Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
2nd Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 138, Issue 61
Thursday, June 1, 2000
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker
Table of Contents
- SENATORS' STATEMENTS
- ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
- QUESTION PERIOD
- ORDERS OF THE DAY
THE SENATE
Thursday, June 1, 2000
The Senate met at 2:00 p.m., the Speaker in the Chair.Prayers.
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
International Association of Fire Fighters
Proposal for Early Retirement
Hon. Erminie J. Cohen: Honourable senators, the International Association of Fire Fighters is advocating a regulatory change to Canada's Income Tax Act that would allow Canadian firefighters to make adequate pension contributions to enable them to retire before the rigours of the job endanger them or their fellow firefighters.We do not have to be reminded that firefighting is a dangerous occupation. Despite constant efforts to protect our firefighters, they still face serious risks for the work they do. They are routinely exposed to communicable diseases, hazardous materials and toxic combustibles, and studies show us that there is a probable connection between their occupation and cardiovascular disease and cancers of the brain, the lymphatic system, the colon, the bladder and the kidney. Firefighters are twice as likely to suffer job-related deaths and six times more likely to suffer injuries than other workers. As I mentioned recently in this chamber, the right to refuse unsafe work does not practically exist for them.
Honourable senators, the federal government has taken a first step in the right direction. The Income Tax Act regulation now defines firefighting as a public safety occupation, allowing firefighters to retire at age 55. However, the present maximum pension accrual rate pursuant to the act is 2 per cent for all Canadians. This means firefighters have the ability to retire earlier than most other occupations but are financially penalized for so doing because they cannot contribute more to their pension plans in anticipation of their early retirement.
The International Association of Fire Fighters has requested an increase in the pension accrual rate from 2 per cent to 2.33 per cent, which they have calculated will give them the opportunity to retire with adequate financial provisions. A December 1999 report by the Standing Committee on Finance also acknowledged this inequity and urged the Finance Minister to revisit the current provisions.
I wish to emphasize, honourable senators, the urgency of this request, so that our hard-working, risk-taking firefighters will not be penalized when they seek early retirement as a safeguard to good health. It is time for government to deal with this inequality.
The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney
Economic Record While in Office
Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson: Honourable senators, a study by two McGill University professors released today ranks Brian Mulroney as having the best economic record of any Canadian Prime Minister since the Second World War.Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent): That's a good one! You believe what you read, do you?
Senator Gustafson: The study goes on to say that low-income families fared better under Mr. Mulroney than under the Liberal administration of either Mr. Chrétien or Mr. Trudeau, and credits Mr. Mulroney with being more of an innovator in economic policy than others, with his introduction of free trade as well as the goods and services tax.
Senator Kinsella: Have they not abolished that?
An Hon. Senator: Not yet!
Senator Gustafson: I want this to be a short statement, honourable senators.
Having served two terms as parliamentary secretary to Mr. Mulroney, I just want to say that I told you so. History will repeat this many times.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
[Translation]
(1410)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Canada Labour Code
Bill to Amend—First Reading
The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-12, to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part II) in respect of occupational health and safety, to make technical amendments to the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.Bill read first time.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?
On motion of Senator Hays, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.
[English]
Issues Surrounding Rural Canada
Notice of Inquiry
Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I give notice that on Thursday, June 8, 2000, I shall call the attention of the Senate to issues surrounding rural Canada.[Translation]
Census Records
Presentation of Petition
Hon. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table a petition whose signatures were collected in Tracadie-Sheila, New Brunswick, by Généalogie Tracadie Inc., urging the government to:...take the necessary measures to retroactively amend the provisions of the Statistics Act relating to the protection of information going back to 1906, so as to allow access to censuses after a reasonable post-1901 period, beginning with the 1906 census.
[English]
QUESTION PERIOD
Foreign Affairs
Ambassador to the United States—Comments on Presidential Candidates Running for Election
Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.Yesterday, our ambassador to Washington, Raymond Chrétien, all but endorsed United States presidential candidate Al Gore. He essentially listed all the positives of a Mr. Gore presidency and all the negatives associated with Mr. Bush.
I certainly do not want to be drawn into defending Mr. Bush nor into commenting on the merits of Ambassador Chrétien's preferences for Mr. Gore, but is it appropriate for our Canadian spokesman in Washington to endorse a United States presidential candidate? Was Ambassador Chrétien announcing an official Canadian government position in the U.S. election?
Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I had an opportunity to read one of the articles covering that particular incident. As a result, I made some inquiries.
I am informed that the ambassador did not endorse any candidate for the presidency of the United States. He, in fact, had a discussion on both candidates, relating their connection to the country and the relationship that had developed or that existed between each candidate and Canada. Obviously, one of those candidates had a much closer connection than the other. Those comments may have been interpreted as endorsing that particular candidate, but such was not the intention of the ambassador and is certainly not the position of the government.
Senator Comeau: Honourable senators, the minister is saying that the ambassador was discussing the candidates. Let me read to you a few of his comments:
...a victory by Al Gore over George W. Bush...would be the best outcome for Canada.
We know Vice-President Gore. He knows us. He's a friend of Canada....
...[His election] probably would make life easier for us on broad environmental issues.
This is what the articles quotes the ambassador as saying about Mr. Bush:
Gov. Bush, on the other hand, doesn't know us as much.
He went on to joke about some episodes on This Hour Has 22 Minutes. He refers to Mr. Bush as thinking that the border has more to do with Mexico than Canada:
...A Bush presidency would probably emphasize broad defence-security issues. That might be a bit more difficult for us.
If that is not showing a preference, I suggest that the Leader of the Government in the Senate is in complete denial. Does he really think that Mr. Bush and his supporters will take kindly to the Canadian government interfering in their election?
Given the sensitivity of the issue, will the government consider recalling Ambassador Chrétien until after the election? In case Mr. Bush does become the president, we would then be in a much better position in Canada.
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I have the article from which the honourable senator quoted and it is the same article that prompted my follow-up. Another quote from the article reads:
...Canada's ambassador...said yesterday that a victory by Al Gore over George W. Bush would be the best outcome for Canada.
Those are the reporter's words, characterizing the ambassador's comments. It was not a direct quote. Rather, Mr. Raymond Chrétien stated, and I am reading from the article:
We know Vice-President Gore. He knows us. He's a friend of Canada,
Senator Comeau: I rest my case.
Senator Roberge: Shame!
Senator Boudreau: Is there anything that is not factual in that statement? All of that is factual.
Senator Stratton: What does that say? If that is not a preference, what is?
Senator Boudreau: The best assurance I can give to honourable senators is that I am informed that there was no intention on the part of the ambassador and certainly none on the part of the Government of Canada to endorse either presidential candidate.
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I have a supplementary question for the minister.
Is it the minister's position that this article, under the byline of Mike Trickey of the National Post, is another example of the National Post being fictitious in its writing of the news?
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the individual writing the article was Mike Trickey, T-R-I-C-K-E-Y.
Senator Forrestall: You employ him, do you?
Senator Boudreau: Mr. Trickey does attribute certain quotations to the ambassador. We can only assume he is quoting accurately. He says that Mr. Chretien:
...described Mr. Bush as a "nice man"...
He again quotes Mr. Chrétien directly:
"We will deal with whoever gets elected."
These are the direct quotes. The rest, I suppose, is conclusion by Mr. Trickey in his article.
Senator Stratton: That is an endorsement to me!
Senator Boudreau: The ambassador was clearly stating fact.
Senator Stratton: He stated his preference.
Senator Boudreau: He stated history and he made no attempt to endorse one candidate over the other.
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, we remember the ambassador's uncle when he told us that Mr. Chirac would not win the presidential election in France. There is a precedence to taking sides.
Senator Kinsella: It is genetic.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Is it the role of an ambassador anywhere to publicly discuss and assess the qualities of a candidate for a high political office? Why did the ambassador not just keep his mouth shut?
Senator Kinsella: Hear, hear!
Senator Forrestall: Were there instructions, by any chance?
(1420)
Senator Boudreau: I think that the information I have here, which is surrounded by quotes, is pretty innocuous.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Then why did he not shut up?
Senator Boudreau: The conclusion that Mr. Trickey ascribes to the quotes is a little less than innocuous. I believe Mr. Trickey is the same reporter who reported on certain Conservative caucus meetings and perhaps did not do so as accurately as he might have.
In any event, I rely on the direct quotes, and I can see no endorsement.
Senator Stratton: It sounds like an endorsation to me.
Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, I share with the Leader of the Government in the Senate the disdain for national newspapers writing fiction under the guise of news. I should like the minister give us the Government of Canada's position so that it is very clear to all.
It is reported in Mr. Trickey's article that Mr. Chrétien said that it would probably make life easier for us in Canada on broad environmental issues if Mr. Gore won the election. Is that not the policy of the Government of Canada?
Senator Boudreau: The policy of the Government of Canada is that we will express no preference for either presidential candidate. In the words ascribed to our envoy, "We will deal with whoever gets elected," and that is the position of the Government of Canada.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: What a choice! What a decision! That is real statesmanship.
Senator Forrestall: From whom would you rather buy a helicopter?
National Defence
Replacement of Labrador Helicopters—Success of Procurement Process
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I wish to ask the minister who leads the Senate for the government a question about procurement. It is about helicopters. Could the minister share with us his views, positive or otherwise, on the procurement of the Canada search helicopter to replace the Labrador search and rescue helicopter? I am talking not about the Sea King necessarily but specifically, in this case, about the search and rescue helicopter. Has this program been a success and an example of Liberal efficiency in procurement?Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, not being the minister directly responsible, I am not familiar with the process on a day-to-day basis of the procurement for the replacement for the Labrador. I believe the honourable senator is referring to the Cormorant. The program is being well received by people with whom I have spoken. They look forward to operating that piece of equipment. However, I am not familiar with the details of the procurement on a day-to-day basis.
Replacement of Sea King Helicopters
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, perhaps I could refresh the government leader's memory about the history of that project.The Canada search helicopter project was announced in the fall of 1995. Requests for proposals went out in the fall of 1996. The evaluation of bids took place in May of 1997. The contract was awarded in January of 1998 and signed in April of 1998. It was almost three years later before the successful company even started to produce them for Canada.
The maritime helicopter program has not even been announced yet. It took almost three years from the announcement to the contract signing for 15 helicopters with very simple mission systems before the company could start to move on the contract. The minister says that the entire new fleet of maritime helicopters, with a number of very complex mission systems, will be in place — and I know the minister is familiar with the date — by the year 2005.
What steps will the government take, if any, to streamline this "fair and open competition to replace the Sea King" by the government's seemingly impossible target of 2005, or will there in fact be a directed contract?
Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the honourable senator asked me as recently as yesterday whether the department had any intention to issue a directed contract with respect to the Sea King helicopter replacement. I indicated at that time that I had no such information but that I would make inquiries. I am in the process of making those inquiries, and I hope to have a response for the honourable senator possibly next week.
Replacement of Sea King Helicopters—Operational Requirements of New Aircraft
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Does part of that inquiry include whether there has been any significant change in the mission profile? In other words, has there been any change in the specifications for the replacement program that would allow an aircraft of lesser capability to become eligible for the open and fair competition process? I imagine the government would want to be open and fair, but if we are buying a lesser helicopter, it would have a distinct advantage because it probably would cost millions of dollars less and we would then opt for it, thus circumventing the end result. I am sure the minister would not want to see that happen, with the resulting horror aircraft for use by the Canadian military.Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): I agree that we do not wish to enter into a process that will not result in the procurement of equipment that is fully capable of performing military missions.
With respect to whether there have been any changes to the mission role or to the procurement details, I want to ask for further clarification. Perhaps that is a matter that I can discuss with the honourable senator. I want to ensure that I have his request properly framed.
Senator Forrestall: I should like very much to discuss that with the minister, but I would not want to discuss it in the context of being compromised. In other words, if he tells me something that I really want to know but cannot get him to say here publicly, I do not think I really want to know it.
Senator Boudreau: I think perhaps the honourable senator misunderstood me. It is not the answer that I want to discuss privately. I am prepared to give the answer here. It is the question that I want to discuss so that, between the two of us, we know what the question is exactly.
Senator Forrestall: I would be delighted to do so.
Future of CFB Shilo
Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, I wish to address the Leader of the Government in the Senate with respect to the future of the Canadian Forces base in Shilo. As the minister may or may not be aware, the German army left that base after using it for many years as a training facility. Could the minister inform this chamber — not now, but perhaps next week — as to the process for the determination of the future of that facility? I would very much like to know. I am sure other senators in this chamber would also like to know.Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I do not have that information with me, as the honourable senator suspected, but I will make the inquiries and share that information with the Senate in due course.
(1430)
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 16, 2000, by Senator Andreychuk regarding the World Trade Organization negotiation on agricultural subsidies. I have a response to a question raised in the Senate on May 9, 2000, by Senator Spivak, regarding Ontario, effect of development projects on Oak Ridges Moraine. I have a response to a question raised in the Senate on May 9, 2000, by Senator Andreychuk regarding the government support for centres of victims of torture. I have a response to a question raised in the Senate on May 10, 2000, by Senator Kinsella regarding the ratification of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, Ontario, condemnation by human rights committee for the funding of religious schools.International Trade
World Trade Organization—Negotiations on Agricultural Subsidies—Government Policy
(Response to question raised by Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk on May 16, 2000)Canada's objectives for multilateral trade negotiations were set out in the Government's response to the House of Commons' SCFAIT report on Canada and the Future of the World Trade Organization that was tabled on November 15, 1999. Although a broad based set of negotiations was expected to be launched at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle in December, WTO Members were unable to reach agreement on a negotiating agenda. The mandated negotiations on agriculture and services, however, are proceeding this year.
We need to bridge the differences and develop a broad-based negotiating agenda acceptable to all the WTO Members. We also need to satisfy the desire of many developing countries to obtain greater benefit from current agreements and future negotiations. I am actively trying to address these challenges. In the last few months, I have met with my counterparts for the United States, the European Communities, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Hong Kong — China and I am in regular contact with other key persons. In June, I will attend the APEC Trade Ministers Meeting in Darwin, Australia and the Canada-EU Summit — both opportunities to try to move forward towards an agreement. Also, Parliamentarians from all parties who travel overseas are provided briefs on the issues so they can engage effectively their counterparts. These efforts are complemented by the efforts of Canadian officials at the WTO in Geneva, and in the capitals of our trade partners.
With respect to the request for more specific information about the mandated agriculture negotiations, on August 19, 1999, Minister Vanclief and Minister Pettigrew announced Canada's initial negotiating position for the negotiations mandated by WTO Agreement on Agriculture. The key elements of the position call for the complete elimination of export subsidies, maximum reductions in production- and trade-distorting domestic support, including an overall limit on domestic support of all types, and real and substantial market access improvements for all agriculture and food products. Canada will also defend our ability to continue orderly marketing systems. The initial negotiating position was developed following an extensive consultation process involving industry, the provinces and Parliamentarians. The position is posted on Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Web site.
On the current status of the negotiations, the negotiations will take place in special sessions of the WTO Committee on Agriculture. A first negotiating meeting of the Committee was held in March, and officials reached agreement on a work program for the coming year. The Chairman for the negotiations will be Ambassador Jorge Voto-Bernales of Peru. This year, WTO Members will submit and discuss negotiating proposals that explain what they want to achieve in the negotiations and how they propose to achieve those objectives, at meetings in June, September and November. With all initial negotiating proposals to be tabled by the end of December, a further meeting may be held in January 2001, prior to a stock-taking in March 2001, completing the first phase of the negotiations.
Therefore, as part of that process, WTO Members will soon be tabling negotiating proposals for further discussion. Working in close collaboration with the provinces and the Agriculture, Food and Beverage Sector Advisory Group on International Trade (SAGIT), Canadian officials will work over the coming months to develop negotiating proposals reflecting the initial position announced last August. It is important for Canada to bring its proposals to the table early, so that we can influence the direction of the negotiations as much as possible. Canada is also working with its colleagues in the Cairns Group of agricultural exporters to develop negotiating proposals reflecting our shared views.
As other countries also present negotiating proposals, Canada will respond to them. Canada will continue to consult closely with stakeholders and the provinces as events unfold in the negotiations.
Since the Seattle Ministerial meeting did not result in the launch of a set of broad based negotiations, progress in the agriculture negotiations after the March 2001 stocktaking exercise is expected to be slow. The steps and pace beyond the March 2001 stocktaking will be shaped by the degree to which there has been progress towards the launch of a broader set of negotiations.
In the Cairns Group, Canada is also actively pursuing our interests. In Banff, in October, we will host the annual meeting of Cairns Group Ministers. Cairns Group Ministers will meet to consider the progress in the negotiations, and guide the Group's joint efforts for the balance of the first phase in the negotiations to March 2001. The Cairns Group was an effective force for ensuring that an ambitious result for agriculture was realized in the Uruguay Round, and we will work to ensure that the Group continues its leadership role, effectively influencing the direction of the negotiations.
Given its role as a major agricultural exporter and importer, Canada has a fundamental interest in further strengthening the international rules governing agricultural trade, eliminating trade distorting subsidies, and significantly improving market access opportunities. Canada has a strong and credible initial negotiating position that has the support of agri-food industry stakeholders and the provinces. The agriculture negotiations are a high priority for Canada, Canadians and the Government, and we are moving pro-actively to pursue Canada's interests in these negotiations, continuing the close consultative processes we used to establish the initial negotiating position.
Environment
Ontario—Effect of Development Project on Oak Ridges Moraine
(Response to question raised by Hon. Mira Spivak on May 9, 2000)In 1998 and early 1999, an environmental screening was being undertaken for the Red Hill Creek Expressway project (the Project) by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the lead responsible authority for the Project. At the time, the screening determined that the Red Hill Creek valley is very important habitat for migratory birds and that the Project would cause significant adverse effects to migratory bird habitat which could not be mitigated, and may cause significant adverse effects to birds relying on this habitat. In light of this information, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, made a request in accordance with section 25 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (the Act) for referral of the Project to a review panel. Section 25 of the Act stipulates that a responsible federal authority may request referral of a project to a review panel when a project may cause significant adverse environmental effects or public concerns warrant a reference to a review panel. On May 6, 1999, following consideration of the request by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of the Environment referred the Red Hill Creek Expressway project to a federal review panel.
With respect to the Oak Ridges Moraine, the federal government is not aware of any proposed projects that may trigger the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. For example, if a proposed development were to involve federal lands, then the Act would be triggered. Another trigger would be the requirement for a permit or licence, in accordance with the provisions of the Law List Regulation. For instance, if an authorization under subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act is required for the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, then the Act would be triggered.
In the event that these proposed developments trigger the Act, the designated responsible authority would be responsible for conducting an environmental assessment, in accordance with the requirements of the Act.
United Nations
Government Support for Centre for Victims of Torture
(Response to question raised by Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk on May 9, 2000)For fiscal year 1999/2000, the government has already increased its annual contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture from $30,000 to $60,000. The rehabilitation of victims of torture is an important component of post-conflict reconciliation of war-torn societies and increased support to this fund thus supports Canada's peace building and human security foreign policy goals.
Canada is undertaking a number of measures to help the people of Sierra Leone and the United Nations in its efforts to restore peace in that country.
Canada, through the Canadian International Development Agency, will provide the $5 million in emergency humanitarian aid to help victims of the conflict in Sierra Leone. The aid will be targeted to the most vulnerable areas and people in need. It may include emergency food aid, shelter for families that have fled their homes, and emergency health supplies.
To help bolster the planning capacity of the UN for rapid response, Canada will provide two Canadian Forces officers trained in military operations to the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations. In addition, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will fund two officers from developing countries.
Canada will donate 1700 fragmentation vests and 1700 helmets to the UN for use by peacekeepers of the UN mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL). These items could protect two infantry battalions deployed by the UN. This donation follows a request by the UN to provide these items to troops who had been deployed previously to Sierra Leone without protective equipment. The total value of the donation is approximately $864 000.
The Canadian Forces currently have a senior officer on the staff of the Force Commander for the UN Mission in Sierra Leone. As well, a Canadian Forces aircraft will airlift additional troops from India and Bangladesh into that country over the next few weeks.
To date, the following projects have been funded by the Peace Building Fund of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of Canada:
Support for the Establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission ($65,000)
This initiative involves support for technical advisory services provided by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to assist Sierra Leone in preparing for the creation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Media and Peace building in Sierra Leone ($100,000)
Responding to the need to communicate the provisions of the peace agreement more widely the Program supported the launching of an NGO training and capacity building project to involve Sierra Leoneans in the development and dissemination of radio programming aimed at reducing conflict and promoting reconciliation in Sierra Leone.
Support for the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) Human Rights Initiatives ($180,000)
This support is being directed towards human rights training for the Sierra Leone police force, training for human rights field monitors, and the gathering of information on conflict-related rape and sexual violence for submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This information will contribute to ensuring that the appropriate medical, psychological, social and legal services are provided for victims of these abuses.
Support for Partnership Africa—Canada Study on Sierra Leone Diamond Trade ($31,740)
In its report entitled, "The Heart of the Matter", Partnership Africa-Canada examined the impact of the diamond trade on the conflict in Sierra Leone, and explored ways in which Sierra Leone's diamonds might become an asset for peace and development.
"Train the Trainers" Initiative for West African Military Staff ($52,000)
Through Save the Children Sweden, this initiative is providing training for West-African military officers in child rights and child protection issues and approaches.
The Canadian International Development Agency has funded the following projects in Sierra Leone:
Canada Fund for Local Initiatives ($500,000)
The Canada Fund for Local Initiatives, administered by the Canadian Embassy in Conakry, will benefit from a total and increased allocation of $500,000 for fiscal year 2000-2001, the largest for an African country. This high impact and quick disbursement program will be used for a variety of small projects from the promotion of human rights and the development of a democratic culture to agricultural projects, shelter, health projects, etc.
Sierra Leoneans refugees in Guinea and Liberia ($950,000)
The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNCHR) will use this amount towards humanitarian needs targeted at Sierra Leoneans currently in living in refugee camps in Guinea and Liberia.
Internally Displaced People (IDPs) ($500,000)
This contribution is meant to support the International Committee of the Red Cross in addressing the humanitarian needs of internally displaced people.
Maternity Hospital project in Freetown ($500,000)
The Canadian Red Cross will assist the Princess Christian maternity Hospital in Freetown in providing quality pre-natal and post-natal care to targeted destitute women.
Education for children ($500,000)
This will support efforts by UNICEF to enable some 300,000 children to commence or recommence schooling in their communities.
Canada is focussing its efforts to resolve the current conflict situation and has announced a number of measures designed to help the people of Sierra Leone and the United Nations in its efforts to restore peace in that country as quickly as possible. As soon as the conditions are more propitious, a large portion of Canadian assistance will be specifically targeted assist the most vulnerable areas and people in need who are victims of the conflict. Many of these, of course, are children. This includes as previously announced:
$5.0M in emergency humanitarian assistance, which may include emergency food aid, shelter for families that have fled their homes, and emergency health supplies for children and families that have been caught in the middle of the conflict.
Once the current conflict situation in Sierra Leone is resolved, Canada intends to support the establishment of a National Commission on Children for Sierra Leone which will be a broad-based, multi-sectoral entity with the mandate of coordinating efforts on behalf of children in Sierra Leone, establishing priorities and making programmatic recommendations.
In addition, Canada has announced that it would support the UN Mission in Sierra Leone's human rights activities and initiatives in the amount of $180,000. This will include human rights training for the Sierra Leone police force, training for human rights field monitors and the gathering of information on conflict-related rape and sexual violence for submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The assistance will also help ensure the provision of appropriate medical, psychological, social and legal services for victims of these abuses, many of whom are children.
Organization of American States United Nations
Ratification of Inter-American Convention on Human Rights—Ontario—Condemnation by Human Rights Committee for Funding Religious Schools
(Response to questions raised by Hon. Noël A. Kinsella on May 10, 2000)Question:
American Convention on Human Rights
Could the Leader of the Government in the Senate make inquiries to determine what progress was made at last weekend's meeting of the committee of officials responsible for human rights legislation in Canada that is examining — and has been examining since 1990 — whether Canada should ratify that convention?
Answer:
On May 4, Department of Foreign Affairs officials met with the Continuing Committee of Officials of Human Rights to discuss Canadian adherence to the American Convention on Human Rights. The Committee members were advised that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is actively examining how Canada could adhere to the Convention. The Committee members agreed to ask their governments if there is willingness to reopen examination of the American Convention on Human Rights with a view to possible adherence. There are open lines of communication between the Committee members and the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Question:
Waldman case
Have there been consultations between the Government of Canada, which represents us internationally, and the Government of Ontario, which does not seem to be taking this condemnation of a human rights violation by Canada at the level of seriousness necessary to overcome the issue, as all would desire?
Answer:
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, by letter dated February 1, 2000, (sent by facsimile) encouraged the Government of Ontario to continue to give consideration to the views of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and expressed the federal government's intention to work cooperatively with the Government of Ontario in the preparation of a response to the Committee.
By return letter dated February 1, the Ontario Minister of Education, Janet Ecker, advised that the position of Ontario remains that Ontario has no plans to extend funding to private religious schools or to parents of children that attend such schools, and intends to adhere to its constitutional obligation to fund Roman Catholic schools.The province reaffirmed its commitment to providing an excellent public education system that is open to all students regardless of religious or cultural background. The Minister stated, "The Ontario position that I have set out for you is clear and final".
As a result the Canadian Government, in its response to the Committee, explained the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces in matters of education and conveyed the position of Ontario as communicated in the Minister of Education's February 1 letter.
The federal government has been unable to hold consultations as the Government of Ontario has been unwilling to enter into a consultation process.
Visitor in the Gallery
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I should like to introduce to you a distinguished visitor in the Speaker's gallery to our left. It is Mr. Kevin O'Brien, the Speaker of the Nunavut legislature. He is here as a guest of Senator Willie Adams.Mr. Speaker O'Brien, on behalf of all the senators, I bid you welcome here in the Senate, and we wish you success in your new job as the Speaker of the Nunavut legislature.
ORDERS OF THE DAY)
Heritage Lighthouses Protection Bill
Second Reading
On the Order:Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Forrestall, seconded by the Honourable Senator DeWare, for the second reading of Bill S-21, to protect heritage lighthouses.—(Honourable Senator Hays).
Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, this order stands in my name, not because I, as someone on the other side observed, representing the Province of Alberta, have a consuming interest in heritage lighthouses. This order stands in my name because I was not in a position to say to which committee this bill should be referred. I have now had an opportunity to have discussions with colleagues, and, if the Honourable Senator Forrestall wishes to move this bill to committee, I would support it going to the Fisheries Committee.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I must inform the Senate that if the Honourable Senator Forrestall speaks now his speech will have the effect of closing debate on second reading.
Does any other honourable senator wish to speak?
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I wish to express my appreciation to the Deputy Leader of the Government for taking the question.
I have had brief conversations with Senator Perrault, and a number of other senators, and I have made some further inquiries with respect to this initiative. It is a proposal that will be well received by the heritage community in Canada and, in particular, the communities on all our coasts that are involved in the question.
Honourable senators, I would take great delight in having the bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Forrestall, seconded by the Honourable Senator DeWare, that this bill be read a 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 pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?On motion of Senator Forrestall, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries.
Competition Act
Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Adjourned
Hon. Sheila Finestone moved the second reading of Bill C-276, to amend the Competition Act, 1998 (negative option marketing).She said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to sponsor this important consumer protection bill, Bill C-276. At the heart of this legislation is one simple rule: If you do not order something, if you do not want something, then you should not need to pay for it.
That seems simple to me. Bill C-276 would amend the Competition Act to make charging money for the provision or sale of a new service without the express consent of the client simply illegal. Under the Competition Act, this activity would be considered reviewable conduct for banks, broadcasting and telecommunication undertakings.
Under the Competition Act, an enterprise such as a bank — for they are no exception under this rule — would be guilty of reviewable conduct if it does not provide detailed notice to the client at least once a month for the consecutive three months, and receive express consent from the client for the purchase of a service. There are a number of ways in which one could express informed consent.
As well, there are exceptions in this bill. Exceptions are provided where the new service is effectively an upgrade at no cost or lower cost — I should like to see the lower cost sometime — to the client subscribers, or where there is no separate or specific charge for the new service.
With respect to broadcasting, the issue of French-language channels is covered in clause 4 of this bill, which enables the Governor in Council, on the advice of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, after having consulted the CRTC, to make regulations and exempt a service from the application of this bill for cultural and linguistic reasons. Furthermore, clause 4 makes it clear that this bill does not and will not interfere with the objectives set out in section 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act, which states:
English and French language broadcasting, while sharing common aspects, operate under different conditions and may have different requirements.
I can inform honourable senators that along with the Minister of Heritage, the Minister of Industry, who is responsible for the Competition Act, supports this bill, and they are not alone. Bill C-276 has received support from the Consumers Association of Canada, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada, the Deputy Commissioner of the Competition Bureau, Democracy Watch and Action Réseau Consommateur.
This bill passed third reading in the other place by a wide margin of four to one. Bill C-276 protects the basic consumer's right to choice. We are trying to ensure informed consent, since that is what Canadians tell us they want. Informed consent can be expressed in many ways: writing, phoning, e-mail, fax, for we are into an era of electronic commerce. Bill C-6 has ensured this.
Negative option marketing denies the right to choice by forcing consumers to decline or "opt out" of new products or service offerings. This reversal of the traditional buyer-seller relationship relies on implied consent. If you do not register your objection with the seller, then you are deemed to have given your consent to the purchase. It is a deceptive yet highly profitable marketing practice. Negative option billing takes advantage of consumers from all walks of life; the young, the elderly, people on fixed incomes, those with difficulty reading enclosures — too many enclosures which do not indicate on a big front label "read me and sign on the dotted line."
I should like to remind honourable senators that in our hearing with the Privacy Commissioner the other day, Senator Fairbairn raised the question of the vulnerability of over 40 per cent of adult Canadians who have varying degrees of difficulty in everyday tasks that we take for granted — Canadians who do not enjoy the basic skills of writing, reading and numeracy. That percentage of the population is particularly high in the over 65-year-olds. They are at an even greater disadvantage and risk.
In 1996, the federal Office of Consumer Affairs released a study on negative option marketing that contained the following warning:
(1440)
Negative option marketing has the potential to be an important marketing tool in the financial services sector. Examples include the sending of unsolicited credit cards and changes in account structure made without consumers' consent. The industry is seeking new sources of revenue, offering new services and changing old ones. Ever increasingly powerful computers make it easier and cheaper than in the past for the industry to effect these changes....new technologies could allow industry to profit by slipping new charges and services past unsuspecting customers.
Do honourable senators think this is fair? I do not and neither did the members of the other place.
The Consumers' Association of Canada has testified about one bank's use of negative option marketing. I am referring to the National Bank of Canada, which offered out-of-country medical insurance to existing clients. The offer was presented in a brochure as a free trial offer. At the end of the so-called free trial period, many customers were shocked to discover that their accounts had been debited $9.95. In effect, they had purchased insurance by saying nothing. How many of their clients noticed, objected or even needed this out-of-country medical insurance and how much revenue did this bring in?
Some banks are as guilty of negative option marketing as other sectors covered in this bill. Consider GICs, and many of us carry them. They are automatically rolled over unless you tell the bank otherwise.
In October of 1997, by way of example, the Toronto Dominion Bank employed a negative option scheme to deprive bank customers of their privacy. The federal Privacy Commissioner made mention of this in his 1997-98 annual report to Parliament. He stated:
The Toronto Dominion Bank's new privacy brochure also moved many to call, objecting to the bank's requirement that customers opt out of its plans to share information with subsidiaries. Customers had until October 1997 to indicate their preference. No news meant the information would be shared.
On something as basic as protecting a customer's privacy, the bank's definition of consent includes someone not responding to their junk mail. They sent out a little flyer, one of those multi-paged ones, in bank statements and with Visa bills. On page six, if you got that far in the reading, customers were advised that they had to contact the bank if they did not want their personal information shared with others.
This example clearly illustrates the implications for consumers if we allow the banks to get off the hook when it comes to negative option marketing. From banks, we expect and should get the highest of moral behaviour.
Another industry example brought to my attention involves university students. In this city, when students at Carleton University or the University of Ottawa move into town, one of the first things they do is order a telephone. They arrange the installation or hook-up and at that time they are informed that they will also receive call-waiting and other online features free for a trial period. They are never re-called to verify if they were satisfied. They are never re-called and asked if they want the service. After a few months, some of these students realize that additional charges had appeared on their phone bills. They were sold these additional services through negative option marketing.
With convergence in the telecom sector, the temptation to use this deceptive marketing technique will only increase. The cable companies, another sector covered, are notorious for slipping additional services past unsuspecting customers. Witness the negative option billing fiasco of January 1995. Many of us will remember the image of angry consumers lining up to cancel their cable service. We remember the phone calls that we received in this place and in the other place and letters from the public demanding that government act on this issue.
Some would argue that the cable companies have learned their lesson. Still others suggest that the issue is best left to the provinces and their patchwork of consumer protection laws. Perhaps we should refer to what the experts have had to say, both about jurisdictions and consumers.
As a matter of fact, I came across an interesting article just last month about the cable industry, which I will come back to if I have time.
At a Commons committee hearing with respect to experts, the head of the Quebec-based consumer group Action Réseau Consommateur was questioned by the Bloc member for Témiscamingue, who asked:
You are a watchdog organization involved in consumer protection in Quebec. At the present time, do companies under federal jurisdiction and subject to this bill comply voluntarily with the Consumer Protection Act?
The witness replied:
They do not comply with the Consumer Protection Act.
In a letter to the CRTC, dated October 8, 1999, the director general of Action Réseau Consommateur, Madam Nathalie St-Pierre, exploded the myth that Quebec consumers do not object to negative option marketing. She referred to the 1997 launch of new speciality channels by Vidéotron:
When the channels were launched, Québec consumer groups, the Consumer Protection Bureau and Vidéotron all received numerous complaints, particularly about the marketing method used, which was negative option billing.
That is what she had to say. Quebec consumer protection law does restrict negative option marketing but only in areas of Quebec jurisdiction.
Obviously, the Bloc member for Témiscamingue agrees. Why else would he have asked a Quebec-based consumer group if federally regulated companies voluntarily comply with the provincial law, only to find out that they do not.
The fact is that the Bloc must realize that the provincial law does not and cannot apply to industries like banking, telephone and cable. The only way to protect consumers in these industries is to do so at the federal level. Consumers want it and have wanted it. That is why there are the complaints.
What have other experts said about Bill C-276 and negative option billing? In testimony before the Commons Industry Committee, Joanne D'Auray, Deputy Commissioner of the Competition Bureau of Canada stated:
The Bureau feels that negative option marketing cannot be seen as a competitive technique that would be good for consumers. The Bureau believes that consumers should have the opportunity to make an informed choice when buying new services. We have never had and we do not yet have any objection to (Bill C-276), which would apply to banks, the cable industry and broadcasting.
Honourable senators, Bill C-276 is not just about consumers' right to choice. It is also about ensuring that there continues to be choice in the marketplace. After all, negative option marketing uses inertia to build on an existing client base. It is so simple to just add new services to those of existing customers and wait to see who objects. In the meantime, the businessmen line their pockets.
It is simple, profitable and efficient, but that does not make it right. In fact, one can argue that negative option marketing is anti-competitive. It can lead to further concentration in the marketplace. In the banking, cable and telephone industries, further concentration is not something to be encouraged.
Konrad Von Finckenstein, Commissioner of the Competition Bureau of Canada, gave the following testimony to the Commons committee that studied this bill. He said:
I don't see how negative options can ever be pro-competitive. The basic underlying concept of a competitive market is that consumers have a choice and they exercise that choice, and they exercise it knowingly. If you have a negative option, you don't even know this has happened. You never did get that choice...
Honourable senators, Bill C-276 has its roots in the consumer cable revolt of January 1995, but it has an eye clearly on the future. On a daily basis, Canadian consumers are bombarded with the marketing efforts of federally regulated companies like banks and cable companies. With the explosion of the information technology, it has become far easier for these companies to bundle, package and increase the number of services provided to existing customers. I grant that some may be fair. Advertising is one thing, but slipping it through until caught is another. Why must we as consumers remain ever vigilant to avoid paying higher fees for new additional services that we may not even want or may not even be able to use?
The Commons committee charged with studying this bill made a number of improvements. The Industry Committee brought this bill in line with recent changes to the Competition Act, precipitated by the passage of Bill C-20.
(1450)
Concerns over the viability of certain specialty television channels, in particular French language services, were resolved. A change was made to deal with the evolution of electronic commerce. Changes were made, but the key elements of consumer protection have remained intact. The bill still applies to federally regulated bank, cable and telephone industries.
Honourable senators, this bill would amend the Competition Act. It does not propose an outright ban on negative option marketing, but it allows for exceptions. It fact, there may be situations in which a consumer could benefit from such an arrangement. However, for this to be the case, consumers must be able to make informed decisions. That is why this bill proposes that certain steps be taken for a negative option scheme to be acceptable. These steps include disclosure, three months' notice and, most important, the express consent of the customer or the consumer.
Contrary to what some would suggest, this bill does not impair a bank's ability to make service changes for existing clients. It would not prevent an increase in bank service fees. It would not lock customers into the same service package forever. It would, however, prevent a bank from adding a new service to your package and then increasing the fee without your express consent. The same holds true for the cable companies, who misused this whole process in January. I refer to both Rogers and Cogeco.
Express consent can be given in many forms. For example, it can be a signature on e-mail or on mail-in postcards. It could be verbal consent. It could be the push of a button at the automated bank machine or your home computer. The bill is flexible on this point.
The last remaining critic of this bill, the banking industry, has argued that Canadian banks have too many customers to keep in touch with on a regular basis, which means they have many customers for hidden services. They say it is not practical for a bank to keep in touch with 6 million or 7 million clients. In total, the big banks have more than 20 million customers, we are told. Yet, at the same time, we are told this bill need not apply to banks because, apparently, there is plenty of competition in Canada's banking sector. It does not sound like plenty of competition to me. With only six banks for 20 million customers, how much competition actually exists? Moreover, how much competition will exist if big banks are allowed to merge in the not-so-distant future?
I urge my honourable colleagues here in the Senate to consider these points and to keep consumers in mind as we, I hope, send this bill to committee before the summer recess.
On motion of Senator DeWare, for Senator Eyton, debate adjourned.
Adjournment
Leave having been given to revert to Government Notices of Motions:Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government), with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(h) moved:
That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, June 6, 2000, at 2 p.m.
The Senate adjourned until Tuesday, June 6, 2000, at 2 p.m.