Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
2nd Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 138, Issue 57
Wednesday, May 17, 2000
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker
Table of Contents
- SENATORS' STATEMENTS
- ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
- QUESTION PERIOD
- ORDERS OF THE DAY
THE SENATE
Wednesday, May 17, 2000
The Senate met at 1:30 p.m., the Speaker in the Chair.Prayers.
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Prince Edward Island—Effect of Proposed Cuts
Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Honourable senators, I should like to draw the attention of the chamber to the recent newspaper reports that the CBC is planning on abandoning its regional supper-hour newscasts in favour of a regional insert to be produced in either Toronto or Halifax. If this proposal goes through, many small regions across the country will be hit hard. My province of Prince Edward Island will lose the local Compass supper-hour broadcast, and 30 of the current 36 employees will be laid off.The people of Prince Edward Island and others throughout Canada depend on their local programming to keep them informed about what is happening at their local level. In fact, the CBC news program Compass is the only local television news program in Prince Edward Island, so it is vital to the people of the province.
Subsection 3(1) of the 1991 Broadcasting Act is very clear in that it states that the CBC must reflect Canada and its regions and, further, that it must serve the special needs of those regions.
Honourable senators, how can the CBC fulfil the above commitment if it eliminates production of the only local television news program in my province? The creation of a national supper-hour news program in Toronto or Halifax will mean that Islanders and residents of other smaller regions will begin do hear less and less of their own stories and voices.
Honourable senators, local CBC programming is central to our national identity. I am strongly opposed to this proposal. Furthermore, I will be following this issue very closely and I urge all honourable senators to do the same.
Council of Atlantic Premiers
Moncton, New Brunswick—Signing of Organizational Memorandum of Understanding
Hon. Brenda M. Robertson: Honourable senators, on Monday of this week, I attended the ceremony in Moncton marking the establishment of the Council of Atlantic Premiers. The formation of the Council of Atlantic Premiers formalizes a working relationship that has been ongoing for some time. Atlantic premiers have held conferences where they discussed matters of common interest, but, until Monday, no formal body existed.Honourable senators, the work of the Council of Atlantic Premiers will be in addition to the work of the Council of Maritime Premiers, which has been in existence for more than 25 years. As Maritimers know, the Council of Maritime Premiers was the first agency of its kind in Canada, which brought together provinces to identify and act on opportunities through joint action, and this mandate will continue.
The memorandum of understanding signed by the region's four premiers is indeed good news for Atlantic Canadians. It strengthens the relationship between the Atlantic provinces, and it means that the region should have more clout in setting the national agenda.
The purpose of the council is to promote Atlantic Canadian interests on national issues. The council will accomplish this by developing a common set of priorities, or an Atlantic Canadian agenda, through working with residents of the region to advocate joint positions to ensure that the interests of the Atlantic region are well represented in national debates. We look forward to the continued work of this important alliance.
[Translation]
Prime Minister's Visit to Middle East and Persian Gulf
Hon. Pierre De Bané: Honourable senators, last Tuesday I had the opportunity to report to the Senate on the Prime Minister's visit to the Middle East. This was the longest visit ever made by a Canadian prime minister to that part of the world in the interests of peace. At that time, I referred to what a great success the visit had been in all of the countries we visited.Since then, I am very pleased to report to the Senate that the diplomatic corps of all the Arab-speaking countries has met with senior Foreign Affairs officials in Ottawa. It has also expressed its immense satisfaction.
With the permission of the Senate, I should like to read a letter sent to me by the dean of Arab diplomats, Dr. Assem Jaber of Lebanon, concerning their meeting with department officials.
[English]
(1340)
May 15, 2000
Honourable Senator Pierre De Bané,
The Senate
Ottawa, OntarioMy dear Senator,
Please accept my congratulations on the article you coauthored with Professor John Sigler about the recent visit to the Middle East by the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada.
Your article gave a considered and balanced view of this successful trip which, as you know, was contrary to how it was unfortunately portrayed by the Canadian media and some members of the Canadian Parliament.
In a recent de-briefing meeting regarding the trip, organized for the Arab Group by Mr. John McNee, Director General of Middle East and North Africa Bureau at the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Heads of Missions of those Arab countries visited by Prime Minister expressed their deep satisfaction at the success of the trip.
The warmth displayed by the various Heads of State and governments and other officials toward Mr. Chrétien, which I witnessed during his visit to Lebanon, demonstrated their deep respect to Mr. Chrétien, as well as the great admiration and sincere friendship that the people of the region hold for Canada and Canadians.
I am confident that this visit has laid the foundation for even stronger bonds of cooperation and understanding between Canada and the countries of the region.
Please accept Senator, the continued assurance of my highest consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Assem Jaber
Ambassador of Lebanon.
He is the dean of the Arab diplomats, heads of missions, posted in Ottawa.
With the permission of the honourable senators, I should like to table this letter from Dr. Jaber.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators, that this letter be tabled?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
New Brunswick—Effect of Proposed Cuts
Hon. Erminie J. Cohen: Honourable senators, I agree with my honourable colleague Senator Callbeck and echo her concerns. New Brunswick citizens and politicians are determined to fight a proposed plan by CBC to eliminate NB-NOW, the only supper-hour news show produced in the province.The public broadcaster's plan, which was reported in national newspapers, proposes deep cuts across the country. The plan is to cut 674 jobs as the CBC replaces the 14 existing regional supper-hour newscasts with one single national supper-hour news show fed by five regional inserts produced from Toronto.
This past Monday morning in Saint John, New Brunswick, a large group of citizens gathered at the local CBC office to voice their anger and support.
Television news shows now viewed in New Brunswick on ATV and Global are produced in Halifax. The CBC produces the only made-in-New Brunswick news show. News programs coming out of Halifax and Toronto, as my honourable colleague pointed out, cannot speak to New Brunswick or reflect New Brunswick and its issues as effectively as a program emanating in New Brunswick, for New Brunswick.
I remind honourable senators that the Broadcasting Act requires the CBC to serve the needs of the regions of Canada and is supported by the taxpayers of Canada. I add my voice to those of all political parties in the New Brunswick legislature who recently passed a resolution calling on Ottawa to preserve the CBC in New Brunswick. We must prevent the CBC from eliminating our regional news shows.
International Joint Commission Report on Red River Flood
Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, recently the International Joint Commission released its final report on the disastrous Red River flood of three years ago and included some very good suggestions for government and community action now to prepare for the next major flood in the river basin. Among its surprises was the finding that flood waters had carried several pollutants more than 100 miles north and deposited them in Lake Winnipeg. The Red River empties into Lake Winnipeg about 37 miles north of Winnipeg. It is the world's tenth largest freshwater lake and provides a livelihood to about 850 licensed commercial fishers, their families and their employees.One of these pollutants carried north was toxaphene, a pesticide banned in Canada and the United States in 1982. It is a persistent organic pollutant, which means it does not quickly break down in the environment and, in fact, can build up with each step in the food chain. Various species of sport and commercial fish in the lake were tested. Their flesh contained increased levels of toxaphene. It is presumed to have come from a flooded agricultural warehouse near Grand Forks, North Dakota, although flooded farms on both sides of the border may also have contributed to the estimated 100 pounds of new toxaphene in the lake.
The World Wildlife Fund has highlighted this incident in its excellent, recently published map of significant persistent organic pollutant contamination in Canada.
As members of the International Red River Basin Task Force noted, flooding is a fact of life along the Red River. Governments need to take immediate steps to ensure that all banned materials such as toxaphene are removed from storage sheds in the Red River flood plain. That was the task force recommendation. I might add that it makes goods sense in other flood-prone areas.
Honourable senators, I hope the government will heed this recommendation and work with the provinces, neighbouring states and federal officials in the United States to ensure that banned pesticides do not end up in our rivers, our lakes, or in the fish on our table.
Foreign Affairs
Colombia—Recognition of Canadian Embassy Officials in Furtherance of Peace Process
Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I should like to commend the Government of Canada for its leadership role in encouraging peace in Colombia. I wish to emphasize, in particular, the dedication and commitment to the cause of human rights and international peace as displayed by the staff of the Canadian embassy in Bogota. At great personal risk, individual members of the Canadian embassy have travelled to remote areas of Colombia to investigate massacres of innocent civilians and to give support to those who are on the front lines helping to administer the peace process. Most notably, amongst the organizations in these areas is the Peace Brigade International, which has a close association to Canada and an office in Toronto.On February 19, 2000, in the remote village areas of Urabá and Antioquia, Colombia, five individual civilians were murdered, bringing the total at that time to 65 people in the San José de Apartado area who have been murdered since the foundation of the peace community, which was to be a demilitarized zone for the return of civilians to their homes. It is a highly remote area, difficult to access, and it would appear that the majority of murders have been at the hands of members of the self-defence or paramilitary groups.
I therefore call attention of the Senate to the excellent work that the embassy continues to provide on behalf of Canada. I also urge Minister Axworthy to step up his contacts with the president, foreign minister and Government of Colombia to ensure that the Government of Colombia continues to give its full commitment and resources to the assurance of the peace process and to the security of individual Colombians.
As honourable senators know, recently many workers have been brought back from the field. They are stretched to the limit. They are working, I believe, with less than adequate compensation, yet they continue to do admirable work on our behalf. It is something that should be noted in this chamber. I hope that the Leader of the Government in the Senate will convey to Minister Axworthy that their works are not going unnoticed.
[Translation]
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Committee of Selection
Sixth Report Presented
Hon. Léonce Mercier, Chairman of the Committee of Selection, presented the following report:The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?Wednesday, May 17, 2000
The Committee of Selection has the honour to present its
SIXTH REPORT
Pursuant to Rule 85(1)(b) of the Rules of the Senate, your Committee submits herewith the list of certain Senators nominated by it to serve on the following committee:Special Senate Committee on Bill C-20
The Honourable Senators Beaudoin, Bolduc, Kinsella, Murray, Nolin, Rivest, in addition to the nine Senators identified in the motion adopted by the Senate on May 16, 2000.
Respectfully submitted,
LÉONCE MERCIER,
Chairman
On motion of Senator Mercier, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.
[English]
(1350)
Adjournment
Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate, and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(h), I move:That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 18, 2000, at 1:30 p.m.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is leave granted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Meet During Sittings of the Senate
Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, I give notice that on Thursday, May 18, 2000, I will move:That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources have power to sit at 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 6 and Tuesday, June 13, 2000, for the purpose of hearing witnesses on its study of Bill S-20, to amend and assist the Canadian tobacco industry in attaining its objective of preventing the use of tobacco products by young persons in Canada, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.
QUESTION PERIOD
Human Resources Development
Privacy Commissioner's Report—Data Bank on Details of Private Citizens—Safeguards by Government
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, yesterday, the government tabled in the Senate the report of the Privacy Commissioner. I am sure that those who read that report were as startled as I to read that the government has been building an electronic information data bank on every Canadian, that traces us from birth to death. Even more startling, honourable senators, is that, of all departments, the Department of Human Resources Development has constructed a massive data base on the most minute and personal details of the lives of ordinary Canadians. Obviously, the parallels between this data bank and the world of George Orwell's book 1984 are chilling.Given the pervasive nature of the Internet, electronic data transfers, organized crime and fraud, the highly reported case of Mafia Boy, and other potential unauthorized access to this data that the Government of Canada has collected, can the minister inform the Senate whether there exists in the policy of his government a legislative framework that will limit access to these potentially highly exposed private files on every Canadian?
Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I thank the honourable senator for raising this very important issue that was highlighted in the report of the Privacy Commissioner tabled yesterday. I have not had an opportunity to review that report in great detail, but the Privacy Commissioner did highlight the extent to which information in this age of information technology is being gathered. He also highlighted the requirement that information be dealt with on a confidential and appropriate basis.
I was reassured, in my very brief perusal, that the Privacy Commissioner was not alleging that anything illegal was occurring. He did, however, call upon us to review this matter and, indeed, made some recommendations with respect to the Privacy Act.
I was also pleased that he noted favourably the recent enactment of Bill C-6, which passed this place a short time ago. He highlighted that bill as one of the most important privacy developments in the past 10 years.
He also made recommendations to the government for revisions of the Privacy Act. The government will take those recommendations and review and study them with a view to determining to what extent they may be put in place.
Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, as I am sure the minister will recall, in his report the commissioner said:
Successive Privacy Commissioners have assured Canadians that there was no single federal government file, or profile about them.
Is there or is there not a single file in the data bank of the Government of Canada that contains this data on us? Were the current commissioner and his predecessors wrong when they said there is no such file? Is there a file? If there is such a file, what is the government's position on that?
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I think the commissioner was alerting Canadians to the amount of information that is contained in the Human Resources Development Department. The commissioner did acknowledge that that department has made some progress toward making information less accessible. The number of people in the department with access to the encryption capacity has been reduced quite dramatically, from approximately 50 people to six. Do not hold me to those exact numbers, but I think that is the magnitude of the improvement that has been made.
With regard to whether there is one overall file, my impression from the Privacy Commissioner's report is that there is not, but I shall certainly make further inquiries. I understood the commissioner's comments to deal with the HRDC situation specifically.
(1400)
Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, in light of the concern of the Privacy Commissioner, can the Leader of the Government in the Senate indicate if we can expect a massive overhaul of the Privacy Act in the foreseeable future?
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the recommendations contained in the report are being taken seriously and are being addressed in an immediate fashion. Indeed, HRDC has already implemented, and is continuing to fast-track, improvements arising from the report. As a whole, the government will be taking these recommendations most seriously. I cannot give an exact time frame for any potential action. However, I am confident that such action will follow in a most efficient way.
[Translation]
Hon. Roch Bolduc: Honourable senators, I read the report by Mr. Phillips, the Privacy Commissioner. What is going on is a serious matter. In my usual candour, I always believed that after filing my tax return with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, I would know how much I owed, send a cheque to the agency, and the matter would be closed. Nobody talked about it. It was a secret between me and the department.
Later, we learned that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency conducts audits with the Quebec department of revenue. If we tell the agency something but forget to mention it to its Quebec counterpart, we will receive a letter a few weeks later, informing us that we made a mistake. Officials from both departments contact each other when the time comes to grab our money.
Now, we are finding out that our tax returns will be circulated in the Department of Human Resources Development, which is so well managed. It really worries me to know that my tax return will go to that department, and not only my tax return, but a whole set of unbelievable data mentioned on page 66 of the report, namely, education, marital/family status, language, citizenship and landed immigrant status, ethnic origin, mobility, disabilities, income tax data, employment histories, labour market activities, use of social assistance and employment insurance. Really! This is truly Kafkaesque, that this is happening in Canada!
Do you know what it means when they get our tax returns? They know not only about our salary in the Senate — everyone knows it — but also about all our investments, income, et cetera. Furthermore, they circulate all that information to other departments. There are 25,000 employees in that department. This is awful!
[English]
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I can appreciate the honourable senator's concern, particularly with the knowledge of his assets and business activities.
Of the thousands and thousands of people who may be involved in HRDC, the information I have is that, until recently, there were approximately 50 people in the department who could gain access to this information through the special encryption capacity. That number has been reduced to something in the order of six.
I do not mean to make light of any concerns with respect to privacy. I do not think there is any allegation in the report that any such information is being turned over for public use or anything of that nature. However, we must be ever vigilant. The degree of vigilance will increase as technology increases and as the capacity to retain, transfer and cross-correlate information grows by leaps and bounds.
The government is taking very seriously the report of the Privacy Commissioner. Clearly, it must meet the challenge that the new technology brings to gather information to best design government programs, to get the most effective use therefrom and, indeed, to measure outcome results. In order to do that, all this information is required, and at the same time the privacy of individual citizens must be protected.
[Translation]
Senator Bolduc: I am not doubting the intentions of the officials. I was an official myself and I have, therefore, a lot of respect for these people. I would like to read you the quote that goes with this business:
[English]
Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their conscience.
[Translation]
This leads to my second question. The commissioner tells us that the department may provide the data under contract to private research firms for the purposes of planning, producing statistics or research and assessment. Where will that lead us? Soon, everything will be on the Internet. I am horrified. You must introduce a bill to prevent this craziness, or I shall introduce one myself.
[English]
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, once again, let me say that I appreciate the concern of the honourable senator. I shall relay his concern to my colleagues in cabinet.
It is a challenge to find the appropriate balance. That challenge will increase and will become ever greater, in particular as it applies in areas of health, for example, where the privacy and the necessity for confidentiality is absolutely critical. There is an increasing necessity to manage the system. How to accommodate one with the other is a challenge for government. The recommendations and the report of the Privacy Commissioner will no doubt be of great assistance in meeting that challenge.
Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, clearly, the utilitarianism principle upon which the minister is now relying speaks directly to John Stuart Mill, that great philosopher of liberalism.
The minister mentioned in reply to a question a moment ago, "Oh well, in HRDC there may not be a whole bunch of people — it might be down to six or seven — who have access to this data bank." Surely, that is not the question. The question is: Does HRDC have access to all information, or is there any information about Canadians to which government does not have access?
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the commissioner dealt with the specific reference to the HRDC situation in his report. I am not party to exactly what information HRDC gathers, and for what purposes. The comments made by the Privacy Commissioner have been taken seriously and they have to be addressed.
I make the point again that this is a challenge that faces government in the next decade and beyond. It is something which did not exist 20 years ago. It exists because technology has made information storage, transfer and correlation available, which can have a positive effect in some areas. However, there is also the issue of privacy to be considered. As we go forward, I hope that we continue to improve, as we did with Bill C-6, the capacity of government to ensure privacy for its citizens as it concerns this type of information.
Data Bank on Details of Private Citizens—Verification of Accuracy of Information
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, in Quebec, as the minister knows, the law provides that anyone whose credit is challenged may go to the credit bureau, which analyzes credit and supplies that information to potential lenders, to find out whether their file is accurate. Can the minister tell us if a Canadian can access the HRDC file the department has on him or her to ensure that the information therein is accurate?(1410)
Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I would have to rely on someone more familiar with the legislation than I to answer that question, but citizens in this country do have an opportunity, through relevant legislation, to seek information from government.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: My question is: Can I have a copy of the information on me in that data bank, whether or not the government is entitled to it, to ensure that at least it is accurate?
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I can inquire of the department as to what their treatment is of such a request under relevant legislation.
[Translation]
Data Bank on Details of Private Citizens—Availability of Information to Other Departments
Hon. Fernand Roberge: Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate telling us that the RCMP or other departments have access to this information?[English]
Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, to what extent information is available across departments is something on which I would have to inquire. There is some access, as has been indicated in the report, but I am not familiar with the detail of the report yet, as it was tabled only yesterday. I can make those inquiries for the honourable senator.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
New Brunswick—Effect of Proposed Cuts
Hon. Erminie J. Cohen: My question is directed to the Honourable Leader of the Government in the Senate, who, being a Maritimer, realizes the importance and the necessity of a CBC presence in New Brunswick and the other Maritime provinces. The President of the CBC and its board members will be meeting during a retreat in Saint Andrews, New Brunswick, on May 26. They undoubtedly will be discussing the elimination of regional news shows as they have not yet approved the plan.Will the honourable leader use his good office to convey to his government the deep concerns of New Brunswickers who fear the proposed cutbacks will gut the news operation by the CBC in New Brunswick and result in the disappearance of our supper-hour newscast, "NB-Now"?
Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am more than happy to convey not only the views of the honourable senator and others who have spoken here on this issue, but to add to those voices my own. It is a matter of some concern that this plan, which has been developed by the president and, as the honourable senator points out, has not yet been approved by the board, creates some real questions as to the future direction of the public broadcaster.
It would be a great pity if, in developing and building the new CBC, we allow a centralist, elitist approach to take from us the wonderful services that have been available in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and in other regions. We have been speaking of the Atlantic provinces, but this is not an issue only for the Atlantic provinces, by any means. Other parts of the country face that possibility as well. Knowing the Atlantic region best, I can say that this is a point of view that I have no hesitation in carrying very forcefully to my colleagues.
Effect of Proposed Cuts—Possibility of Increased Government Funding
Hon. Lowell Murray: I have a question by way of supplementary, honourable senators. Mr. Rabinovitch, President of CBC, has said that these decisions are being taken because of a shortfall of $80 million facing the corporation. The question is: Does the government intend to pony up $80 million to make up for the shortfall?Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have not had the opportunity to follow everything Mr. Rabinovitch has said, but I did see a few quotations. On one occasion, I recall him saying that this was not a question of money, that this was a plan, a direction and a philosophy. One wonders if part of that plan is reducing advertising revenues substantially as the corporation moves forward. That may, in fact, reinforce the belief that it is not simply a matter of money.
I think it may be a matter of philosophy. We are faced with the situation now in government where, on the one hand, the CBC is an arm's length corporation, and we all know that that is generally a good thing. We would not want a government to be directing a national communication network on a day-to-day basis.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: You tried.
Senator Boudreau: On the other hand, having said that, it is funded quite significantly by public money, and one would have thought that it enjoyed a national mandate. It certainly enjoyed, and continues to enjoy, national support. The irony is perhaps that that support is highest in areas where the service is most at risk. I do not think it is simply a question of money.
Presence of President at Liberal Caucus Meeting
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I take up the minister's comment that the corporation is at arm's length from the government. If the government holds to that view, what was Mr. Rabinovitch doing at a meeting of the Liberal caucus executive last week?Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I suspect that those MPs were very interested in an opportunity to examine Mr. Rabinovitch. I do not know this, but was an invitation from the Conservative MPs rejected? Was there such an invitation, rejected by him? I do not know.
Effect of Proposed Cuts—Request for Update on Government Leader's Efforts
Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, my question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and it still relates to the issue of the CBC. He will recall that I first rose in this chamber on April 6, more than 40 days ago, to raise with him problems of the potential CBC cuts in Atlantic Canada. At that time, he indicated in his response that he did not have much information on the matter but he was sympathetic to it and would do something about it. Could he tell this house today what he has done in the last 40 days to ensure that valuable jobs are not lost and that important services of the CBC to Atlantic Canada are not lost?Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Before I answer that specific question, honourable senators, I should say that, a moment ago, I was informed by my colleagues that the gentleman in question, the president, did meet with members of the Canadian Alliance caucus as well. If he did not meet with the Conservative caucus, perhaps there was no such request. I would find it surprising that, if a request was made by the Conservative caucus, he would meet with the Liberal caucus and meet with the Canadian Alliance caucus but refuse to meet with the Conservative caucus. I can only assume that no request was made. I may be wrong, but that seems to be the case. Perhaps the Canadian Alliance felt they were representing all of the opposition parties when they met with the president.
As to the honourable senator's specific question, I certainly have had an opportunity to familiarize myself in more detail with the challenges facing the CBC service regionally, and have made my views known, both to my colleagues and to others, and I shall continue to do so.
Industry
Shipbuilding—Development of National Policy
Hon. Brenda M. Robertson: Honourable senators, I have a few questions for the Leader of the Government in the Senate about a national shipbuilding policy. It is an urgent priority for the country. Shipyards are located across Canada, as we all know, in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. The shipyards have the capacity to directly employ over 10,000 Canadians but, sadly, they currently employ fewer than 4,000. It is a very sophisticated business. There are many spin-off, high-tech industries related to shipbuilding. It has been estimated that a vibrant shipbuilding and marine structures industry could create up to 6,000 full-time, new-technology, high-wage and high-skill jobs across Canada, in addition to the figures I mentioned before. This generates millions of dollars of revenue for the federal government through increases in income tax, EI and CPP payments.(1420)
Is the Leader of the Government able to report on any concrete progress being made by the shipbuilding directorate, which was recently re-established in the Department of Industry, in developing a new building policy?
Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, my contact on this important subject has been with the minister. I am aware that, through his department and indeed in person, he has continued the dialogue with the stakeholders in an attempt to find an appropriate way to deal with what are upsetting global trends in the shipbuilding industry, which have impacted severely on any number of countries. The global shipbuilding situation has been such that a small number of countries have taken over a huge portion of the market.
Honourable senators, there are no easy answers to this question. I have followed the situation enough to have realized that fact early in the game. Canada is not alone in experiencing the negative impact seen specifically in the Saint John shipyard as well as other yards.
The minister continues to work with the stakeholders in this important area, but I have nothing specific to report at this point.
Senator Robertson: I appreciate the minister's answer, but I do not agree with everything he has said.
Labour
Shipbuilding—Involvement of Minister in Development of National Policy
Hon. Brenda M. Robertson: Honourable senators, the Minister of Labour is reported in the press as having said that she started working on a new shipbuilding policy when she was first appointed to cabinet in November of 1998. Is she working independently or are other efforts inside government working with her? Where exactly does the Minister of Labour fit in the policy development process? We know from the government's policy document on the Atlantic provinces that a shipbuilding policy was acknowledged, but time is running out on us. The decision of the Irvings to seek the building of necessary vessels offshore is a tremendous blow to the market. We really need more distinct answers.The minister is also reported in the press to have said that when the new shipbuilding policy becomes official, she will talk about it. When will that be?
I think it is possible that when the official announcement is made, we will be into an election campaign, and the Minister of Labour will be speaking as the co-chair of the national Liberal campaign team as well as to a belated shipbuilding policy.
Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I do not presume to comment on newspaper reports of comments made by my colleague from New Brunswick. However, I shall say, without disclosing or breaching any cabinet confidences, that this issue has been addressed actively within the Department of Industry, in cabinet committee and in cabinet as a whole. In fact, the minister has participated in all of those discussions and continues to do so.
It is true that the Irvings, who own the shipyard in Saint John, decided to have two of their major shipbuilding contracts performed elsewhere.
Senator Kinsella: What about Canada Steamship Lines?
Senator Boudreau: That is symptomatic of the nature and extent of the problem, but I can tell honourable senators that Minister Manley continues to work and to dialogue on this issue. I was present at a meeting recently at my office in Halifax when he met with some of the stakeholders, including the unions involved. I think he is making every effort to come to grips with a very difficult problem.
Delayed Answers to Oral Questions
Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have a response to a question raised in the Senate on May 2, 2000, by Senator Kinsella, regarding the replacement of Sea King helicopters, clearance to fly aircraft in United States airspace; a response to questions raised in the Senate on May 3, 2000, by Senator Andreychuk and Senator Spivak, regarding the farm crisis in the Prairie provinces, flexibility of aid programs, government initiatives on international subsidy issue and the low rate of return to producers; and a response to a question raised in the Senate on May 4, 2000, by Senator Bolduc, regarding the approval process of pharmaceutical products and the effect of delays on investment by companies.National Defence
Replacement of Sea King Helicopters—Clearance to Fly Aircraft in United States Airspace
(Response to question raised by Hon. Noël A. Kinsella on May 2, 2000)Canada has a reciprocal agreement with the United States that allows Canadian military aircraft, including the Sea Kings, to fly over American airspace. Under the agreement, Canadian military aircraft are considered "state owned" and as such are not subject to certain Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, mainly regarding airworthiness certification. Similar arrangements apply for American military aircraft flying over Canadian airspace.
Essentially, under the reciprocal agreement, the country of ownership is responsible for declaring its military aircraft airworthy, while the country in which the aircraft wishes to operate recognizes the other's airworthiness process. When operating in an American civilian airspace, Canadian military aircraft utilize FAA flight information publications and follow FAA air traffic control procedures.
In the case of the Sea King, the Air Force indicates that there are no technical airworthiness concerns that preclude the helicopter from flying in the United States.
Agriculture and Agri-Food
Farm Crisis in Prairie Provinces—Flexibility of Aid
Programs—Government Initiatives on International
Subsidy Issue—
Low Rate of Return to
Producers—Government Response
(Response to questions raised by Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk
and Hon. Mira Spivak on May 3, 2000)
QUESTION
If 95 per cent of the farm credit corporation accounts nationally and 93 per cent in Saskatchewan are up to date at the end of March 2000, does this mean that 5 per cent of the Farm Credit Corporation clients nationally and 7 per cent in Saskatchewan are suffering serious financial difficulties? Shouldn't the government take responsibility and shouldn't there be rules in the farm credit system to help the most needy.
ANSWER
Given the low grain and oilseed prices, the level of the Farm Credit Corporation loan arrears for grain farmers is up somewhat from last year. However, this in no way compares with the level of arrears in the 1980s. The percentage of loans not in good standing was three to four times the levels of today. Nationally, only 82 per cent of the loans were in good standing in 1988 compared to 95 per cent in March 2000.
Many of the farmers with Farm Credit Corporation loans that were not up to date on March 2000 will be able to bring their loans up to date in the future and the Corporation will continue to work with clients on an individual basis. The level of arrears in Saskatchewan did drop from $12 million at the end of February to $8.4 million at the end of March 2000. This is only 0.67 per cent of the portfolio of $1.26 billion in Saskatchewan.
This reflects the work of the FCC staff with individual clients along with the timing of receipts, such as grain deliveries, Canadian Wheat Board payment adjustments to initial prices and program payments and withdrawals.
The FCC is encouraging their customers who are anticipating problems to contact their local offices to discuss payment options.
Farm safety net program payments will help farmers bring their loans up to date. AIDA, NISA, and the $400 million provided to Manitoba and Saskatchewan farmers will help many with their payments to the FCC, banks, credit unions suppliers, and others.
In the end, there will be some farmers who will not be able to continue because of financial pressure. For some, even higher prices may not help. This does not mean that they are bad farmers. Some have too much debt or have experienced ongoing production problems. There may be some who feel that they do not want to continue farming because of uncertainties related to income.
The Minister is working with his provincial colleagues on safety net programs that will help farmers through periods of cyclical market downturns and production problems. The primary focus of the government is maintaining and developing the sector, but perhaps we also need to discuss the issue of whether we should be providing help to those who need to find an alternative to farming.
QUESTION
Is it impossible for farmers to make a profit? Shouldn't the FCC take this into account?
ANSWER
Though cycles make it difficult to generate profits in some years, most commercial farmers are running profitable, efficient businesses. While grains and oilseed producers are currently struggling with low prices, there are farmers in other sectors such as cattle who have seen very strong prices. The government has also seen the price of hogs rebound and the industry has returned to profitability.
Overall, the FCC portfolio is relatively strong reflecting the fact that most of its clientele are managing under current conditions with some doing extremely well. The government has heard no statements from other lenders that their farm loan portfolios are a problem.
The FCC is working with farmers having financial difficulties and it is encouraging clients to talk to FCC staff if they expect to have problems making their loan payments.
QUESTION
What is the government doing on the subsidy issue internationally?
ANSWER
With respect to the key issue of subsidies, Canada is pressing for the complete elimination of export subsidies as quickly as possible, and maximum possible reduction or elimination of production and trade distorting support, including an overall limit on domestic support of all types.
In pursuit of these goals, Canada will be presenting detailed proposals on our initial position in the negotiating meetings of WTO Committee on Agriculture which will meet, three, or possibly four, times this year. These detailed proposals, on the core areas, including market access, domestic support and export competition, will explain our ideas and offer options that reflect our initial negotiating position.
It is important that Canada make proposals early in the negotiating process in Geneva to build support for Canadian ideas and approaches.
Canada will also participate in the development and presentation of proposals by the Cairns Group.
These detailed proposals are being developed in consultation with other government departments, at both the federal and provincial level, as well as with industry, principally through the Agriculture, Food and Beverage Sectoral Advisory Group on International Trade (SAGIT). Other stakeholders will also be consulted depending on their interest, and the specific topics to be covered.
QUESTION
Although the question was phrased in terms of low rates of return to producers, the real issue is the share of the value of food products received by producers compared to other stakeholders in the food chain.
ANSWER
Due to the wide range of activities such as processing, inspection, transportation, storage, handling and marketing, that must take place before a farm product reaches the Canadian consumer, farm prices average about 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the value of food products sold in Canada. These relationships range from a low of about 1 per cent for alcoholic beverages sold in restaurants to more than 30 per cent for meat products sold in grocery stores. This proportion is generally lower for products sold in restaurants because these products require more preparation and hence cost more than products sold in grocery stores. The share received by producers, by itself, cannot be used to conclude that producers are being treated unfairly.
This situation is also the case in other developed countries such as the United States. Furthermore, the level of farm value appears high compared to other products since, in general, the raw resource material of manufactured consumer products comprises only about 10 per cent of the final price of the product.
Health
Approval Process of Pharmaceutical Products—Effect of Delays on Investment by Companies
(Response to question raised by Hon. Roch Bolduc on May 4, 2000)Health Canada's mandate is to protect the health and safety of Canadians, and the mandate of the Therapeutic Products Programme (TPP) is to ensure that the therapeutic products available to Canadians are safe, effective and of high quality.
The TPP has been, and continues to be committed to ensuring the drug review process is as efficient as possible. Between 1994 and 1996 review times were cut by 50 per cent. Currently, the time required to review a new drug substance is averaging 18 months, which is competitive with our international counterparts.
Drug companies, perhaps because of marketing considerations, often choose to seek approval of their products in other jurisdictions before applying for a Notice of Compliance in Canada. This action delays the access of the Canadian public to new and promising drugs.
Health Canada's Therapeutic Products Programme (TPP) is engaged in several initiatives to enhance the transparency of the drug regulatory system and mechanisms for consumer and stakeholder communication. For example, one aspect of this transparency initiative will examine how the public can be involved in the drug review process and how this can be best achieved.
The TPP recently completed a functional review of the post-approval surveillance system and is now in the process of implementing changes. The continued access of consumers to safe and effective therapeutic products is the objective.
The first priority of new resources into the TPP's product licensing process will be to support the regulatory changes being made in the regulation of the clinical trials review process in Canada. To the extent that new resources are greater than the clinical trial need, they will be allocated to pre-market and post-approval assessment processes. Plans are underway, again under the oversight of a multi-stakeholder committee, to review and streamline the regulatory processes even further.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Marine Liability Bill
Third Reading
Hon. George J. Furey moved the third reading of Bill S-17, respecting marine liability, and to validate certain bylaws and regulations.He said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise before you today for third reading of Bill S-17, respecing marine liability.
The proposed legislation introduces for the first time the concept of shipowners' liability for the carriage of passengers and new rules for the apportionment of liability in maritime cases. At the same time, this bill consolidates existing marine liability regimes into a single statute.
I should like to take a few moments, honourable senators, to briefly review Bill S-17 and its main provisions.
The introduction of a new regime of shipowners' liability to passengers is the key substantive element of the bill. This regime, set out in Part 4, is an initiative borne out of concerns for those passengers who may be involved in an accident during maritime transport.
There are currently no statutory provisions in Canadian law that establish the basis of liability for loss of life or personal injury to passengers travelling by ship. The intent of the regime of liability to passengers is to ensure that in the event of a loss, particularly a major one, the claimants have a guarantee of a set level of compensation and, at the same time, to provide to shipowners a means for determining their potential exposure to passenger claims.
Of equal concern here is the absence, with the exception of the Quebec Civil Code, of Canadian legislation specifically preventing shipowners from contracting out of their liability to passengers. Such contractual exemptions are null and void in other countries, notably in the United States, France and Britain. Contracting out of liability is generally absent in other modes of transport in Canada.
There appears to be no basis for maintaining the contractual freedom currently enjoyed by water carriers. The new regime for liability to passengers will therefore specifically prohibit such practice, and this will harmonize Canadian legislation with that of other maritime nations.
Honourable senators, the second policy objective of this bill is new legislation for apportionment of liability in maritime cases. This legislation is needed to deal with important aspects of liability in situations where the claimant has been partly responsible for his or her loss.
This is a very difficult and confusing area of Canadian law, due to the absence of legislation relating specifically to maritime cases. In the past, two rules of common law have been the source of serious concern to the entire maritime community. First, the common-law defence of contributory negligence that prevents a claimant from recovering anything if the defendant can prove the claimant's own negligence, even in the slightest degree, has contributed to the damages.
[Translation]
(1430)
Second, the defendant required to pay the claimant damages cannot turn around and claim a contribution from others who may have contributed to the claimant's loss.
[English]
In its recent decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it was unjust to continue to apply the old common law rules to such claims. In light of this decision, therefore, new legislation is needed to establish a uniform set of laws that apply to all civil wrongs governed by Canadian maritime law.
As I have already stated, honourable senators, the new act will also consolidate existing marine liability regimes and related subjects, which are currently located in separate pieces of legislation. This "one-stop shopping" approach to marine liability will avoid, in the future, the proliferation of separate legislative initiatives in the area of shipping policy.
In preparation for this new legislation on passenger liability and apportionment of liability, it became evident that it was not very efficient or user friendly to leave the various liability regimes scattered all over the legislative map. Thus, we are bringing forward this legislation, which will consolidate all marine liability regimes into a single statute. This includes provisions on fatal accidents and personal injuries, limitations of liability for marine claims, liability for carriage by water, and liability and compensation for pollution damage.
Honourable senators, in addition to the existing regimes that will be consolidated in the proposed Marine Liability Act, there are other liability regimes on the horizon, notably those currently being developed in the International Maritime Organization. This includes the proposed regime of liability for spills caused by ships' bunkers, and a new protocol to the Athens Convention on Compulsory Insurance. I believe the proposed Maritime Liability Act will serve as well in the future as a logical framework for these new regimes, should Canada decide to adopt them.
Honourable senators, I should like to express my sincere thanks, on behalf of the government, to Senator Bacon and her Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications for their efforts during the hearings on Bill S-17. This bill was dealt with, including amendments, in a very timely and efficient manner.
I should note as well that the marine industry groups, among which were the Canadian Maritime Law Association, the Shipping Federation of Canada and the Canadian Board of Marine Underwriters, appeared before the committee and expressed their general support for this piece of legislation.
In response to the submission of the Canadian Maritime Law Association, a motion to amend the proposed legislation was introduced. The association advised that the legislation as proposed would extend the Athens Convention contained in Part 4 of the bill to all persons carried by water, including those carried on pleasure crafts. As it was not the intent of the legislation to apply this part to passengers carried on pleasure craft, the bill has been amended accordingly.
In conclusion, honourable senators, the key features of the proposed Marine Liability Act include a new regime of shipowners' liability to passengers, a new regime for apportionment of liability, and consolidation of existing liability regimes.
Honourable senators, we have in front of us a bill which will modernize and improve our legislation for maritime claims to ensure that it meets current Canadian requirements in the area of shipowners' liabilities, in particular, passenger liability.
I should like to thank Senator Angus for his support of this legislation. Absent his few errant comments about timeliness, his heart was certainly behind the legislation.
I urge all honourable senators to join with me in supporting the bill, including the amendment proposed by the standing committee.
Hon. W. David Angus: Honourable senators, first, I should like to thank the Honourable Senator Furey for his kind remarks. I am pleased, once again, to support speedy passage of Bill S-17, this time at third reading.
As mentioned yesterday by Senator Bacon, in moving adoption of the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, the bill received widespread and unanimous support in committee hearings from all witnesses representing Canada's domestic and international shipping industry and from related stakeholders. It is gratifying, frankly, to note that departmental officials at Transport Canada, as well as the government, reacted so swiftly and so positively to the amendments proposed by the Canadian Maritime Law Association through its president, Barry Oland. Although these amendments appeared on their face to be de minimis, they are, nonetheless, important to, and in, the very best interests of thousands upon thousands of Canada's small boat and pleasure craft owners and operators.
Honourable senators, when I spoke to Bill S-17 at second reading on April 4, I stressed the importance of uniformity of international marine and shipping legislation, and the need for Canada to do its part by promptly and effectively implementing into our domestic laws those international maritime conventions and treaties that Canada supports and to which it subscribes and has duly ratified at the diplomatic level. In this regard, honourable senators, I attended meetings of the Comité Maritime International executive council at its annual assembly in London, England, just last week. During these CMI proceedings, it was noted with pleasure and respect that Canada is finally in the process of implementing the Athens Convention into its national law via Bill S-17. Hope was expressed that in future, Canada will demonstrate leadership and responsibility in this key area of uniformity of maritime law in a more timely way.
It was made clear at the CMI that there presently exists a problem internationally, respecting the expeditious and uniform implementation and interpretation of international maritime conventions. These sentiments were echoed by the Secretary General of IMO, William O'Neil, who is a Canadian and former head of the St. Lawrence Seaway authority. In consequence, a major maritime law seminar to be held in Toledo, Spain, September 17 to 21, this year, under the joint sponsorship of the CMI and the Spanish Maritime Law Association, will devote its entire first session to this important subject, and especially to the need for a concentrated effort to achieve better uniformity.
Honourable senators, I will be privileged to attend this seminar and am pleased to say that I have been asked to present a paper on this specific subject of implementation of international maritime conventions from a Canadian perspective. It will be both useful and interesting for me to be able to showcase this Bill S-17, hopefully, by that time, duly enacted by our Parliament and an integral part of Canadian domestic law.
Honourable senators, for these and for the other reasons I outlined at second reading, I enthusiastically support third reading of this bill. I compliment the work of Senator Bacon and her committee and Senator Furey, and I urge the speedy passage of this legislation before Parliament rises for the summer break.
Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I wonder if I could invite Senator Furey to close debate on this bill.
The Hon. the Speaker: There is no closing debate on third reading. Senator Furey has spoken. He has exhausted his right to speak.
Are you ready for the question, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Hon. the Speaker: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Furey, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gill, that the bill be read the third time now. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.
(1440)
Bill to Give Effect to the Requirement for
Clarity
as Set Out in the Opinion of the
Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec
Secession Reference
Second Reading—Debate Suspended
On the Order:Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boudreau, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Hays, for the second reading of Bill C-20, to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference,
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Stratton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-20, An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs."
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I thought that one of my colleagues would be preceding me today. Perhaps she will speak a bit later.
This debate has been, as several have remarked, a most edifying one. The speeches given do honour to the Senate and to the honourable senators who have taken part. In fact, the quality of the debate here is, in itself, a reproach to those in another place who would cut the Senate out of the future parliamentary decisions which are prescribed in Bill C-20.
I could not hope to improve on the speeches that have been given in this debate, so I do not have very much to add on the bill. At this late stage in the debate, I should like only to make a few comments about the political climate in which this bill has come forward. I ask honourable senators to reflect on it because it concerns me, as I think it should concern all of us.
Let me begin with the observation that Quebec's influence, her bargaining power or her leverage, if you like, in the federation has never been weaker than it is at present. There are various reasons for this, but they are not particularly relevant to this discussion. If you want an illustration of that weakness, you need only look to the events of last year that led up to the signing of the social union agreement between the federal government and the nine English-majority provinces.
The 10 provinces had worked out a principled position to take into discussions with the federal government on the future of social policy. However, as soon as the nine English-majority provinces saw the colour of Ottawa's money, that was the end of it. They abandoned the position. They left Quebec alone and they signed up.
I raise that history not to criticize any province in particular and certainly not as a comment on the content or substance of the social union agreement. I raise it simply to illustrate with what casual manner, with what insouciance, the nine English-majority provinces simply abandoned Quebec, as they had done together with the federal government in 1982 at the time of patriation of the Constitution.
There was a time when one or other of the English-majority provinces and/or the federal government would have been concerned with the need for everyone to go forward together on an issue such as the social union. For quite a few generations in my adult lifetime, Ontario, the linchpin of Confederation, kept a wary eye on these developments, and Ontario would not allow something to go forward until every effort had been made to bring Quebec on side. That is not so any more.
During part of the 1970s and even in the 1980s, post the patriation trauma, Alberta and Quebec were frequently allies in the federation. Certainly for Ontario, it was always a question of trying to keep things on a stable equilibrium. Ontario had to swallow hard sometimes in order to do that, but they always felt, and I think essentially the federal government felt, that it was necessary to do this in order to prevent unnecessary confrontation and division in the federation.
The situation today is that Quebec has no allies among the provinces of Canada. They can get together and issue a press release every so often, especially when it is a matter of complaining about the federal government's policy in this or that area or in demanding more money. The fact of the matter is, though, as I read it, that there is not a single premier in this country who is prepared to spend a nickel of political capital in order to ensure that the whole country moves forward on issues together and, in particular, to ensure that Quebec stays on side.
In this situation, where Quebec's bargaining power and her influence in the federation are historically weak, we should reflect on whose interests are served by such a state of affairs, whether it is the interests of the federalists or the interests of the separatists. We should ask ourselves how a bill like this, a policy like this, contributes to reinforcing national unity.
Quebec has historically been seen as the foyer of French Canada. It has always been seen to have a special responsibility, a special role, as the only jurisdiction in North America with a French-speaking majority. There is not even any interest on the part of the other provinces, much less appreciation, understanding or support, for Quebec in that role and responsibility. Think about the House of Commons for a minute. Think about how far we have gone, in my opinion, in the wrong direction, on the basic issue of English-French relations.
In this Thirty-sixth Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition over there has not been Robert Stanfield, who stood up with Pierre Trudeau and Tommy Douglas to support the Official Languages Act in 1969. He has not been Brian Mulroney, who stood up with Pierre Trudeau and Ed Broadbent in 1983 to send a message of solidarity and reassurance to the French-speaking people of Manitoba, a message that resonated very strongly about Canada in Quebec. The Leader of the Opposition has not been John Turner, who stood with Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Broadbent in support of the Meech Lake Accord in 1987.
The Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, in this Thirty-sixth Parliament, has been Preston Manning. Mr. Manning says in his book, The New Canada, that if anyone asks you to endorse a concept of Canada based on linguistic duality, they are asking you to endorse exactly the wrong thing. I think I am quoting him just about word for word.
(1450)
Preston Manning and his followers, who form the second-biggest party in the House of Commons, reject — they deny absolutely, root and branch — the very concept of Canada that motivated these other opposition leaders and other governments in our past history. Remember also that the third-largest party in the other place is the Bloc Québécois, and we know where they stand.
If you examine the media at any level of articulation, honourable senators, whether it is the radio phone-in show, the pundit's corner or the professorial think pieces, the message is all the same. They say that we have moved on; we have moved beyond these old issues.
Lawrence Martin, who writes for Southam, says with regard to Quebec and the Atlantic provinces that:
As for the old Canada — Quebec and the Atlantic provinces — who cares?
He also said:
Furthermore, Quebec issues no longer resonate across the country the way they have for the last 40 years. On unity, the constitution and bilingualism, the fed-up factor predominates. Chrétien's tough rules on the referendum in his clarity legislation have diluted the blackmail threat Quebec politicians used with such telling effect to dominate the national debate.
Jeffrey Simpson describes in The Globe and Mail the attitude in much of English Canada to the Quebec issue in the classic quotation from Gone With the Wind, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
Michael Bliss, the historian, describes the new Canada variously defined in regional or ideological terms, which leaves Quebec and the French-English issue and these other issues behind as part of a discredited past.
Honourable senators, I am the first to acknowledge that there is more to Canada than the French-English dimension. We have 133 years of history to prove it. However, that relationship is so much at the core of our history and our being, so central to our existence as a country, that if ever it comes apart, then the rest of the country will not be long in unravelling. The whole country will unravel.
There is no doubt in my mind that Simpson, Martin and these other journalists are describing the situation with some accuracy. If I needed anything further, I would refer to that most admirable and admired public man, the former premier of Alberta, the Honourable Peter Lougheed, who supports this bill. In a brief to the House of Commons legislative committee, he said:
Some have and will argue that this legislation, which is essentially process, should be accompanied by renewed efforts to accommodate some Quebec aspirations for greater control of their own destiny, i.e., the so-called "Plan A" initiatives.
With respect, I completely disagree — the time is now past for such initiatives and, in my judgement, the rest of Canada, and Western Canada in particular, have had their fill of this approach. It is yesterday's solution!
Honourable senators, Peter Lougheed has given up on the prospect of Plan A, of some measure or set of measures that might cement our unity, that might bind Quebec and the rest of the country closer together. Instead, he comes to offer his support for what is essentially a policy of confrontation.
Indifference, hostility, triumphalism in English Canada — this bill caught a growing wave of triumphalism in English Canada and it has brought it to high tide. Not since the War Measures Act was imposed 30 years ago has a government measure regarding Quebec enjoyed such enthusiastic support outside Quebec.
We should think about it. Mr. Manning supports this bill. Ms McDonough of the NDP, having denounced the principle one day, was spooked by the public opinion polls and, as the Prime Minister noted with some glee, she flip-flopped. Among the federalist leaders, only Joe Clark has maintained a principled opposition to the bill, and five of his elected caucus members have declined to follow his lead on it.
There is no doubt that there is great support for this bill in English Canada. Indifference, hostility, triumphalism toward Quebec, refusal to consider Plan A — where do we go? Shall we go with the flow?
The Hon. the Speaker: I regret to have to interrupt the Honourable Senator Murray, but his 15-minute time period for speaking has elapsed. Is the honourable senator requesting leave to continue?
Senator Murray: I shall ask leave. I shall not need the generosity of Senator Hays' 30 minutes, but far less.
Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I propose we give leave to Senator Murray to continue his comments for another 30 minutes.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Murray: I thank honourable senators.
There is no doubt about the support for this bill, about what the climate of opinion is in English Canada, about the French-English relationship, about the relationship between Quebec, with its majority of francophones, and the rest of Canada, with its majority of anglophones. This climate of triumphalism is in the country, in Parliament and in the media.
(1500)
That really leaves the issue with us. What will we do? Will we go with the flow? Will this bill strengthen the bonds between Quebec and the rest of Canada? The authors of this bill think they have Quebec cornered. They may find they have cornered themselves and cornered the country. If a referendum comes, the Government of Quebec will ask the question they want to ask, and the canvas they will use before the people of Quebec will be that the only way to get the rest of Canada to negotiate is to vote Yes no matter what the House of Commons may decide about the clarity of the question. In view of the quite crude provision in this bill, which states that the Commons will decide whether the majority is clear after the vote is held, the Péquiste government will tell the people not only that voting Yes is the only way to get the others to the table, but that the majority must be absolutely convincing and large beyond any doubt.
Meanwhile, we federalists will go in there with empty hands, unlike 1980 and unlike 1995, when our spokesmen and spokeswomen felt confident enough to suggest that, if Quebec voted No, there would be a renewal of Confederation. The government has now abandoned plan A, thrown it overboard, and whoever is left to lead the federalists in Quebec will be sent there empty-handed. That is what we are telling them with this bill. We will give them the stark choice: the constitutional status quo or outright separation.
I think at some point you will see people in English Canada realizing that they have been duped, misled by the federal government. The result will be a renewal of bitterness and recrimination, and that will not help much either.
This thing is sometimes described as Mr. Chrétien's legacy. I can hardly be described as a supporter of Mr. Chrétien, but I can think easily of a number of things in his political career to date that would make a much more honourable legacy than this bill. It reminds me of something I heard Mr. Bourassa say to Clyde Wells 10 years ago next month in that old railway station in the last days of the Meech Lake discussions. At a rather tense moment, Mr. Bourassa turned to Mr. Wells and said, "You will have saved your vanity and lost your country."
Honourable senators, the Supreme Court judgment had an excellent quotation from the Government of Saskatchewan, I believe, in which that government's attorney general, or its lawyers, told the court that a country is made up of a thousand threads of accommodation and compromise. That has been our history. I think we all know that. That, I think, is the Canada that everyone in this chamber believes in and would defend. That Canada, in which it is the lot of public people to try to contain extremes, avoid confrontation and promote unity, is the Canada that is most at risk with this ill-considered and ill-advised bill.
There were two speeches on this side of the chamber early in the debate which gave an interesting, indeed a very stark, counterpoint to the historical context. Senator Lynch-Staunton reminded us of some of the events that killed the hope of any French-speaking Quebecers of a pan-Canadian partnership and turned them inward to a more defensive "fortress Quebec" nationalism: the hanging of Louis Riel, the Manitoba school question, Ontario's Regulation 17. We do well to remind ourselves that these were the transgressions of our predecessors, of political actors like ourselves, whose better instincts deserted them and whose courage failed them at crucial moments in our history. In vain did the French-speaking people look to this very chamber in which we are meeting today, to the House of Commons and the federal government, to those institutions in which they had reposed such faith. In vain did they look to our predecessors for redress or security. That is one history.
The other history, which was told by Senator Rivest, referred to some of the things that happened under three fairly recent prime ministers: Pearson, Trudeau and Mulroney. Prime Minister Pearson had practised cooperative federalism. He was not afraid of asymmetry on issues like the Canada and Quebec pension plans, and he appointed the Laurendeau-Dunton commission which was the inspiration for the Official Languages Act, brought in under the Trudeau government in 1969. We could add other initiatives that were taken. There is the Meech Lake Accord. Had it passed, we would not be debating this bill today. There is the successful attempt to give a role to Quebec and New Brunswick in la Francophonie. These are nation-building measures, measures which cement and reinforce unity, as distinct from the sad chapters that Senator Lynch-Staunton properly reminded us of.
I believe we have a choice here as to which of these historical legacies we will emulate.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, would Senator Murray entertain a question?
Senator Murray: Certainly.
Senator Grafstein: Before I ask my question, I shall make a comment.
As the honourable senator knows, I have some reservations with regard to some aspects of the clarity bill. I hope, as I said, that the committee will allow us to test the evidence as to whether or not the views held by some of us on this side with respect to some flaws or defects in that bill can, in fact, be explored. That remains to be seen.
Based on the honourable senator's argumentation, I have a different perspective and I should like his comment on this point. In 1955, one of the honourable senator's former colleagues, Senator Tremblay, issued a report, the report of the Tremblay commission. In that report, if I recall correctly — and I am reciting this from memory — he was concerned about the imbalance in Confederation between Quebec and the rest of Canada. When he took a look at economic power, he decided that economic power lay mostly in the hands of the federal government versus Quebec. Something like 75 per cent of all tax dollars was under the power and the jurisdiction of the federal government, and only 25 per cent was in the hands of the Quebec government. Therefore, he felt there was an asymmetry between the two, causing dislocation, and his recommendation in that 1955 report was that it should be 50/50. Today, however, we find an extraordinary circumstance. If we did an analysis similar to the one in the Tremblay report — and this has been accelerated in the last decade under the leadership of Mr. Chrétien — we would find, with respect to economic power, that it is now 75/25; 75 per cent in the hands of the Province of Quebec and 25 per cent in the hands of the federal government.
Some say that perhaps the devolution has gone too far. Let us just think about the things the federal government and this chamber have done in the last four or five years to ameliorate the concerns about Quebec: job training, in the hands of Quebec; additional magnificent tax points, in the hands of Quebec; social housing, now in the hands of Quebec; mining, now in the hands of Quebec; tourism, in the hands of Quebec. A constitutional amendment that the Quebec government requested, dealing with their educational system, was, after some great debate, granted. That was done in this chamber and the other chamber jointly. Finally, there was the 1996 constitutional veto bill that enhances Quebec's veto power.
(1510)
How can one say fairly, aside from the clarity bill, that Quebec, under this particular administration, has not, in fact, achieved a satisfaction with a number of its concerns by the devolution of particular powers and tax points?
Senator Murray: I do not know how my honourable friend can speak about devolution of powers that belonged to the province in the first place. Let us put that on the record.
Second, I appreciate what my friend has to say about the Tremblay commission. I am not familiar with the detail of it, although I believe the senator is correct to have described it as he did. Provinces are now looking at their responsibilities, notably in the fields of health care and education, and they are once again protesting about the imbalance between their responsibilities and the revenues that are available to them by comparison with those that are available to the federal government.
I am aware of the argument that we have the most decentralized federation in the world. I understand how and why that argument is made. It must also be recognized that, in this country, only the federal government has a veto over any constitutional amendment, that only the federal government has unlimited taxing powers and that the federal government has a spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction which is unfettered, unless one wishes to discuss the social union agreement.
In any case, my statement about the weakness of Quebec's bargaining position vis-à-vis all the other partners stands. I believe their bargaining position has weakened considerably. It is clear to me that the other provinces will pursue their own interests without any thought for Quebec's position. I am not necessarily complaining about that. The federal government and federal Parliament has a role in that respect.
Finally, with regard to Quebec's needs, the two that are most essential for Quebec is a constitutional recognition of its distinctiveness as the only French-speaking jurisdiction in North America and, second, protection against any loss of its representation in certain federal institutions, including this one, without her consent. Those are the two subjects that need to be addressed. If they are not addressed, we will have a serious problem.
Senator Grafstein: Honourable senators, I can only conclude by giving one further factual anecdote, and it is an anecdote because I was not at the meeting and I cannot confirm it.
Quebec tends to speak with many voices and one of the voices it spoke with from the governmental side was a tremendous stonewalling of the federal government's attempt to add increased support for post-secondary education.
Last year, or the year before, there was a meeting of university presidents. All the university presidents from across the country were at this meeting, and while the government of Quebec said, "No more money to post-secondary education directly from the federal government," every university president from the Province of Quebec was lauding the federal government and saying, "More, more, more."
Which voice should we listen to, the voice of a separatist leader in Quebec, or the voices of the leaders of post-secondary education in Quebec?
Senator Murray: Post-secondary education is an interesting example. Many years ago, when grants to universities were first brought in, the Duplessis government in Quebec refused to allow the universities to accept them. There was a standoff, a confrontation. Mr. Diefenbaker, of all people, found an elegant way to solve the problem and Quebec universities got their federal money.
The present government brought in the millennium scholarship fund. I do not know what the university presidents had to say about it, but for a long time there was considerable objection, and not just on the part of the Government of Quebec, but even of student organizations.
Yes, they may speak with a different voice, but at the end of the day, on matters of this kind, which as my friend knows are within provincial jurisdiction, one must negotiate a suitable arrangement with the government that has the responsibility, the duly elected Government of Quebec.
By the way, honourable senators, I do not believe the people of Quebec want the federal government to turn its back on health care and post-secondary education. If I were sitting down with a blank sheet of paper, having been asked to rewrite the division of powers, I am not sure that I would make many changes at all. The problems with the division of powers lie in the way in which the federal spending power has been used over the years, and in the need to respect the fact that there are vastly different social problems and circumstances from one region to the other.
We could talk all afternoon about the problems the Premier of Saskatchewan or Newfoundland would tell you they have in the field of social policy. The problem has been in spending power and in respecting the vastly different circumstances across the country, and essentially, as I have said, in ensuring some security for Quebec by way of constitutional recognition of its distinctive role and some constitutional protection for Quebec in the federal institutions. If we could address those two areas successfully tomorrow, we would have a far different climate.
Hon. John G. Bryden: Honourable senators, I have a question for Senator Murray.
Senator Murray used the word "triumphalism." I am unfamiliar with that terminology. He also spoke about the clarity bill having the highest level of support in the country, more than any other bill that he could recall — his experience is greater than mine — other than the War Measures Act.
At the time of the War Measures Act, there was, rightly or wrongly, some sort of perceived crisis. In Senator Murray's opinion, what has given rise, other than the fact that the Reform Party is the Official Opposition in the House of Commons, to this feeling of triumphalism among Canadians outside of Quebec?
Senator Murray: Honourable senators, my short answer is that I do not know. I could speculate, I suppose. We all know how almost despairing, discouraged and, in some ways, bitter the feeling was in the rest of Canada in the aftermath of the 1995 referendum in Quebec.
I could not identify the events in the intervening period that have given rise to what one journalist has called, "the fed-up factor." Another journalist describes the situation as, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
This bill correctly caught the wave. We have only to read the media and listen to the phone-in shows and hear some of the debates in the other place to see how much triumphalism there is. I think these people are misled. You hear them saying, "No more blackmail from Quebec," whatever that is supposed to mean. "If there is a referendum, it will be on our terms."
"Quebec has moved beyond all these old issues," they say. "The rest of Canada has moved beyond all these old issues." There is a new Canada, says Michael Bliss, variously described in either regional or ideological terms, but, in any case, Quebec and the part of the country where you and I were born are not included.
I think they are living in a kind of fools' paradise, frankly. Victory at last, clarity at last — no, no. When will we learn?
(1520)
Senator Bryden: If this is an indication of the people to whom my honourable friend has referred, the journalists and the pundits, it has been my experience that, by far, not all of them, and in some instances not many of them, are in advance of what they feel their readership, their public, wants to hear, or, in fact, believe. They do not take leadership roles. They are not in the business of formulating opinion. Indeed, as the honourable senator indicated, the polls generally have reflected that the general populous is in somewhat overwhelming support of the position that is taken.
Is Senator Murray indicating that the Michael Blisses, Jeffrey Simpsons, and maybe even, God forbid, the Preston Mannings of the world are generating this, or are they doing what they do normally, which is trying to catch the feeling that is there already so that they will be on the right side, whether they are promoting their causes or selling newspapers?
Senator Murray: In terms of the journalists to whom I have referred, I think they are simply portraying what they see or feel is there by way of sentiment in the country. As I have tried to say, the sentiment is not just in favour of this bill. That would be one issue. It is the overall attitude — the fed-up factor, the triumphalism, the new Canada and all these other questions. I think that attitude is quite dangerous for Canada because Canadians will have a rude awakening one of these days. In the issues we are talking about here, and with the debate we are having today, we are taking up a discussion that runs through our history for more than 200 years, as my friend knows, and this issue will be with us as long as there is a Canada. For people to suggest otherwise is really very foolish, in my view.
I cannot resist the temptation to note that one or two of the columnists in the National Post seem to write for an audience of one, namely, Conrad Black, or perhaps two, Conrad Black and Barbara Amiel. However, for the most part, I think the columnists to whom I have referred are simply reporting on what they see out there by way of public sentiment.
Senator Bryden: I will make one last comment. The honourable senator has said that this dynamic has gone on for a couple of hundred years and that it will continue, but it is probably healthy that it has gone on, and healthy that it continue.
There is a view, and it is part of my view, that the intention of this bill is not to try to bring an end to that road upon which we have travelled and will continue to travel. At least at this stage, given many of the things my friend has reviewed in his comments, it attempts to be a map of where the road can go, at least in the close future, as against any indication that this will be the end of continuing discussion or indeed of the country. Many different attempts, Meech Lake being one and Charlottetown being another, have tried to do that. This bill is a further attempt. Who is to say that it may be somewhat more successful than the others?
Senator Murray: We disagree on that point. I believe this bill does nothing to bind Canadians closer together. On the contrary, it manifestly divides the federalists in Quebec. We have seen that. If we look forward a year or two or more down the road to a referendum, who will lead us, the federalists, into that referendum campaign and what will that person say? Will we take part at all, depending on what the House of Commons decides?
In any case, after the two referendums in which we purported to offer something for the future, what do we have? We have now thrown Plan A overboard. We are going in there with empty hands to tell them, as we are coming close to telling them in this bill, that their choice is between the constitutional status quo on the one hand and outright separation on the other. I would say that this is the argument that federalists in Quebec least want to hear.
Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier: I should like to ask a question of Senator Murray.
I think we are talking about two solitudes, mainly. I happen to be able to speak both languages, one by birth and the other one by economic necessity. The honourable senator did not mention in his speech anything about why the Senate is excluded. Do we have that much confidence in the present composition of the House of Commons? There are at least two parties in that House of Commons. One does not give a damn about Canada and wants out; the other one does not understand the fabric of this country and what contribution is made to Canada by having two official languages. It is possible that in a short while the structure and composition of the House of Commons could change, whereby the majority would not be one available to Canada as Senator Murray and I have seen it or as many of us in this house structure it.
I wish to ask a very simple question. I object to the division or possible breakup of my country. I believe this bill is the first step toward a division in this country. I deplore that. What would the honourable senator think of a decision made by the House of Commons that would either decide the clarity of a question or of the results when it is quite conceivable that a government of the combined opposition could have a say in this issue?
Senator Murray: I did not really address the bill in any detail because that had been so well done by so many speakers. I wanted to say a few words about the political climate in the country because it concerns me so much.
With regard to the specific question that my friend has asked, when I saw that the government would rely, under the circumstances of a referendum, completely on the views of the House of Commons and cut the Senate out, I thought this to be extraordinarily foolish and short-sighted. There are circumstances such as Senator Gauthier has just alluded to in which a federalist government over there might thank God for the existence of a Senate in a situation in which the combined opposition took a position antithetical to the Canada in which those of us in this chamber believe. We might, to use Mr. Trudeau's classic phrase, provide the effective counterweight. It is very foolish of them to cut the Senate out the way they have done.
(1530)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, pursuant to the order of your honourable house, I declare the Senate continued until Thursday —
Senator Hays: Honourable senators, I wonder if I could ask for leave to make a proposal.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Hays: I wonder, honourable senators, if I might ask and hopefully receive leave to not see the clock for approximately five minutes on the following basis.
First, I propose that we not proceed with the order of the Senate so that Senator Murray can complete his answer and deal with any other questions in the balance of his half-hour time frame. Second, I propose that we then call Order No. 4 under Government Business, namely, resuming second reading debate on Bill C-22, so that we might hear a speech by Senator Kelleher, which is very short and which may be the last speech at the second reading stage of this bill.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators, that I do not proceed with the order of the Senate and that we resume debate on Bill C-22?
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, it is understood that committees will hold in abeyance the commencement of their meetings until the Senate rises.
Debate suspended.
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Bill
Second Reading
On the Order:Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kroft, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bacon, for the second reading of Bill C-22, to facilitate combatting the laundering of proceeds of crime, to establish the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada and to amend and repeal certain Acts in consequence.
Hon. James F. Kelleher: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise today to speak on second reading of Bill C-22, a bill which, when passed, will create a new Proceeds of Crime Act.
As Senator Kroft mentioned yesterday, money laundering is a serious issue in Canada and has been for some time. It is estimated that between $5 and $17 billion pass in and through this country illegally every year.
Bill C-22 builds upon the existing Proceeds of Crime Act and attempts to address recommendations made by the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, a task force created by G-7 leaders in 1989. Unfortunately, Canada is one of the last countries in the industrialized world to take the necessary steps to meet the minimum standards set by the Financial Action Task Force.
Bill C-22 proposes to bolster Canada's anti-money laundering efforts by requiring banks, trust companies and a host of other financial intermediaries to report information about the financial transactions of their clients and customers. Bill C-22 will also establish, in association with the Canada Customs and Review Agency, a system of reporting large cross-border transactions.
The details about these financial transactions are to be collected by a new central data gathering and analysis body known as the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada. This new centre will analyze and assess reports, together with other information available to it, and provide leads to law enforcement agencies.
As a former solicitor general of Canada, I find it odd that the new centre will report to the Minister of Finance. It seems more appropriate that an agency that will be involved with law enforcement would report to a minister with some expertise in the area such as the Office of the Solicitor General. Nonetheless, I am pleased to report that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada supports the broad purposes and aims of this bill; that is, the prevention and reduction of money laundering in Canada.
I must also tell honourable senators, however, that several aspects of this proposed legislation give us cause for concern. We note, for example, that, at a time when there is an ongoing need for government to show fiscal restraint, this government is proposing to create yet another new agency. Moreover, the government has not made clear exactly what its new centre will cost. We understand that our colleagues in the other place were told that the centre would cost approximately $10 million to operate annually. We in this chamber are hearing that the real cost is, in fact, closer to $15 million. Quite frankly, this is unacceptable. We cannot, as parliamentarians, give our stamp of approval to this or to any other piece of legislation without knowing exactly how much taxpayers' money the government proposes to spend.
We are also concerned that the bill does not clearly define the types of financial transactions it will require banks and other financial intermediaries to report. The definitions provided are unclear and much of the necessary clarification is being left to the regulations. Without clear definitions, the dangers exist that financial intermediaries may neglect to report transactions that should be reported. Conversely — and I am not sure which is worse — they will over-report and thereby provide the new centre with an overflow of data about the financial transactions of innocent Canadians. This leads me to our next concern.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this bill is whether it adequately protects the privacy rights of Canadians. Canadians are legitimately concerned by the government's continuous collection and sharing of their personal information. Just yesterday, the Privacy Commissioner released his annual report and indicated that the government now has a file on almost every single Canadian, with files containing as many as 2,000 pieces of information. The power this new centre will have to collect and disseminate personal information, information it can store for up to eight years, will only exacerbate Canadians' concerns.
The Privacy Commissioner's report also states that the new centre could, in addition to information pertaining to an individual's criminal history, amass information relating to an individual's employment, financial transactions and travel history, as well as information relating to an individual's income status, business or professional relations, and possibly even personal relations.
While Bill C-22 stipulates that information collected by the centre can only be disclosed under limited circumstances, in reality we may never be certain if the information gathered about our financial transactions is being improperly disclosed. We do know that the new centre will be monitoring our transactions. What we do not know is who will be monitoring the monitor. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner simply does not have the necessary resources to conduct an annual audit of this and every other government department and agency.
Our party wishes to ensure that the provisions of this bill do not result in the personal information of Canadians being indiscriminately disclosed. Given our concerns, we will also be giving careful consideration to the need for a strict review of the new legislation every five years.
Finally, honourable senators, let me repeat that we support the government's attempts, albeit tardy, to bring Canada's money-laundering legislation into line with the rest of the industrialized world. However, we also look forward to an opportunity to conduct a detailed examination of this bill when it is referred to committee.
Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I should like to note for the record that something extremely unusual happened a few minutes ago, and I hope that it will not form a precedent at any point in time.
My understanding is that the Speaker of the Senate was under an order of the Senate to interrupt whatever may be happening at 3:30 p.m. to end the proceeding. It is my opinion that such an order of the Senate, made yesterday, cannot be overcome by a senator simply standing to ask for consent not to see the clock.
(1540)
I do not propose that we can resolve this question here because the order that the Senate should end its business at 3:30 is still running and is still functioning. I would propose that we say here and now that this is not a precedent, and then we can look at the question with a bit more seriousness at another time.
Orders of the Senate simply should not be overcome that easily. If we can overcome an order today, then we can overcome an order tomorrow and next week. Why only on this particular question? Can we overcome orders for the Speaker to rise and put a vote and to set the bells in motion?
Honourable senators, we have a duty to respect the orders that we have given to His Honour if we expect His Honour to honour those orders.
I wanted to make the point that this procedure should not be taken as a precedent. Perhaps, in more leisurely circumstances, we can discuss it without going through the troublesome questions. Even to speak now is, in a way, defying the order that is currently before the Senate.
The Hon. the Speaker: I thank the Honourable Senator Cools for her comments. I recognize that she is raising an important point.
Senator Cools: We have a duty to you, Your Honour, not to put you in such a position. You are under an order to interrupt at 3:30 and it is now 3:40.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the practice of the Senate is that, by leave, the Senate can do whatever it wishes. I admit that this matter should perhaps be examined by the Rules Committee because it is very broad. I suppose every rule could be changed.
Leave was granted for the suspension of the order. I heard honourable senators say yes, that leave was granted; therefore, I had no alternative.
Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I believe that, to complete Order No. 4, we should deal with the question.
The Hon. the Speaker: Are there other honourable senators who wish to speak to Bill C-22?
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I wish to speak to this unusual violation of the house order, by leave or not. We criticize committees for wanting to sit during our sitting hours. They were all ready to sit at 3:30, thinking the house would adjourn. Now they are waiting until 4:00 so the membership can get to their respective committee rooms.
Honourable senators, we should be consistent. The house order can, by procedure, be suspended by leave, but I think it is wrong to do so. Will the government perhaps tomorrow decide they do not have enough members for the vote scheduled at 3:00 p.m. and ask for leave to suspend the vote? There must be a limit. Leave is used for ordinary measures and hopefully not for extraordinary measures such as a house order.
Senator Cools: Leave can be given to do many things, but one thing it cannot do is overturn an existing order.
Senator Hays: Honourable senators, I think I had better speak to this matter. Whether it is a precedent or not, we have used leave in the past to suspend a rule, as we are now, in order to continue a sitting even though we had a house order to rise at a certain time. The way to prevent that from happening is not to grant leave. In other words, we can say no when leave is requested.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Or you could decide not to ask for it.
Senator Hays: I do not think I should say more than that.
Today, I would hope that we could complete deliberation on Order No. 4 by dealing with the question. As I understood the request that I put to the chamber, the clock would be seen following the question and the sitting would end. Our committee sittings could then proceed and we could hear everyone's concerns.
In the future, I will be sensitive to requesting leave under the circumstances that we have just seen.
The Hon. the Speaker: If no other honourable senator wishes to speak, I will proceed with the question.
It was moved by the Honourable Senator Kroft, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bacon, that Bill C-22 be read the second time.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read second time.
Referred to Committee
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?On motion of Senator Hays, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the item for which leave was granted has now been completed.
The Senate adjourned until Thursday, May 18, 2000, at 1:30 p.m.