 million people. It is a very small country.

(1600)

You must look at those population figures to understand the importance of the fact that the European Union is now the largest single market in the world. Many people believe that in terms of trade Canada has not been doing as well as it should in the largest market in the world.

When our committee was in Europe, we were told by Mr. John Beck, who I believe is the Director of the International Affairs Directorate of the European Union, that Canada only represents 1.7 per cent of European trade, in contrast to the U.S. share of over 20 per cent. This is a very important statistic. Taking population alone, the United States is a little more than eight times as large as us. Therefore, if it followed a logical progression, our trade in Europe should be around 2.5 or 3 per cent. For that reason, there is something wrong.

Honourable senators, 8 to 9 per cent of Canadian trade is with the European Union. I heard it said the other day that one of the problems in Canada is that we are basically exporters of primary products — forestry and mining products, et cetera. However, 50 to 75 per cent of our exports are in manufactured goods, increasingly in goods such as commuter airplanes. Our exports to Europe are of a highly technical nature. Therefore, it is not true that we have problems in Europe because we are only a producer of certain kinds of raw materials.

It is also important that Canadians understand that we are a huge exporter of capital to Europe. One of the great Canadian success stories in international commerce is in the capital import and export market. Our European investments have risen 230 per cent in the last 10 years. It is an interesting fact that the United States has about $150 billion of investment in Canada. European Union countries have about $50 billion of investment in Canada — or about one third of that of the U.S. — and Canadian investment in the European Union is about $50 billion, a very large amount. That is one of our great success stories, and our investments are rising at a more rapid rate than investment in Europe from the United States.

That also makes me wonder why only 1.7 per cent of European trade is with Canada in contrast to over 20 per cent with the United States. Canada should be much more aggressive in dealing with the European Union in some of these matters.

I want only to point out the importance of our report, which deals with the European Monetary Union. We are skeptical about the European Monetary Union. Our witnesses were skeptical, not that it has not taken place, because it has taken place, but, as senators know, there are people in Canada who think, because the European Monetary Union is such a success — in quotation marks — that Canada should enter into a monetary union with the United States. That has not been the conclusion of our committee, and you would have to read the report to find out why. I will not take up the time of senators with that this afternoon. However, it is important to understand the difficulties faced by the long-term success of the European Monetary Union without a central European government.

The second part of our report deals with the problems of reforming the European Union and the conflicting pressures, which are of great importance to this country. We in Canada know perfectly well the pressures between a national government and the regions. That has been the history of our country. The Europeans have absolutely no experience with that.

As you know, there is the famous European Parliament. As well, there are the governments of the member states. Do honourable senators think that it would be easy for the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the President of France or the German Chancellor to allow the European Parliament to take their power from them? The experience in Canada in that department has certainly been the opposite.

In my opinion, they had not realized this. I believe that the success of the euro depends on a central-government structure that can deal with tax incentives for the varying regions for which it is the currency. The economic circumstances in Spain are different than those in Germany; those in Ireland are different than those in Italy, et cetera.

By the way, the whole purpose of the euro and the European Union was a political one. Senator Bolduc and I attended many meetings where it was explained that it was not an economic issue so much as a political one, that it was believed that having the same money would force you to have some kind of a central government, that it would go hand in hand, that it would force the hands of national governments toward a central government. In fact, the opposite has taken place.

In many countries, although not every country, only approximately 20 to 22 per cent of the electorate bother voting for the European Parliament. The European Parliament has lost credibility. People feel distant from the central structures in Brussels. In fact, as you know, the Maastricht Treaty in France passed by about .2 per cent in the referendum. The British dare not hold a referendum about the European Monetary Union because they know it will not pass.

There has, in fact, been a drawing back from a national government in Europe over the last six months to a year. The national governments are taking more and more away from the Brussels system. I do not know where that will lead, honourable senators, but it is important that we in Canada monitor this. It is essential that we monitor the attempts for enlarging the European structure, because we must consider how difficult it will be to make decisions when Poland, the Czech Republic and other countries that have a very rural base are brought in.

(1610)

How will they pay for the agricultural subsidies? Will that be of benefit to Canada? Agricultural subsidies to European farmers are making it difficult for Canadian farmers to sell their goods to third-party customers. Heavily subsidized European agricultural exports are competing with less-subsidized Canadian agricultural exports. This is a big problem for us.

I recommend the report to the Senate, and I hope honourable senators have enough interest to follow these issues because they are very important to the standard of living of Canadians. The Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate will be continuing its study of these very important matters.

[Translation]

Hon. Roch Bolduc: Honourable senators, would Senator Stollery answer a question?

Senator Stollery: Yes.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, the time set aside for debate on this item on the Orders of the Day is now up. Is leave granted to continue?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Bolduc: Senator Stollery intimated that he was rather pessimistic about the future of the European Union. Does the basic change that is happening not arise from the fact that the European governments have realized that the European Union could not be governed by a bureaucracy in Brussels, but rather by the governments of the countries in question? This strikes me as very healthy and represents progress of a sort. These governments were democratically elected.

Senator Stollery: Honourable senators, the idea that national governments have greater political powers is a good one. How will this affect the financial system? In our report, we point out that the monetary system is based on a national government. How will these 16 countries facing widely varied economic circumstances in deciding on the value of money, taxes and so on, harmonize this system? I see contradiction in this. It is not because I am a pessimist. I know very well that the debate among regional governments and the federal government has functioned with difficulty in Canada. I see more contradiction than scepticism perhaps.

On motion of Senator Andreychuk, debate adjourned.

[English]

Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Second Report of Committee Adopted

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources (power to hire staff and to travel) presented in the Senate on December 15, 1999.—(Honourable Senator Spivak).

Hon. Mira Spivak moved the adoption of the report.

Motion agreed to and report adopted.

Business of the Senate

Hon. Charlie Watt: Honourable senators, bear with me for one moment, please.

Hon. Noël Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, to which item on the Order Paper are we speaking?

[Translation]

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, I draw to your attention the fact that Senator Watt sought leave to have his report considered later today. Leave was granted.

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, Item No. 5 on the Orders of the Day, under Reports of Committees, was called.

Hon. Eymard G. Corbin: He said No. 4.

[English]

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, in asking leave for Senator Watt to address his committee's report later this day, I did have discussions with my counterpart, Senator Kinsella. My understanding was that this item would go to the end of Reports of Committees on the Order Paper.

Senator Kinsella: No, it was to go to the end of the day.

Senator Hays: I misunderstood, then. In that we have only two orders left to deal with between now and the end of the day, one of which is Senator Lynch-Staunton's motion, perhaps I should reflect on the misunderstanding. If Senator Lynch-Staunton wishes to proceed, we could go directly to that item.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, I am in your hands. Should I give the floor to the Honourable Senator Watt?

[English]

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, on my scroll, the next item is Motion No. 5 under the rubric "Other". It is the motion of Senator Spivak, seconded by Senator Andreychuk, concerning the Energy Committee. It is adjourned in the name of Senator Taylor. That is where we are on today's scroll.

Senator Hays: That is correct. The explanation of why the order was called is that I spoke to the clerk on the basis of my misunderstanding of the agreement with my counterpart, that consent was given for us to revert to Senator Watt's report on this day. In the normal course, this report would not be up for debate until tomorrow. My understanding was that the item was to go to the end of Reports of Committees on the Order Paper, and Senator Kinsella's understanding was that it go to the end of the Order Paper, period.

I am prepared to concede that I misunderstood. To remedy the situation, I am indicating to all honourable senators, with the agreement of Senator Watt, that he will speak on his committee's report as the last item before I revert to Government Notices of Motions to deal with the adjournment motion.

Accordingly, it would be in order to proceed with the scroll as printed, not as I suggested to the clerk.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed that we proceed in this manner?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[Translation]

(1620)

Francophone and Acadian Communities Outside Quebec

Deterioration of Services—Inquiry

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Simard calling the attention of the Senate to the situation vis-à-vis the development and vitality of francophone and Acadian communities, its gradual deterioration, the growing indifference of governments in Canada over the past ten years, and the lack of access to services in French.—(Honourable Senator Kinsella).

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, on November 16, the Honourable Jean-Maurice Simard called the attention of the Senate to the current situation vis-à-vis the development and vitality of francophone and Acadian communities, its gradual deterioration, the growing indifference of governments over the past ten years, and the lack of access to services in French. Today, I wish to speak in support of that inquiry by my colleague, the Honourable Senator Simard.

That inquiry followed the tabling by Senator Simard, in November, of a report that was very critical of the role played by federal and provincial governments regarding the increasingly precarious situation in which francophone minorities outside Quebec find themselves. The tabling of that very detailed study was the fulfilment of a commitment made by Senator Simard in June. At the time, he had called the attention of the Senate to the deterioration of services in French to Canada's francophone and Acadian communities.

Honourable senators, the report is entitled "Bridging the Gap: From Oblivion to the Rule of The Law." It deals with the increasing difficulties to which francophone and Acadian communities are confronted in terms of access to services in their language. The report clearly states that if francophone and Acadian communities in several provinces have managed to make significant gains in terms of having their rights respected, it is because of their perceptiveness, not because of the initiatives taken by the federal and provincial governments to improve their situation.

Honourable senators, according to the report, these gains, particularly with respect to the management of French schools and of certain community services, remain extremely uncertain. On the strength of their victory, francophones dared to hope that their governments would maintain those gains. Unfortunately, they have had to think again in recent years.

French Canadians have not been able to obtain the fair levels of services and infrastructures necessary to their development. In addition, they have been unable to have existing rights enshrined in the Constitution. In a number of provinces, they have felt the effects of budget cuts and anti-deficit measures. I am thinking of the case of the Montfort Hospital in Ottawa, which received very extensive media coverage.

Honourable senators, deficit reduction efforts did not spare my province. In recent years, we have seen the school management system in New Brunswick dismantled. Let us remember that, in March 1996, the Government of New Brunswick replaced all the French-language and English-language school boards with a new three-tiered structure: parent advisory committees in the schools, school district committees, and two provincial boards, one francophone and one anglophone. Since the parent committees and the provincial board had greater decision-making authority, primary powers were concentrated in the hands of Cabinet.

The president of New Brunswick's parent committees, Claude Nadeau, felt that the new school legislation denied francophones the right to exercise control over the management of their own schools. The new participation structure did not allow Acadians to fully exercise this right. Faced with this situation, New Brunswick's parent committees decided to take the provincial government to court in order to have their rights respected.

Fortunately, the new government of Premier Bernard Lord promised to review this policy in the last election. However, the parents have decided to continue their legal proceedings until they see concrete results from the electoral promises. In this regard, the Association des juristes d'expression française in New Brunswick considered recently that, despite the existence of the Official Languages of New Brunswick Act and Bill 88 on homogenous schools and duality in education, the provincial government has only partly acted on its promise to apply them fully in recent years.

We must not forget, honourable senators, that the French school must be the ultimate source of a French identity and French education and culture for Canada's francophone and Acadian youth of today.

The report by Senator Simard contains over 43 recommendations dealing with all aspects of the life of francophones outside Quebec. They received the support of the new Commissioner of Official Languages, Dyane Adam, and of the President of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, Gino Leblanc. The recommendations are, for the most part, directed at the federal and provincial governments. Their aim, first of all, is to improve the living conditions of francophones outside Quebec. Their aim, subsequently, is to consolidate respect for the language rights and constitutional guarantees with regard to government and community services and to the educational system under sections 16, 17 and 23 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Finally, their aim is to set up the policies that, beyond the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act, will ensure that francophones and Acadians truly have equality with English Canadians.

The report proposes the establishment of official bilingualism in all provinces, the creation of a position of Minister of State for the Development of Official Language Communities and the creation of a trust fund of $500 million for the development of francophone and Acadian communities.

Honourable senators, I believe that the Parliament of Canada must give careful consideration to the recommendations of this important report by Senator Simard, in the context of the new realities faced by francophone and Acadian communities in Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, if no other senator wishes to speak on this inquiry, the inquiry is considered debated.

[English]

(1630)

National Defence

Motion to Establish Special Senate Committee to Examine Conduct of Personnel in Relation to the Somalia Deployment and the Destruction of Medical Records of Personnel Serving in Croatia—debate adjourned

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition), pursuant to notice of November 2, 1999, moved:

That a Special Committee of the Senate be appointed to examine and report on two significant matters which involve the conduct of chain of command of the Canadian Forces, both in-theatre and at National Defence Headquarters and its response to operational, decision making and administrative problems encountered during the Somalia deployment to the extent that these matters have not been examined by the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia and allegations that Canadian soldiers were exposed to toxic substances in Croatia between 1993 and 1995, and the alleged destruction of medical records of personnel serving in Croatia;
That the Committee in examining these issues may call witnesses from whom it believes it may obtain evidence relevant to these matters including but not limited to:

1. The present Minister of Defence in relation to both matters;
2. Former Ministers of National Defence in relation to both matters;
3. The then Deputy Minister of National Defence in relation to both matters;
4. The then Acting Chief of Staff of the Minister of National Defence in relation to the Somalia occurrence;
5. The then special advisor to the Minister of National Defence (M. Campbell) in relation to the Somalia occurrence;
6. The then special advisor to the Minister of National Defence (J. Dixon) in relation to the Somalia occurrence;
7. The persons occupying the position of Judge Advocate General during the relevant period in relation to the Somalia occurrence;
8. The then Deputy Judge Advocate General (litigation) in relation to the Somalia occurrence; and
9. The then Chief of Defence Staff and Deputy Chief of Defence Staff in relation to both occurrences.

That seven Senators, nominated by the Committee of Selection act as members of the Special Committee, and that three members constitute a quorum;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee have power to authorize television and radio broadcasting, as it deems appropriate, of any or all of its proceedings;
That the Committee have the power to engage the services of such counsel and other professional, technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purposes of its examination;
That the political parties represented on the Special Committee be granted allocations for expert assistance with the work of the Committee;
That it be empowered to adjourn from place to place within and outside Canada;
That the Committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the Senate;
That the Committee submit its report not later than one year from the date of it being constituted, provided that, if the Senate is not sitting, the report will be deemed submitted on the day such report is deposited with the Clerk of the Senate.

He said: Honourable senators, this motion closely resembles one that was first debated and approved in March 1997, nearly three years ago, the only significant difference being a reference to events related to Croatia. The June 1997 election call, conveniently for the government, anyway, disposed of it, and an attempt to have the Senate reconfirm its decision in the fall of 1997 failed.

The Senate has before it a motion which, if approved, will set aside any partisanship and return to the positive decision it took almost three years ago. If denied, the Senate will, wittingly or not, ally itself with those who maintain that cover-up and ignorance are better substitutes than revelation and truth. It is as simple as that.

A brief summary of what prompts the main thrust of this motion is in order. In March 1995, the government announced the setting up of a commission of inquiry into the deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia with a broad mandate to look into and report upon certain events in Somalia involving the participation of civilian and military members of the Department of Defence. The commission was never allowed to complete its mandate. As it was about to begin its study of the post-deployment phase, the then minister of defence, in January 1997, in an unprecedented and disgraceful gesture, ordered the commission to terminate its hearings by the end of March and submit its report no later than June 1997. This led to the following comment by the members of the commission, which can be found in Volume 1 of its report. They were:

...directed to report on all paragraphs of our original terms of reference pertaining to the pre-deployment phase of the deployment of Canadian forces to Somalia. On all other matters, we were given discretion concerning the extent to which we would inquire and report within the imposed June 30, 1997 time frame...
This report ... now addresses, in some sense, every paragraph of our original terms of reference. However, we have not been able to explore several important matters (notably, the March 16th torture death of Shidane Arone, the response of the upper echelons at National Defence Headquarters to the events of March 4th and March 16th, 1993, and allegations of high-level cover-up pertaining to those events) because of the curtailment of our mandate.
The decision to impose time constraints of the kind that have been forced upon us is without precedent in any previous Canadian inquiry of this magnitude. It has compromised our search for the truth. It will also inhibit or delay corrective actions to the system that allowed these events to occur in the first place.
The careful search for truth can be painstaking and, at times, frustrating. Public inquiries are equipped with the best tools our legal system can furnish for pursuing the truth, but even with access to significant procedural powers, the goal may prove elusive.

As a result, the reputations of countless Canadians have been irreparably harmed, including those of very senior political, civilian, and military figures who would welcome the opportunity to publicly explain their participation in events into which the commission was forbidden to look. The purpose of this motion is not to cause embarrassment; it is to clear the air. Certainly, mistakes were made, but it is not by ignoring or denying them that they can be avoided in the future. Only by a public inquiry can this be done.

Contrast this refusal to seek out the truth to what is happening in other countries. I have given many similar examples in the past. The following are more recent and not given in any particular order of importance but only to indicate that truth, no matter how embarrassing or even sordid, must be known, dealt with and learned from. This is essential for any society with a minimum of self-respect and sense of morality towards its members and itself.

The Government of Ireland has begun a new investigation into car bombings in Dublin and in the town of Monaghan that took place over 25 years ago and killed 33 people and wounded over 300 in one single day. Inquiries in the 1970s and 1980s were inconclusive, and no one has been charged to date.

Last December, a UN-sponsored report, commissioned by Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself, held that the United Nations and some of its leading members were responsible for failing to prevent or end the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Mr. Annan was head of UN peacekeeping operations at the time.

An all-party committee in Germany, including members of the Christian Democratic Union, is investigating allegations of illegal campaign contributions and kickbacks by a number of leading German politicians, including former chancellor Helmut Kohl, long-time head of the CDU.

The United States government is investigating reports that American troops machine-gunned, under orders, hundreds of South Korean refugees during the early days of the Korean War, a half century before. This is despite the fact that only three years ago, the official government position was that there was not any evidence that the troops implicated were even in the area at the time.

After decades of dismissing the hazards of radiation and chemicals, the United States government, only three weeks ago, finally conceded that radiation exposure led to higher than normal rates of cancer and early death.

The Attorney General of the United States and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have ordered an independent inquiry into the use of military gas canisters at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, in April 1993, which caught fire and resulted in 76 deaths.

Last weekend, the President of Israel was questioned for a second time by the police over allegations of tax fraud and corruption said to have occurred between 1988 and 1993.

In Canada, when embarrassing news and allegations of this sort appear, the usual practice is to indulge in denial or private self-examination or both, with the hope that time and stonewalling will lay any controversy to rest.

I wish to quote from an editorial in the December 18, 1999 Economist commenting on a Swiss Parliament-sponsored independent commission report on certain activities in Switzerland during World War II. The editorial reads:

The Swiss did not embark on this self-examination entirely voluntarily. Much of the impetus came from the unyielding pressure of Jewish groups which, over the years, refused to take No for an answer from the Swiss banks. The banks, in turn, hid behind secrecy laws. It is also true that until quite recently the Swiss government itself handled the clamour to investigate the various charges clumsily and insensitively.
Nonetheless, that this exercise has taken place at all is ground for some Swiss credit. Many other countries have passed through inglorious episodes this century and, even after prodding, have chosen not to look back with such thoroughness. It was only in 1995, after all, that President Jacques Chirac acknowledged for the first time the French state's responsibility for the Vichy regime, and even now the official French effort at digging up that bit of history is barely half-complete. Indeed Germany itself, admirably open though it has long been about its past, only this week reached a deal for compensation of wartime slave labourers. With mixed motives, no doubt, Switzerland is now confronting its past. To do so is far from easy.

I also want to pay tribute to a man whose death recently at the age of 44 passed largely unnoticed — Major Vincent Buonamici, a brave and courageous Canadian. His obituary in the National Post is worth being part of our record:

Major Vincent Buonamici, who has died aged 44, was the military police officer who broke the Somalia scandal wide open. Without concern for his career prospects, Maj. Buonamici conducted a full investigation of the incident in March, 1993, when soldiers of the now disbanded Canadian Airborne Regiment captured a Somalia teenager, torturing and killing him.

The Airborne Regiment was in Somalia as part of a humanitarian mission to bring aid to people during the chaos of the civil war there. Major Buonamici directed the investigation of that incident and an earlier one involving a shooting outside the Canadian base in Somalia. He alleged there was interference with his investigation at the highest levels in the military and the government.

Interference included the seizure of files from Major Buonamici's office at National Defence headquarters in Ottawa. He had to install special "anti-intrusion" locks on his filing cabinet to protect his records from senior military officers. He had a promotion blocked and was himself investigated by other military police officers checking to see if he had leaked information to the media.

The Minister of Defence, David Collenette, and the Prime Minister denounced the allegations at the time. However, four years later, a public inquiry into the killings agreed with Major Buonamici, saying there was indeed a military cover-up of the details of what came to be known as the Somalia Affair.

Major Buonamici's honest investigation into the Somalia Affair, and his refusal to cave in to pressure from his superiors, stalled his military career. He was never bitter, and never held a grudge against the military.

(1640)

To the credit of the Armed Forces, the obituary concludes:

The military recognized his courage and devotion to duty and he was given a full military funeral in Hamilton.

What this motion wants confirmed is transparency and accountability — not cover-up and denial. A refusal to inquire publicly into the post-deployment phase of the Somalia mission will not only leave many questions unanswered but, equally important, many innocent reputations tarnished forever. If only for the sake of those Canadians, civilian and military, an inquiry is more than justified.

The Defence Department's unwillingness to air its problems and grandly assure Canadians that private self-examination is the ideal solution is nothing short of deplorable. Whatever the charges — the keeping of confiscated Serb weapons in Croatia, the smuggling for cash of refugees in Bosnia, the suicide of an Airborne Regiment member in Rwanda, possibly induced by the anti-malaria drug mefloquine, exposure to toxic soil in Croatia, the shredding of a key document in medical files, to name but a few, and the latter two subject to this motion — the department's initial reaction has been to dismiss them or to subject them to internal investigation, which amounts to about the same.

On a related matter, the enthusiasm over the naming of an ombudsman in the Defence Department soon turned to frustration as his terms of reference in effect give him as much independence and authority as has the Ethics Counsellor.

The saddest example of departmental self-denial arises from the death of Joseph Riordan, who served as a Canadian Forces military policeman in the 1991 Gulf War and suffered from what is known as Persian Gulf War syndrome, possibly caused by depleted uranium. Over the years, the Defence Department repeatedly denied any linkage between depleted uranium and similar illnesses suffered by some, at least 100, if not more, known victims. Mr. Riordan directed that his body be subjected to an autopsy. A week ago, The Globe and Mail reported the results as follows:

Asaph Durokavic, an expert on Persian Gulf war syndrome and a former research scientist with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, told CBC Radio yesterday that he did not anticipate finding such high levels of uranium isotopes in Mr. Riordan's bones nearly a full decade after the war. Dr. Durokavic has also documented traces of uranium in the urine of living veterans. The new findings are expected to fuel the controversial argument that depleted uranium — used as a coating to harden weapons and tanks — is the cause of the mysterious illnesses that have beset veterans of both the gulf war and the conflict in Croatia.

After years of denial, what was the reaction of the Minister of National Defence? According to The Globe and Mail — and I say this without comment:

— Defence Minister Art Eggleton said that Gulf War veterans who fear that exposure to depleted uranium dust might have made them sick should contact the federal government to arrange for medical tests.

It may be felt that a special committee is not necessary and that an inquiry by a standing committee will suffice. If such is the agreement, I certainly raise no objections. As a matter of fact, the Senate committee structure is already stretched to the near breaking point, burdened as it is with a too-compressed schedule, shortage of financial resources, and too many clerks doing double duty. It is without much enthusiasm that the method of inquiry is proposed.

However, this is mere detail compared with what is at stake. What the Senate must decide is whether it will agree to look into a subject matter with the intention of giving innocent Canadians an opportunity to lift the suspicions and answer the derogatory allegations to which they have been subject for far too long or accept the notion that this is all in the past, that there is no need to revisit anything the least unpleasant, that the Defence Department alone can bring whatever corrections are necessary to avoid repetition, et cetera. Past and present experience certainly does not support the latter argument; however, parliamentary responsibility more than justifies support for this motion.

Hon. John G. Bryden: Honourable senators, might the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton entertain a question?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Of course, honourable senators.

Senator Bryden: From listening to what the honourable senator has said, the way the inquiry has been framed in the honourable senator's motion is very broad and wide-ranging, not only in terms of time but also in the types of things to which the honourable senator has referred.

Motion No. 7 states, in part:

That a Special Committee of the Senate be appointed to examine and report on two significant matters —

With all due respect to Senator Lynch-Staunton, I cannot determine from reading the motion what are the two significant matters upon which a special committee of the Senate would examine and report upon. Several matters are listed in the motion. Again, it states, in part:

— report on two significant matters which involve the conduct of —

It runs on from there and talks about decision-making and administrative problems. At the end of the motion, it is stated:

— and allegations that Canadian soldiers were exposed to toxic substances in Croatia between 1993 and 1995, and the alleged destruction of medical records of personnel serving in Croatia;

When the honourable senator refers to two significant matters, the only two significant matters that are identified are that the Senate would examine and report on allegations "that Canadian soldiers were exposed to toxic substances in Croatia between 1993 and 1995 and the alleged destruction of medical records of personnel serving in Croatia." Are those the two significant matters upon which the honourable senator wants the Senate to examine and report upon?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, I agree with Senator Bryden that the wording of the motion could be improved. The two matters are the post-deployment phase in Somalia and the alleged exposure to toxic substances and the known destruction of a medical record in the files of certain personnel in Croatia. I agree that the wording leads to some confusion.

The reason that Croatia was added to the motion was to emphasize the fact that, while the two matters may not be directly related, they have been swept under the rug by the Defence Department and the government. We do not really know anything about these matters. All we know is that the Armed Forces and the Defence Department are looking into it, but they are looking into it more or less privately.

In our society today, we have a right not only to know the results but to know how the results are arrived at. Parliament should be a participant in the events leading to the results.

This motion intends to have the Senate of Canada be involved in a very important exercise, which is to get at the truth and to clear the air, as I said in my formal presentation. It is to help those Canadians, some of whom we know. They were willing to appear before our committee, as Senator Bryden will recall, in the spring of 1997. They were already lined up to appear as witnesses. I cannot believe that if they were willing to testify at that time that they would not be more willing to appear before a committee now, three years later, and finally be given a chance to give their side of the story.

Senator Bryden: Honourable senators, even as a result of the honourable senator's comments concerning the expanded scope of what he has contemplated, has the honourable senator given any consideration to allowing this matter to die? Has the honourable senator given any consideration to reformulating what it is he is proposing be examined and reported upon, in light of today and in light of what he has said in his very interesting speech?

(1650)

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, if everyone has an understanding of the intent of the motion, then why would it be necessary to change the wording? It is my hope that we can come to a decision on this matter as soon as possible, one way or the other. This has been before the Senate for nearly three years. I do not intend to prolong the matter. I was hoping to speak to it earlier. I hope other senators will also speak to the issue.

I believe the intent is clear. Again, I agree that the wording could be improved. I may have done it too hastily — and I apologize for any confusion that that may have caused — but I would hope that my explanation, both in the formal text and in the question and answer period, has cleared up what some of us would like to see done.

On motion of Senator Bryden, debate adjourned.

Aboriginal Governance

Report of Committee on Study—Debate Adjourned

Leave having been given to revert to Reports of Committees:

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples entitled "Forging New Relationships: Aboriginal Governance in Canada," tabled in the Senate earlier this day.

Hon. Charlie Watt: Honourable senators, this is an interesting time and an interesting place.

In the fall of 1998, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples began its hearings on aboriginal self-government. With the assistance of its aboriginal advisers, whom I would like to thank, namely, Rosemarie Kuptana, Konrad Sioui and Larry Chartrand, the steering committee was able to target key witnesses, hearing from over 100 witnesses, primarily aboriginal people.

I am also extremely grateful to all members of the committee, particularly my colleagues on the steering committee. I extend my sincere thanks as well to Alex Ker, to the clerk of the committee, Ms Jill Anne Joseph, and to Kae Schade.

The summer adjournment and the fall prorogation unfortunately delayed this report. However, it gave the committee an opportunity to deliberate carefully on what it had heard and to evaluate testimony in the light of other recent studies. The adjournment enabled us to incorporate the invaluable experience and knowledge of each of our committee members and to reach consensus on what measures we were prepared to recommend.

The order of reference for the special study on governance called upon the committee to concentrate on key aspects of governance and a new relationship between Canada and aboriginal peoples. The committee was asked to address fundamental principles of this relationship and to consider negotiations and implementation issues and processes. The committee therefore considered practical measures to assist aboriginal peoples and their government partners in establishing, implementing and conducting new relationships.

Based on the evidence received, the committee concluded that development of new and renewed relations, based on partnership with aboriginal people, requires fundamental legislative and institutional reforms. We recognize that restructuring relationships is both a complex and urgent challenge.

The recommendations contained in our report focus on four aspects of our structural relationships that were addressed by our witnesses. First, witnesses drew our attention to the fact that section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, identified the Indian, Inuit and Métis people as aboriginal peoples of Canada. However, those peoples do not enjoy equal access to the opportunity to negotiate and implement aboriginal self-governance and relationships with Canada. To address this concern, the committee adopted broad recommendations calling on the Government of Canada to provide more equitable opportunities for aboriginal peoples to realize their aspirations for self-government. We recommend that the government adopt a more flexible and inclusive approach in engaging First Nations, Inuit and Métis people in self-government negotiations. The committee further recommends that negotiation and implementation processes be made available to all aboriginal people on a basis that takes their respective interests and claims into account.

Second, witnesses spoke to us of incompatibility between the government objectives for relationships of partnership with aboriginal peoples and the allocation of negotiation responsibilities within the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In this regard, we recommend the removal of responsibilities for the negotiation and implementation of treaty, self-government, and related agreements from the Department of Indian Affairs. The committee recommends that those responsibilities be vested in a new office of aboriginal relations, which we believe should be established within the Privy Council Office.

Many witnesses spoke to us about the lack of political will shown by the Government of Canada to engage in serious negotiations and to give practical expression to the symbolic commitments made, for example, in the Inherent Right Policy and "Gathering Strength." Throughout our hearings, the committee learned of problems arising from the absence of a statutory framework to provide a clear expression of the government's policy on the negotiation and implementation of relationships with aboriginal peoples.

Therefore, honourable senators, the committee has recommended that new legislation be introduced by the federal government to provide a broad statutory framework that would address this issue. Such legislation would guide the federal government in organizing itself for the purpose of negotiating, managing and administrating its relationship with the aboriginal peoples.

Many aboriginal witnesses spoke of the need for independent structures outside the regular courts, structures that could address the grievances of aboriginal peoples and supervise the negotiation and the implementation of relationships between aboriginal peoples and Canada. New structures and institutions that are independent and have effective powers of oversight concerning aboriginal government relations have been recommended by previous inquiries and commissions. It is surprising that few have been established to date at the national level.

The committee has recommended that a treaty and aboriginal rights implementation review commission be established to serve at the national level — an independent oversight body. This body would report to Parliament. The commission would report, investigate, and facilitate. It would oversee relationships in order to promote, respect and uphold the aboriginal and treaty rights of aboriginal people, the honour of the Crown, and the spirit and intent of the treaties, self-government, and related agreements and legislation.

Finally, we heard concern about the lack of capacity within the Canadian judicial system to adjudicate aboriginal and treaty rights cases and to deliver consistent, timely and enforceable decisions that can be a fulfilment of the Crown's legal obligations. While the committee considered alternative approaches to reforms to the judiciary, we do not at this time feel prepared to advance specific recommendations. However, we do believe that the capacity of the Canadian judiciary and others working within the Canadian legal system can be enhanced. We highlight opportunities for cross-cultural training and education in the areas of aboriginal and treaty rights, developments in aboriginal and treaty law, as well as aboriginal perspectives, culture and traditions. The report includes a recommendation in this regard.

The recommendations contained in the committee report are directed at overcoming obstacles to the timely and efficient negotiations and implementations of new relationships.

(1700)

We anticipate that, if acted upon, our recommendations for institutional and legislative reform will better serve both governments and aboriginal peoples as they work cooperatively to establish relationships of partnership. Such reform will foster improved economic conditions and eliminate hardship in our native communities.

Indeed, we believe that many of our recommendations can be implemented without the commitment of significant additional financial resources by Canada. However, they will require, in some instances, the reallocation of existing resources. Over the longer term, we think that savings will happen because agreements will be completed in a more timely and consistent fashion. The Government of Canada's administrative structures will be reorganized toward supporting political relationships based on partnership rather than on dependence. Aboriginals and the government parties will rely less on the courts as a primary forum for resolving disputes.

In the first phase, our committee had to recommend those structural changes in government arrangements to facilitate negotiation and implementation and to avoid costly legal disputes. However, our witnesses also drew attention to a wider set of issues.

Many witnesses shared their practical experience with different approaches to aboriginal governance and described in some detail their proposals and aspirations in this regard. We were particularly interested to hear of innovative approaches to aboriginal self-government in urban areas. We acknowledge that there is an urgent requirement to focus on the needs and the circumstances of aboriginal people living in urban environments.

Intervenors also spoke to us about the need to assist aboriginal peoples in building their capacity to govern and their accountability. They addressed important issues, such as membership, housing, education, social and economic development, women's rights, and the need for an adequate land base on which to build healthy and sustainable aboriginal economies. The committee further sees real urgency in dealing with women's issues in particular.

Regrettably, the time frame that the committee set for itself did not permit us to conduct a comprehensive review of all those important issues. However, the report reflects the many different views and concerns of aboriginal peoples in those areas. We hope to be able to pursue those issues in our future work.

On motion of Senator Johnson, debate adjourned.

Adjournment

Leave having been given to revert to Government Notices of Motions:

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government), with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(h), moved:

That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 16, 2000, at 1:30 p.m.;
That at 3:30 p.m. tomorrow, if the business of the Senate has not been completed, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings to adjourn the Senate;
That should a division be deferred until 5:30 p.m. tomorrow, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings at 3:30 p.m. to suspend the sitting until 5:30 p.m. for the taking of the deferred division; and
That all matters on the Orders of the Day and on the Notice Paper, which have not been reached, shall retain their position.

Motion agreed to.

The Senate adjourned until Wednesday, February 16, 2000, at 1:30 p.m.

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

2nd Session, 36th Parliament, Volume 138, Issue 27

Tuesday, February 15, 2000 The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker

Table of Contents

THE SENATE

Tuesday, February 15, 2000

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

national Flag Day

The Late J. Angus MacLean, P.C.

Tribute

National Defence

East Timor—Use of Land Mines

Visitors in the Gallery

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Aboriginal Governance

Report of Committee on Study Tabled

Census Records

Presentation of Petitions

QUESTION PERIOD

Foreign Affairs

Civil War in Sudan—Request for Clarification of Diplomatic Policy

Civil War in Sudan—Involvement of Talisman Energy Inc.

Civil War in Sudan—Human Rights Violations

National Defence

East Timor—Use of Land Mines

Court Martial of Sergeant Mike Kipling

Foreign Affairs

China—Detention of Catholic Archbishop

Request for Clarification of Human Rights Policy as Between Large and Small Countries

China—Detention of Catholic Archbishop

Human Resources Development

Job Creation Programs—Possible Mismanagement of Funds—Distribution of Grants

Transitional Jobs Fund—Unemployment Rate Qualifying Level

Transitional Jobs Fund—Unemployment Rate Qualifying Level for Edmonton West

Job Creation Programs—Possible Mismanagement of Funds—Grant to Developer of Warehouse to Store Wal-Mart Stock

Pages Exchange Program with House of Commons

Criminal Records Act

Bill to Amend—Message from Commons

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Medical Decisions Facilitation Bill

Second Reading—Debate Continued

Public Service Whistle-Blowing Bill

Second Reading—Debate Continued

Criminal Code

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Adjourned

Census Records

Petitions Accepted

European Monetary Union

Report of Foreign Affairs Committee on Study—Debate Adjourned

Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Second Report of Committee Adopted

Business of the Senate

Francophone and Acadian Communities Outside Quebec

Deterioration of Services—Inquiry

National Defence

Motion to Establish Special Senate Committee to Examine Conduct of Personnel in Relation to the Somalia Deployment and the Destruction of Medical Records of Personnel Serving in Croatia—debate adjourned

Aboriginal Governance

Report of Committee on Study—Debate Adjourned

Adjournment

2nd Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 138, Issue 27

Tuesday, February 15, 2000
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker