Tuesday, December 17, 1996

CANADA

2nd SESSION  35th PARLIAMENT  VOLUME 136  NUMBER 64

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Tuesday, December 17, 1996

THE HONOURABLE GILDAS L. MOLGAT SPEAKER CONTENTS

(Daily index of proceedings appears at back of this issue.)

Debates: Victoria Building, Room 407, Tel. 996-0397 Published by the Senate Available from Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa K1A 0S9, at $1.75 per copy or $158 per year. Also available on the Internet: http://www.parl.gc.ca 1395

THE SENATE

Tuesday, December 17, 1996

The Senate met at 2:00 p.m., the Speaker in the Chair. aware of this, but then again, perhaps she is too busy reading the newspaper. Prayers. I fear that this sort of reckless disregard may be typical of the manner in which the Liberal government plans to manage all of SENATORS’ STATEMENTS our cultural affairs. We have no long-term strategy, no blueprint for the future. That lends even more credibility to my call for a study in the Senate of our cultural situation. I know senators HERITAGE CANADA across the way are very supportive of that idea, as are my own colleagues. BUDGET CUTS TO CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION—ADVERSE EFFECT ON CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS  (1410) Hon. Janis Johnson: Honourable senators, I am very The Liberals have already demonstrated that the policies concerned about the Liberal government’s stewardship of this outlined in the Red Book are no longer operative. My concern is nation’s cultural institutions. When elected, the Liberals above and beyond partisan politics. What is the long-term plan promised stable, long-term financing for the CBC. Despite that for the CBC? If we have no long-term strategy for our largest and promise, which was spelled out quite clearly in the Red Book, most important institutions, can we believe that our smaller the federal government has once again misled Canadians by institutions are in any less jeopardy? slashing the CBC’s budget by $414 million. Does the federal government have a comprehensive, long-term plan for the CBC? Honourable senators, I believe 1997 would be an appropriate Evidently not. time to examine a long-term strategy for Canada’s cultural institutions. The CBC, the Canada Council, the National Film In the last few days, we listened to the Minister of National Board and dozens of smaller cultural agencies are the very fabric Defence, Doug Young, announce that he would like to see CBC that holds our nation together. We owe it to Canadians to manage television dismantled and privatized. Shortly afterwards, the those cultural resources in a serious and thoughtful manner. Minister of Canadian Heritage, Sheila Copps, made the statement that, by her reckoning, her government’s budget cut would result [Translation] in 19 lost jobs. Nineteen jobs! Was the minister misleading us, or is she truly ignorant of the effect of her own government’s policies? In either case, that is a remarkable statement. LA FRANCOPHONIE Broadcasting industry experts pointed out that the number of lay-offs is closer to 1,000. To that news, the minister responsible BID OF CITY OF MONCTON TO HOST SUMMIT IN 1999 for culture responded by saying that she obtained her facts from the newspaper. She said that she did not create statistics, and did Hon. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Honourable senators, today I not have any. Perhaps she should get her hands on some. wish to support the efforts of the governments of Canada and New Brunswick to promote the candidature of the city of It is truly astounding that the federal Minister of Canadian Moncton, New Brunswick, as the site of the next Sommet de la Heritage is so ignorant of the impact of her own policies. The francophonie in 1999. Holding the summit in Moncton would CBC is one of the most important unifying forces in this nation. afford an opportunity to the francophone community of Canada, It is difficult to go home to enjoy a Christmas holiday knowing including Quebec, to distinguish itself on the international scene. that the pride of Canada, our CBC, is being mismanaged in such For the francophone and Acadian communities of the country, a cavalier fashion. holding the Sommet de la francophonie in New Brunswick would enhance the visibility of the Canadian francophonie and When I return home, I will be obliged to explain why showcase its vitality. Manitoba and the other have-not regions were hit so disproportionately by these cuts. In Winnipeg, our CBC regional I would ask you, honourable senators, to do your utmost to director announced last week that 74 positions will be lost. It convince the various governments of the merits of holding such does not seem unreasonable to expect that Ms Copps would be an event in New Brunswick. 1396 SENATE DEBATES December 17, 1996

[English] That, notwithstanding Rule 98, the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural THE ECONOMY Resources present an interim report, before submitting its final report on Bill C-29, An Act to regulate interprovincial ENTREPRENEURIAL ROLE OF SMALL BUSINESS trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, relating to its findings Hon. Richard J. Stanbury: Honourable senators, yesterday, on the following questions: the winners of an annual contest to identify the 50 best-managed private companies in Canada were announced in the Financial (1) Is MMT-based petroleum the cause of OBD Post. There were 854 companies considered. Preliminary screening reduced the number to 209 and each of them was malfunctioning? visited and interviewed by management consultant professionals. A panel of eminent judges made the call and found that the (2) Does MMT in gas cause a health hazard to growth of these 50 young companies was astounding. They Canadians? employed 14,026 people, up 62 per cent from 1994; sold $2.3 billion worth of products and services, up two-thirds from (3) Does MMT in gas cause direct damage to the 1994; and had 37 per cent of their sales in exports. One of the environment? judges said, “Innovation is alive and well in Canada. Being part of the judging panel, one can see what an engine of growth these companies are.” [English] Small businesses are leading the way to job creation. There are over 2.3 million small businesses which account for about 50 per cent of all private sector employment, and almost QUESTION PERIOD 43 per cent of Canada’s private sector economic output. Low interest rates, low inflation and a healthy Canadian reputation in INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM international financial markets have provided the basis upon which entrepreneurship can perform miracles. Nearly EFFICACY OF LIST OF PROJECTS CONSTRUCTED—PROPRIETY OF 500 companies are planning the next Canadian invasion of CERTAIN GRANTS—GOVERNMENT POSITION foreign markets by Team Canada. The year 1996 has been a great one for Canadian entrepreneurs and particularly for the Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, I have a 50 best-managed companies in the land. question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate with regard to a list of approved projects.

My question is: Has the Minister of Industry’s department ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS actually given loans or gifts or handouts to build golf courses in Ontario, establish dressing rooms somewhere in Canada ADJOURNMENT and $20,000 to develop the martial arts? A litany of items is listed. Is this media article correct? Could the Leader of Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate so verify? Government): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(h), I move: Honourable senators, there is mentioned something about a $73,200 grant to establish a billiard club in British Columbia. That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand In view of the fact that I represent that region, I would be adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, December 18, 1996, interested to know where this billiard club is located and whether at 1:30 p.m. these loans or grants have actually been made. Are they grants, loans, handouts or give-aways? Is this what the Liberal The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators? government means when it asks people to tighten their belts and act responsibly? I would like to know whether this list is correct. Hon. Senators: Agreed. Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Motion agreed to. Honourable senators, if the honourable senator could provide a copy of the article to which he is referring, I will send it over to [Translation] my colleague this afternoon and see what I can find out.

ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL Senator St. Germain: Honourable senators, I will definitely RESOURCES make the list available. If there is any truth to this list, this matter should be of great concern to the Leader of the Government in NOTICE OF MOTION TO AUTHORIZE COMMITTEE TO STUDY the Senate and to the rest of us, given the cynicism that exists in QUESTIONS ON MANGANESE-BASED FUEL ADDITIVES BILL the eyes of the public toward the way the government is administrating funds. That is not to say that such things have not Hon. Noël A. Kinsella: Honourable senators, I give notice happened in the past. However, I thought the Liberals wanted to that tomorrow, Wednesday, December 18, 1996, I will move: establish a new way of governing. December 17, 1996 SENATE DEBATES 1397

Is this type of action synonymous with the demeanour and Such a practice raises serious questions, Madam Minister. It civility the Liberals wanted to bring to the House of Commons? also casts a shadow on the entire cabinet inasmuch as this writer How does this action relate to the non-partisan aspects of making says that Mr. Eggleton and his cabinet colleagues are deceiving government appointments, which they said were so blatant in the Canadians. previous administration? I do not need to be reminded that in this house we do not, shall My question is: Are we back to the old games of handing out, not, and will not use the big L word, but I ask the minister: Is for example, $15,000 for a ping-pong table for a club in Quebec everyone on that side or in that cabinet merely accuracy- or for a pool room in British Columbia? challenged or are they ready to shed some light on this important matter?  (1420) Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I certainly accept Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): my honourable friend’s interest in this issue. I, of course, am Honourable senators, my honourable friend has asked me a reluctant to comment in any way until I have seen what the story detailed question. I wish to get some assistance with the details is, where it is from, and what is involved. he is seeking. Also, as to the assumptions that are made in The Globe and Mail, God bless it, but it is not necessarily 100 per cent accurate. I should like to take the time to provide ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA my friend with an answer based on facts.

SALE OF CANDU REACTORS TO CHINA—ACCURACY OF MEDIA Senator Cogger: Honourable senators, I will indeed make the REPORTS—REQUEST FOR PARTICULARS article available. I will have it on the honourable leader’s desk later this afternoon. Hon. Michel Cogger: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government. I want to get back to the much vaunted sale of the CANDU reactors to China. At the time the I will say no more. I think as a result of the Red Book and sale was announced with great fanfare by the Prime Minister, everything else, there is enough confusion in the country. both the Minister of International Trade, the Honourable Art Apparently no one has understood anything. This is one simple Eggleton, and Atomic Energy of Canada put out press releases article, and we would like to understand it. explaining for the benefit of Canadians some of the details involved. GOODS AND SERVICES TAX According to an article in The Globe and Mail, both the press releases and the words of Minister Eggleton are simply not true. APOLOGY OF PRIME MINISTER FOR FAILURE TO HONOUR When AECL and the minister announced the sale, they claimed PRE-ELECTION PROMISE—POSSIBLE CONCURRENCE BY LEADER that AECL would be financing $1.5 billion — that is the OF THE GOVERNMENT Canadian part of the larger $4 billion sale — and that that money would be provided by AECL in the normal course of operations. Hon. Orville H. Phillips: Honourable senators, the Prime I suppose, coming from the mouth of the minister and an Minister has been experiencing considerable political turbulence important Crown corporation, those comments could be taken by over the fact that he broke his promise of the last election Canadians as being true. campaign to abolish the GST. In fact, the majority of Canadians believe that not only Mr. Chrétien but the Liberal Party lied to According to this article, the comments are simply not true, for them during the election campaign. two reasons. First, at the time the sale was announced, AECL had already reached its limit of lending to China. Therefore, on the The spin doctors around the Prime Minister tried to explain China side of the ledger, there were no more funds to be made this away by saying, first, it was the fault of the media, then, the available. I point out to honourable senators that $1.5 billion is fault of the public for believing them, and, now, the Prime not peanuts. Second, according to Mr. Corcoran of The Globe Minister is saying that the GST has been such a fair, beneficial and Mail, even though AECL claims that at all times its loans are tax, that they are unable to find a more suitable tax to replace it. made on a commercial-assessment basis, this again is not true, inasmuch as the sale of CANDU reactors or of nuclear Recently, the Prime Minister made a half-hearted attempt at equipment is simply not financeable under normal commercial apologizing. terms. It is Mr. Corcoran’s view, therefore, that both those statements are false and that the so-called “ordinary course of In view of the fact that the Prime Minister and the members of business” financing comes straight from the Government of the cabinet have become such strong supporters and ardent Canada, and it is merely being channelled through the advocates of the GST, will she now rise and join in the apology books of AECL. for failing to abolish the GST? 1398 SENATE DEBATES December 17, 1996

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Senator Phillips: Honourable senators, the Leader of the Honourable senators, I would certainly concur with the remarks Government in the Senate forgot to answer my supplementary of the Minister of Finance and the remarks made by the Prime question. Will she apologize for the attempts at anarchy? Minister yesterday in St. John’s, Newfoundland. The one spin that my friend puts on this issue with which I do not concur is that the GST has been embraced as the finest and the fairest of THE ENVIRONMENT taxes. I think my honourable friend knows that the government has been working extremely hard in the last three years to find a NON-PROLIFERATION POLICY ON PLUTONIUM—ROLE OF VARIOUS replacement for the GST that is indeed fairer, and it has begun GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS—GOVERNMENT POSITION that with its efforts in Atlantic Canada. Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, I always like to follow the lead of my colleague sitting to my left. I wish to return Senator Berntson: Tell me what is new about harmonization. to the issue of plutonium. Senator Fairbairn: That is the area in which I take issue with Some commentators have warned that, in burning Cold War my friend. plutonium, Canada will legitimize the practice, and contribute to a full-scale, commercial, plutonium economy, one that would Senator Phillips: Honourable senators, I point out to the pose unacceptable risks to global security. Leader of the Government that they have now had three years to find a replacement. If you have been that diligent in your efforts, Canada has never protested against the trade in plutonium you should have been able to find one in three years. among those who produce plutonium commercially. Among those countries are Russia, Britain, France, Japan, and several Now that the honourable senator has conceded that the others. government has broken its promise of abolishing the GST and Canada’s key federal nuclear policy people do not seem to apologized to this chamber, I wonder if she would go one step have a serious non-proliferation policy on plutonium. This is not further and apologize for the anarchy she and her colleagues a trifling matter, honourable senators, either for the world or for created when the bill was introduced in the chamber. Canada in particular, since Canada could house more than 100 tonnes of plutonium if the proposal now being suggested by Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, as I told my AECL and Ontario Hydro is accepted. honourable friend at the beginning of my answer, I wholeheartedly support the Prime Minister’s comments and the Honourable senators, my question is very simple. What is the comments of the Minister of Finance. policy of the Government of Canada on the non-proliferation of plutonium? Senator Lynch-Staunton: Which ones? Last Tuesday night — Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I will add that to the list of my honourable Senator Fairbairn: No, honourable senators. friend’s questions on plutonium to which I have requested answers. Hopefully, I will have an answer for her when we Senator Lynch-Staunton: — when he told Canadians to resume after the break. move out of the country if they could not get a job? Senator Spivak: Which minister is the lead minister for this particular issue? Is it the Minister of Trade, the Minister of the Senator Fairbairn: I concur with the comments that the Environment or the Minister of Natural Resources? Is it someone Prime Minister made in Newfoundland last night. at AECL? Who is the lead proponent of this policy, if such a policy exists? Senator Lynch-Staunton: And last week? Senator Fairbairn: I will clarify that for my honourable  (1430) friend. As she knows, all of those ministers would be working in close cooperation. Senator Fairbairn: However, honourable senators, I would say to Senator Phillips that the government, after considerable Senator Lynch-Staunton: No one, in other words. effort, has devised a better way of dealing with this tax — replacing this tax with a different form of tax in harmonization Hon. Michel Cogger: Honourable senators, I believed that the with the three Atlantic provinces, not my honourable friend’s ministers in all of those departments were working in close province, but the provinces of Newfoundland, New Brunswick cooperation. Yet, last week I thought we had established that the and Nova Scotia. In the last few days, the Minister of Finance Minister of the Environment did not have a clue. He did not has made it clear that he continues to work on efforts to extend know what it was all about. Has he since been brought into the that harmonized tax to other provinces across the country. loop? Was he given a crash course? December 17, 1996 SENATE DEBATES 1399

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, the Minister of the Senator Lynch-Staunton: My honourable friend is also Environment was well within the loop. agreeing with Minister Copps.

HERITAGE CANADA Senator Fairbairn: I explained to my honourable friend the portion of those numbers that were referred to by Minister JOB CUTS TO CANADIAN BROADCASTING Copps. The numbers Senator Stratton put forward are the total CORPORATION—DISCREPANCY IN NUMBERS ANNOUNCED BY numbers. We are not arguing. MINISTER COPPS—GOVERNMENT POSITION Senator Lynch-Staunton: We are not arguing. Minister Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, my question is for Copps has not apologized for giving erroneous information. It is the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Liberal not 19 for the entire CBC — it is over 900. All she is relying on government promised stable multi-year funding for the CBC. is some newspaper article. Are we to understand that the minister Despite this promise, one which was made quite clearly in the responsible for the CBC gets her information from articles in Red Book, the federal government has cut funding to the CBC The Ottawa Citizen? If that is the case, that is appalling. by $414 million between 1994 and 1997. As a result of these cuts, the CBC has had to announce lay-offs. The total number of POSSIBLE PRIVATIZATION OF CANADIAN BROADCASTING positions that have been abolished in the current round of cuts is CORPORATION—GOVERNMENT POSITION 1,700. Of this number, 996 are straight lay-offs. These are the numbers released by the CBC. Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, could the Leader of the Government in the Senate please advise us in this chamber Yesterday, in the news, Minister Copps said that 19 people exactly what the government’s position is on the future of the across the country had been laid off against their wishes. CBC? Last weekend, Minister Young said that he believes the Where did the minister get this number from, and why are her CBC English and French television networks should be numbers so far off? Why is she so misinformed regarding the privatized. What is the government’s position on the future of figures? CBC television and radio? What is the government’s plan overall for the CBC? Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, as I understand it, the Minister of Canadian EXTENT OF BUDGET CUTS TO CANADIAN BROADCASTING Heritage was referring specifically to the English television CORPORATION—MINIMAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING IN network cuts and lay-offs — COMPARISON WITH OTHER WESTERN COUNTRIES— GOVERNMENT POSITION Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): She was not. Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, an important question on this whole matter is: Why is the federal government Senator Fairbairn: — which amounted to 19. Of the cutting the CBC’s budget at twice the rate of overall government 1,699 positions announced, 996 were direct lay-offs, which spending cuts? Since 1995 the CBC has lost 4,000 jobs. Why? included the entire news operation of the English network. As I understand them, my honourable friend’s figures are correct. Canada is also at the bottom of the pile of industrialized countries with public broadcasting systems. It spends the least, Senator Lynch-Staunton: They are not correct. The Minister approximately $32 annually, which amounts to about 10 cents a of Canadian Heritage said on television that there were only 19 day. Why is this? Is the Department of Finance running the lay-offs and the remainder were all voluntary departures. The 19 show? she was referring to — she admitted this herself — she found in the article in The Ottawa Citizen. The reporter admitted that he was only talking about one division of the CBC. I believe it was Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): the news room. In actual fact, there have been over 900 firings in Honourable senators, in terms of broader numbers for the cuts, I the CBC. Those are the official figures of the CBC. would be pleased to go back in the record that precedes our years in government. Regrettably, the CBC, like every other segment Senator Fairbairn: That is precisely what I just said. of this economy, has had to take significant cuts in recent years, as have other sectors in this economy, including many Senator Lynch-Staunton: The Leader of the Government is individuals. defending Minister Copps’ statement.  (1440) Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I was agreeing with Senator Stratton. Senator Stratton enunciated the total figures. I Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is not what the Red Book am agreeing with him. says! 1400 SENATE DEBATES December 17, 1996

Senator Fairbairn: Naturally, these cuts are extremely tough Senator Berntson: Stable funding! to take. I would agree with everyone in this chamber who would make that statement. Nonetheless, it was part of the Senator Fairbairn: — first, to get its economic house in government’s undertaking to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of order, and, second, to be able to sustain programs that are GDP. All of what we are discussing is part of that undertaking. extremely important to this country. The CBC is one of those The Minister of Finance has been successful in achieving the extremely important programs. targets that he set. My honourable friends know the reason why he had to set NATIONAL DEFENCE targets, because I have repeated it over and over again. The reason that he had to set targets was to get the fiscal situation of SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHALLENGES FACING this country under control so that we can support the programs DEPARTMENT—POSSIBILITY OF CREATION OF JOINT that are important to the Canadian people, including the national PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE—GOVERNMENT POSITION broadcasting system. Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, if you are PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE to get some Red Books, please make sure they are the original versions. RATING OF LIBERALS ON PRE-ELECTION PROMISES—GOVERNMENT POSITION The other day, in a major policy speech here in Ottawa, the Minister of National Defence indicated that he had asked the Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, I wish to chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on determine something about the Red Book. When the Prime National Defence and Veterans Affairs if she would be good Minister was correcting his Red Book exam on the question of enough to have her committee hold hearings to make stable funding to the CBC, did he mark it correct or incorrect? recommendations on the vast array of socio-economic challenges On the question of the GST, did he give himself a passing grade, facing the members of the Canadian forces and their families. a failing grade or half marks? In arriving at that 78 per cent, I want to know what kind of mark he gave himself on those two I welcome that study because it is probably two or three items. generations overdue. Colleagues will be aware that two or three years ago two distinguished senators in our chamber, who happen Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government in the to sit side by side, namely, Senators Rompkey and De Bané, Senate): Honourable senators, I will get the book for Senator helped chair a joint committee of the two Houses that took a long Tkachuk. and careful look at past and current defence policy and where we might be going in the future. It was an excellent report which was widely read and is still referred to quite often. HERITAGE CANADA Is there not some merit, because of the urgency of the BUDGET CUTS TO CANADIAN BROADCASTING changing socio-economic patterns that surround and engulf our CORPORATION—ADVERSE EFFECT ON CULTURAL families in the forces, in considering the question of a joint INSTITUTIONS—GOVERNMENT POSITION committee of both houses undertaking this very important task? Hon. Janis Johnson: Honourable senators, I should like to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate, when all is said and Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): done, what is in the future for the CBC? Will this recent course Honourable senators, first, I should like to join with my continue? What is the government’s rationalization. What are honourable colleague in expressing my great satisfaction that this their management plans? Such cuts have an impact on all our subject will be placed before a parliamentary committee. My cultural institutions. I am sure the Leader of the Government friend is correct. It is true that such a study has been much understands and is sensitive to that possibility. commented upon and long overlooked, and I am sure that its outcome will affect the lives and morale of not only armed forces Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): personnel but their families. It is a very worthwhile undertaking. Honourable senators, I should like to give my honourable friend a proper answer to her question and I am not in a position to do As to whether it could be a joint effort, I will be pleased to that today. take that representation to my colleague the Minister of National Defence and the government house leader on the other side to see The underlying commitment of the federal government is — if that is a possibility. December 17, 1996 SENATE DEBATES 1401

[Translation] close Radio Canada International? In less than 24 hours, your government was able to find $16 million to finance the operations of Radio Canada International. Where is your HERITAGE CANADA planning in all this? There is no planning. Your decisions are made on a day-to-day basis, depending on political pressure, on FUTURE PLANS FOR CANADIAN BROADCASTING what they say in the media, the Senate or the House of CORPORATION—GOVERNMENT POSITION Commons. Where is your planning? What are your long-term Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, the Leader plans? of the Government did not answer Senator Johnson’s question. [English] I am very disturbed by the unsatisfactory reply to this question. Your government has cut the CBC’s budget. The Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): decision was announced 10 months ago, in the budget brought Honourable senators, Senator Nolin will realize that the down last February. international service of the CBC was funded partially by the CBC itself and partially by government. The government itself is When these decisions were made in Cabinet, I assume you now taking over the complete funding of that operation and is took part in the process. Our question today is about your working towards building a better future for it so that it may government’s future plans for the CBC. You can hardly tell us extend information about this country abroad. I do believe, as I today that you do not know what those plans are. You have have said before, that members of this chamber, including known for 10 months. What are your government’s plans for the Senator MacDonald, offered extremely worthwhile and timely CBC in the future? comments to ensure that this service continued. [English] [Translation] Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I did answer Senator Johnson’s question, POSSIBILITY OF WHITE PAPER ON CANADIAN BROADCASTING inasmuch as I said that I would seek far more extensive CORPORATION—GOVERNMENT POSITION information for her than I could possibly offer myself. Of course I will go to my colleagues and try to obtain a proper answer for Hon. Marcel Prud’homme: Honourable senators, on the Senator Johnson and for Senator Nolin. same subject, there is clearly some controversy in Canada, in the [Translation] House of Commons and in the Senate, regarding that important institution, the CBC. Radio Canada International, in my opinion, Senator Nolin: Honourable senators, of course, but when you is an entity. I will have some suggestions to make on the subject make decisions at budget time — I am not interested in the when we get back to this. Radio Canada International should be details — do you consider the consequences of these decisions? separate from the rest. The CBC represents the power and the glory of Canada. Someday, perhaps, we could remove Radio [English] Canada International from this debate.

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, Senator Nolin will  (1450) know that in the budget process, the Minister of Finance carefully looks at every part of the economy when arriving at his [English] decisions and his suggestions for the direction of the Canadian interest in our economic future. Of course, the subjects before Second, does the minister not agree that the time has come to him as he comes to those decisions are vast. They cover every have a white paper on Radio Canada, in respect of both radio and part of the economy. Sometimes the most difficult are the ones television? There is a nuance distinguishing the two. I will go to that touch institutions like the CBC. As I have said two or three great lengths to defend the radio section of Radio Canada, times here today, these are painful and significant decisions, but because it is vital to keep Canadians informed about our country. the government remains strongly committed to the future of the We could also debate the television section. Many senators are CBC. prepared to defend that service. Friends of the CBC exist across [Translation] Canada.

REINSTATEMENT OF RADIO CANADA INTERNATIONAL—FUTURE Would the Honourable Leader of the Government in the FINANCING PLANNING—GOVERNMENT POSITION Senate agree to recommend to her government that the time has come to eliminate all of this confusion of cutting here and adding Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, why did there, and of ministers contradicting each other? The time has your government rush last week to reverse the CBC’s decision to come to have a white paper on the great institution of the CBC. 1402 SENATE DEBATES December 17, 1996

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Senator Graham: That is fine. Thank you. Honourable senators, I will undertake to pass on Senator Prud’homme’s proposal to my colleagues. He is quite right in noting that, on both sides of this chamber, there are many friends of the CBC. ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE MANGANESE-BASED FUEL ADDITIVES BILL REFERRED TO COMMITTEE MANGANESE-BASEDFUELADDITIVESBILL—MOTIONTOREFERTO COMMITTEE—VOTE DEFERRED—POINT OF ORDER Leave having been given to proceed to Order No. 1 under Recorded Division Deferred: Hon. Noël A. Kinsella: Honourable senators, I rise on a point of order. As honourable senators will recall, yesterday we had a On the Order: ruling from His Honour the Speaker dealing with the amendment that I had proposed to the motion of Senator Kenny to refer Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Bill C-29, the MMT bill, to committee. His Honour correctly Senator Kenny, seconded by the Honourable Senator pointed out that, according to rule 62(1), a motion to refer a bill Landry, that Bill C-29, to regulate interprovincial trade in after second reading to a committee is a non-debatable motion. and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances, be referred to the Standing It was only after we had gone through several other steps in Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural the proceeding that I read His Honour’s decision, in which he Resources. clearly pointed out, in the penultimate paragraph, what I have just indicated about rule 62. Hon. Marcel Prud’homme: Is unanimous consent required to undo what was done unduly? If so, I will tell you whether you Prior to that, I had relied on rule 67. As I read rule 67, it allows have unanimous consent. either whip to request that a standing vote be deferred, and that is what I did. However, upon re-reading the rule yesterday, I The Hon. the Speaker: Yes, indeed. It does require discovered that that provision applies only to a motion that is unanimous consent for the Senate to change a proceeding of debatable. Of course, as His Honour pointed out, the motion with yesterday. which we were dealing at that time was not debatable. Therefore, the request that I made at that time was out of order. I understand that the proposal is that we revert to the motion for third reading and disregard everything that happened after that yesterday. We would then be back to referral of the bill to When the motion was put to the chamber as to whether the bill committee. If that were acceptable, we would disregard should be referred to committee, the Speaker ruled that in his everything that took place yesterday. I would put the question opinion the yeas had it. At that time, some of us on this side again to give honourable senators the opportunity to say “on stood in order that I might exercise my right under rule 67, which division,” and we would proceed without a standing vote. right, of course, I do not properly have under the rules. Is that clear, Honourable Senator Prud’homme? Therefore, honourable senators, I believe that if that same question were to be put at this time, and the Speaker were to Senator Prud’homme: Yes, it is very clear. You said that you indicate that in his opinion the yeas had it, you would find that do need unanimous consent to undo what was done yesterday. To no one on this side would rise to request a standing vote, and show that I am highly cooperative, I will cooperate with the therefore the motion would carry. Senate, even though at this time of the year it is extremely tempting for me to do otherwise. Hon. Colin Kenny: I understood that Senator Kinsella wanted to move directly to third reading, and I was prepared to support I have made multiple requests in this place, and have received his motion. no satisfactory answers. I am still in limbo. I am non-existent. I sit on no committees. A small man in my situation would use the first available occasion to withhold consent. However, that is not Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the the way I conduct my affairs. Having reminded you of the Government): Honourable senators, we have not yet reached unkindness which some would like to continue here in the Senate that item on the Order Paper. Do you wish to deal with it now? pertaining to independent senators, I will give consent. Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): We The Hon. the Speaker: I take it, then, that there is unanimous should deal with the point of order now. consent? December 17, 1996 SENATE DEBATES 1403

Hon. Senators: Agreed. the information adequate for the establishment of the Register of Electors; REFERRED TO COMMITTEE (ii) collected by means of an enumeration The Hon. the Speaker: It was moved by the Honourable contemplated by section 63; or Senator Kenny, seconded by the Honourable Senator Landry, that Bill C-29 be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on (iii) contained in a list of electors to which” Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I rise Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? today to speak to Bill C-63. Some Hon. Senators: Yea. The subject-matter of the amendments suggested by Bill C-63 has been around Elections Canada and parliamentary circles for a Some Hon. Senators: Nay. number of years. In fact, the idea of updating our electoral system and giving consideration to a permanent voters list was The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the yeas have it. suggested by the Lortie commission, a commission mandated by a previous government no less. Motion agreed to, on division. Since many of my colleagues have already spoken on the  (1500) contents of this bill, I will refrain from giving the chamber my synopsis of it. I will touch only on those matters that concern me particularly, or those that have not been raised by other senators. CANADA ELECTIONS ACT PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT I commend the government for continuing on the fine REFERENDUM ACT intentions of its predecessors to update and streamline the election process. I was pleased to see Senator Bryden open BILL TO AMEND—THIRD READING—MOTIONS IN debate on Bill C-63 by putting it in the appropriate context. He AMENDMENT—VOTES DEFERRED—DEBATE CONTINUED quoted Herman Bakvis, the editor of research studies for the Lortie commission, who stated: On the Order: The act of voting in an election is perhaps the single most Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable important form of political participation in modern Senator Bryden, seconded by the Honourable Senator democracies... The extent to which citizens exercise this Pearson, for the third reading of Bill C-63, to amend the most fundamental right can be seen as an indicator of the Canada Elections Act, the Parliament of Canada Act and the health of democracy. Referendum Act. I share this perspective on Bill C-63. And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator To function properly, democracy must ensure that citizens truly participate and feel assured that the process is a fair and just Beaudoin, that the Bill be not now read the third time but one. Only then can Parliament and government truly gain that it be amended: legitimacy. In other words, trust in an electoral system is absolutely necessary. (a) in clause 12, on page 5, by replacing line 8 with the following: Three issues concern me. First, there is an issue that should not go unnoticed and that is interrelated to the subject of the “referred to in subparagraphs 71.011(a)(ii) or (iii). legislation’s timing. The government invoked time allocation on The”; and this bill in the other place and forced it to the Senate without all-party consensus. That seems peculiar since recent changes to (b) in clause 22, on page 11, by replacing lines 3 to 6 the Elections Act have usually been dealt with in a more open with the following: and timely manner. Even more interesting is the fact that the government would decide to bypass general consensus on “(a) information that is election amendments in the fourth year of its mandate. (i) collected by means of the enumeration Honourable colleagues, I ask you: Why the rush on this conducted for the general election for the thirty-sixth important piece of legislation? This is legislation that suggests Parliament, if the Chief Electoral Officer considers sweeping changes to Canada’s electoral process. 1404 SENATE DEBATES December 17, 1996

Canada is presently contributing to strengthening democracies permanent registry was desirable, providing proper around the world and building good governance and respect for implementation took place. the rule of law. In particular, we have played a prominent role in encouraging multi-party democracy in many countries. In fact, in The Government of Canada places every reliance on the Chief many of those countries, we are encountering resistance by the Electoral Officer and his department to deliver a permanent ruling majority party to a level playing field for opposition registry. While I am confident that Mr. Kingsley has done and parties. will continue to do an admirable job in delivering his mandate, he does not control all the factors. The complexity of gathering We stress that the views of opposition parties should be taken vast amounts of information from so many different sources and into account. A level playing field at the time of elections is provinces should not be overlooked. In fact, we have already necessary. While opposition parties must act responsibly, the heard from so many that these arrangements have, to date, only onus is on the government, particularly if it has a majority in been made in principle. Parliament, to act in such a way as to allow a full and fair discussion of, and accommodation for, the concerns of the In one previous Canadian venture, in the Department of opposition parties. Foreign Affairs and International Trade, a complex communications system was to be delivered with new If we state that for others, surely the same principles should technology. It was not only desirable but possible, we were told. guide us at home. It is hard to see how a level playing field Great cost savings were shown on paper. Confidentiality was works in Canada, when closure was invoked in the House of termed to be “achievable.” After the initial go-ahead, and when Commons. All opposition parties unanimously voted against the the system was commenced on an exploratory basis, the real bill. Surely, the election process is the responsibility of all problems began to surface. Confidentiality could not be elected members. Elections Canada deals with the machinery and protected. The cost savings could not be assured. In fact, implementation. The government is tasked with the drafting of overruns began immediately. At some point down the line, the the bill. scheme was abandoned. Broad principles aside, where was the all-party input prior to We already know that changes to the recommendations of the the introduction of the bill? At the very least, where was the full Lortie commission have been made, and that changes continue to and fair debate and opportunity for opposition members to air be made, which is commendable in one sense but raises more their concerns for the record on the specifics? questions from another. Bill C-63 comes with a taint of: “Why the rush?” and with the There is a great deal of trust built into the implementation perception that the government did not seek the support and readiness of the scheme. When it comes to the public’s right to input of opposition members. Even if not intended, this vote, Canadian citizens should not be asked to trust the appearance of high-handedness leaves Canada with a double government. Instead, the government should be required to prove standard. It is all the more true when the government seeks, to the public that the framework and the infrastructure in this through this bill, to avoid the very thoughtful section in the complex process can be pulled together and made workable present Elections Act that states that no implementation of before the existing system is scrapped. changes can take place within six months of the passage of any amendment. That section was not put in carelessly. It was a My final concern is that there is very little known of the deliberate decision to ensure that changes to the electoral process strategy of implementation. How will the public be informed? are not put through quickly with the appearance of favouring the How will the public be reassured that what they get will be better ruling majority party. It was also to give adequate time for a than what they have? proper and feasible implementation. The Canadian electorate knows the current system. They have used the current system as it has been in practice for a number of What is the crisis or the emergency situation that compels the years. To change this system would require sufficient education government to avoid this section? Fast tracking around the of the public and dissemination of information. Elections Act sends all the wrong signals. The rebuttal that full consultations about principles were held is not enough. The  (1510) electoral process is about practice, implementation and confidence. I believe full and fair consultation has not taken A sufficient lead time is also absolutely crucial in making place. changes to the electoral system. When we talked about new technologies, surely those Canadians who are well educated and The issue of a permanent registry is also troublesome. It is not well informed will understand it. However, there are a great an issue of whether a permanent registry is desirable or not. many Canadians, particularly in these turbulent and financially Certainly, public opinion tilts in favour of a permanent registry as difficult times, who cannot be expected to have entered into the a principle. In fact, the Lortie commission recommended one. dialogue of change. The enumeration system has been a useful However, the important provision attached to the Lortie educational tool in alerting people of a pending election and the commission report seems to have been lost. They stated that a method of participation.

[ Senator Andreychuk ] December 17, 1996 SENATE DEBATES 1405

Honourable senators, I want to refer to one change in the new Honourable senators, we praise ourselves as being the best act that was not recommended by the Lortie commission, and country in the world. We did not come by this reputation easily that is the use of income tax forms. Much has been made of the or lightly. We should not take our democracy for granted. Our fact that citizens will have the choice of agreeing to their tax role should be to increase public confidence and involvement in returns being used for election purposes. In other words, it has the democratic system. Therefore, our responses should be been stated that it would be a voter’s choice at the time of filing measured in an inclusive democracy. The rush to be modern and his or her income tax. efficient cannot replace trust and integrity. I would ask honourable senators to consider the problem of involving the income tax department, and one can see why the Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Lortie commission stayed clear of this avenue of information. Honourable senators, before commenting on this bill, I want to Just consider, at the time that you are completing your income thank Senator Carstairs and her colleagues on the Standing tax return, hoping to have properly filled out the forms, and you Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for the come across a question on which you have a choice: You can understanding, collaboration and cooperation that they gave the either agree to give information to the government for the opposition in terms of the witnesses we wanted to have appear, purpose of the Canada Elections Act, or you can say no. If I say and the time required to question them. This committee is one of no, my first thought is, “What will the income tax authority think the busiest in the Senate, and because of that fact, our of me? Will they be predisposed to be suspicious of me if I say appreciation is that much greater. We all benefited from Senator no?” Carstairs’ consideration, and I want to thank her on behalf of my colleagues. We have spent years trying to build public confidence in the confidentiality of income tax returns. Will this really be an informed consent? Will people shy away, not because they are I will try not to repeat what has already been said regarding irresponsible citizens, but because they have nagging doubts as to our concerns over these amendments, except to emphasize my the implications of such a decision? main concern, which is shared by many colleagues. Given that the sources required to maintain a permanent voters registry at Louis Lavoie, the former Director of Operational Planning and least as complete as the voters list resulting from a door-to-door International Services of Elections Canada said: enumeration are not yet confirmed, can Canadians expect to have such a registry in place before the next election, which must be Voter registration is the basis of the democratic process. held by October of 1998, or in less than two years? Given that Without it, citizens could not legitimately cast the ballot to the average term of a federal government is four to four and a which they are entitled. half years, the realistic deadline to have everything in place, if these amendments are approved, is closer to April of 1998. Honourable senators, I would go one step further and say that a citizen’s ability to vote is his or her fundamental right that ensures all other rights in our democracy. For this reason, I am My response is that there is not enough information available, hesitant to support a bill that proposes to revolutionize the or agreements from provinces and territories, and even two Canadian electoral process at the eleventh hour. Surely, federal departments, to satisfy me that a permanent voters honourable senators, change is desirable; however, thoughtful, registry can have the same degree of accuracy when the next reflective and well-managed change is what we should be hoping election is called, even if it is called no earlier than October for. Confusion is not desirable. Uncertainty leads to fear. 1998. The committee did hear from Dr. John Courtney of the University of Saskatchewan, who stated that the greatness of our Before elaborating on this point, I want to try to answer the country’s present system is its simplicity, its standardization question regarding the appropriateness of the appointed Senate to across the country and its easy comprehensibility by the general challenge the elected house’s decisions on anything to do with public. To change to another system should be done with a full elections. Honourable senators will recall that the government and extensive educational mandate before implementation. If the convinced the elected house last year to pass a bill that, had it present implementation creates difficulties that are undesirable, been sanctioned, would not have allowed a redistribution based what other measures do we have to offer the Canadian public to on the 1990 census in time for the next election. This was ensure the integrity of the electoral process? prompted by a group of Liberal backbenchers, mainly from Ontario, who had examined the preliminary maps. Because the A better question is, can we afford even the chance of failure? redistribution process had started, and the government wanted to We cannot afford to change the system without having truly interrupt it and suspend it practically indefinitely, or at least long respected the need for full debate and involvement of all parties. enough so that it would not be in place for the next 1406 SENATE DEBATES December 17, 1996 election, a group of Liberal backbenchers from Ontario approves bills with general guidelines, and their implementation protested. To paraphrase the remarks of one such member of is based on regulations written by non-elected public officials Parliament from the Toronto area, and I admire his frankness, and presented to Parliament as a fait accompli. I fail to appreciate though it was a bit blunt and crude, he said, in effect, “I worked any suggestion that the views of elected, experienced many years for this riding, and now they want to take it away parliamentarians are not at least as valid as those of bureaucrats from me.” Honourable senators, it is this sort of proprietary who need not and should not answer directly to the public. We self-interest, not the public interest, that had the government should be quite comfortable in taking a hard look at any agree to ignore its constitutional obligations regarding legislation put before us, particularly any concerning elections, redistribution. Had it not been for the opposition in this place, it proposed by those who have the most direct interest in that is more than likely that brazen self-interest would have legislation. triumphed over the public interest. With that background, I wish to elaborate on the main Senator Andreychuk has questioned the government’s haste in preoccupation I touched on earlier, the permanent voters register. processing this bill. The bill only came to the Senate on Let me be clear that we have no objection to the establishment of November 27, 1996, less than three weeks ago. The government a permanent voters list. We support it without any argument is so adamant in having the bill receive Royal Assent before the whatsoever. However, what troubles many of us is that it is called end of the year that it has even briefed the elected members to be on to replace the current enumeration system which, whatever its on standby, and, should the bill go back to the House of costs, has proven to be most efficient in terms of the number of Commons with an amendment, then they may be recalled, even eligible voters on the list on the day of the election. during the Christmas recess. It is practically unheard of to have this sort of attitude towards a bill touching on elections, which, It also has other benefits, indirect perhaps, but quite unique. as Senator Andreychuk and Senator Murray have both pointed By the door-to-door enumeration, Canadians are made aware that out, should have, in a broad way, general support from all there will be a federal election. One cannot assume that all opposition parties. This one does not have that support, to the Canadians know everything at the same time. By a door-to-door point where the government imposed closure in the House of enumeration and the resultant appearance of enumerators, each Commons to force the bill through that house. household in this country, is made aware, some for the first time, that there will be a federal election. A slip is left behind with the Why wait, then, until the last minute to introduce such names of those entitled to vote. That slip is left on the coffee important legislation affecting millions of Canadians — table or on the kitchen counter for all to see. legislation that, as I mentioned, was subjected to closure in the House of Commons? Then, in good time, a list is sent to each household giving the names of the electors in the neighbourhood who are eligible to  (1520) vote in a certain poll. The address of the poll is given, the times What is so sacred about having a last door-to-door of voting are given, and the day of voting is repeated. In other enumeration in April? Is the government seeing in these words, documents go to every household in this country alerting amendments — and one can only throw out these suspicions — Canadians that they have a right to vote. It is hoped that they will benefits to itself which it wants in place in time for a spring or vote, and these are the documents and the information they need early summer election? If that is so, as many suspect, the to exercise that right. expression that I used before, “self-interest,” is certainly not out of place in discussing the amendments and provides an additional There are disadvantages, as were brought out before the argument in favour of scrutiny of anything electoral by those committee. One is that it is becoming more and more difficult to who have no direct interest in the process. get enumerators. The Chief Electoral Officer told us that something like 110,000 enumerators are needed. It is getting This position is reinforced by the fact that, as Senator more difficult to get people to do that work. We were also told Andreychuk pointed out and as was said yesterday by Senator that enumerators are hesitant to go door to door in some areas of Murray, normally, when such changes are made to an elections the country. We were also told that, more and more, elderly act, there is a notwithstanding clause or some such equivalent. If people living alone hesitate to answer their doors in the evening. the election is held within six months, then the amendments do not go into effect until the following election. That Despite that, the success rate of the door-to-door enumeration notwithstanding clause has been dropped, for the first time, from process is truly astounding. It works. Once the original the Elections Act. This is something more than streamlining the enumeration is completed, some 92 per cent of eligible voters are election process. To my mind, it also includes a timetable which, on the list. When the revision is completed four or five days by the government’s analysis, will benefit them should they want before the actual election, registration goes up to 95 per cent. It is a quick election in the next few months. an extraordinary success rate. It is highly costly, but it seems to me that there are some items in this country where cost should This is a government that believes more and more in not be the prime factor, and certainly one of them is ensuring that administration by regulation. More and more, Parliament only as many Canadians as possible are on that list.

[ Senator Lynch-Staunton ] December 17, 1996 SENATE DEBATES 1407

As a result of the high percentage of eligible voters on the list,  (1530) we have a high participation in elections. I am convinced the two are linked. These are the most recent figures, but I am sure if we How will they be able to make up that slack so that on election went back we would have the same interesting figures. In 1984, day we will have — and Canadians are entitled to this — as high 75 per cent of eligible Canadians went to vote. In 1988, it was a percentage on the list as we have now? also 75 per cent. In 1993, it dropped to 70 per cent. I think the main reason it dropped was that in 1993 there was no I refer honourable senators to a press release from Minister enumeration. The list used was the same one used for the Gray which explains that the revision and the updating will be referendum in October 1992. The electoral officer explained to based on information Elections Canada will no longer be able to us that he was allowed, under the law allowing the use of the collect directly. Names, addresses and birth dates will be taken 1992 electoral list for the 1993 election, to add names to the list from income tax returns filed with Revenue Canada; lists of new but not to take names off. As a result, the number of eligible Canadian citizens will be retrieved from those compiled by voters grew in one year to 19.9 million from 18.6 million, which Citizenship and Immigration Canada; and data will be collected is an increase of 7 per cent. We know that our population did not from provincial registrars of vital statistics and provincial increase by that factor, so there was an inflated list. It had registrars of drivers, and vehicle licences. The press release then nothing to do with Elections Canada. goes on to say that the permanent register will also be augmented by proven “provincial electoral lists.” I congratulate Elections Canada for the outstanding work they do, not only in this country, but when they are called upon to go Elections Canada is now being called upon to sign agreements abroad and help developing countries institute an electoral with 10 provinces, two territories, and two federal departments to system suited to their own needs. We have reason to be proud, ensure that, when needed, data will be available to ensure that the and I congratulate them again, as I did in the committee. permanent registry will be as up to date as the traditional enumeration lists. In 1993, the participation rate dropped to 70 per cent, but I think that is because the list was not as accurate as it should have Honourable senators, as we heard in committee and as Senator been. Murray told us yesterday, very few of these agreements are in What happens in the United States? I have figures going back place now. We are talking about an election perhaps within a to 1932, but I will just read the figures from 1972: Starting in year. We are being asked to sanction a system that, on paper, has 1972, they are 55 per cent, 53 per cent, 52 per cent, 53 per cent, a lot of merit, but in its implementation still faces a great deal of 50 per cent, 55 per cent, and, in the last presidential elections, difficulty. 48.8 per cent, the lowest participation rate since 1924 in what they identify as the greatest democracy in the world. The chief electoral officer of Quebec appeared before the committee. He explained that he will have completed his What is the link between the high participation figure in this permanent list by mid-April. On it, he will have the names of country and the low participation figure in the United States? 5,190,000 voters. He did not understand why Elections Canada There are many explanations that are not related to each other, wanted to go to the Motor Vehicle Bureau because they only but I think one significant explanation is that, in this country, we issue 4,200,000 drivers’ licences. At that so-called “primary go to Canadians and invite them to get on the list. We knock on source,” there is a shortfall of 1 million. every door in the country. Everyone has an opportunity to be on the list. In the United States, you go to the register; in this Mr. Côté told us — as he told Elections Canada — that he has country, the register comes to you. In many cases, Americans his permanent voters list. It is up to date. He said that he will cannot be bothered. That is not the main reason, but I have gladly let them use it for a fee, but he was not entitled by the law convinced myself, admittedly without any data to support it, that that allowed a permanent list to be set up in Quebec to give out one of the reasons for our high turnout is that, through the any other information. Elections Canada still insists that it must Elections Canada enumeration, we make Canadians aware of the go to basic sources and not rely only on the permanent voters list. election. We have a high eligibility rate. In the United States, it is up to the citizens themselves to go and register, and that Senator Bryden told us that he understood — and I imagine his contributes to a low turnout. information is well based — there are some technical difficulties in transposing from the Quebec list to the master Canadian list, Bill C-63 is a combination of these two systems. I will not go and that it would take at least nine months to develop a system to into the details, but the question remains: If we pass these allow that to happen. Hence, in one province alone with amendments now, will we have, one year from now, a number of 25 per cent of eligible voters, Elections Canada is unable to go to voters on the list as high as a traditional enumeration provides? the basic data it feels it must have to keep its lists up to date. As In one year, according to Elections Canada figures, the number well, there is a technical problem in that, even if it uses its of voters on the permanent list, which will be established as of permanent list as its basic data, there will be a delay of eight or April 1997 based on the last door-to-door enumeration, will drop nine months. Right there, honourable senators, is an argument to to something like 80 per cent. go slow on the implementation of a permanent voters list. 1408 SENATE DEBATES December 17, 1996

To summarize, so far, there have been no broad, firm Whether the campaign period is 47 days or 37 days is irrelevant. commitments by enough provinces. As well, there is a very short By the time we come to an election period, most Canadians have time frame in which to implement this scheme. If there is a made up their minds, and one goes after the 20 per cent or spring election, my argument falls apart because the enumeration 25 per cent of undecided voters. I am not convinced one way or is in April. If the election is in May, there will be no problem, the other as to who benefits from a short or long writ period. except that the traditional revisions will no longer take place. The short time frame between the actual door-to-door enumeration Honourable senators, what concerns me is that we in this and the election itself will not cause a problem. However, if there country have a unique system of enumeration that allows is an election in the fall or next spring, the longer it is put off, the 95 per cent of eligible voters to get on the list. The present more difficult it will be for the permanent registry to be kept up enumeration system helps make Canadians aware of an election, to date because Elections Canada does not yet have the right to which in turn allows for a high participation rate on election day. go into those data banks and retrieve the information it needs. We are now being asked to replace that with a system that has a lot of merit but does not have all the elements in place to Honourable senators, we were told that we should pass the convince me and many others that it can be as complete in terms amendments and then all the agreements will fall into place. It of eligible voters as is our present system. It will be to the benefit would have been wiser to have the agreements in place and then of Elections Canada, which will be asked to carry this heavy come to Parliament and say that the provinces, the federal responsibility, to give them a little more time. In other words, let departments and the territories had agreed to make this the next election be based on the present rules and have the new information available; therefore, it could be implemented as soon rules in place for the election after that. as the bill was passed. Instead, we were told that it would be best to pass the bill and have the amendments in place, and then MOTION IN AMENDMENT—VOTE DEFERRED serious negotiations could take place. Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): By doing that, Elections Canada is painting itself into a corner, Honourable senators, I wish to propose a subamendment to because, the closer we get to the ultimate date for an election, the Senator Murray’s amendment. Its purpose is to implement what I more difficult certain provinces will be and the more they will have said, which is that the act will only come into effect for the twist arms to get a better deal. However, had they made the election of the Thirty-sixth Parliament, meaning after the next agreements before an election, then the negotiations might have election. been on a more level playing field. Accordingly, honourable senators, I move: I will just describe what happened in Quebec. There was an election in Quebec in September of 1994. The last door-to-door That clause 94 of Bill C-63 be not now read the third time enumeration took place in September of 1995. There were but that it be amended by replacing lines 10 to 28 on 20,000 polls and 40,000 enumerators. Following that, there was a page 44 with the following: revision, and a permanent voters list was built upon that. According the Mr. Côté, the chief electoral officer in Quebec, the 94.(1) Sections 2, 12 and 22 of this Act come into force final list will be in place and ready for mid-April of 1997. It will on the day fixed by the Governor in Council for the return take from September 1995 to April 1997 to put in place an updated system, which Elections Canada is being called upon to of the writs of election for the general election for the do in only a few months. Much as I admire them for their thirty-sixth Parliament. devotion and their enthusiasm, I think we are being asked to give them a job that they will find extraordinarily difficult to do, (2) Subject to subsection (1), this Act or any provision particularly as their sources of information are beyond their of this Act or any provision of any Act enacted by this Act control, whereas at least in Quebec, and in any other province comes into force on January 1, 2000 or any such earlier that builds its own list, they have control over their own data day or days as are fixed by order of the Governor in sources. Elections Canada must negotiate and sign agreements. Council. They will not be master agreements; they will be agreements tailored to each jurisdiction.  (1540) Honourable senators, I see nothing in this bill that seriously The Hon. the Speaker: It is moved by the Honourable hampers or hinders an incumbent government or an opposition Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by Honourable Senator party. I have no problems with a shorter writ period, although Doyle: colleagues tell me that it favours the incumbent government. I think of the 1988 election, when we were told that the That clause 94 of Bill C-63 be not now read the third time Conservatives won in the last week of the campaign. I think of but that it be amended by replacing lines 10 — the 1993 election, when I can say that I think we lost the election on the first day of the campaign. The argument can go on forever. An Hon. Senator: Dispense!

[ Senator Lynch-Staunton ] December 17, 1996 SENATE DEBATES 1409

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable Senator Stewart: Did the honourable senator say that he senators, to adopt the subamendment to the motion? moved an amendment to Senator Murray’s amendment? Is that it? Some Hon. Senators: Yes. Senator Lynch-Staunton: Yes. It is consequential to Senator Some Hon. Senators: No. Murray’s amendment. The Hon. the Speaker: Will those in favour please say “yea”? Speaking on behalf of the whip, if the decision is to vote, in Some Hon. Senators: Yea. accordance with rule 67 we ask that the vote be deferred to tomorrow. The Hon. the Speaker: Will those opposed please say “nay?” The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I should like a Some Hon. Senators: Nay. few moments to check the rules, but I understand — and I have just spoken to the Clerk Assistant, Mr. Greene — that a The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the “nays” have it. subamendment must be to the amendment. In other words, you cannot go back to the main motion on a subamendment. And two honourable senators having risen. Senator Lynch-Staunton: I said that my subamendment was Senator Lynch-Staunton: Before calling a vote, Your Honour an amendment to Senator Murray’s amendment. It is a usually asks — and you have done this before — whether there subamendment. I may be using the wrong term, but I am are any more speakers. You have told us that on more than one attaching a subamendment to Senator Murray’s amendment. occasion in order to avoid this type of incident taking place. You did not do that today. Senator Berntson: It simply expands the original amendment. Senator Berntson: Besides which, we were on our feet. Senator Lynch-Staunton: My subamendment is The Hon. the Speaker: No one got up. Does any other senator consequential to his amendment; there is a link between the two. wish to speak? The Hon. the Speaker: May we leave this in abeyance so that Hon. Mabel M. DeWare: Yes. I wish to adjourn the debate. I may check the records on this? As it stands presently, I do not believe that this is in order. May we leave this in abeyance for a Hon. John B. Stewart: Honourable senators, may I ask a few moments and proceed to the next item? I will return shortly. question concerning the order? I may be wrong, but as I understand it, we had a main motion that the bill be now read the Hon. Marcel Prud’homme: Your Honour, while you third time. We then had a motion in amendment to the third deliberate on the propriety of this subamendment to the reading motion, moved by the Honourable Senator Murray. We amendment, would you also take a moment to address the now have another amendment to the main motion. question — and it will help you to do so now rather than waiting Senator Lynch-Staunton: It is a subamendment. until later — concerning when we can put forward new amendments? Senator Stewart: I listened carefully to Senator Lynch-Staunton, though I may not have heard him accurately. I I am asking that question because, now that the vote has been tried to hear what His Honour said and, again, I may not have postponed until tomorrow, the government should seize the heard accurately. I did not hear the amendment put by Senator opportunity to present an order to the Senate. At what time Murray and the subamendment to that amendment, proposed by should there be a vote? Senator Lynch-Staunton, read out. What is the situation? This is not an important point, but I should like to know where we are Now that this bill has been delayed — and I think it is quite a procedurally. bit of luck for the government that the opposition has asked to delay the taking of the vote until tomorrow — we must consider, Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, I hope I am first, that we have no order; second, that we do not know at what following what I heard His Honour say yesterday, namely, that he time the vote will be taken — and we should be told; and, third, would only entertain an amendment and a subamendment at one if an order were to be issued that we vote tomorrow at a certain time. As I was reading out the text, I said, “I move, seconded by time, it would be difficult for others to propose amendments Senator Doyle, the following”; and I added, “as a subamendment before we disposed of the amendment and the subamendment — to Senator Murray’s amendment.” that is, if Your Honour sees fit to accept the subamendment. 1410 SENATE DEBATES December 17, 1996

Your Honour said yesterday — and I was not sure that it was with rule 62(1), either Whip may request that the standing right, but I am prepared to abide by your ruling — that you will vote be deferred as provided below. only entertain an amendment and a subamendment. I have a small one, but now I do not know when it can be introduced. Rule 67(2) reads: Therefore, if there were to be an order by the Senate concerning the time for the vote tomorrow, it would be preferable. That is Except as provided in section (3) or as otherwise provided quite an unbelievable proposal by the opposition, which I did not in these rules, when a vote has been deferred, pursuant to expect, but it has not been seized yet by the government. If Your section (1), it shall stand deferred to 5:30 o’clock p.m. on Honour wants to make the time of the vote an order of the the next day the Senate sits. Senate, I suggest that you seize the opportunity now, and that will dispose of one problem. In order to accommodate all honourable senators — and I believe this is what Senator Prud’homme, as an independent That means that no other amendment can be put to the Senate senator, was requesting — the government side has agreed to if we have to vote at “X” hour tomorrow night to dispose of the follow the rules as set out in 67(1) and (2). Therefore, we will amendment, the subamendment and the motion. However, if we dispose of all votes at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow. put forward an order that we shall dispose of everything, then we shall dispose of the subamendment, if it is acceptable — the Hon. Eric Arthur Berntson (Deputy Leader of the amendment, and the main motion. There should be further debate Opposition): Honourable senators, I think everyone is seeking on the main motion, if the subamendment and the amendment are some accommodation. If Senator Lynch-Staunton’s proposal is defeated. If they are passed, they of course change the main found to be out of order as a subamendment, it would be logical motion, but if they are defeated, then we go back to the main for us to adjourn the debate and draft an amendment that would motion. be in order, which would bring us back tomorrow. There is a very important point to be made with the amendment. Does the main motion then become amendable? Can we amend the main motion again? In an ordinary debate, I would In the last two minutes, we have had an in-depth discussion. say “yes.” As a matter of fact, I would say that we can put There could be an accommodation made if we simply allowed forward a new amendment as soon as we dispose of the the amendment to stand. Whether the subamendment is a subamendment proposed by the Official Opposition. subamendment or another amendment, we have agreed to this previously in respect of other matters, and I do not see why it You can only have one at a time. I am ready to accept that. would not work today. We could agree, as we do under the However, I do not want to be precluded from introducing deferral rule, that all questions necessary to deal with this aspect amendments. I am in Your Honour’s hands, if you wish to reflect will be put at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow. That would allow any other on all that. senators who wish to speak or to move other amendments to do so with the understanding that all votes will take place at In the meantime, perhaps the government will seize upon the 5:30 p.m. tomorrow. occasion that has been offered to it. I suppose it is in the Christmas spirit to say that we will postpone until tomorrow a Senator Lynch-Staunton: I realize that I should not challenge vote that we can take right now. I am surprised that we do not His Honour’s rulings, except to ask for a vote, which we do only dispose of it now, but the opposition has offered to do it as an exception. However, I should like to draw your attention to tomorrow. We will see how these great parts of the Senate, November 27 when we voted on amendments respecting namely, the government and the opposition, will dispose of this Term 17. They are identified as an amendment and a matter. subamendment. The amendment was moved by Senator Doody and the subamendment, recognized as such, was moved by I am taking a long time to make my point to give His Honour Senator Cogger. There is no link between the subamendment and time to look into his books and check the rules. I could go on for the amendment. They both relate to Term 17, but the hours, but I will not do so. subamendment, identified as such, is not linked in topic to Senator Doody’s amendment. I should like to know if I can put an amendment forward and, if so, when. It seems to be more difficult because of the offer the We are doing exactly the same thing in this instance. Perhaps official opposition has made to the government to deal with these our proceedings during the debate on Term 17 were not in order. motions tomorrow. Senator Stewart: Honourable senators, does Senator  (1550) Lynch-Staunton recognize that in that case the house was dealing with a resolution, while in this case we are dealing with a bill? In Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the this case, we have the standard or formal motion that the bill be Government): Honourable senators, rule 67(1) reads: now read the third time. There are certain rules with regard to the amendments and subamendments that can be moved in the case After a standing vote has been requested, pursuant to of such an ancillary motion — rules that would not apply in the rule 65(3), on a motion which is debatable in accordance case of a resolution being considered by the house.

[ Senator Prud’homme ] December 17, 1996 SENATE DEBATES 1411

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I recognize that. However, I would will that of Senator Murray, and we will accept other think the definitions of “amendment” and “subamendment” amendments. would be the same in all cases. Is that agreed? Senator Prud’homme: Honourable senators, things are getting worse when they should be getting better. A surprising Hon. Senators: Agreed. offer was made by the opposition to the government. The government should jump at this offer, yet it seems to be slow to Senator Graham: Is it agreed that all votes necessary to accept it. discharge Bill C-63 will be taken tomorrow at 5:30 p.m.? If we vote tomorrow evening at 5:30, we will dispose of the Senator Berntson: That is my understanding. subamendment, but the debate could continue on Thursday. To my surprise, the opposition has offered to dispose of everything The Hon. the Speaker: All votes will be taken sequentially, tomorrow evening. I do not understand why the government does with the last amendment proposed being voted on first. not accept that offer, knowing exactly what will happen. Senator Prud’homme: That is my understanding. Senator Graham: I disagree with that. The Hon. the Speaker: Does anyone wish to speak to the Senator Prud’homme: Senator Graham accepted the deferral amendment of Senator Lynch-Staunton? If not, does any of the vote until 5:30 p.m. tomorrow on a subamendment which honourable senator wish to take the adjournment? may be acceptable. Senator Graham: No. I said that it would refer to all votes. Senator Prud’homme: I wish to speak on Bill C-63. Senator Prud’homme: I did not hear you say “all.” That is  (1600) new. When you read the blues you will see that you now have I will conclude my remarks with an amendment, if I have a said “all amendments.” seconder. We may be precluding senators from introducing amendments. Since the Senate can do as it wishes with unanimity, if you I believe I will now receive some attention, honourable accept for the purpose of discussion the amendments of Senator senators, because I have been helpful in terms of this debate. My Lynch-Staunton and others, and you dispose of them all conscience says that I was helpful. I am very happy with my day. tomorrow as was offered to the government by the opposition, I think we could deal with that debate tomorrow evening. [Translation] Otherwise, you may not get the unanimous consent you need, which would be very sad. I think that everyone is in the mood to Honourable senators, I will begin by thanking Senator dispose of this bill one way or the other. I want to vote one way Carstairs, who chaired the committee brilliantly, as always. She or the other. gave those who so wished a chance to participate in the debate, whether they were members of the committee or not. Is it the case that tomorrow night at 5:30, we will vote on all the amendments, subamendments and new proposals, contrary to This is the holiday season. I would particularly like to thank the rules? If you accept that that will be the case, you must also the Chief Electoral Officer and all his employees. Never in my accept that other amendments could be put. The Speaker will call life as a politician have I seen people appear so often before so the amendments; the last to be moved being called first. That is many committees. They appear continually before committees, to the orderly way to dispose of the debate. the point where I am constantly wondering how they find the time to work and to implement all the proposals we make to I am trying to be helpful to the government. I believe that is them. how we should debate issues. I have great respect for the His Honour’s decisions. I would The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, if I understood like to express our appreciation to the committee Chair and to all correctly the comments made by the Honourable Senators employees of Elections Canada. Graham, Berntson and Prud’homme, the Senate would agree not to follow the rule of having an amendment and a subamendment, I want to make some general observations. What I have to say but would have a series of amendments, all of which would be is not harsh criticism. I shall not be negative. I have always liked voted on tomorrow. to be positive. I am sorry that the government has waited until the end of a session to introduce a bill with such extensive If that is the agreement of the Senate, we can proceed in that amendments. Logic would dictate that this proposal should come way. Senator Lynch-Staunton’s amendment will stand as such, as at the beginning of a new government’s reign. 1412 SENATE DEBATES December 17, 1996

Let me explain. An election was held. An act was It is unfortunate that the bill came to us so late in the year and implemented. The details were examined. Explanations were that, for the first time, we had to impose closure. It is a bad provided. We knew what actually went on. We saw where it did precedent on matters pertaining to electoral matters. I will not not work. Note was taken. It was concluded that changes would say it is a dictatorship tactic, but that is what usually happens have to be made for the next election. Note was taken. The new only in banana republics. They crush the electoral system by Parliament began and we got down to the task. taking the attitude: “We have the numbers. Step aside.” It goes against every precedent. Right away, we began to prepare and update the legislation in light of the problems experienced during the last election. This is For 30 years I was a faithful Liberal supporter. what an orderly government does. It is not what we are seeing, with a government that jumps from one topic to another and I respect any proposal that ensures that we can all vote and that says: We must do something, we must cut down on campaign we all know the results at the same time. We saw how silly the time, knowing this is what people want. We must keep British last election in the United States of America was. While we were Columbia happy. They bring a bill in through the back door, as a watching it, the people of California were thinking, “Am I going sop to public opinion. to vote or not?” The vote was already counted. Canada is different. I find it extremely regrettable that they waited so long. This is new law, as law students are told. Everyone knows that I fought vigorously in the House of Commons on issues of unfortunate precedents are being created for those who like the election expenses and limitations. I defended both the Liberal electoral process. opposition and the government of the day in Mr. Hawkes’ committee. We were turned down in the Alberta court. I do not Electoral law is discussed among all political parties. With know why the government did not appeal that decision. respect to election expenses, I am looking at Senators Moore, Bryden and Nolin, who know something about organization and I always say that we must not Americanize the Canadian way about arrangements being made among the parties. Senator of holding elections. Mercier knows Quebec like the back of his hand. I hope that he and Senator Nolin will be among the main organizers of the Ms Terrana from British Columbia is a very popular and very election campaign. It will be stronger as a result. effective person. She made the proposition in the last days and the government included it in the bill. My first regret is that consideration of this bill has been delayed; my second is that it had to be rammed through. This I, and others, have asked questions of the Chief Electoral strikes me as completely contrary to political custom. Officer of Canada. He is an officer of Parliament, and he answered questions in that capacity. Imagine for a moment that the bill is amended tomorrow evening. Everything is possible. I see the whip working very hard I would put an amendment to you for your consideration. to call all the senators. Let us assume that tomorrow evening, there will be an amendment. We saw the minister’s blackmail  (1610) attempt, with her threat to recall Parliament Thursday and Friday. I asked Mr. Kingsley, as did others, “If Bill C-63 passes, you [English] need it now, do you not? To do what is in it, you need four or five months?” He said, “Yes, I need that.” I said, “Do you particularly It is as if senators, such as Senator Lewis, are scared of being need the clauses pertaining to the hours for voting, until blackmailed, “We will call back the House of Commons.” If that seven o’clock in British Columbia, until 9:30 in Ontario, and so is necessary, then it must be done. We will have more friends on, that came out of nowhere and were added to the bill? Do you around, and they may even reopen the dining room. need that absolutely to proceed now or, as mature people, should we send that part to committee, to listen to people, because many If the House of Commons is called back, it does not mean that people have all kinds of good views on making it better. I do not the bill will be passed immediately. They will have to impose want to oppose, I want to make things better.” closure again and return the bill to the Senate. We will be back to square one, having the same discussion, having to see the two Mr. Kingsley said, “Of course, if you arrive in February or whips agonizing on the telephone trying to get everyone March with just a little amendment pertaining to the hours, we marshalled back to the Senate. I have no objection because I am will still be able to proceed with what the government wants.” I here all the time. I will have companions this week, next week call it the government’s bill. I have no other choice. It is not and next month. Parliament’s bill, it is the government’s bill.

[ Senator Prud’homme ] December 17, 1996 SENATE DEBATES 1413

[Translation] Does anyone want to speak on the motion as amended, as amended, as amended? Does anyone wish to adjourn? MOTION IN AMENDMENT—VOTE DEFERRED Senator Berntson: If it is necessary procedurally, I adjourn Hon. Marcel Prud’homme: Honourable senators, I move, the debate, to keep it on the table until 5:30 tomorrow when we seconded by Senator Nolin: will have our votes. That Bill C-63 be not now read the third time but that it The Hon. the Speaker: It is moved by Senator Berntson, be amended: seconded by Senator Doyle that further debate be adjourned until tomorrow. (1) on page two, by deleting clause 1.1, Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? (2) on page 26, by deleting clause 44.1, Hon. Senators: Agreed. and, Motion agreed to. (3) on page 28, by deleting clause 46.1.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, are there other CRIMINAL CODE senators who wish to speak? Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? BILL TO AMEND—THIRD READING—MOTION IN AMENDMENT AND SUBAMENDMENT—DEBATE CONTINUED [English] On the Order: I cannot call the vote now. Someone must adjourn the debate. Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Prud’homme: I am sorry, Your Honour, but Senator Milne, seconded by the Honourable Senator according to practice, should you not call the vote and then say that, as agreed, the vote shall take place tomorrow at 5:30? Mercier, for the third reading of Bill C-45, to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole ineligibility) and The Hon. the Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment another Act; please say “yea”. And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Hon. Senators: Yea. Senator Nolin, seconded by the Honourable Senator LeBreton, that the Bill be not now read the third time but The Hon. the Speaker: Those opposed, please say “nay”. that it be amended: Hon. Senators: Nay. (a) in clause 1, by replacing line 7, on page 1, with the following: The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the “nays” have it. Is there a request for a standing vote? “may, with the consent of the Attorney General of And two honourable senators having risen. Canada, apply in writing to the appropriate Chief”; The Hon. the Speaker: The vote is deferred. (b) in clause 2, by replacing line 20, on page 6, with the following: Senator Prud’homme: No. If we do that, we will be debating the subamendment. We agreed to defer all the amendments and “may, with the consent of the Attorney General of all the votes to tomorrow night. Canada, apply in writing to the appropriate Chief”; and The Hon. the Speaker: My understanding is that tomorrow will be the recorded vote, the standing votes. (c) in clause 2, by replacing line 41, on page 10, with the following: Senator Prud’homme: Yes. “may, with the consent of the Attorney General of The Hon. the Speaker: If there is no request for a standing Canada, apply in writing to the appropriate Chief”. vote, this motion is defeated. Hon. Ron Ghitter: Honourable senators, I wish to make a Hon. Eric Arthur Berntson (Deputy Leader of the brief intervention with respect to Bill C-45. I do so more on the Opposition): Out of an abundance of caution, I ask for a basis of two principles that I think at times become forgotten in standing vote. dealing with legislation of this nature. The first is a very basic legal principle that says that justice must appear to be done. The The Hon. the Speaker: Then it is deferred automatically until second is the basic principle that talks about public tomorrow at 5:30. accountability. 1414 SENATE DEBATES December 17, 1996

I should like to support the amendment of my colleague after 15 years, have the opportunity to make application. That Senator Nolin from the point of view that the bill as presently application goes first to a judge who would look at the structured does not meet the test of appearing just to many information in a paper study and determine whether there is Canadians, nor does it allow for adequate public accountability reasonable cause to turn it over to a jury. If so, the jury would on matters that are important to many Canadians. then have to be unanimous in their decision on whether this murderer should have an opportunity to receive early parole. As honourable senators are well aware from the excellent presentations made by Senator Milne and Senator Nolin in Within this system, there is no political accountability dealing with Bill C-45, this bill deals with the judicial review of whatsoever. Within this system, it is merely the remoteness of a parole ineligibility and amends section 745.6 of the Criminal judge who sees it at the first instance and then moves it over to a Code. jury system. Nowhere within that system is there any public accountability. Nowhere in that system can Mrs. Boyd or This piece of legislation is very controversial. Honourable Mrs. Mahaffy attend at the offices of the local MP or the Minister senators who live in the West know full well the intensity of the of Justice or the Attorney General to express the concerns from a debate, which has been fuelled by the media there, with respect victim’s point of view. to the faint hope clause. Many of you know that some 30,000 petitioners in Western Canada signed their names to After all, it is we parliamentarians who, in the end, must pass petitions relating to the faint hope clause. In fact, many of them the legislation. It is we parliamentarians who must pass wish the section of the Criminal Code to be repealed entirely. amendments to the Criminal Code and who must pass legislation that allows for a parole system. Ultimately, parliamentarians Those of us in the West who have had the opportunity to meet must be accountable in situations like this, and not merely our with some of those who are in opposition to the faint hope courts or jurors. clause — and I refer to Darlene Boyd and Mrs. Mahaffy, both of whom came before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Senator Nolin’s amendment, in my view, endeavours to allow Constitutional Affairs — know full well the intensity and deep the citizenry an opportunity to be heard. The first step is to have feelings expressed by these victims who, unfortunately and the Attorney General determine whether this matter should go on tragically, must bear the brunt of what occurs in our society, to the judge. There is political input. particularly those who must face the loss of their children by murder or by other elements. We must consider those people and Honourable colleagues know that, in many areas of the world, we must allow them an avenue where they can express their in the United States particularly, we frequently hear about frustrations and where they can feel that the public, the clemency and the fact that clemency is a political decision. How electorate, is accountable to them. many times have we heard about appeals for clemency to state governors? We are talking here about clemency in a parole  (1620) system. Here a convicted murderer is, in effect, asking for some Mrs. Darlene Boyd, Mrs. Mahaffy and others like them feel clemency. that the present system does not allow them the opportunity to be heard. They would also argue that the political process is not Clemency has always been a royal prerogative. It has not been accountable to them. In any criminal law system, it is a matter for judges to address. It has always been a matter for fundamental that the public respects the system and that the politicians — for the Queen — to address. Individual convicts, public regards the system as being just. If the system fails and the particularly murderers or those involved in very serious crimes, public no longer is of the view that the system is responsive to have the right to seek clemency from the political process, not the needs of the community, then the system falls into disrepute. the judicial process. That is what this amendment endeavours to You end up with circumstances like we have today with so much do. criticism being directed at the law and particularly at the criminal law. The legal system falls into disrespute because our citizens If you were in the position of Mrs. Boyd or Mrs. Mahaffy as a do not feel that the criminal law system is respectful or is victim of these horrendous crimes, you would want us as listening to them. parliamentarians to respect your view and to understand your heartache. You would want to have at least an opportunity to I am persuaded by the amendment that has been brought speak up in a political setting with your elected representatives. forward by Senator Nolin and by the position of the Government You would not want Parliament to cop out by deciding that the of Ontario, which made a presentation to the Legal and matter should go to some judge or some jury. Constitutional Affairs Committee, that this is an endeavour to make the system more accountable. We politicians are presently immune from these considerations, and that is when the law runs off the rails. That is As honourable senators are aware, under the present when justice does not appear to be done. That is when the legislation, a convicted murderer who has received a life citizenry come forward having lost their respect for the judicial sentence and who is not eligible for parole for 25 years would, system because they believe it no longer relates to them.

[ Senator Ghitter ] December 17, 1996 SENATE DEBATES 1415

I urge you to support this amendment. It is a good amendment. Senator Ghitter: Honourable senators, the answer is no; it is It is an amendment that I know is acceptable to citizens like all part of one process. Under this amendment, the first step in Mrs. Mahaffy and Mrs. Boyd. They would welcome this change, the process would be the application to the Governor in Council. not to take away from the system, but to bring the law into better The Governor in Council would have a veto and could say that a repute and to gain it more respect. case is inappropriate for consideration, and that case would go no further. MOTION IN AMENDMENT If the Governor in Council decides it is a prima facie Hon. Ron. Ghitter: Honourable senators, I do, however, have reasonable case, then it would go to the judge. The judge would an amendment to the amendment. There should be no confusion, do a paper search but would not hold a hearing. The judge would Your Honour. This is an amendment to the amendment. I make then decide if the case would go to the jury. Under this this amendment on the basis that, rather than the Attorney legislation, the jury must give their unanimous consent. It is all General of Canada being the body or institution to which this one process. application should be made, it should be to the Governor in Council. It is a royal prerogative. It is not appropriate that this Senator MacDonald: Can you speculate on what will happen matter go to the Attorney General. It should be the cabinet at politically in the first instance, when these cases come forward? large that makes this decision. Will consent always be given or always refused? Who will do the paperwork? As a result, I move, seconded by my colleague Senator Stratton: Senator Ghitter: I would suspect that the paper work would That the motion in amendment be amended in first be done within the bureaucracy, and moved up to the cabinet with recommendations. I would expect the paperwork would paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) thereof by substituting the words consist of examining the particular individual and making a “Governor in Council” for the words “Attorney General of report as to whether the view should be to recommend or not to Canada.” recommend. If there are some very strong circumstances of a certain nature, they would decide that the matter should go no I submit this for the consideration of my colleagues in the further. hope that they will recognize the benefit of this amendment and that we can count on their support. In her remarks, Senator Milne expressed the view that The Hon. the Speaker: It is moved by the Honourable politicians should not be involved in making this type of Senator Ghitter, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stratton: decision. As I understood her argument, these matters would be better decided by the courts. However, matters of this nature are That the motion in amendment be amended in so controversial and are so deeply felt by our citizenry that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) thereof by substituting the words politicians must become involved. They must take a stand and set the public standards. That is what they are elected to do, and that “Governor in Council” for the words “Attorney General of is what we are here in this chamber to do. As a result, that is an Canada.” appropriate decision for a politician to take.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in  (1630) amendment? How they will decide, Senator MacDonald, depends on the Some Hon. Senators: Yea. individual making the application. However, the aggrieved families would feel better if they could make direct interventions Some Hon. Senators: Nay. to the minister, the cabinet, their elected representatives, and The Hon. the Speaker: Does any other honourable senator members of this chamber. Presently, that opportunity is not wish to speak? available to them. Hon. Finlay MacDonald: Honourable senators, I have a Hon. Lorna Milne: Is Senator Ghitter seriously advocating question for the Honourable Senator Ghitter. the Americanization of our Canadian system of justice? I must confess at the outset that one of the many things I Senator Ghitter: I certainly am not, and if this is regarded as admired about Prime Minister Trudeau was his obstinacy with an Americanization of the justice system, I take it that my regard to the faint hope clause. I was further bolstered in that remarks have not been properly understood. I am endeavouring thought by association with the late Senator Hastings. to create a situation where there will be a higher level of public accountability than there is presently in the legislation. If that is As I gather from Senator Ghitter, he is suggesting two ways in Americanization, then I am all in favour of it. However, there is which an inmate may seek leave to appeal. Would the first one be much about the Americanization of the law that do I not like one to apply to the Governor in Council? bit and would not advocate in the Canadian context for a second. 1416 SENATE DEBATES December 17, 1996

Hon. John B. Stewart: May I ask a question? I believe make these representations, but this is not a public hearing Senator Ghitter used the expression “political” in his address. process. The political judgment at the outset would not involve That is an ambiguous term. On the one hand, it could well mean legal representations. It would be an in-house examination of a that it is a decision of a kind that is not susceptible to the situation. That is not to say that people in the public arena could procedures and the criteria of due process of law. On the other not make presentations and lawyers could not make speeches, hand, it might well mean that ministers would be besieged by just as individuals may get the public ear, but this is not an area aggrieved persons and that there would be political arm twisting where lawyers would make representations to the Governor in and so on. How is Senator Ghitter using the word “political”? Council. This is in-house. It is not a public hearing matter. Senator Ghitter: I first referred to the terminology “public It would be hoped that the Governor in Council would obtain accountability,” which is the umbrella wording that I much prefer the information and make the deliberation and determine whether to the word “political.” a particular case is a bona fide case that should be considered by a judge. That consideration would not involve a public hearing. It There is no doubt that any time matters of controversy come would then go to the Parole Board. I am not totally clear as to forward in a parliamentary sense, there will be arm twisting, how the Parole Board would govern that. That could involve a there will be rhetoric, and there will be debate. I do not think that public hearing process, but I am not sure of that. is bad. Any time we deal with controversial amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada, be it capital punishment or any other Senator Taylor: I have a supplemental question. If lawyers element, there is arm twisting, there is debate, there is discussion, and others were allowed to make presentations, would the time and there is rhetoric. not elapse before we could get through that first stage? They could reach a stage where the prisoner would have been eligible However, that is what our system is all about. The more debate for parole in the first place. I could imagine that so much time you have, the better decisions are made. Those in political life would pass in the course of this process that the prisoner could, are used to arm twisting and those other things, and those are effectively, be asking for an early parole at the stage where he matters with which people in political life must deal. They must has reached his normal parole date. use their best judgment after taking all factors into consideration. The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to advise I believe, honourable senators, it is much better to have that the Senate that the 15-minute period for the speech and questions than to have the opposite, where people who are aggrieved feel has expired. they have no outlet for their point of view, where people like Mrs. Boyd and others feel that the system is denying them an Senator Stewart: Saved by the bell. opportunity to be heard. That is a much better situation than the one I predict will happen if this bill is passed without Senator Milne: I would like to speak to the amendment, if I amendment. may. Senator Stewart: Is it the second definition of the word Honourable senators, I contend that this subamendment is no “political” that the honourable senator has in mind? different from the amendment. This should not be a political process; it should be a judicial one. I do not share the view that Senator Ghitter: I have both in mind. I have public section 745.6 is a clemency provision. Therefore, I oppose the accountability, and I have political involvement in mind. I use subamendment for exactly the reasons I stated in my previous both terms interchangeably. speech, and I urge all senators to oppose it. Hon. Nicholas W. Taylor: Honourable senators, I found the On motion of Senator Cools, debate adjourned. honourable senator’s speech and ideas interesting because he does retain the faint hope clause, but he seems to include another stage. When you include this political aspect, would the two JUSTICE people from Alberta he spoke of not run into additional problems? Someone in jail trying to take advantage of the faint INVESTIGATION INTO SALE OF AIRBUS AIRCRAFT TO AIR hope clause could have a family with money and could hire legal CANADA—INQUIRY—DEBATE ADJOURNED counsel even half as eloquent as the honourable senator. We Hon. Anne C. Cools rose pursuant to notice of would be looking at a trial within a trial. Those with the money December 11, 1996: and the lawyers would be able to make that presentation to the Governor in Council, and the poor would not. Why would you That she will call the attention of the Senate to the Airbus want to go through another stage, in effect a trial within a trial, Affair and the accusations against Former Prime Minister many years later where legal counsel on each side could make presentations to the Governor in Council? Brian Mulroney, contained in a Department of Justice document that Mr. Mulroney was “involved in a criminal Senator Ghitter: Far be it from me to try to take income away conspiracy to accept payments for influencing Air Canada’s from my former profession by denying them an opportunity to decision to buy airplanes from Airbus”; December 17, 1996 SENATE DEBATES 1417

and to the fact that this affair is causing deformity, ...The above three cases demonstrate an ongoing scheme by embarrassment to and suspicion of the system; Mr. MULRONEY, Mr. MOORES, and Mr. SCHREIBER to defraud the Canadian Government of millions of dollars of and to the handling of these matters; public funds from the time Mr. MULRONEY took office in September, 1984 until he resigned in June, 1993. and to the erosion of parliamentary process; Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Could I ask the honourable senator and to the damage caused to parliamentary government, to table the whole document she is reading from? to the Prime Minister’s Office, to the principle of ministerial responsibility, to Parliament, and to Senators, including Senator Cools: All right, but I will first finish my comments. myself, who voted on Bill C-129, the bill to privatize Air The dispatch further stated: Canada, on August 4, 1988, in the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce; ...This investigation is of serious concern to the Government of Canada as it involves criminal activity on the part of a and to the belief that Parliament, in the interest of public former Prime Minister. confidence and integrity, should take cognizance of these matters and take these matters into Parliament’s The style and tone of this dispatch is certain and confident. consideration. The Department of Justice and Kimberly Prost assert positively without doubt that Mr. Mulroney had acted criminally.  (1640) Honourable senators, the December 14, 1995 edition of The She said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak on the Mulroney Globe and Mail quoted Solicitor General Herb Gray, saying: Airbus affair. I spoke to this matter in my other inquiry in this chamber on February 2, 1996. I continue to be disturbed by this In November, shortly after the Liberal government took matter. I repeat, I am neither an accuser nor a defender of Brian office, Mr. Rock ... brought to my attention some concerns Mulroney. I am not and have never been a Mulroney supporter. brought to his attention ... which I passed on to the RMCP... Senators will recall my speech on January 19, 1994, wherein I judged Mr. Mulroney harshly and rather brutally. In my February inquiry speech, I stated that my interest stemmed from my Yet we are told that Deputy Minister of Justice George membership on the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Thomson and Kimberley Prost knowingly chose not to inform Trade and Commerce, which considered Bill C-129, the bill that the Minister of Justice, Mr. Rock, and that the minister had no privatized Air Canada in 1988. The purchase of the Airbus 320s knowledge of their actions on his behalf, though those actions flowed from that bill. I believe that accusations and charges accused a former prime minister, a former cabinet and the against a former Prime Minister that he corrupted Parliament in Parliament of Canada. the passage of Bill C-129 into law involve and engage Parliament. Honourable senators, the doctrine of responsible government and ministerial responsibility in Canada describes the Honourable senators, the Airbus allegations originated in the relationship between cabinet and Parliament and the terms on private conversations of certain journalists, which were activated which ministers, the chief servants of the Crown, hold office. by Minister of Justice Allan Rock for investigation by the Royal Responsible government is founded on the dual concepts of Canadian Mounted Police. These allegations about Mr. Mulroney ministerial responsibility and parliamentary sovereignty and were penned into a government dispatch to Swiss authorities holds that the executive owes responsibility to Parliament, the signed by Kimberley Prost, Senior Counsel, International people’s representative. Ministerial responsibility is many Assistance Group, acting as an alter ego for the Minister of constitutional conventions. Constitutional conventions are rules Justice. This September 29, 1995, lengthy dispatch entitled made and observed by politicians. They are not laws and are not “Letter of Request to: The Competent Legal Authority of enforceable by the courts. They are political rules of Switzerland” sought Swiss government assistance to investigate constitutional and political behaviour that guide ministers and Mr. Mulroney’s alleged receipt and deposit of moneys into Swiss politicians. bank accounts. I quote from that dispatch: Hon. Eymard G. Corbin: Honourable senators, I am sorry to ...The RCMP has reliable information that Mr. Schreiber interrupt, but a request was made to have a document tabled. I do was given these commissions in order to pay not know what the document is all about, but surely consent is Mr. MULRONEY and Mr. MOORES to ensure that Airbus required for that to occur. I do not know if I am right or wrong, Industrie obtained a major contract with Air Canada for the but I suspect I may be right. Should not His Honour seek the will planned upgrade of their aircraft fleet. of the house on this matter before we proceed? ...A confidential source has told the RCMP Investigator that The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the Honourable 25 percent of those commissions were to pay Senator Corbin is absolutely correct. I was simply seeking the Mr. MULRONEY. exact rule in the Rules of the Senate. 1418 SENATE DEBATES December 17, 1996

I refer honourable senators to rule 28(4), which states: Senator Cools: Perhaps I could be given some guidance. With leave of the Senate, at the time provided in The Hon. the Speaker: Perhaps the honourable senator would rule 23(6), any Senator may lay upon the Table any paper explain what the document is before honourable senators are related to the business before the Senate. asked to give leave. Leave is required. Senator Cools: Honourable senators, the document is a lengthy dispatch dated September 29, 1995, and entitled “Letter Honourable senators, is leave granted to table the document? of Request to: The Competent Legal Authority of Switzerland,” as I stated earlier. As a matter of fact, that is what Senator Hon. John B. Stewart: Who is seeking leave? LeBreton was referring to. She was listening to my speech, and I had put the name of the document on the record. The Hon. the Speaker: A request was made by Senator LeBreton to Senator Cools to table the document from which Senator LeBreton: Exactly. Senator Cools was reading. The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators? Senator Corbin: What is the nature of the document? What is the document? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Hon. the Speaker: I do not know if it is for me to delve The Hon. the Speaker: Leave is granted. into that, so I will return to Senator Cools. The Honourable Senator Cools may proceed. Hon. Eric Arthur Berntson (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, since we are apparently out Senator Cools: Honourable senators, before I was interrupted, of order in asking for the document to be tabled, could I ask I was speaking about ministerial responsibility and responsible Senator Cools if she would share it with me? government. Responsible government dictates that the minister who Senator Cools: I do not understand the problem. Documents performs an act, or at whose will an act is done, is held are frequently tabled. responsible to Parliament for that act. A minister is responsible Senator Corbin: With consent. for every single act of a government, and government is a trust that cabinet discharges under the convention of ministerial Senator Cools: Absolutely. I was not trying to avoid receiving responsibility. unanimous consent. The truth of the matter is, honourable  (1650) senators, that Senator LeBreton asked me if I would table this document. My concentration was more on my next statement Honourable senators, the Attorney General of Canada is an than on the particulars of tabling the document. If senators did office with judicial attributes and character and, therefore, is not want it, I assume that senators would not have asked for it. expected to conduct itself accordingly. The offices of Minister of Justice and Attorney General are two distinct offices joined in The Hon. the Speaker: Are you asking for leave to table the one position. This was determined by An Act Respecting the document? Department of Justice in 1868, which states: Senator Cools: Yes, I am. There shall be a Department of the Civil Service of Canada, to be called... The Department of Justice over The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, Senator Cools has asked for leave to table the document. Is leave granted? which The Minister of Justice of Canada,... who shall, ex officio, be Her Majesty’s Attorney General of Canada, Senator Corbin: Honourable senators, surely we are entitled shall preside,... to know the nature of the document. Leave has been sought to table a document. What is the document? This Department of Justice Act distinguishes and differentiates the office of the Minister of Justice from the office of the Senator Cools: Perhaps, honourable senators, I should start Attorney General in Canada’s constitutional practice. Sir John A. my speech all over again. I thought perhaps the senator was Macdonald himself drafted this 1868 provision, which is still in napping a little. I thought that I had read very carefully. the act today. It intended two distinct offices: The Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada. Two distinct notions Senator Corbin: I never nap. I cannot nap and speak. of ministerial responsibility attach to each of the unique, twinned offices. The degree of responsibility that attaches to each The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators? depends upon the capacity in which the authority is exercised by each of the twinned offices. A Minister of Justice must know Senator Corbin: The Honourable Senator Cools is explaining. when he is acting in each office. They are two separate offices.

[ The Hon. the Speaker ] December 17, 1996 SENATE DEBATES 1419

In 1968, the Honourable James McRuer, Commissioner of the In arriving at a decision on such a sensitive issue as this, Royal Commission into Civil Rights, described the separate role the Attorney General is entitled to seek information and of the Attorney General in his report. He said: advice from others but in no way is he directed by his colleagues in the government or by Parliament itself. The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the Crown and in that sense is an officer of the public. It is to Mr. Basford then told the house that the Attorney General is him that the individual must look for the protection of his responsible to Parliament for his decisions. About all this, in his civil rights,... same famous 1980 study, Professor Edwards also added: On the independence of the Attorney General, he continued: ...the ultimate decision as to prosecution rests in the Historically and traditionally, in the exercise of these personal hands of the First Law Officer of the Crown. functions the holder of the office must exercise a degree of Inherent in the latter principle are two related propositions, independence quite different from that required of any other first, the Attorney General is saddled with personal member of the Cabinet. responsibility for the decisions that he makes or which are made on his behalf under delegated authority, and, secondly, Ministerial responsibility includes the independence of the the doctrine of collective responsibility should not be Attorney General. This issue of ministerial responsibility to invoked to involve the Government as a whole with respect Parliament and the office of the Attorney General was studied by to decisions pertaining to criminal prosecutions. Professor John L.J. Edwards for the Macdonald Commission of Inquiry Concerning Certain Activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In Professor Edwards’ 1980 study entitled, I repeat: A consequence of this Attorney General’s “Ministerial Responsibility for National Security”, he described independence in that twinned role is that he is vested with Parliament’s rights as follows: personal responsibility to Parliament for same. This personal responsibility is derived from the Attorney General’s personal ...Parliament has the right and duty to see to it that each exercise of royal prerogative powers. Failure to comprehend the minister in charge of a Government Department directs his difference in these two distinct, though joined in one, ministries in Canada has sealed the fate of certain ministers of justice. attention, on assuming office, to instituting a system of Remember the case of Lucien Rivard and the resignation of the administrative procedures that will enable him to be kept Minister of Justice, Guy Favreau. regularly informed on departmental actions that have the potential public criticism, on methods that are open to Honourable senators, the investigation of Mr. Mulroney is an serious questioning in terms of human and social values, exercise of the Attorney General’s criminal prosecutorial and especially policies that have innate, questionable discretionary powers. The Attorney General, not cabinet nor qualities which, when they surface, will expose the Minister government, carries the full weight of responsibility for the same. to the heat of Parliamentary and public criticism. Failure to do so is to weaken the doctrine of responsible government and to weaken the office of the Attorney General, Parliament expects and is owed responsibility from ministers. whose powers in this regard derive from the Crown, not from No minister of the Crown can escape responsibility to Parliament statute or common law, and are an exercise of the prerogative by erecting a wall of ignorance around himself, thereby powers of Her Majesty. sheltering himself. Responsibility to Parliament is an essential constitutional convention of parliamentary government. All John Crosbie, Minister of Justice under Mr. Mulroney, wrote a ministers are constitutionally bound by this convention. piece for The Globe and Mail on January 8, 1996, titled: “John Ministerial responsibility applies to all ministers, but especially Crosbie on the Airbus controversy: Foul Whisperings.” to those, such as the Minister of Justice cum Attorney General, Mr. Crosbie went directly to the issue of ministerial who derive part of their authority from the royal prerogative responsibility of the Attorney General as a law officer of the powers. Further, the doctrine of ministerial responsibility holds Crown when he stated: that the special position of the Attorney General, in the exercise of his prosecutorial discretionary powers, necessitates that If we believe Mr. Rock’s statement, his department is not decision making in the prosecutorial sphere must be separated from direction by the cabinet or the Prime Minister. under his control and he seeks not to be held responsible for what his own officials have done despite the rules and Ron Basford, former Minister of Justice, in a 1978 House of conventions of cabinet government and ministerial Commons debate on national security, said that: responsibility. 1420 SENATE DEBATES December 17, 1996

Mr. Crosbie himself, while Minister of Justice and Attorney inquired as to money spent by the Department of Justice on this General, strengthened the procedures for informing ministers of lawsuit and the moneys paid to lawyers, particularly Michael investigations that might affect cabinet and Parliament. Toronto Code and Claude Armand Sheppard. In reply, Mr. Thomson said: lawyer Edward Greenspan responded to discredit Mr. Crosbie in the January 22, 1996, Globe and Mail article entitled: “Justice What I can tell you is that the expenditures to date Minister Rock acted properly in the Airbus case.” In his zeal, are $720,000. The amount spent to date on Crown agents is Mr. Greenspan, like many lawyers, dismissed the doctrine of $532,000. ministerial responsibility and the minister’s duties therein. Interestingly, just prior, Mr. Rock appointed Mr. Greenspan’s I pressed again for the amount paid to Mr. Sheppard to which partner to the bench. His December 13, 1995, news release Mr. Thomson replied: announced that: The firm of which he is a member — and I think there are Marc Rosenberg of Toronto is appointed a judge of the more lawyers than Mr. Sheppard — has received $318,963 Ontario Court of Appeal. He fills a newly created position... as of the end of September. He has practised criminal law... with the firm known as Greenspan, Rosenberg and Buhr. Again, I pressed for the amount paid to Michael Code. George Thomson only stated that the expert witnesses, including Michael Another Toronto lawyer, Clayton Ruby, also had rushed to Code, were paid $66,000. He gave no breakdown. support Mr. Rock in the January 17, 1996, Globe and Mail. He, too, disregarded ministerial responsibility. Honourable senators, I inquired about the relationship between George Thomson and Michael Code and Code’s hiring. George Honourable senators, Mr. Rock’s August 8, 1996, news release Thomson said they both had been Assistant Deputy Ministers to announced the hiring of six lawyers as expert witnesses in the the Attorney General of Ontario. These two are credited with Mulroney lawsuit, one being Michael Code, Clayton Ruby’s negotiating the catastrophic Karla Homolka plea bargain deal in former partner. I refer senators to Mr. Justice Peter Cory’s words 1993 under Attorney General Marion Boyd of the New about lawyers Michael Code, Clayton Ruby and Morris Manning Democratic Party government of Premier Bob Rae. Parliament in the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment in the case of Casey must consider the quality of advice that the government is being Hill v. Morris Manning and the Church of Scientology of given on this Mulroney lawsuit and its consequent expenditure Toronto. Justice Cory wrote that Scientology and its lawyers’: and costs.

...behaviour throughout can only be characterized as  (1700) recklessly high-handed, supremely arrogant and contumacious. There seems to have been a continuing Honourable senators, the Attorney General is the law officer of the Crown. In criminal investigation and prosecutions, the conscious effort... to intensify and perpetuate its attack on Attorney General’s responsibility is personal and not collective Casey Hill without any regard for the truth of its allegations. in character and practice. In this exercise of independent prosecutorial discretion, the Attorney General is responsible to I spoke to this in the Senate on November 23, 1995, and Parliament. About the special constitutional role of the Attorney March 26, 1996, on the issue of false allegations in judicial General’s responsibility to Parliament, and on Parliament’s proceedings. powers to hold the Attorney General responsible, Professor Honourable senators, Parliament’s purpose is the control of Edwards, in the same 1980 study, regrets that: government expenditure. The Standing Senate Committee on It is unfortunate that this aspect of the Attorney General’s National Finance studying the Estimates heard the Deputy Minister of Justice, George Thomson, on October 23, 1996. constitutional position has not received the attention it Senators questioned him on the expenditures on this Mulroney deserves by either parliamentarians or constitutional writers. lawsuit. George Thomson said: Professor Edwards judged parliamentarians, saying: I think it is quite inappropriate for a Deputy Attorney The proper place for questioning the Attorney General’s General to be publicly discussing the state of litigation, civil judgment in a particular case is the House of Commons. or criminal, presently before the courts. That this forum and its equivalent in the provincial How extraordinary and supercilious. The department, having legislatures have shown themselves...to be lacklustre in the plunged us into an unseemly and expensive court case, opines pursuit of questionable decisions by the Law Officers of the that they ought not to answer because the case is in the courts. I Crown is hardly open to denial.

[ Senator Cools ] December 17, 1996 SENATE DEBATES 1421

Honourable senators, this terrible case of Mr. Mulroney and All these people were most gracious and informative. The this Airbus affair is a poignant example of the catastrophic insights they gave us helped to make the entire trip a much more effects of Parliament’s failure or disinclination to hold the valuable tool to improve Canada’s position with respect to Attorney General responsible, and demonstrates that many in Taiwan. government and parliament today are prepared to discard the doctrines of ministerial responsibility and responsible We also had with us much reading material and background government. Justice itself, and public confidence in the information provided by the Library of Parliament and the administration of justice, is imperilled when Parliament fails or Canadian Chamber of Commerce. declines to hold the Minister of Justice and Attorney General responsible to parliament. In addition to meeting President Lee Teng-hui and observing the National Day ceremonies, we had separate sessions with the In my speech of February 2, I stated that the Parliament of top officials of the Taiwanese departments of environmental Canada had a duty to either exonerate Mr. Mulroney fully or to protection, foreign affairs, economic planning and development, impeach him. As a matter of fact, I urge that we issue articles of and economic affairs, which is a separate department. impeachment immediately. I maintain that position. That the entire weight and treasury of the state have been We met with the Chinese National Association of Industry and pitted against an individual who is also a former prime minister, Commerce. That was an excellent opportunity to meet and talk without parliament’s will and involvement is a pox upon us all. It with leaders of the business community in Taiwan. We toured is a tragedy for parliamentary democracy in Canada and a piece Tamsui Oxford University College and MacKay High School, of human nastiness. which were founded by a Presbyterian missionary from Oxford County, Ontario, Dr. George Leslie MacKay. I urge honourable senators to bring this matter into the Senate’s cognizance and consideration, and to engage the We boosted Canadian attendance at the annual Maple Leaf Senate’s inquisitorial and judicial powers. Ball hosted by the Canadian Trade Office, which gave us, individually, an opportunity to discuss business affairs with many On motion of Senator LeBreton debate adjourned. Canadian and American entrepreneurs presently doing business in Taiwan. PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO TAIWAN The delegation also took time to visit the Taipei International INQUIRY—DEBATE ADJOURNED Electronics Show. The electronics show was a truly impressive display of the technological and economic significance of the Hon. Lorna Milne rose pursuant to notice of Asian Pacific Rim countries. December 11, 1996: One of the most striking impacts of our visit was the That she will call the attention of the Senate to the Report realization of the enormous abilities displayed by the political of the Delegation of Canadian Parliamentarians to Taiwan. leaders and officials whom we met. They were most impressive, as were the officials of the so-called “Canadian Trade Office” She said: Honourable senators, from October 8 to 13, Senator there. Our pseudo-diplomats are a dedicated and professional Ethel Cochrane and I were members of a delegation of six group and they have contacted members of the delegation since Canadian parliamentarians invited to visit Taiwan and observe our return with information and further contacts. It made me their 85th National Day celebration. wonder whether the absence of diplomatic duties gives this group of keen and dedicated young people a sharp focus on business Since there are no official diplomatic relations between and trade, an approach which perhaps could be of use to Canada Canada and Taiwan, we were the guests of the Chinese National in other countries. Association of Industry and Commerce and its Chair, Dr. Jeffrey L.S. Koo, during our stay. I shall turn for a moment to the reason behind our visit, that The underlying purpose of the trip was to meet and have being increasing Canadian business and trade with Taiwan. We discussions with national, political, government and business found many avenues for expanded trade while we were there, leaders in Taiwan. including education. There are over 5,500 Taiwanese students receiving some form of higher education here in Canada in any The delegation was thoroughly briefed in Canada before we given year. Their tuition forms a major source of income for our left by officials of our own Department of Foreign Affairs and by universities. Their presence contributes to the learning Representative Fang and other members of the Taipei Economic experience for Canadian students as well. and Cultural Office. With regard to transportation, Great China Airlines in Taiwan Immediately upon our arrival in Taipei, we were also briefed is the largest buyer of our Dash-8 aircraft, with 15 purchased and by the Director of Staff of the Canadian Trade Office in Taipei. an option to buy 8 more. 1422 SENATE DEBATES December 17, 1996

With regard to the environment, we have signed a people have to understand that, in Canada, we have freedom of memorandum of agreement on the environment with Taiwan and movement and freedom of organization. We have freedom of will have at least eight booths in the largest environmental trade association. show in Southeast Asia, the upcoming Fifth Annual Enprotech, in February and March of 1997. Three of the 12 seminar If any members or group of members want to associate presentations at that show will be run by Canadians. themselves with any particular body, they have the right to do so. That does not mean that their association is officially recognized With regard to telecommunications, Northern Telecom by Parliament. presently has a $100 million contract for Taiwan’s cellular phone system. For instance, when I was involved with the Canada-Cuba association it was not recognized, although it is now. Canada leads the world with high-quality, healthy food such as canola, beef and seafood, and we are busily selling them to The honourable senator mentioned that she was one of six in Taiwan. I was able to put several Canadian providers of ostrich the Canadian delegation. I congratulate her for the efforts she has and emu meat in touch with the Taiwanese market through our made in the Toronto and the Niagara region. She must trade office. I received confirmation today that these growers are understand that I am a little selfish, being from Quebec, and now providing some of these meats to five-star hotels in Taiwan. therefore would like to know which member of the delegation I should impress. Is it possible to have the names of those on the Canada is a preferred destination for Taiwanese tourists with delegation who accompanied the honourable senators? We would over 125,000 visits per year, and that number is growing. Each of then know whom to be in touch with if we need some these visitors spends an average of $7,000 U.S., while they are in supplementary information. Canada. They are our largest spending tourists. Senator Milne: Honourable senators, Senator Prud’homme is As a very interesting source of opportunity for Canada, I have quite correct. We were a delegation of Canadian made a list of Taiwanese companies that presently send tourists parliamentarians, which is what I stated at the outset. I to Canada. This was part of the package I tabled the other day. emphasized that there are no official relations between Canada Taiwan is interested in developing a larger tourist trade with us. I and Taiwan. If Senator Prud’homme wishes a copy of the list of forwarded that list to all members of Parliament from the Greater tourist groups interested in coming to different parts of Canada, I Toronto and Niagara areas. I also sent it to several tour operators will make that list available to him. I went through that list and in the Northwest Territories and Yukon. I have had discussion selected those who were interested in tours in the Northwest with two large hotel chains in an attempt to increase Taiwanese Territories and the Canadian North. I passed those on to the tour tourism to this country. I remind my honourable friends that people in the North. The ones who are interested in tours to the Taiwanese are keen entrepreneurs and that investment in trade Toronto area and the Niagara region I passed on to tour operators and business often follows tourism. in those areas. I will be delighted to select the ones who are interested in tours to Quebec and pass them on to the honourable  (1710) senator. In all, honourable senators, the trip was both valuable and informative. Our visit was short, but we were able to contribute Senator Prud’homme: With which members of Parliament positively to the development of trade between our two did the honourable senator travel? countries. Senator Milne: Peter Adams was the tour leader. Senator I wish to recognize again the remarkable talent in our trade Cochrane, Jag Bhaduria, John Finlay, member of Parliament for office in Taipei. I also wish to take this opportunity to thank Oxford, Peter Thalheimer, member of Parliament for everyone in Canada and in Taiwan who made our visit very Timmins—Chapleau, as well as myself, were part of the successful. delegation. Hon. Marcel Prud’homme: Honourable senators, I should Hon. Ethel Cochrane: Honourable senators, I should like to like to ask a couple of questions of Senator Milne. add a few brief remarks to Senator Milne’s report on the visit of our delegation to Taiwan. The honourable senator mentioned that this was a group of parliamentarians. This is an association that is not recognized by I also found our meetings with Taiwanese legislators, officials the Senate, nor by the House of Commons. Indeed, it is not and business people to be quite fruitful and informative. I am recognized by the Department of Foreign Affairs. impressed by the variety of future trade and investment opportunities that Canadian companies and businesses can and In Canada, we have freedom of movement. When I refer to the should explore with Taiwan, particularly in the broad and Chinese people, I do not mean the Taiwanese. The Chinese growing area of environmental technologies.

[ Senator Milne ] December 17, 1996 SENATE DEBATES 1423

The various meetings, conferences and trade exhibitions that per year, is expected to continue to grow. That offers a will be held next year right here in Canada, serving as hosts to tremendous opportunity for us to market tourist destinations in the APEC, will provide tremendous opportunities to pursue and Canada beyond the normal landing area of the West Coast of to develop these trade ties. B.C. B.C. is the place everyone knows about and the place that everyone has visited; but we have to continue to go beyond B.C. I was also impressed to learn of the very large number of and to promote the other beautiful areas of our country. young people who come to Canada from Taiwan every year to study at our universities and our colleges. They serve both as a In summary, our delegation found tremendous potential for stimulus to the intellectual environment of our educational further development of productive and mutually advantageous institutions and as important cultural links between our two ties between Taiwan and our country, Canada. countries. On motion of Senator Prud’homme, debate adjourned. Finally, like Senator Milne, I am struck by the significance of Taiwanese tourist travel to our beautiful country of Canada. The The Senate adjourned until Wednesday, December 18, 1996, high volume of tourist traffic from Taiwan, over 125,000 visits at 1:30 p.m. CONTENTS Tuesday, December 17, 1996

PAGE PAGE

SENATORS’ STATEMENTS Extent of Budget Cuts to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation— Minimal Government Spending in Comparison with other Heritage Canada Western Countries—Government Position. Budget Cuts to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation—Adverse Senator Spivak...... 1399 Effect on Cultural Institutions. Senator Johnson...... 1395 Senator Fairbairn...... 1399

La Francophonie Prime Minister’s Office Bid of City of Moncton to Host Summit in 1999. Rating of Liberals on Pre-Election Promises—Government Position. Senator Losier-Cool...... 1395 Senator Tkachuk...... 1400 Senator Fairbairn...... 1400 The Economy Entrepreneurial Role of Small Business. Senator Stanbury...... 1396 Heritage Canada Budget Cuts to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation—Adverse Effect on Cultural Institutions—Government Position. Senator Johnson...... 1400 ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Senator Fairbairn...... 1400

Adjournment National Defence Senator Graham...... 1396 Socio-Economic Challenges Facing Department—Possibility of Creation of Joint Parliamentary Committee—Government Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Position. Senator Forrestall...... 1400 Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Questions Senator Fairbairn...... 1400 on Manganese-based Fuel Additives Bill. Senator Kinsella... 1396 Heritage Canada Future Plans for Canadian Broadcasting Corporation— QUESTION PERIOD Government Position. Senator Nolin...... 1401 Senator Fairbairn...... 1401 Infrastructure Program Reinstatement of Radio Canada International—Future Financing Efficacy of List of Projects Constructed—Propriety of Planning—Government Position. Senator Nolin...... 1401 Certain Grants—Government Position. Senator St. Germain.. 1396 Senator Fairbairn...... 1401 Senator Fairbairn...... 1396 Possibility of White Paper on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation— Government Position. Senator Prud’homme...... 1401 Atomic Energy of Canada Senator Fairbairn...... 1402 Sale of CANDU Reactors to China—Accuracy of Media Reports— Request for Particulars. Senator Cogger...... 1397 Senator Fairbairn...... 1397 Business of the Senate Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Bill—Motion to Refer to Goods and Services Tax Committee—Vote Deferred—Point of Order. Apology of Prime Minister for Failure to Honour Pre-Election Senator Kinsella...... 1402 Promise—Possible Concurrence by Leader of the Government. Senator Kenny...... 1402 Senator Phillips...... 1397 Senator Graham...... 1402 Senator Fairbairn...... 1398 Senator Lynch-Staunton...... 1402

The Environment Non-Proliferation Policy on Plutonium—Role of Various ORDERS OF THE DAY Government Departments—Government Position. Senator Spivak...... 1398 Manganese-based Fuel Additives Bill (Bill C-29) Senator Fairbairn...... 1398 Referred to Committee. Senator Prud’homme...... 1402 Senator Cogger...... 1398 The Hon. the Speaker...... 1402 Referred to Committee...... 1403 Heritage Canada Job Cuts to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation—Discrepancy in Canada Elections Act Numbers Announced by Minister Copps—Government Position. Parliament of Canada Act Senator Stratton...... 1399 Referendum Act (Bill C-63) Senator Fairbairn...... 1399 Bill to Amend—Third Reading—Motions in Amendment— Senator Lynch-Staunton...... 1399 Votes Deferred—Debate Continued Possible Privatization of Canadian Broadcasting Senator Andreychuk...... 1403 Corporation—Government Position. Senator Stratton...... 1399 Senator Lynch-Staunton...... 1405 PAGE PAGE

Motion in Amendment. Senator Lynch-Staunton...... 1408 Senator Milne...... 1415 Senator DeWare...... 1409 Senator Stewart...... 1416 Senator Stewart...... 1409 Senator Taylor...... 1416 The Hon. the Speaker...... 1409 Senator Prud’homme...... 1409 Justice Investigation into Sale of Airbus Aircraft to Air Senator Graham...... 1410 Canada—Inquiry—Debate Adjourned. Senator Cools...... 1416 Senator Berntson...... 1410 Senator LeBreton...... 1417 Motion in Amendment. Senator Prud’homme...... 1413 Senator Corbin...... 1417 Senator Berntson...... 1413 The Hon. the Speaker...... 1417 Senator Stewart...... 1418 Criminal Code (Bill C-45) Senator Berntson...... 1418 Bill to Amend—Third Reading—Motion in Amendment and Subamendment—Debate Continued. Parliamentary Delegation to Taiwan Senator Ghitter...... 1413 Inquiry—Debate Adjourned. Senator Milne...... 1421 Motion in Amendment. Senator Ghitter...... 1415 Senator Prud’homme...... 1422 Senator MacDonald...... 1415 Senator Cochrane...... 1422 Canada Post Corporation / Société canadienne des postes

Postage Paid Post payé

If undelivered, return COVER ONLY to: Canada Communication Group — Publishing Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9

Available from Canada Communication Group — Publishing Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9