sign in sign up
<<
Home , 36th Canadian Parliament, Alasdair Graham, Camp Hill Cemetery, Claudette Bradshaw, Denis Coderre, Fernand Robichaud

2nd SESSION • 36th PARLIAMENT • VOLUME 138 • NUMBER 50

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 2, 2000

THE HONOURABLE ROSE-MARIE LOSIER-COOL SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

This issue contains the latest listing of Senators, Officers of the Senate, the Ministry, and Senators serving on Standing, Special and Joint Committees. CONTENTS

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

Debates and Publications: Chambers Building, Room 943, Tel. 996-0193 Published by the Senate Available from Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Public Works and Government Services Canada, K1A 0S9, Also available on the Internet: http://www.parl.gc.ca

1170

THE SENATE

Tuesday, May 2, 2000

The Senate met at 2:00 p.m., the Speaker pro tempore in the Last week, Richard Donahoe joined this political pantheon and Chair. there he belongs, now part of the proud political history and tradition of . He was a greatly gifted and greatly respected public man. He was much beloved, especially by the Prayers. rank and file of the Progressive Conservative Party. Personally, and from my earliest days as a political partisan, I recall his kindness, thoughtfulness and encouragement to me and to others. THE LATE HONOURABLE Dick was an inspiration to several generations of young RICHARD A. DONAHOE, Q.C. Progressive Conservatives in Nova Scotia.

• (1410) TRIBUTES The funeral service was, as they say nowadays, quite “upbeat.” Hon. : Honourable senators, I have the sad It was the mass of the resurrection, the Easter service, really, with duty to record the death, on Tuesday, April 25, of our former great music, including a Celtic harp and the choir from Senator colleague Richard A. Donahoe. Richard Carstairs’ old school. Two former archbishops of Halifax Donahoe was elected mayor of Halifax during the 1950s, was conducted the service. five times elected to the Nova Scotia legislature and, from 1979 until his retirement in 1984, was a member of the Senate. It is no disrespect to the liturgy to say that it was also quite a political occasion. Many of Nova Scotia’s leading political In provincial politics, Richard Donahoe served in figures from the recent past and present were there, and probably the governments of Robert L. and Premier a few of the future leaders as well. I saw people there with whom G.I. Smith as attorney general and minister of public health. In Dick Donahoe had clashed memorably over the years, some of the latter capacity, he is best known for having successfully them Conservatives. They were all there to pay a respectful and guided the implementation of both the National Hospital affectionate farewell. Insurance Plan in the late 1950s and of in the late 1960s in his province. The luck of the Irish had been with Dick Donahoe more than 60 years ago when he met and married a Cape Bretoner, Richard Donahoe was a wonderful orator and also a keen Eileen Boyd. She was there Saturday with her children and judge of oratory. From time to time in my youth, I found myself grandchildren. a small part of a supporting cast of speakers at some of those marathon political meetings in Nova Scotia where Dick Donahoe was usually the main attraction. It was a somewhat intimidating Altogether, I think the send-off was appropriate to his life — blessed by the church and surrounded by friends and colleagues experience. For five years here in the Senate, whenever I spoke, in the city he loved and served. Dick would have found no fault I was aware of his attentive eye and ear. Even today, it is with some trepidation that I begin. Let there be no doubt — he expects in the service, and I hope only that he will find none in our us to rise to this occasion. telling of it. It was always a great experience to have been in Dick Donahoe’s company, and I am honoured to have known him. His funeral last Saturday was at St. Mary’s Basilica in Halifax. In that same church, 105 years ago, the requiem was for Sir John Hon. B. : Honourable senators, I join with Thompson, sometime and fourth prime the Honourable Senator Murray in paying tribute to our late minister of Canada. There, 46 years ago, the bells tolled for the colleague the Honourable Richard A. Donahoe. The passing of Honourable Angus L. Macdonald, premier through five elections former senator Donahoe was, as indicated by Senator Murray, and Canada’s minister of the navy during World War II. Not far deeply mourned at his funeral in Halifax last Saturday. As well, away is Government House, where , the father of his life was properly celebrated. responsible government, died in 1873, and , where he is buried. At St. Paul’s Anglican Church, at the other end of Barrington Street, funeral services were held in 1915 for The great warrior, whose tireless passion for public Sir , premier of Nova Scotia, father of service was the engine of his long and distinguished career, led a Confederation and sixth . On an life far larger than most of his contemporaries. His was a life occasion such as Saturday’s, one is conscious of being gigantic in generosity, voluminous in achievement, and surrounded by history. magnificent in its impact on all of those he touched in this world. May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES 1171

Yes, former senator Richard Donahoe was always larger than up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out life. Whether as mayor of his beloved native city of Halifax, or against injustice, he sends forth a ripple of hope. as minister of health and attorney general in the Stanfield and Smith governments, or as a member of this chamber from 1979 to 1984, Dick Donahoe brought the power of his presence to Honourable senators, although the golden voice is now many of the great issues of our time, including one of which he silenced, the ripples of former senator Richard Donahoe’s life was most proud — a leading role in the implementation of and times will always be with us. medicare in Nova Scotia. To his beloved wife, Eileen, to his children and to his extended family, we extend an expression of the deepest sympathy. A deeply conservative, partisan patriarch of a large, talented and politically committed Nova Scotia family — with the good sense to marry a Liberal, I might add, the beautiful and Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I wish to accomplished Mary Eileen Boyd — Dick remained always the join with Senator Graham and Senator Murray in expressing my fiery and convincing patriot to his city, to his province, to his thoughts on the passing of Dick Donahoe. I want at the outset to country, to his church and to his wonderful Irish inheritance. express my sympathies to his family, to his children, to his grandchildren and to his very large and growing family.

Indeed, Dick Donahoe always represented to me many of the I have known and worked with Dick Donahoe since 1957, fine qualities which are part of that inheritance. He was when I was working with the party in those days. It was said of quick-witted and gifted with a commanding presence. He was Dick that if he did not know you, he knew someone in your eloquent and a champion of all his beliefs. He had a gift for family. That is sort of gospel in that it says something of the man phrases that lingered in the minds of all those who heard him. who cared, yes, about his city, his church, his family and his Dick’s wonderful, deep, baritone voice spoke out always for province, but above all he cared for all of the people in that what he saw to be true, for what he saw to be right, and spoke out charge. over the decades for his cherished city, his beloved province, and always in the interests of the public service of his country. • (1420)

Honourable senators, Dick Donahoe was a great debater in this He was a great Nova Scotian. The Honourable Richard chamber. I remember that we exchanged words on a particular Donahoe practised law in Halifax after graduating from Saint issue upon which we had a difference of opinion and, as we were Mary’s University and . He spent the rest of walking out, he said, “Al, you sounded great, but what in the his life as a tireless supporter of that former institution. He served name of God did you say?” on the board of governors of Saint Mary’s from 1965 to 1971, and was granted an honourary doctorate of law at the very university that had nurtured his youth, spiritually and When I think of Dick and Eileen today — because this was not academically. only a marriage of love and real devotion but also a powerful political partnership that lasted 63 years, until his death last He was a very prominent member of the Knights of Columbus, week — I think of the dreams and the accomplishments of their having joined that august organization the year that I was born, long life together, of the family they raised, and of the roots they 1932. He dedicated, through that organization, as with all other so deeply nurtured and cherished. It is worthy of note that their organizations with which he associated himself, hours, months two sons went on to distinguish themselves in the life of and years to works of charity, so much so that the Pope conferred Nova Scotia politics — Terry as both Minister of Education and upon him, in 1969, the order Knight of St. Gregory the Great. Attorney General; Arthur, as Speaker of the House of Assembly, and today he holds the important position of Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. His dedication to his community, his province and his country is admirable. He was first elected as a city alderman in 1951, was elected mayor of Halifax in 1952, and by acclamation in 1953 Honourable senators, in honouring the memory of our former and 1954, a sign of his real and great popularity with the colleague, I think of the magic of the words of W.B. Yeats, the citizenry of Halifax. visionary Irish poet who himself devoted much of his time and energy as a senator to the Irish Free State. In one of his finest He then turned his hands, as Senator Murray has said, to pieces, the senator wrote: provincial politics, when he ran in a by-election in 1954 and won. He ran in the general election of 1956, 1960, 1963 and 1967. As has been mentioned, he served as attorney general and I will arise now and go to Innisfree...I hear lake water minister of public health under the then premier, the Honourable lapping with low sounds by the shore...I hear it in the deep Robert L. Stanfield, another great Nova Scotian. He continued to heart’s core. serve in the cabinet of Premier George Isaac Smith.

Dick Donahoe had a heart that was as deep as his conviction Dick Donahoe had a leading role — if not the lead roll — in and the devotion to the people he touched throughout his life. It bringing two great medical care programs to the people of our was Bobby Kennedy who once said that each time a man stands province. 1172 SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

Lastly, he was appointed, as we all know, to the Senate in was my father’s resignation from the Senate that caused the 1979, serving until his retirement, a life-long member of the vacancy to which Dick Donahoe was appointed. Progressive Conservative Party and a protector of his beloved Dick’s appointment to the Senate was greeted with celebration in home province. the Connolly household. After all, we recognized it had to go to a Tory because the prime minister of the day was a Tory. Therefore, what better Tory to have it go to than Today, the Donahoe family name has a recognition within the Richard A. Donahoe? province, a name intertwined and forever locked now in the hearts of our province’s great history. He was a good friend, good counsel, someone with whom I was proud to be associated in the Mr. Donahoe, as I always called him, also had a distinguished service to people and service to the Province of Nova Scotia. career as an alderman, as the mayor of Halifax, as a provincial cabinet minister, particularly in the health portfolio — public health, as it was referred to then — and also as the attorney I wish to send my heartfelt sympathies to his dedicated and general of the province. loving wife, Mary Eileen, and to his sons, Arthur and family and Terry and family, two great Nova Scotians themselves who have contributed much and have much more to contribute. They I wish to express my sincere sympathies to the whole Donahoe learned well from their father. I also send my heartfelt family. They are our friends — friends of the Connollys. They sympathies to Kathleen Niedermayer, Sheila and family, Nora mourned with us the loss of our parents. We mourn today the loss and family, Ellen Feenan and family, and his sisters, Edith Power, of their father. Geraldine Curran, Muriel Duxbury, and brother Frank, and innumerable grand and great grandchildren. Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, I wish to join other honourable senators in commenting briefly on the Dick Donahoe’s life was worth sharing. It was in his practice extraordinary life of the Honourable Richard A. Donahoe of of concern and care for people and the worth and dignity of the Halifax. individual through which he planted his finest seeds. He was the embodiment of the public service. He was, for all To the Donahoe family, those seeds are now growing and they his adult life, a servant of the people, as mayor of the City of look pretty good to me. Halifax, then as a provincial cabinet minister in the government of and others, and finally here as a member of the . Hon. : Honourable senators, the Donahoe and Connolly families have a long history in the City of Halifax. I know my family, the Connollys, would wish me to say a few He and his family have been close friends of mine for more words on the passing of a distinguished man, a politician, a noted than 44 years. It was through Senator Donahoe, his son Arthur orator, and a member of great distinction of the charitable Irish and others, like Mr. Stanfield, that I was strongly influenced Society of Halifax. toward the values, principles and philosophy of the Progressive Conservative Party. Honourable senators, I was six years old, as was Kathleen Donahoe, when our fathers, and Richard Richard A. Donahoe was the embodiment of a man, a Donahoe, ran against each other in the 1948 provincial election conservative, a Progressive Conservative with a social in the constituency of Halifax North. In that contest, my father conscience directed intuitively to helping the less fortunate and was the winner, but it did not affect our friendships, either to using the power of politics to equalize opportunity for all between Mrs. Donahoe and Mr. Donahoe or between . His work in bringing a modern and equitable medical Mr. Connolly and Mrs. Connolly as, of course, we as children care system to Nova Scotia is but a small part of his important referred to our elders in those days. legacy of public service.

Kathleen and I continued to walk to Oxford Street School I was honoured to have known him. To his widow, Eileen, his together. Her brothers, Arthur and Terry, were friends and children, particularly Arthur, Terry and Sheila, whom I know classmates of my brothers, David and Dennis. Both Arthur and well, I express my deepest condolences. Terry, as most of you have already heard, had distinguished political careers themselves in the Province of Nova Scotia. Dennis and I became politicians, too, and, like our fathers, on Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): opposite sides. Because of the examples set by our respective Honourable senators, with your indulgence, I very much want to fathers, politics was a logical choice. It was, I would suggest to say a few words in tribute to a great Nova Scotian. you, a more civilized time in politics, the passage of which I regret very deeply. Dick Donahoe was an honourable man, unashamedly partisan, gifted, unselfish, and Irish. He loved his God, his family, and his Dick Donahoe — and he was known as “Dick” to most of his province, and on those three cornerstones of his life I am told he friends, not “Richard” — was appointed to the Senate in 1979. It would never compromise.

[ Senator Forrestall ] May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES 1173

• (1430) SENATORS’ STATEMENTS

History shows that he was also not a man easily discouraged. Once he set a course, there was little that could resist his HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY determination. Despite his questionable political background, he was able to woo and win Mary Eileen Boyd, who not only Hon. Erminie J. Cohen: Honourable senators, today we came from one of the strongest Liberal families in Cape Breton observe Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Memorial Day. I wish to but who worked as the secretary to then Liberal premier express my gratitude and respect to the survivors of the Angus L. Macdonald during the courtship. Rumour has it that she Holocaust. Yom Hashoah, which means “day of fire”, is an never cast another Liberal vote from that day on. annual tribute to the memory of the 6 million men, women and children who perished during the Holocaust and is the official day of mourning for Jews around the world. An Hon. Senator: Hear, hear! The pain and suffering that was inflicted on the Jewish people Senator Boudreau: When Senator Donahoe was elected to and other selected groups is incomprehensible, yet we must the legislature in 1954, he became the first Conservative elected understand that it was rooted in the hatred of its perpetrator and from Halifax County in 26 years, but that election did not come in the complacency of those who looked on and did nothing. easily. His victory followed four unsuccessful attempts at public office, at municipal, provincial and federal levels — another It is also a time to pay homage to the many “righteous measure of the man’s determination. gentiles” who, at their own peril, rescued and cared for thousands of Jews during those black, painful years.

Dick Donahoe played a major role in bringing together a Honourable senators, the period between 1933 and 1945 distinguished group of Nova Scotians who, in 1956, under witnessed a total devastation perhaps unequalled in all recorded Premier Robert L. Stanfield, won the general election and history. Many Holocaust survivors have devoted their lives to subsequently provided solid, honest and competent government ensuring that people never forget the monstrosities that were to our province for almost 15 years. allowed to happen, and they continue to fight against those who deny the Holocaust ever existed. However, passive recollection is not enough, and the memory of the Holocaust should provide the When that team was assembled in 1956, with the path broken impetus for active opposition to racism and hatred. and conditions for victory significantly advanced by his 1954 breakthrough, my father was one of those impressed and persuaded to run for office by Senator Donahoe. I can still It is sad to say the world has not learned sufficiently well the remember, as a young boy, the admiration and respect that my tragic lessons of the Holocaust. There is much inhumanity father had for him. He was quoted often in our home during that around us: the atrocities in Bosnia; the slaughter of thousands of campaign of 1956. My father lost that election, beginning an people in Rwanda, the Sudan and now Zimbabwe; and the ethnic unbroken tradition of political defeat in our family until my cleansing in the Balkans. The rise of anti-Semitism and the election in 1988. I attribute that, in part, to the fact that I was the insidious growth of hate groups are recent examples that first member of my family ever to seek office as a Liberal. underscore the deep-seated bigotry that begets hatred and violence.

When I arrived in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly, two of Today, Yom Hashoah serves as a reminder of the millions who the first people to make me feel at home were Dick’s sons, died in the death camps. It is our collective duty, as citizens of Art Donahoe, as Speaker, and Terry Donahoe, who served in the the world, to continue to educate and to speak out against the cabinet of Premier John Buchanan. Decent, able and principled evils of hatred, violence and racism. servants of the people in the mould of their father, I am certain they made him proud. CANADA BOOK DAY Others who have spoken today knew Senator Donahoe far better than I, but I have seen his tracks in Nova Scotia and I have Hon. : Honourable senators, I should like to felt his legacy. His standard of competent, unselfish and caring draw the attention of the chamber to a very special occasion that public service remains a daunting standard for all of us who took place last week when the house was not sitting. April 27 would follow. was the annual Canada Book Day, a project of The Writers’ Trust of Canada. This is a day we celebrate each year in this chamber, and we do so in terms of four objectives that this day promotes: Honourable senators, Nova Scotia has lost a distinguished to celebrate the importance of the role of literature in Canada’s citizen, the Donahoe family a loving husband, father and past, present and future; to nurture the love of reading among our grandfather. My heartfelt sympathy is with them, along with my young people, particularly in our schools; to celebrate the thanks for sharing him with the people of the province he loved. international success of Canada’s literature and our heroes; and to promote Canadian books and the people who write them. 1174 SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

Honourable senators, this is a good occasion for me to point At 10:52, the transmission pressure — Tx. Press — continued out that if we did not have and were not promoting a culture of to fluctuate and then dropped below the green operational limits. literacy and lifelong learning in this country, we would have a Shark28, now in escort of Talon41, radioed that they could see sad situation in terms of the work that our talented authors “considerable” fluids leaking down the left-hand side of the produce. aircraft. TX pressure stabilized at 20 PSI — which is outside of the operational limits. The crew decided to land as soon as possible in the Lawrencetown area. A mayday was sent by Because literacy is a cause that governs my life, it is with a Talon41 at 10:52, to land as soon as possible. sense of joy that I do as I have done for the last several years and give a book to a friend. My friend on Canada Book Day is Senator John Lynch-Staunton, and this year I have a special treat At 10:58, the crew noticed the TX pressure drop to 15 PSI. for him. It is a remarkable book by an author and an absolutely The crew decided to land immediately. Shut-In Island was nearby outstanding photographer from my home town of Lethbridge, and chosen as the landing spot. Dr. Van Christou, who, it is said, paints with his camera lens. It is one of the few books that is totally about an area in which many At 11:01, Talon41 began the transition to land on Shut-In members of Senator Lynch-Staunton’s extended family live, that Island. southwest corner of with its rolling hills and its mountains. It is called, in the words of our aboriginal people, At 11:02, the crew saw the TX pressure warning light come Land of Shining Mountains, and it is a great pleasure for me to on, indicating 12 PSI or less. Some grinding sounds were heard give it to the honourable senator today. by the crew.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): At 11:03, Talon41 landed on Shut-In Island. Honourable senators, I ask for 24 hours to reply. I appreciate the gift, particularly as I realize that despite our efforts, particularly At 11:11, Talon41 successfully shuts down and radios that the those of Senator Di Nino, Senator Fairbairn had to pay the GST crew and aircraft are okay. The left side of Talon41 sinks slightly on this book! into the soggy ground.

I will be asking some questions about that later. NATIONAL DEFENCE

NATIONAL NATIVE ROLE MODEL AWARDS REPORT ON SEA KING TALON41 INCIDENT Hon. Mabel M. DeWare: Honourable senators, on Friday Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I wish to April 14, after most honourable senators and members of the place on the record this afternoon something that may cause other place had left for the Easter break, Senator Willie Adams some of you to think and wonder. I certainly hope this is true of and I had the rare privilege of attending a very special ceremony the Leader of the Government in the Senate. at Government House. It was hosted by the Governor General of Canada, Her Excellency . I am referring to the report on the Talon41 incident. It is an official summary and I want honourable senators to listen to it. The ceremony honoured the newest recipients of the National All times are approximate. Native Role Model Award. Madam Clarkson presented certificates to nine young people who have made some very impressive achievements in various fields. Their At 10:43, Talon41 crew begin to detect a distinct “waxy acrid” accomplishments are even more remarkable when you consider smell in the aircraft. The crew suspected a possible electrical that each of them had overcome tremendous challenges and source and turned off all non-essential systems — that is, personal hardships to achieve the status that they have in their anti-ice, for example. The crew turned the aircraft in the communities today. direction of YAW, which is, of course, Shearwater. At this time, Talon41 was in dip sector 2, approximately 15 nautical miles south of the nearest point of land, or 29 nautical miles southeast I hope I can convey to you something of the sense of awe that of Shearwater. I felt as I watched these fine young people being honoured in Rideau Hall. They were chosen as role models for aboriginal young people, yet they are truly an inspiration to us all. The • (1440) contributions that they have made to their communities and to our society enrich each and every one of us. At 10:45, two minutes later, the co-pilot noticed a fluctuation in the transmission pressure gauge, between 45 and 60 PSI. The National Native Role Model Program amplifies those Talon41 then declared an in-flight emergency, known as a PAN. contributions by enabling the award recipients to actively serve Talon41 then turned north to close the NPL, which is the nearest as examples of what young aboriginal Canadians can hope to point of land, while continuing to monitor and look for secondary achieve. During the next two years, these role models will visit indications. Shark28, which is another Sea King, began to close aboriginal communities and share their talents and vision with Talon41 to shadow the aircraft back to Shearwater. thousands of young people.

[ Senator Fairbairn ] May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES 1175

The National Native Role Model Program receives funding QUESTION PERIOD from Health Canada and is administered through a national office located in Kahnawake, . It is a national health program designed to promote and encourage the adoption of healthy lifestyles based on the traditions of wisdom, love, respect, NATIONAL DEFENCE bravery, honesty, humility and truth among the First Nations and Inuit youth in Canada. REPLACEMENT OF SEA KING HELICOPTERS— REPORT ON TALON41 INCIDENT All of us who listened to the citations of the year 2000 award recipients felt a real sense of pride in knowing that Canada’s Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, my aboriginal young people have such role models who can help question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. make an important difference in their lives. A few moments ago I read a brief summary of the events surrounding an incident involving Talon41. I wonder if the minister has had an opportunity to read separately the incident ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS summary. The events to which I refer took place in broad daylight, honourable senators, and in good weather. What would have happened to the brave crew in the dead of night and in bad SPECIAL SENATE COMMITTEE ON BILL C-20 weather?

NOTICE OF MOTION TO APPOINT I am no longer particularly interested in hearing about the Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): maintenance regime. These aircraft are always safe as long as Honourable senators, I give notice that, on Thursday next, I will they are on the ground. That is excellent but not enough to ensure move: the reliability of these aircraft. I do not want to hear about safety and reliability being the minister’s first priority, because action or That a special committee of the Senate be appointed to inaction speaks louder than words. consider, after second reading, Bill C-20, to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the I want to know precisely what the Leader of the Government in the Quebec secession will do this afternoon to get the Prime Minister to initiate the reference; Maritime helicopter program.

That, notwithstanding rule 85(1)(b), the committee be Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): comprised of 15 members, including: Honourable senators, I am not familiar with the details of the incident that the honourable senator brings to the attention of the Senator Joan Fraser Senate this afternoon. However, I will contact, without delay, the Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette, P.C. minister responsible and ask him to provide details of this Senator incident to me. Following that, I may be in a position to share Senator Marie P. Poulin (Charette) those details with all honourable senators, to elucidate on the Senator George Furey particular circumstances. Senator Richard Kroft Senator Thelma Chalifoux Senator Lorna Milne Other than giving that specific undertaking, I wish to say that Senator Aurélien Gill; the Prime Minister is very much aware of my ongoing views with respect to the Sea King helicopter replacement program. I That four members constitute a quorum; also venture to say that he is familiar with the views of the honourable senator on this issue. The minister responsible, when That the committee have power to send for persons, visiting Halifax this past weekend, indicated publicly his views papers and records, to examine witnesses and to print such with respect to the priority of such a replacement. papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee; • (1450)

That the committee be authorized to permit coverage by The existing helicopters are old. They are complicated pieces electronic media of its public proceedings with the least of equipment. possible disruption of its hearings; and Senator Forrestall: “Dangerous” is the word for them. That the committee have power to retain the services of professional, clerical, stenographic and such other staff as Senator Boudreau: We expect that the maintenance program deemed advisable by the committee. now in place will ensure that the equipment remains safe for operation. 1176 SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

Senator Forrestall: Honourable senators, at the risk of being Honourable senators, I should like to point out that the repetitive, those aircraft are safe, stable and wonderful — as long minister and the government are being extremely irresponsible as they stay on the ground. regarding this incident. They are sending the message that the condones sending people out in machines that are not safe to fly. The minister calls them old — we call Will the minister go to the Prime Minister this afternoon and them something worse. What kind of message is this sending to ask him to initiate this program? Do not listen to the Minister of the Canadian public when they have to rely on examinations of National Defence because God knows that what he is saying has commercial airlines by Canadian authorities? nothing to do with practicality, reality, care or concern. Would the minister please go to the Prime Minister and ask him to initiate the program before we have a death? I want the minister to realize the seriousness with which Canadians, especially Atlantic Canadians, view depending upon their government for safety. If the Canadian government cannot I ask the minister to think back to the Talon41 report. They provide safety for its military, how can we depend on the had one minute to get to dry land. I ask the minister go to the government to take care of the safety of all Canadians? Prime Minister and say to him, “For God’s sake, Prime Minister, please initiate the program. Show some faith in the men and women who must fly these aircraft.” Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I can only convey to the honourable senator the reassurance I have received from the people who are directly involved. I have had an opportunity to Senator Boudreau: Honourble senators, I can only reassure visit the site where these helicopters are maintained. I have the honourable senator and others that the Prime Minister and the spoken with those who work directly on the equipment and with Minister of National Defence are concerned with the welfare of senior officials in the company. I have spoken to other military all individuals who serve our country in the Armed Forces, personnel and to the minister. I can only give the honourable including those who fly Sea King helicopters. I am informed by senator the assurance that I have received, that senior staff would the people who service them and by the senior military personnel not send military personnel out on a piece of equipment that they who send those people out on the helicopters that, in fact, they felt would endanger lives. are not putting their lives in jeopardy.

However, as we have said before, this is an old, complicated These incidents do occur. As a matter of fact, they occur with piece of equipment. Although I am not familiar with the details brand new equipment. In saying that, I am not minimizing the of this particular incident, it seemed that the competence of the fact that this equipment is old and complex. It is subject, crew and their expertise was able to bring it to a conclusion however, to incidents like this one from time to time which, without tragedy. again, was handled very professionally by the crew in this situation.

Senator Forrestall: Honourable senators, I keep hearing that the minister will carry the message immediately to his colleagues Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, many of us on later today. In such cases, I do not know whether the minister this side of the house are quite disturbed. We do not understand will send a memo to the Prime Minister’s Office indicating the why the government is so reluctant to address this important questions to which he has responded in the chamber about this issue. I will be careful in what I am about to intimate. It seems to incident. If that is the process, I request that the minister table in me that the government has been intransigent in this matter, as it this chamber copies of all messages he sends to the Prime has been in other matters since the 1993 election. I refer, for Minister about this particular program. example, to the supposed Pearson airport scandal and the purchase by Air Canada of airplanes in the supposed Airbus scandal. After being intransigent, they attempted to implicate the Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I would be very then prime minister in something which everyone now knows reluctant to indicate to the honourable senator that I will table was totally false. They refused to withdraw their allegations of documents which may have constituted discussion around the criminal behaviour. In this case we have aircraft that are falling cabinet table. The conveyance of the honourable senator’s views out of the sky. and, indeed, of my own, has been done by various means, all within the confines of cabinet confidentiality. I can assure the honourable senator that those views are made known on a Is this because there is a lack in government policy or, regular basis. perhaps, a reluctance on the part of the government to admit that they were wrong in cancelling the contract? The reason they are willing to sacrifice the lives of Canadian boys is that they are Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: Honourable senators, I was reluctant to admit that they were wrong in 1993, when they surprised when the minister indicated that he was not familiar cancelled the contract for new government aircraft. They are so with the incident, even after it was carried in all of the media at reluctant, in fact, that they would rather fly a bucket of bolts and that time in Nova Scotia and throughout Atlantic Canada. risk the lives of military personnel, whom we have an obligation One must wonder where the minister was during that information to respect and protect. I believe that is why the government is session. acting in the stubborn manner in which it is behaving today. May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES 1177

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I find it rather Senator Lynch-Staunton: They are not hypothetical; they difficult to find a question in the honourable senator’s statement. are fact. In fact, one might even describe it as a diatribe. Senator Boudreau: I can tell my honourable friend that the If the honourable senator is suggesting that the Prime Minister, senior military personnel who were charged with making these the Minister of National Defence and senior military personnel operational decisions are responsible people. They are concerned are all involved in a massive conspiracy for political purposes to about the welfare of the people whom they command and we put Canadian servicemen’s lives at risk on a daily basis, then I should allow them to do their job. think he has gone way out in left field and overstated his argument. I can only assure him that any evidence I have received or any discussions I have had with senior people, many REPLACEMENT OF SEA KING HELICOPTERS—CLEARANCE TO FLY of whom are not politically involved, indicated to me that such is AIRCRAFT IN UNITED STATES AIR SPACE not the case. Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Can the minister advise this house whether the Sea King Honourable senators, the position of some of us on this side is helicopter, when it can fly, is permitted to fly in American air simply that we believe the Sea King helicopters should be space subject to the regulations of the Federal Aviation grounded. The position on the government side seems to be that Administration? the minister in this place and the Minister of National Defence say, “No, it is okay. They can continue to fly them.” Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I cannot answer that question. I will take it Based on that, are the minister in this place and the Minister of as notice and return with an answer. National Defence prepared to resign, should there be another incident such as the one described in detail by Senator Forrestall? REPLACEMENT OF SEA KING HELICOPTERS— REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF MAINTENANCE RECORDS BY • (1500) TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I will repeat once again that indications from senior military personnel, senior Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, the answer civilian personnel, and from the Minister of National Defence to that question might spur some action. himself are that the equipment is competent to do the job. No personnel is sent up in equipment that is known to put that serviceman in harm’s way. That is the responsible answer to the It is quite true, honourable senators, that Talon41 was in good question. mechanical condition while it was sitting on the ground, but within the space of 10 minutes it went from being stable to being critically unsafe. REPLACEMENT OF SEA KING HELICOPTERS— POSSIBLE EXAMINATION OF AIRWORTHINESS OF AIRCRAFT BY TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD I hope that the Senate Subcommittee on Transportation Safety will pursue the question of who should have priority jurisdiction over the investigation of air incidents, in particular, in Canada. Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, perhaps I can phrase our concern in another way. Is it not true that if the Sea Kings were civilian rather than Would the minister consider having a discussion with the military aircraft and came under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence, perhaps the Prime Minister, and Transportation Safety Board, they would have been declared perhaps other members of that military advisory group within unfit to fly and grounded a long time ago? cabinet with a view to inviting Mr. Benoit Bouchard, Chairman of the Transportation Safety Board, and his team to review the evidence provided to the Minister of National Defence by the Basic knowledge of the criteria applied by the Transportation maintenance staff, the very people who look after these aircraft, Safety Board and its equivalent in the United States indicates that and to make such a review public so that we might have a aircraft are grounded on the slightest suspicion of the most properly informed debate on who is right and who is wrong? superficial flaw. Here we have had years of chancy flying and all we get is the reassurance that the guys on the ground say it is okay. I would be more reassured if the minister would ask the Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Transportation Safety Board to examine these aircraft and give us Honourable senators, as I indicated in response to Senator a full report. The reassurances of the military are not enough. Forrestall’s first question some time ago, with respect to this particular incident, I will request that the Minister of National Defence supply me with what information he can and make it Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): available to the honourable senator. I will include in that request Honourable senators, I cannot speculate on what the situation all of the remarks that have been made by Senator Forrestall and might be in any of those hypothetical circumstances. other senators today during Question Period. 1178 SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

REPLACEMENT OF SEA KING HELICOPTERS— That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the CLEARANCE TO FLY PRIME MINISTER IN AIRCRAFT House of Commons be appointed to develop a Code of Conduct to guide Senators and Members of the House of Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Honourable senators, would the Commons in reconciling their official responsibilities with Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who are responsible for the their personal interests, including their dealings with personal security of the Prime Minister, allow the Prime Minister lobbyists; to fly in a Sea King helicopter? Later, as the honourable minister will know, a report of that Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): special joint committee was tabled in this house. Honourable senators, that is what we refer to as a hypothetical question. When, if ever, will the minister act on that report? Does he not Senator Kinsella: The question is operational in nature. think that acting on a report such as that, which outlines ways in which allegations such as this can be dealt with fairly, is an appropriate way to proceed? Does the minister not understand Senator Boudreau: I am sure that the Prime Minister would that failure to act is doing a disservice not only to this chamber be interested in knowing that the honourable senator is concerned but to individual senators? about his flight arrangements. I will pass that concern along to him. Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the Honourable Senator Oliver raises a REPLACEMENT OF SEA KING HELICOPTERS very interesting point and I should like an opportunity to review some of the information. It might be helpful if I referred the Hon. Brenda M. Robertson: Honourable senators, I should question to the chairman of the Rules Committee so that it can be like a simple answer from the minister, please. Why is the addressed specifically, perhaps with whatever information the government so reluctant to replace these worn-out helicopters? senator can contribute. I will reserve my response until I review Everyone down East knows that they should not be in the air. the matter in more detail. They should have been gone years ago. What is going on? Does the government not care? Hon. : Honourable senators, Senator Kirby wrote to me, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Privileges, Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Standing Rules and Orders, raising the question of conflict of Honourable senators, I take exception to my honourable friend’s interest with respect to both his directorship on a company premise that everyone knows that these aircraft should not be in known as Extendicare, which question was raised relative to his the air. That implies a level of irresponsibility on the part of chairmanship of the Standing Senate Committee on Social many people who are directly involved in the operational Affairs, Science and Technology, and with respect to AT&T requirements of these aircraft. Canada, where he served as a director up until two years ago. He asked in his letter that the committee undertake a review of the appropriateness of service on committees by senators. THE SENATE Honourable senators will recall that when Senator Kirby was REPORT OF SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE ON CODE OF chairman of the Banking Committee, three or more senators were CONDUCT—GOVERNMENT RESPONSE directors of banks and other financial institutions. In that case, the procedure used by the Banking Committee was a policy of transparency and disclosure of all interests. Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and deals with allegations of conflict of interest. It arises from a story in • (1510) today’s Globe and Mail. It is entitled “Senator denies conflict of interest, Bell links past ties with rival and membership on Honourable senators, the Standing Committee on Privileges, communications subcommittee.” The article by Lorne Surtees, Standing Rules and Orders has a meeting tomorrow to examine which my honourable colleague will have read, states: this question raised by Senator Oliver. I would welcome his presence there. Senator Michael Kirby has dismissed suggestions from Bell Canada that past ties with AT&T Canada Enterprises Inc. and his membership on a Senate subcommittee on Senator Oliver: I thank Senator Austin. May I ask that his committee consider the report of the Special Joint Committee on communications put him in a conflict of interest. Code of Conduct that has been tabled in this chamber and in the House of Commons? It is a report that might help shed some As the Leader of the Government will know, in March of 1996 light on this problem. I would direct Senator Austin in particular a Senate and House of Commons committee adopted resolutions, to two of the purposes set forth in the official report that was which included the following: tabled in this chamber, which read as follows: May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES 1179

The purposes of the Code of Official Conduct are: minister’s activism, which compels him to talk about anything and everything? How can one conceive that the Minister of 1. to recognize that service in Parliament is a public trust; Foreign Affairs, without any clue about what it is all about, would voice his opposition to an agreement before the United Nations Security Council? ...

3. to reassure the public that all Parliamentarians are held This is a limited defence system. This is not what President to standards that place the public interest ahead of Reagan wanted, but something completely different, a serious Parliamentarians’ private interests and to provide a matter involving a 1972 treaty with the Russians. The minister transparent system by which the public may judge this to says he is against the agreement and the government says it has be the case; not taken a position. Just how does the Government of Canada operate? Senator Austin: I thank Senator Oliver. In fact, that document is one of the documents that will be placed before the committee [English] tomorrow afternoon. Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the issue that the [Translation] honourable senator raises is one on which at least, as he points out, two ministers have made some comment. I would prefer to have an opportunity to clarify the current position of the NATIONAL DEFENCE government and return to this chamber with some specific information for the honourable senator. PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEM WITH UNITED STATES—GOVERNMENT POSITION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Hon. Roch Bolduc: Honourable senators, the Americans plan to deploy a limited system of defence against ballistic missiles that might be launched by certain countries. Has the Government REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL RESEARCH GRANTS HAVE of Canada taken a firm position on this matter? PRIVATE-SECTOR PARTNERS—EFFECT ON AREAS WITH NO COMMERCIAL INTEREST [English] Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, Dr. David Schindler Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): is a world-renowned scientist who was twice honoured in Honourable senators, with respect to that possibility, I understand Europe. He made his home decades ago when that certain plans are being considered in the United States. As I the Department of Fisheries and Oceans lured him from the understand it, the Government of Canada has not taken a position United States. in that respect. Perhaps I may be able to provide better information shortly, but at the moment I am unable to give any Dr. Schindler was recently in Washington to attend the annual more detail except to say that, to date, I believe the minister has meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of not yet taken a public position on that issue. Science to explain to fellow scientists what has happened to research in this country. He described to them the Canadian [Translation] government’s Industrial Innovation Strategy, which now requires that most federal grants have a private-sector partner — no commercial partner, no research money. Senator Bolduc: Honourable senators, I should like to put the question in greater detail. On the one hand, the Government of Canada says it has not taken a position. On the other, the John Polyani, the Nobel laureate at the , Minister of Foreign Affairs stated in his speech to the UN has warned that industry now has a stranglehold on research. Security Council in New York that he was opposed to such an Dr. Schindler left the Department of Fisheries some years ago agreement. Meanwhile, the Minister of Defence, without and has been guiding young scientists at the University of necessarily being opposed to an agreement, did suggest the Alberta. Today his research on pesticide contamination in situation be looked into. supposedly pristine lakes in the Rockies is stymied. No chemical company wants to go there. Therefore, federal research grants are This is an irresponsible attitude on the part of the Minister of unavailable. Foreign Affairs. Without any debate, without any decision by cabinet, the government suddenly announces that it is opposed, My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate is without any knowledge of the repercussions its decision will this: First, has the government considered the consequences of have on Canada’s participation. this approach to research, given these warnings of our most respected scientists? Second, has the government considered The Americans are not asking us for money, nor are they loosening the criteria for research so that someone like asking us to take part. They have, in fact, asked for nothing. Dr. Schindler can examine a very important question, namely, the There is something wrong here, it seems to me. Could it be the contamination of lakes in the Rockies? 1180 SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): research on pesticides in lakes in the Rockies. I should hope he Honourable senators, perhaps in making those comments would use his good offices to do that. Dr. Schindler may not have been addressing his mind to some of the very significant programs announced in the last two budgets • (1520) of the Government of Canada. There has been a requirement to match funds, but that requirement is not strictly limited to the Senator Boudreau: I would say to the honourable senator that private sector. If that were the case there would not be much I will use my good offices, as she points out, to convey that. going on in some places like parts of Atlantic Canada, where the private-sector commitment to research and development is Many universities all across this country will be searching for not large. those 2,000 people. If there are quality people doing solid research, they will have plenty of opportunity, both from the Chairs of Excellence and from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. I will give you two examples of massive programs. There is the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, which received $900 million last year and another $900 million in this year’s budget — $1.8 billion directed toward research and [Translation] development. There is a matching requirement in there, but it is not necessarily for industry. Universities have matched funds and, indeed, provincial governments have set up matching funds. PAGES EXCHANGE PROGRAM As a result, a great deal of research and development has been WITH HOUSE OF COMMONS done across this country. The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I should like to introduce to you the pages from the House of Commons who will be in the Senate this week. If you look at another major initiative in the budget, namely, the Chairs of Excellence, $900 million has been devoted to [English] securing 2,000 of the best and brightest researchers in the world to come to Canada, not only to support them in terms of their Sonja Harrington is from of Ottawa. She is pursuing her presence, salaries, but with respect to equipment and studies at the Faculty of Public Affairs and Management at other things. Carleton University and is majoring in international business.

We also have Cheryl Kawaja of Port Hawkesbury, Nova Those two huge programs will have an incredible impact on Scotia, who is enrolled in the Faculty of Public Affairs and the level of research and development and, perhaps, may even be Management at Carleton University. She is majoring in of use to the particular gentleman to whom the honourable journalism. senator referred. Welcome to the Senate.

Senator Spivak: Honourable senators, I recognize the very important initiatives that have come forward. In fact, Dr. Henry Friesen and I believe one of our colleagues here were ORDERS OF THE DAY instrumental in lobbying the government. I certainly think these are notable achievements. However, I am not sure that what the leader is saying will assist the gentleman. Is that the Leader of CANADA ELECTIONS BILL the Government’s final answer? THIRD READING—DEBATE ADJOURNED

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government) moved Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, with new and the third reading of Bill C-2, respecting the election of members exciting government programs, large commitments of money to to the House of Commons, repealing other Acts relating to research and development coming on stream now with virtually elections and making consequential amendments to other Acts. every budget of this Liberal government, of course that is not my final answer. There will be more exciting programs and a larger He said: As there are other honourable senators who wish to commitment, I am sure, in the next budget and in the budget speak at third reading, I will take my place and see if that is after that. the case.

Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, I wish to speak Senator Spivak: Honourable senators, I have a supplementary but not today. Therefore, I will take the adjournment of question. I do hope that, since Dr. Schindler is one of our stars, as the debate. is John Polyani, the minister will convey to the powers that be this particular situation that confronts Dr. Schindler in his On motion of Senator Oliver, debate adjourned. May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES 1181

[Translation] referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. In its opinion on the reference concerning the secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court confirmed the rights of citizens to be protected against any unilateral attempt to proceed with secession and stated that there BILL TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR is no obligation to negotiate separation, unless a clear majority CLARITY AS SET OUT IN THE OPINION OF THE votes in favour of that option. SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN THE QUEBEC SECESSION REFERENCE The Supreme Court also said that if there were a clear majority SECOND READING—DEBATE CONTINUED on a clear question on separation, it would then be necessary to negotiate within the Canadian constitutional framework, which is currently silent on such a process. On the Order:

Honourable senators, there are people willing to ignore or Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable threatening to ignore parts of that opinion, thus putting Senator Boudreau, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Canadians in a position where they could lose their country in the Senator Hays, for the second reading of Bill C-20, An Act to heat of the action. give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference. Above all, we must not forget that secession would affect not only our contemporaries but also future generations, who might well wonder how something so important was done so flippantly. Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, Canada Honourable senators, I will certainly have to answer for this to is a magnificent country and a strong federation. It is the envy of my three children and six grandchildren. many nations because of its tolerance and the fact that it engages in dialogue to resolve differences. It can sometimes happen, however, that events and a desire for urgent action can hasten Separation must not occur in a state of confusion and outside changes before time has been taken to consider all the factors legal parameters. Bill C-20 follows up on the Supreme Court involved. The purpose of Bill C-20, the clarity bill, is to protect opinion and ensures that the Government of Canada cannot enter the rights of all Canadians during a referendum that could result into negotiations in the absence of a clear majority on a clear in negotiations on separation. I therefore believe that this bill is question, and that such negotiations would take place within a as important as it is necessary and I support it without legal framework. reservation.

Quebecers could not answer the questions asked during the Honourable senators, the federation called Canada works. It is 1980 and 1995 referendums by a simple yes or no. These were a federation that is evolving and the Government of Canada complex questions involving options that were not clear. Their wants to work with all its partners to make sure it is evolving in ramifications were difficult, if not impossible, to assess. The the best possible way. leaders of the separatist movement had formulated the questions so as to let voters think that secession was not really separation Our federation is made up of a strong national government and from Canada, when the intention was in fact to destroy such a of strong provinces, as evidenced by our tax system. Some areas beautiful country with all it has to offer. come under federal jurisdiction, while others fall under the provinces’ authority. However, the various levels of government, Let us remember that, in both cases, the questions asked were including municipalities, must increasingly work together to formulated unilaterally and adopted by the Péquiste majority, and better serve the public. Our federation is strong because it is imposed on provincial Liberals and, obviously, on the rest based on a well-established solidarity and diversity, and also on a of Canada. tradition of sharing based on the best possible practices. It is always possible to improve things, and we can continue to make our federation more effective by cooperating in areas where Should a nation such as ours be dissolved because the question federal and provincial activities complement each other. is not clear? Of course not. Canadians have rights and freedoms and a quality of life unheard of in many countries. Therefore, when we coordinate our energies, we work hand in The people of Quebec must not be allowed to lose these hand with our partners. The infrastructure program is a fine advantages because they have been taken in by flowery rhetoric. example of this. Thus, the federation is all the more effective and If, by misfortune, the government were to have to enter into national unity stronger. negotiations on separation, it should do so only on condition that the population of the province of Quebec has clearly expressed its desire to no longer be part of Canada. More recently, the Government of Canada took a number of steps to renew its association with the provinces. These include a framework to improve the social union for Canadians, the Following the 1995 referendum in Quebec, with its dubious national child tax credit, the Team Canada trade missions and the question on sovereignty association, the issue of secession was manpower agreements. 1182 SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

Does Quebec benefit from this flexible partnership? Yes, and it Contrary to the comments made by Mr. Facal today, his enjoys an enviable degree of autonomy. The flexibility of government says that it does not recognize any legitimacy and has also enabled Quebec to be distinct from scope to the bill. In other words, it does not recognize the the other provinces thanks to special arrangements in many legislation of the Government of Canada, the country in which areas. For example, the Civil Code in Quebec underwent a major that government exists. From a democratic point of view, reform a few years ago; Quebec has a separate law on income Quebecers are protected by this bill. tax; in international relations, we are familiar with the agreements in the area of the Francophonie; Quebec administers the pension plan of many Quebecers, through its Caisse de dépôt Let us never forget that secession is a serious measure which et placement and several other funds in many areas, and there is cannot be undone easily. Negotiations to that effect would seek the whole area of social policy, which includes post-secondary to end all the Government of Canada’s responsibilities toward a education and immigration. segment of the Canadian population to which I belong.

• (1530) Therefore, the basic rules must be very clear. Some have said that Bill C-20 is a step toward secession. For the past 30 years, Instead of considering Bill C-20, introduced by the we have been living with the uncertainty of a question and we Government of Canada in an attempt to fix the current federal have had two referendums. I think Bill C-20 aims at keeping us partnership in time, I would encourage you, honourable senators, on the road to democracy. It is sometimes a bumpy road and to see it for what it is: an instrument to protect the rights and there are no shortcuts, but it always leads us towards our goal, interests of Canadians. which is a strong country.

A provincial legislative assembly can formulate a question and It is strange that while Premier Bouchard recognizes that the put it within its area of jurisdiction. However, the public to whom Supreme Court opinion establishes the rule of law, today his a question on separation is put is entitled to know in advance government refuses to recognize the bill that is the result of that what the Government of Canada thinks about the clarity of the opinion. question, given that it will be one of the parties involved in negotiations and that it represents all of the citizens of Canada. It seems to me that when Mr. Facal speaks to us of good faith The question and the majority therefore need to be evaluated he should go back to the statements made at the time of the to ensure that there is a manifest desire to separate before the Supreme Court reference and ask himself this question: Which is Government of Canada undertakes discussions that could lead to the responsible government? The one that sets the rules of the the breakup of our country. Bill C-20 applies the Supreme game or the one that continues to play with those rules? Court’s opinion. Today, in fact, Minister Facal, who spoke before the Ottawa press club, recognized that Bill C-20 does so. Honourable senators, for the past 30 years, I have seen Quebec evolve in Canada, within a federation. It has developed industries Instead of having a small majority dictate the breakup of the in leading edge technologies such as aeronautics, pharmacology, nation, Bill C-20 provides for the evaluation of the quality of a telecommunications, multimedia, and biotechnology in majority. The two go together, in that the majority must be clear partnership with and under the leadership of the Government of and so must the question. The two cannot be separated. It would Canada. How can we now ignore the fact that people want to be absurd to base a decision of such magnitude on a voting abandon this country by not passing a bill which will oblige us to process where it was necessary to recount the votes because the respect the wishes of Quebecers? The bill sets out clear results were too close, as was the case during the last indicators. That is why, honourable senators, I consider it my referendum, or to examine ballots that had been invalidated by duty to support this bill and I encourage my colleagues to do the thousands in certain ridings. likewise.

Moreover, it would be irresponsible to think about building a Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, does this bill new country on the basis of a small majority that would not mean that in another referendum Quebecers will have to choose withstand the uncertainties of long and arduous negotiations on between the constitutional status quo and separation? separation.

Bill C-20 does not set a threshold, since the majority will have Senator Hervieux-Payette: The bill deals only with the to be evaluated under the circumstances surrounding that clarity of the question and the answer. The question will be up to particular referendum, as recommended by the Supreme Court. It the National Assembly alone. I remind honourable senators that, will assess the nature of the question. in the past two referendums, the official opposition in Quebec has always refused to endorse the question. I return the question to the honourable senator. We cannot now decide on one option Should voters give their clear support to a clear question on or another as long as the question has not been formulated. This secession, Bill C-20 sets out the legal framework for bill, as I have already said, is like an insurance policy on the negotiations. It ensures that all negotiations will comply with the clarity of the question so that we will have a clear answer with rule of law and our constitutional principles. respect to our collective future.

[ Senator Hervieux−Payette ] May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES 1183

Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, I will ask The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable Senator my question as a legal expert. Can the honourable senator read Nolin, I am sorry to interrupt, but the allotted time period has clause 1.(1) of the bill? The honourable senator told us in her expired. Honourable senators, is leave granted to continue? speech that the National Assembly has full authority to ask whatever question it wants. However, Bill C-20 stipulates that, for there to be negotiations after this referendum, the question Hon. Senators: Agreed. must be specifically about the secession of the province. Clause 1.(1) reads as follows: Senator Nolin: Let us go back to November 1995, when, together, we just barely saved Canada. Let us suppose that we ...the House of Commons shall...consider the question have Bill C-20. We have a question that was chosen by the and...set out its determination... National Assembly. If you remember, in early September 1995, the federalist forces were ahead by about 20 points in the polls. Is this not an appeal against a decision by a Parliament at a By the end of the debate on the question, there was a 25-point provincial level of the federation? This decision is being lead over the yes side. The House of Commons, under the power appealed and heard by another level of the same federation? provided to it by Bill C-20, made a decision and told federalists in Quebec that the question was not clear. Therefore the House of Senator Hervieux-Payette: When referring to the question Commons considered that the question did not exist. What must the National Assembly may ask, I believe that it has shown on the federalists in Quebec do then? two occasions that it was capable of asking a question that was certainly checked several times through polls. As long as there Senator Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, I clearly was no possibility of a majority, they kept modifying the recall the 1995 campaign, but I do not recall the results of the wording. I have seen no questions that asked clearly for a yes or polls so well. I know that it is always distressing. I canvassed, as no on the subject of Quebec’s separation. Given the last two did a number of my colleagues. If I recall rightly, the official referendums, which gave rise to uncertainty, which have cost two opposition had criticized the question. It mentioned partnership. generations of Quebecers dearly, Bill C-20 now puts an end to There was talk of the agreement reached on the question with a the ambiguity of the questions asked. member of the ADQ. No one knew what agreement they were talking about. When we asked people in Quebec, they thought The Quebec referendum legislation, honourable senators, can there was an agreement with the federal government. At that be used in numerous other cases, not just the future of Quebec. It point, the members of the official opposition in the National can be used for mergers of municipalities, or the acceptance of Assembly criticized the question. We knew they had managed to other important measures. rope the ADQ opposition member into a rather convoluted agreement. It is ridiculous to mobilize federalist forces each time Recently, Albertans asked their government to hold a for an obscure question that makes a mockery in the end of the referendum on the health system. This legislation covers future of Quebecers. When the government has the courage of its questions such as these, in Quebec. The government or the House convictions and puts the real question, it will be easy for us to of Commons will have to address the matter when it affects all decide. Canadians, including Quebecers. Senator Nolin: I agree with the honourable senator. The Senator Nolin: Honourable senators, can the House of question was very difficult to understand, even if we managed to Commons sit in appeal of a decision taken by the Quebec grasp the implications. We fought to ensure that this question did National Assembly? The answer is yes. The honourable senator not win the favour of Quebecers. Let us transpose Bill C-20 to must answer yes, under this bill. Under what principle of 1995. If the House of Commons had declared in 1995 that the Canadian federalism can this be done? question was not clear, what would the federalists in Quebec have done? • (1540)

Senator Hervieux-Payette: It is because when that discussion Senator Hervieux-Payette: The question is hypothetical. It is takes place, Quebec will still be bound by the Canadian impossible to answer it except to ask why we are going to play a constitution, which does not include any secession process as very dangerous game that destabilizes the entire country, that such. It is certainly more prudent for the Government of Canada will cost the nation in energy and effort and that will leave to know what the discussions will be. I was not there in 1867. marks? The honourable senator acknowledged the obscurity of Other honourable senators may have a better knowledge of the question. In general, we negotiate when the other party is of history than I do, but all the provinces thoroughly discussed why good faith and puts the right question. It will be up to the House they joined the federation. They did not think about including of Commons to decide on a question. The real question, in the provisions on secession. If Quebec wanted to patriate the powers past 30 years, would never have had significant support from in another area of federal jurisdiction, we could ask a question. Quebecers. That would not lead to the secession of Quebec. When the House of Commons has to decide on the question, it will be to decide Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): whether Canada accepts to go to the negotiation table to end Honourable senators, Senator Hervieux-Payette is a good legal Quebec’s participation in Canada. expert. My remarks concern the opinion of the Supreme Court. I imagine you have all read it carefully. My question concerns the Senator Nolin: Honourable senators, I have another question. problem at page 2 of the bill. 1184 SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

Whereas, in light of the finding by the Supreme Court of Hon. Gérald-A. Beaudoin: I should like to ask a question on Canada that it would be for elected representatives to our bicameral system. The Fathers of Confederation chose for determine what constitutes a clear question and what Canada a bicameral system at the federal level. Does the constitutes a clear majority — honourable senator not agree that in a bicameral parliamentary system, both chambers are equal in principle? There might be a few exceptions, but from a purely legislative point of view, both In all the paragraphs dealing with this question, the expression chambers are equal and no bill can become law unless they both used by the Supreme Court is “political actors.” It is only in agree to it. This is also true of Bill C-20. So why are senators paragraph 101 that the Supreme Court uses the expression being asked to vote for a bill that gives the House of Commons a “elected representatives.” In this paragraph, the court addresses power it does not give the Senate, and this at a very important the problem of the negotiations. The negotiations are the time in our history? Why vote in favour of our exclusion from responsibility of elected representatives. Can the honourable the provisions of a bill? I could understand that if it were a senator explain this? constitutional matter, then we would certainly have suspensive powers. However, this is not a constitutional matter, it is a Senator Hervieux-Payette: The entire debate with respect to legislative matter. I believe it is not appropriate to ask, through a our honourable institution hinges on whether we are political bill the fate of which we are to decide today, that we be excluded. actors. The government has decided that the representatives of all People might say that both chambers may have different powers, electoral ridings in the country are the political actors. Once the but when one chooses to legislate, one must play by the rules of House of Commons, through its elected representatives, has the legislative system. In our legislative system, both chambers decided, I see no harm to our institution. If there were are equal. negotiations or major changes, our institution has only a suspending power, not a final veto. Our institution will certainly give its opinion on the question. In order to avoid any confusion that might arise from an unclear question, elected representatives Senator Hervieux-Payette: I am totally in agreement. This is will have to make known to their constituents their assessment of a bicameral system and the two Houses are equal as far as bills the question. Legally speaking, the Senate must examine the bills are concerned. In this case, however, it is a matter of recognizing that could change the rules of the game following a referendum. the clarity of a question by resolution. In the past, the House of Commons passed resolutions without their having been passed • (1550) here in the Senate. I am thinking, for example, of armed forces participation in certain peacekeeping missions. These were resolutions and not legislation. Bill C-20 is being examined by I know that we are not all in agreement on the definition of both Houses and will certainly go through the entire process with “political actor,” nor do I like the word “actor.” We are not both Houses. When it comes to the question and its clarity, this elected representatives; we are appointed for a fairly lengthy involves implementation of the bill. For a number of bills, this period. I believe that the decision will have to be taken quickly can be done only in the House of Commons, this is not a and I do not see how our rights as senators and representatives of precedent. the same people represented by members of the House of Commons will suffer if only elected representatives decide on the clarity of the question. Senator Beaudoin: Honourable senators, it is true that Senator Kinsella: It is our duty to protect the future of this Bill C-20 says that, if the House of Commons reaches the institution. There are two Houses in this Parliament. It is a conclusion that the question is not clear, it must order the bicameral system. If we can find a solution so that both Houses government not to negotiate. I am not debating the clear question are equal in the determination of the question without departing and the clear majority, that is another matter. The Senate is from the process envisaged in the bill, if we can avoid collateral mentioned, however, as having been consulted, whereas the damage with a certain creativity, would the senator be prepared choice has been made from the start to use legislation in order to to support a proposal to that effect? negotiate. The government is perfectly entitled to go the legislative route, and I am not questioning that. Once it has chosen to negotiate using a law, it is clearly obliged to respect the Senator Hervieux-Payette: I am certainly prepared to listen principles of the bicameralism to which I have referred, which to suggestions, but I have not been convinced so far by the provide that, for either an ordinary law or for an extremely arguments expressed earlier on the need, in order to go ahead important one such as Bill C-20, the agreement of the Senate with Bill C-20, to establish a sine qua non that the Senate be must be obtained. So much so that, if we say no to the bill, it given a say on the clarity of the referendum question. will not be able to be passed. Both Houses are therefore equal. Why, then, in a piece of legislation, is a power assigned to one of Following the decision as to whether the question is clear or the Houses and not the other? We are told it was because of the not and whether the process is recognized or not, should changes time factor. We can reach a decision in 30 days. There are 105 of be made to rights, this house will retain its legislative powers. us here. There are three times as many in the other place. We can The issue remains the nature and the clarity of the question. For reach a decision just as quickly. It seems to me that, if they the institution that will have to consider the question, it will be choose to take the legislative route, this is very important, but more a matter of subjectivity than quality. The same goes for the there is less flexibility. At this point, I wonder if it is not contrary majority issue, and I do not believe elected representatives to the very principles of our parliamentary system to give the should be the ones to decide that. However, I am open to any House of Commons considerable power that is not given to the suggestion from honourable senators. Senate, whereas we are legislative equals.

[ Senator Kinsella ] May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES 1185

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I acknowledge that I subscribe to In Canada, in our system, the position of the Prime Minister is much of the honourable senator’s rationale, however, I would not an elected position; it is an appointed position. The Prime point out that, if the House of Commons did not agree on the Minister of Canada has a commission of appointment that sits on clarity of the question or of the result, a vote of non-confidence his wall, just as every member of the Senate does. would follow and the government would be defeated, something that certainly could not happen in this house. Furthermore, to move from that to thinking that we are on equal footing with There have been several moments in the constitutional respect to all questions in legal terms is another matter. I think experience of Canada when premiers and prime ministers have there are powers that belong to the House of Commons that are held their offices without even holding a seat in the legislative not found here. I think that no government has ever been assemblies or in the House of Commons. For example, defeated in the Senate. We must consider the bill in its context. Mr. Bouchard himself was premier of Quebec for a period of time without holding a seat in the National Assembly of Quebec. Prime Minister was Prime Minister of Canada • (1600) without holding a seat in the House of Commons. This bill will enable the Government of Canada to represent all Canadians and to make sure that all the representatives of My question to the honourable senator is: Would the term Canadian electoral districts support and grant or refuse the power “political actors” include a Premier Bouchard if he were premier to negotiate. This unanimous position would certainly not come without a seat in the National Assembly, or would it include a from the separatist bloc. John Turner, who was a prime minister without a seat in the House of Commons, or, better still, a prime minister of Canada who was a prime minister from the Senate of Canada? On two occasions, and in good faith, we entered into referendum processes with questions that put the entire future of Canada at issue. At the national level, these referendums left us Senator Forrestall: Some of them are stars. unable to re-establish the facts. Senator Cools: Yes, some are falling stars. We have a bicameral system, it is true, and we have essentially the same powers, except when it comes to bringing a government down on a non-confidence vote. This question will certainly lead Senator Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, I would to this type of vote, and only the House of Commons has this have appreciated notice from the honourable senator in order to power. do the proper research to determine whether that is so according to our Constitution, especially since the whole question of political actors is at the core of our dissenting opinion as to Senator Beaudoin: Honourable senators, it is true that the whether we should be part of the process or not. Should we go vote of confidence occurs only in the House of Commons. The back to the Supreme Court of Canada and ask them to define suspensive veto of the Senate applies only to a constitutional “political actor” for us? I do not like to be described as one. I am amendment. someone representing a province and trying to do my best to serve the interests of my province, but I am not an actor. If I had My point is that this is not a constitutional amendment or a chosen to be one, I would not be here. confidence vote. We are dealing with passage of a bill which, like any other bill, requires the consent of both Houses. I do not have the answer the honourable senator is trying to get from me. If I can get a legal opinion from someone more They suggest that we adopt Bill C-20 because they need the qualified than I in defining the necessary quality to qualify as a Senate. If we say no, there will be no Bill C-20. We are therefore political actor, I would be pleased to give it to the honourable being asked to vote on Bill C-20 and, at the same time, on our senator. own exclusion. This goes against the principles of a bicameral Parliament. Senator Cools: I thank the honourable senator. I am quite sure the court also meant political actresses, but we will not bother [English] with that particular issue.

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I commend My question is premised on the fact that so much of Bill C-20 Senator Hervieux-Payette for her patience. Would the honourable seems to be based on the fact that senators are appointed and not senator take a question from me? elected, and so much of the argument that we have heard here in support of Bill C-20 keeps using the term elected representatives. Senator Hervieux-Payette: Yes. I was trying to show that, while the term used is “political actors,” there are many political actors in Canada who are not elected. In this country, we have had at least two prime ministers Senator Cools: The senator has premised a lot of what she is from the Senate, and it is quite foreseeable that in the future we saying on the term “political actors” — a bizarre, strangely could have another prime minister from the Senate. imprecise term to fall from the mouths of the courts. The honourable senator gave me some comfort by saying that she did not like the term. Senator Kinsella: Yes, Boudreau! 1186 SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

Senator Cools: As the honourable senator is attempting to voted against the bill. Who are we here, appointed, to pretend answer the question, I would ask her to remember that the answer that because we represent the regions, we can substitute is not a legal one. This is a political issue — which is the entire ourselves for the overwhelming decision of the elected problem: These are political questions, not legal questions. It representatives on this bill, which is almost unanimously does not matter how elaborate the legal dress is that you put on negative? them, they remain political questions. Senator Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, I come I now move to my second question. The honourable senator from Quebec, as does Senator Lynch-Staunton. For the last said in her speech — and I may not have got the exact words — 30 years, I have lived the agony and the ambiguity of trying to be something to the effect that the Supreme Court confirmed the in favour of Canada and in favour of Quebec, and trying to be right of Quebec or Quebecers to secede. I wonder if the faithful to Quebec while being proud to be Canadian. For me, it honourable senator could tell me where this right has come from. is a very easy task. My family arrived in this country in 1670, so Can the honourable senator, or anyone in the government, point I consider myself to have Canadian roots. We have, in fact, me to the set of statutory laws, the set of constitutional laws, that suffered for the last three decades the denunciations of the ever conveyed the right of any province of Canada to secede? separatists that those who do not support the separation issue are not democratic. Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough. The honourable senator said the court confirmed it. She did not say they created Honourable senators, as I stand here today, I am a democratic it, but that they confirmed that right. person. My raison d’être in politics has been to support the fact that, in Quebec, being in Canada is a good deal. I am proud that Senator Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, I do not my ancestors helped in creating, founding and discovering this have the whole text of the decision before me; as such, it would country, but that is not the current trend in Quebec. It is tough to be difficult for me to reply, because it is a long judgment. When be a federalist in Quebec. My honourable friend knows that as I referred to the Supreme Court judgment, I was more or less well as I. It is not easy to face, on a day-to-day basis, a separatist referring to the overall framework addressing the question of a government that has adopted another option. That is their choice. future referendum, and, of course, I think it is pretty clear. There That is why I am here. If I had been in Quebec at this moment, I is no specific article or even any constitutional convention in probably would have said that I support Bill C-20, but I must Canada that one can separate. I think we go far beyond that. I admit that it is not easy to stand for Canada when one is in think we refer much more to the democratic process in a free Quebec. society, but as to whether it is confirmed by a law or by our Constitution, I do not think we can have any reference to that. Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, I have no difficulty in standing for Canada when I am in Quebec, nor do What I wish we would have, of course, is a specific clause like most Quebecers. I have more difficulty in standing as a Tory, but they have in , where they forbid separation. We do not I am proud of it. have such a clause. My question was, how far can we go in neglecting the Senator Lynch-Staunton: Put it in! expressed sentiment of the elected representatives of the National Assembly and that of the majority of the elected members from Senator Hervieux-Payette: We will play by the rule of Quebec in the House of Commons on Bill C-20? The democracy. If the people of Quebec have the will and if they are government on this side is ignoring the expressed will of the asked the right question and there is a qualified majority, I am elected representatives completely, and I find that rather sure the rest of Canada will agree to the separation, but it has to arrogant. be done within the framework of the , with the approval of the rest of the country. Hon. Jack Austin: That is our job. [Translation] Senator Lynch-Staunton: “That is our job,” says Senator Austin. Our job is to ignore the wishes of the elected • (1610) representatives? Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, following the statement made by Senator Senator Austin: No, it is to hear the wishes of Canadians. Hervieux-Payette, who does not feel she is a political actor and who represents a region, as I do and as Senator Fraser and others Senator Lynch-Staunton: I oppose the bill, and I think it is in do, I have a supplementary question. the interests of Canadians to oppose the bill. Perhaps when we get to the committee, whether a special committee or not, we will [English] invite representatives from every province to come and give their views on how the House of Commons is being asked to interfere My question is this: The Leader of the Government in Quebec in a decision taken by a legislative assembly. and the Leader of the Opposition in Quebec, on behalf of their parties, have spoken out against this bill. The majority of the Senator Austin: And which would have no impact elected members from Quebec in the House of Commons have on Canada? May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES 1187

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Parliament makes many decisions took part in two referendums and put everything we could into without consultation that have a tremendous impact on the protecting the interests of Quebec within Canada. I hope that I provinces. will not repeat the exercise a third time. This bill is an insurance policy. It is a bill that defines the frame of reference. I agree with you that there are few countries in the world that would allow Senator Hervieux-Payette: On the point about a majority of civilized people to take a democratic decision to destroy a elected members from Quebec, we must remind ourselves that country. It has taken several hundreds of years to build it in a the majority the honourable senator is talking about are separatist civilized manner and by constitutional agreement. We must not members of the Bloc Québécois. These people represent a deceive ourselves. If ever there were a clear question and a clear separatist option at the federal level in a democratic society, and result, I do not believe that the negotiations would be any easier they are very happy to be part of the Canadian family when they or that we would emerge any the better. It is an exercise in which are travelling with us abroad. We must recognize that the all Canadians would lose. majority on the government side who come from Quebec support the government. We must recognize the facts. On motion of Senator Atkins, debate adjourned. Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is all we have to know. • (1620) Senator Hervieux-Payette: The honourable senator says that we are neglecting the opinion of the Liberal opposition in MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS Quebec. I must remind him, although this might hurt some AND OBLIGATIONS BILL feelings, that when we passed the Constitution in 1982, some Liberals in the National Assembly did not support it. I did support it, along with over 70 Liberal members of Parliament at SECOND READING—DEBATE ADJOURNED the time. I want to remind my honourable friend that my colleagues and I in the Liberal Party support Bill C-20 because Hon. Lucie Pépin moved second reading of Bill C-23, to we believe in Canada. modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations. [Translation] She said: Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Hon. Michel Cogger: Honourable senators, I have a question Bill C-23, to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to for the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette. We must conclude benefits and obligations. I support this bill because it is in line that, in the unwritten preamble to that act, there is the premise with the actions I have been taking for a number of years in that Canada is divisible. That premise is not in the text, but if we favour of equality, tolerance and respect of others. start from the premise that Canada is indivisible, then there is no need for Bill C-20. Conversely, as soon as we consider Bill C-20, As honourable senators are no doubt aware, Bill C-23 is we must conclude that, under certain conditions, Canada would intended to recognize heterosexual and homosexual common-law be divisible. Canada’s ambassador to Paris, Mr. Roy, recently unions as having the same status in the eyes of the federal state. said how the French found Canada to be a very democratic state, Concretely, this translates into identical treatment of because it was the only established country to declare itself common-law partners in Canada as far as the benefits and divisible, under certain conditions. obligations arising out of their union are concerned, whether this is a same-sex or opposite-sex couple. The consequence of Honourable senators, where can we find the foundation, the Bill C-23 will therefore be, first, to extend to same-sex text, the convention, the legal basis for Bill C-20? Where can we common-law partners the advantages and obligations that begin to build on such a bill? Where does the Canadian currently apply only to opposite-sex common-law partners and, government find the power to propose this legislation to the two second, to extend to opposite-sex or same-sex common-law Houses? partners certain benefits and certain obligations to which they do not have access at the present time. Senator Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, Senator Cogger says there have been two referendums. It must be Strictly speaking, that is the entire scope of this omnibus bill. remembered that in Canada we have constitutional conventions, tradition, and legislation. I agreed that there were no provisions In practice, however, Bill C-23 involves amendment of a in the Canadian Constitution recognizing the divisibility of the number of federal laws, affecting some twenty or so departments country, but that the Government of Canada took part in two or agencies in seven different areas, including pensions, income referendums in the past. We all took part in this very painful tax and criminal law. exercise. The Supreme Court opinion mentions this possibility of divisibility, following these two referendums. I will go into further detail, if I may, on certain of the more significant changes. First, Bill C-23 uses the term “spouse” to If the Canadian government had decided in the 1980s that it designate married partners exclusively and the new term would not under any circumstances recognize the results of the “common-law partner” to designate persons of the same or referendum within the constitutional framework of the time, opposite sex who have lived together in a common-law union for things would, perhaps, be different. I cannot rewrite history. We at least one year. 1188 SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

I note, honourable senators, that the one-year period of Bill C-23 is also in response to a number of court rulings. With cohabitation required to entitle couples living in a common-law your permission, honourable senators, I will mention the situation to benefits and obligations is not new and that Bill C-23 decisions that have paved the way toward the recognition of in no way changes it. same-sex couples, and I will draw some lessons from them.

There are some who see Bill C-23 as an attack on marriage. This situation led to the provision of a rule of interpretation in The Quebec government was the first one, in 1977, to prohibit the bill providing that: any discrimination based on sexual orientation. Two years later, the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to include “sexual ... the amendments made by this Act do not affect the orientation” as a prohibited ground of discrimination. I remind meaning of the word “marriage”, that is, the lawful union of you that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. adopted in 1982, but its section 15(1) did not include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. In 1985, the idea of considering sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of It is my opinion, honourable senators, that this motion was discrimination received the support of the Parliamentary unnecessary, first, because the bill has nothing to do with Subcommittee on Equality Rights, through its famous report marriage and, second, because the meaning of “marriage” is entitled “Equality for All.” In 1992, in the Haig case, the already clear in law. Nevertheless, the Minister of Justice said there was a need to reassure certain Canadians that Bill C-23 Court of Appeal ruled that the Canadian Human Rights Act must does not in any way alter the meaning of “marriage.” Bill C-23 is be interpreted as prohibiting discrimination based on sexual restricted to recognizing other forms of stable relationships based orientation. Four years later, in 1996, the Canadian Human on a commitment. Rights Act was finally amended accordingly and, the following year, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued its first ruling in favour of granting benefits to the spouses of homosexual Why the law, then? It is Parliament’s answer to changes in public servants. Canadian society and to a series of decisions by courts at various levels over the past few years in Canada, which all had the effect of questioning the fact that social programs did not include The 1990s saw many outcomes favourable to the recognition partners of the same sex, in other words, were limited to a heterosexual reference. of same-sex couples. In 1992, the armed forces lifted the restrictions on enrolment and promotion based on sexual orientation. In 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down Whether some people like it or not, Canada must no longer be its first decision under section 15 of the Charter with respect to a society where being lesbian or gay is a disgrace. This has been sexual orientation and the awarding of benefits to same-sex the case, however, in the past. It was in 1992 that the World spouses — the Egan decision. In a unanimous decision, the court Health Organization stopped defining “homosexuality” as a ruled that sexual orientation constituted a prohibited ground of mental illness. discrimination under section 15 of the Charter, just like sex or age. Several decisions favourable to same-sex couples at the federal and provincial levels ensued. With respect to the granting To illustrate the distance covered since then, allow me, of benefits to same-sex spouses, five of the nine judges ruled that honourable senators, to share with you the results of an Angus the definition of “spouse” in the federal Old Age Security Act Reid poll released in October 1998, which showed that contravened section 15 of the Charter but that this violation was Canadians now accept same-sex couples. The poll revealed that a justified under section 1 of the Charter. majority of Canadians, more specifically, 67 per cent, believed that same-sex couples living as a married couple should enjoy the same tax or employment-related benefits as heterosexual couples. In April 1995, this figure was 49 per cent. Of course, the In 1998, two decisions overturned this preliminary support of Canadians for this proposal was not uniform. Women interpretation of the Charter. In Vriend v. Alberta, the Supreme were more in favour than men of recognizing same-sex couples, Court held that the deliberate omission of sexual orientation in and the younger and more educated were more in favour of Alberta’s Individual Rights Protection Act contravened according this recognition. In short, a majority of Canadians feel section 15 of the Charter and that this departure was not justified that same-sex partners should enjoy the same benefits and under section 1. The Court of Appeal of Ontario handed down a obligations as accorded by the federal government to partners of similar ruling. In Rosenberg v. Canada, it ruled that the fact of the opposite sex, married or not. excluding same-sex spouses from the federal Income Tax Act was not justified under section 1 of the Charter. These two rulings affirm that section 1 of the Charter cannot justify I would even bet that the adoption of Bill C-23 will help discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. reduce the percentage of Canadians who are still opposed to the recognition of same-sex couples, since the state is showing tolerance and respect and is taking measures to achieve equality. By passing Bill C-23, Parliament sends the message that In 1999, in M. v. H., the Supreme Court opened the door to homosexuals are no longer second-class citizens but full-fledged claiming support payments following the breakdown of a members of the Canadian political community. relationship between persons of the same sex.

[ Senator Pépin ] May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES 1189

• (1630) Another argument that has been put forward in connection with Bill C-23 is that it constitutes an attack on the family. By Indeed, the court found that Part III of the Family Law Act of extending to same-sex couples the advantages and obligations Ontario contravened section 15 and was not justified under traditionally recognized for married couples, Bill C-23 section 1 because it only referred to opposite-sex couples. This supposedly would be sounding a death knell on marriage and the decision states that recognition does not mean benefits only, but family. What advantage would there be for couples to marry and also obligations, which a number of speakers in this debate tend start a family if they could enjoy the same status and advantages to forget. without doing so? This is, if I may say so, an extremely narrow-minded view of marriage. Let us be serious about this. Who, except someone with very utilitarian views, decides to Finally, I will touch on the enactment of Bill C-78, regarding marry in order to have access to these advantages? Is there not survivor benefits. This is the first federal act explicitly granting something more profound to marriage and the desire to start a benefits to same-sex couples. For the first time ever, Parliament family? used its legislative authority to grant full citizenship status to some homosexuals by making them eligible for social benefits. Bill C-23 is resolutely realistic, since it acknowledges that Honourable senators, it is in this context that Bill C-23 must be Canadian society is no longer made up of only heterosexual seen. It is now clear that the Charter offers legal guarantees to unions — indeed, numerous studies show that there have been homosexuals and that the recognition of same-sex couples does same-sex couples in Canada for a long time. By passing not imply only benefits, but also obligations. This principle must Bill C-23, Parliament will merely be recognizing the existence in now be put into practice. This is precisely the point of Bill C-23, Canada of unions other than those of heterosexual couples. to bring federal legislation in line with the Charter of Rights and Parliament will no longer bury its head in the sand, and will be Freedoms. putting an end to a long-standing practice of social exclusion.

In the other place and at the Standing Committee on Justice On this, honourable senators, allow me to quote from a and Human Rights, many spoke against passage of Bill C-23. passage in Rosenberg: Many objected on moral grounds, but several raised legal and societal issues. Allow me to review some of the arguments put There is less to fear in recognizing conjugal diversity than forward against the recognition of same-sex couples in Canada. in tolerating exclusionary prejudice. One argument that was often heard against Bill C-23 was that it would harm the institution of marriage and the family. Both By passing Bill C-23, Parliament will resolutely prove its institutions are supposed to be the pillars of Canadian society and modernity. ensure its stability. To attack them could only lead to social unrest. Let us move now from marriage and the family to the field of law. Justice is a pillar of a state with rule of law where the Not being a visionary, I will not voice any opinion on the government is governed by law in order to protect the public apocalyptic interpretations of what will happen the day after from the government itself. Democracy is not domination of the Bill C-23 is passed. In reality, I simply do not believe that this minority by the majority, nor the reverse. It is, rather, a search for bill could lead to such chaos, simply because there is no basis in compromise and negotiated solution based on a desirable societal its contents to justify that. The bill in question does not in any balance. There can be no democracy without political pluralism, way modify the definition of marriage, that is, the lawful union nor political pluralism without rule of law and no rule of law of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. without legal interpretation. This is the fundamental role of the Bill C-23 merely recognizes other forms of stable relationships courts: the formulation of a consensus leading to the attainment based on commitment. of a desirable societal balance. In other words, honourable senators, those who balk at having the Supreme Court interpret In this connection, honourable senators, I would like to quote the Charter are purely and simply advocating a form of rule in to you from the testimony given by Professor Martha Bailey, a which the government arbitrarily sets the laws. family law specialist from Queen’s University, on March 2, when she gave her opinion on Bill C-23 before the Standing Some have held that, with Bill C-23, the government would be Committee on Justice and Human Rights. At the time, she stated giving in to judicial activism; the courts would replace as follows: Parliament, with the supremacy of the court replacing the supremacy of Parliament. Were this the case, a bill recognizing [English] same-sex couples would have been submitted to us long before 2000, with the initial decisions on the matter. Far from giving in ...all Bill C−23 does is extend certain benefits and to judicial activism, the federal government, on the contrary, took obligations traditionally associated with marriage to the time to examine the situation and to propose legislation same-sex couples. It does not affect marriage. intended to put an end to a flagrant injustice and, in so doing, it was responsible. With Bill C-23, the government is providing a framework that is responsible, equitable and legally solid, [Translation] providing room for the latest court decisions on the eligibility of same-sex couples for the benefits and obligations of opposite-sex Nothing could be clearer than that. couples. 1190 SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

In fact, far from giving in to judicial activism, the federal government will also cease to be lagging behind several government might be accused of lagging behind a number of municipal governments and several large Canadian companies provinces that have already amended their statutes so that they that have already given full recognition to those of their no longer discriminate against same-sex couples. Moreover, in employees who are engaged in a same-sex relationship. Bill C-23 the absence of legislation, the courts will continue to hear cases is a logical conclusion. It is the product of a constitutional state, individually, maintaining confusion and constant and costly a state that submits its decision to the wisdom of law. litigation. It is precisely for these reasons that the government must assume the responsibility of proceeding with Bill C-23. Above all, Bill C-23 is a matter of simple justice. Today, a substantial minority, or 40.7 per cent, of married or common-law Honourable senators, while I am asking you to vote in favour couples in Canada do not have children. However, even with no of the bill to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to children and contrary to same-sex couples, several of whom do benefits and obligations, I am well aware of the limitations of the have children, heterosexual couples have the advantage of having proposed measure and I know that Bill C-23 will not solve all the their union recognized by the state. It is clearly unfair to problems experienced by homosexuals in our society. same-sex couples, at least in a constitutional state where equality Nevertheless, Bill C-23 can help alleviate some of these is an exemplary value and where its opposite, discrimination, difficulties. cannot be justified in a free and democratic society.

Bill C-23 cannot eliminate biases against homosexuals, and particularly the abuse to which they are subjected. The group In closing, honourable senators, we must pass Bill C-23 EGALE, which is a national leader in the protection and because it shows an openness to the pluralism of Canadian promotion of the rights of homosexuals and which testified society and it promotes tolerance to diversity, mutual respect, before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, justice and equality. There is no doubt that these are the noted with sadness that physical violence against homosexuals components of a modern political community. was on the rise again. This is not to mention the psychological abuse against homosexuals — the jokes and so on — which Hon. : I congratulate Senator Pépin on pushes some of them to commit suicide. Indeed, an article her speech. I think this bill is certainly justified, but I notice an published in on March 17 stated that: omission. We know, and I am aware of some cases, that other people live together, like a brother and a sister, two brothers or ...the fear of being identified as a homosexual and then be two sisters. They sometimes live together for a long time and are ostracized for that reason is a major cause of depression and able to have a decent living because they live together. When one suicidal impulses among young people. of them has to leave, the other finds himself or herself in a miserable condition. Should we not include these people in the definition of “common-law partnership”? They live just like a This is true at least in the case of young men, who were the family does. target group in the study referred to in this article. Bill C-23 will not solve the tragic issue of suicide, but sending the message that any individual, whether homosexual or heterosexual, has a right Senator Pépin: You are right when you say that when several to a full life might help reduce the number of suicides. people live together in a family, there is a relationship of economic dependency. However, after examining the obligations Notwithstanding these criticisms, honourable senators, I urge and the scope of such a bill, the government has concluded that you to vote in favour of the bill to modernize the Statutes of this situation should be dealt with in a separate bill. Canada in relation to benefits and obligations. As its title indicates, Bill C-23 seeks to modernize, that is to update, the act Since these people do not live as couples, it would be better to and to bring it more in line with the reality. The reality is that, keep both types of situations separate instead of joining them in a today, equality is a fundamental value of the Canadian political single bill, because they are different. community, as evidenced by our charter. The reality is also that, in the Canadian society, there are opposite sex couples and same-sex couples. The law must reflect today’s reality. Senator Robichaud: You say it is completely different. I do not really see how because there is certainly a dependency • (1640) relationship between these two people living together. If you tell me that the government intends to go in this direction later and to With Bill C-23, Canada follows the example of several look at this, I hope it will do so fairly quickly because I think that countries which, in recent years, have recognized same-sex this situation should not continue. It is not fair to those in couples in one way or another. As the very advanced nordic dependency relationships. countries have already done, Canada is now ready to recognize the diversity of lifestyles within its population. Incidentally, these Senator Pépin: Honourable senators, one does not live with countries are also among the most advanced in terms of the someone just to be dependent either. These are two completely political representation of women, another issue which you all different issues. I am in favour of your request and agree that we know is very important to me. should consider the problem these people are facing. You do not live like a married couple because you are dependant on each In passing Bill C-23, Canada will honour its international other. I am prepared to pass on your requests to the government. commitments with regard to civil and political rights. The federal At this stage, this addition would add confusion to the bill.

[ Senator Pépin ] May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES 1191

[English] jurisdiction, and that we do not want to restrict ourselves to a discussion simply of same sex or opposite sex, but to consider a more legitimate question in Canadian society Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I am curious about whether the public which is one of true dependency. When that work is done, as policy objective of this bill is to have the state facilitate people I have already indicated, we may return to both you and the who are dependent on another. If that dependency is responded to House of Commons with an omnibus piece of legislation by the fruit of the labour of the one who is at work, the state will which will deal with the extension of benefits and not have carriage of the social needs of the dependent person. entitlements of one sort or another on the basis of What exactly is the social policy objective of this bill? Is it meant dependency. That work is well on its way, and my to maintain the dependency relationship between a citizen and colleagues and I will be talking about it in detail starting another citizen and therefore not have that citizen dependent next week. upon the state through some other social program?

[Translation] This is a very important question. At what point in time did the minister abandon and retreat from her stated intention of extending benefits to all relationships of economic dependency Senator Pépin: I do not think the bill’s purpose is to recognize and move to the very questionable area of extending benefits dependency relationships. The government recognizes that based on sexuality? That is very unusual. It is a question with heterosexual people are capable of living together and I think which the committee must deal. that that is not necessarily a dependency relationship. However, it does not recognize same-sex couples who are fond of one another and wish to live together. I have two questions to ask of the Honourable Senator Pépin. First, what is a conjugal relationship as defined in this particular bill? Second, how will the existence of a conjugal relationship be I think there is a slight difference. I may be wrong, but when determined? people in the same family live together, with one responsible for the other, the responsibility is often different. For instance, I am responsible for my mother; there is a relationship of affection, but I am still responsible for my mother. However, if you are a Hon. Serge Joyal: Honourable senators, I wish to follow up couple, heterosexual or homosexual, I believe that the two on the question raised by Senator Cools about conjugal relationships are similar and should be recognized. There is no relationships. The Supreme Court judgment in the case referred dependency or financial relationship. If some honourable to by Senator Pépin, and in particular Justice Cory, has defined senators have better arguments, they can answer your question. clearly what is a conjugal relationship. It is not based on sex. Sex is one element. However, it is not an exclusive element of a conjugal relationship. In fact, the court has said that in many [English] conjugal relationships there is no element of sexuality involved. That is because people can enter into marriage or common-law situations and have no children. • (1650)

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, Senator Pépin just The morals of today allow people to have abortions, to resort responded to a particular question on the issue of dependency. to contraceptives and to decide on a common ground not to have The chamber should be informed that Minister Anne McLellan children. It is the right of people in a couple to choose. Thus, the appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and element of sexuality is not an exclusive element of any conjugal Constitutional Affairs on September 23, 1998, and said the relationship on that basis. Justice Cory established that very opposite of what Senator Pépin has said. clearly when he established the five elements of a conjugal relationship. As Senators Pépin and Cools have mentioned, we will have ample opportunity in committee to debate those issues. Minister Anne McLellan appeared before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee on Bill C-37, which was to amend the Judges Act. In response to a question from Senator Bryden, Minister McLellan put the following on the record. There is a fundamental element in what Senator Pépin has I think it should form part of the record here today. She said: said. Bill C-23 is based on the judgment and interpretation of section 15 of the Charter. Section 15 of the Charter in relation to common-law couples was not adopted on the basis of children I will be very candid: This government’s expressed versus parents, uncles versus nephews, and so on. The Supreme approach to this is that we will deal with every case on a Court interpretation of section 15 is that people who live in a case-by-case basis. The court has said that it will take a common-law situation are entitled to the same benefits, be they heterosexual or same-sex couples. That is essentially what the similar approach. However, I would remind court has said. The court has not pronounced on the rights of honourable senators — and I said this in response to Senator parents or relatives on the basis of the interpretation of Bryden — that we are doing policy work that potentially section 15. It has not established such a right. However, the speaks to a fundamental change to whom benefits might be court has established such a right for people living in a extended within Canadian society, at least within the federal common-law situation. 1192 SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

A mother and nephew, for example, are not in a common-law HERITAGE LIGHTHOUSES PROTECTION BILL situation. They might have dependency responsibilities one to the other. They might benefit from some fiscal recognition by the SECOND READING—DEBATE ADJOURNED state, be it at the provincial or the federal level, for reasons related to social policy. In other words, governments may support people helping one another when they became older, Hon. J. Michael Forrestall moved second reading of handicapped, or when they need the support of a parent to Bill S-21, to protect heritage lighthouses. address the needs of living. That is a totally different issue. It is not a legal issue confirmed by the Supreme Court’s interpretation He said: Honourable senators, this matter is, perhaps, a little of section 15. less controversial. However, to some it is of equal interest, but not nearly so commanding of one’s time and mental capacity.

• (1700) Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise on a point of order. Honourable senators, it is my pleasure today to speak to Bill S-21 and, in so doing, to express my sincerest appreciation to Mr. Joe Varner and the very capable assistants of Mr. Mark Audcent, Law Clerk of the Senate, for the work they Senator Cools: Honourable senators, if Senator Joyal is have done in bringing together a non-controversial piece of asking a question, I should like to respond. I welcome what the legislation. I want particularly to express appreciation to honourable senator has said. I want to ensure that we will have Deborah Palumbo. an opportunity to debate his remarks. This is neither a partisan nor a money issue. I ask those senators familiar with Nova Scotia and our beautiful tourist trails to imagine the Lighthouse Trail without one lighthouse or its Senator Pépin has just said that she is not answering questions. outlying structures. Try to envision Peggy’s Cove without a Thus, I welcome the comments of Senator Joyal. However, we lighthouse. Every day that we sit idle, coastal communities need an opportunity to debate his points. throughout Canada, whether on the beautiful East Coast, along the scenic St. Lawrence, on Lake Winnipeg, or on the majestic shores of our Pacific northwest, we face the loss of historic lighthouses — lighthouses which have been the source of Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): salvation to sailors for hundreds of years. They have served as Honourable senators, I do not know if Senator Pépin’s the centres for many coastal communities. 45 minutes have expired, but I should like to comment on the point of order. Beautiful pictures of lighthouses from around the world adorn many a prominent wall, because they are symbols of man’s conquest of the high seas and the oceans. In the past, they captured people’s hearts, for they were the first sight of land to Any senator, including Senator Pépin, is entitled not to answer be seen upon returning home. Lighthouse portraits are among the a question, if that is their choice. They do this individually, most popular of wall hangings. There is no question of their although it seems arbitrary to answer one senator’s question yet place in the human heart, their simplistic beauty set against the not answer another senator’s question. I do not think it is rugged, dark seas. You need not be from the shores of the inappropriate for Senator Pépin not to answer a question yet Atlantic, the Pacific or the Arctic to be attracted to lighthouses. accept another senator’s question. It is in order to make a comment or to ask a question. However, I think there is a time The Lighthouse Preservation Society based in Nova Scotia, frame in which a question or a comment is to be put. with representatives from across Canada, has done extraordinarily good work in examining the plight of Canada’s lighthouses and has attempted to save them from destruction. There are other groups on the West Coast that have also I submit that we are getting close to the time limit of a attempted to preserve this valuable part of Canadian maritime comment. Thus, on the matter of the point of order, I would put it history. Our colleague, the co-sponsor of this bill, the Honourable that a senator can refuse to answer a question or answer a Senator , has worked tirelessly with lightkeepers on question on a senator-to-senator basis. the West Coast to protect stations and, indeed, the keepers themselves. I cannot tell you how many times I followed Senator Carney up spiralling staircases to dizzying heights to help her in I also submit that we should do everything we can to her cause, a cause that brings credit to the Senate and tells encourage debate. However, I remind honourable senators in isolated coastal communities that the government cares. speaking to this point of order that I believe the rules anticipate brevity in putting a question or in making a comment. Today, there are over 500 lighthouses left in Canada. Only 19 of these have full heritage protection. Another 101 have partial protection and recognition as heritage sites. The rest exist On motion of Senator Robertson, debate adjourned. in no man’s land at this time.

[ Senator Joyal ] May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES 1193

What does heritage protection status mean in real terms? For the purpose of safety, clause 6(2) reads: I bring your attention back to Bill C-62, the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act of 1988, upon which this bill is modelled. Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the alteration Why, if heritage sites are so special, was another act required to of a heritage lighthouse where the alteration is made in protect the heritage railway stations found in most Canadian response to an emergency. communities? The answer, sadly, is that even with heritage designation these historic railway stations, some dating to Clause 7 states: Confederation, could be sold, transferred, altered, or destroyed with little recourse to the public. The Heritage Railway Stations Where it is intended to remove, destroy, alter, sell, assign, Protection Act set up a process of public consultations prior to any action being taken with regard to the invaluable heritage transfer or otherwise dispose of a heritage lighthouse, an sites and imposed stiff penalties in the event that precipitous application for authorization to do so shall be filed with the action was taken that damaged historical railway stations. It has Minister, in accordance with the regulations, after public been determined that Canada’s 19 heritage lighthouses and 101 notice is given in the prescribed manner of the intention to partially recognized sites are in the same vulnerable position as file the application. Canada’s historic train stations were prior to the passage of Bill C-62. Thus, a regulatory mechanism is set in place to protect these invaluable heritage sites. This is the very purpose of Bill S-21, an act to protect heritage lighthouses. Clause 3 of the bill states: Clauses 8 through 10 spell out the terms for public hearings and empowers the minister and the Governor in Council to act in The purpose of this Act is to facilitate the designation and the public interest. preservation of heritage lighthouses as part of Canada’s culture and history and to protect them from being altered or Honourable senators, this means that before a heritage disposed of without public consultation. lighthouse is pulled over or, in the unlikely event, sold to McDonald’s or Burger King for advertising purposes, the public The bill defines “heritage lighthouse” as: will be consulted. It also sets up a framework for the transfer of some of these heritage lighthouses to private hands or coastal ...any lighthouse, together with all buildings and other community groups while maintaining the Government of works belonging thereto and in connection therewith, Canada’s ability and right to protect and preserve Canadian designated by the Minister on the recommendation of the culture. Board as a heritage lighthouse. In the end, according to clause 7, the minister will make a It defines “alter” as: recommendation to the Governor in Council based on the report of the board. Finally, clause 9(1) states: ...to change in any manner, and includes to restore or renovate, but does not include routine maintenance and The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of repairs. the Minister and on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council considers appropriate, authorize the “Board” means the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of removal, destruction, alteration, sale, assignment, transfer or Canada. other disposal of a heritage lighthouse.

The minister responsible for this act shall be the Minister of The key, though, is that the Canadian public will have been Heritage. consulted first.

Clause 4 states: In conclusion, honourable senators, these are not partisan issues. There currently exists a so-called “doomsday list” of This Act applies to all lighthouses within the legislative lighthouses, some of which are heritage lighthouses, that are authority of the , whether or not they about to be demolished without even a thought of public are used as navigational aids. consultation. There is a legislative void to guide the work of our tireless public servants. This is simply not right. Clause 5 states: What would Cape Spear, Newfoundland be like 20 years from The Minister may, on the recommendation of the Board, now if it were decided to sell the historic lighthouse there to private interests, or simply to pull it down? What of the designate, for the purposes of this Act, lighthouses as Yarmouth lighthouse that was due to go to the community, the heritage lighthouses. fate of which now hangs in the balance due to real environmental concerns? What of the few real lighthouses left on the Most important, honourable senators, clause 6 (1) states: St. Lawrence, not the small, modern two- or three-metre tall posts with a light bulb at the top? I am talking about real No heritage lighthouse shall be removed, destroyed, lighthouses. What of the historic lighthouse on Georges Island in altered, sold, assigned, transferred or otherwise disposed of, Halifax Harbour along with several historic structures now unless authorized by the Governor in Council. virtually ready for collapse? 1194 SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

It is for the preservation of Canadian culture that we need the deal with this problem of false accusations. I believe it is quite Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act. appropriate that the Senate provide a tremendous legislative and policy development service by bringing forward S bills in this • (1710) house. This one was before us before and had gone to a committee. I should think that, if it was to be referred to, Finally, Bill S-21 will empower citizens and communities to perhaps, the Legal Committee, there would be a canvassing of take an active part, along with government, in preserving our views, a putting together of the up-to-date data. Some time has heritage for future generations. It is for this purpose that I seek lapsed since the joint committee looked at this issue. your support. The Senate provides a policy development service when it On motion of Senator Hays, for Senator Callbeck, initiates such bills, sends them to committee and invites this kind debate adjourned. of study. Therefore, we would support that course of action.

On motion of Senator Hays, debate adjourned. CRIMINAL CODE

BILL TO AMEND—SECOND READING—DEBATE CONTINUED CHANGING MANDATE OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION On the Order: REPORT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON STUDY— Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable DEBATE ADJOURNED Senator Cools, seconded by the Honourable Senator Milne, for the second reading of Bill S-9, to amend the Criminal The Senate proceeded to consideration of the seventh Code (abuse of process).—(Honourable Senator Kinsella). report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs entitled: “The New NATO and the Evolution of Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Peacekeeping: Implications for Canada”, tabled in the Honourable senators, I have a few words on Bill S-9. Senate on April 5, 2000.—(Honourable Senator Stollery).

We all understand the motivation that one delays the Hon. Peter A. Stollery moved the adoption of the report. presentation of this bill as we have delved into it in the past. As honourable senators know, it is really trying to come to grips He said: Honourable senators, I should like to take a few with the problem of false accusations in cases of custody and minutes to speak on the seventh report of the Standing Senate access. Committee on Foreign Affairs.

I remind honourable senators of the work of the Special Joint As honourable senators know, the Foreign Affairs Committee Committee on Child Custody and Access. In the report of that spent a great deal of time holding hearings and investigating the joint committee, we were told that the committee heard a great new NATO. deal of testimony from parents involved in custody and access disputes, who felt that they were being undermined by false Before I say anything, I would like to thank my predecessor, accusations of physical or sexual abuse by their spouse or former former senator Stewart, under whose chairmanship much of the spouse. work of our report, which was tabled in the Senate a few weeks ago, was done. He made a great contribution to this report on the That joint committee heard many examples of parents being new NATO. unable to see their children for years while these allegations were under investigation. Tragically, at the end of the day, the Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee are very proud of allegations were proven to be false, and the human suffering that this nearly 90-page report. It covers a great many subjects. The flowed from those accusations and the injustice of it all was Foreign Affairs Committee has essentially examined economic underscored by the committee. In the committee report of matters for many years, not defence matters. The members of the December 1988, there was this recommendation: committee did not come to this subject with strong views. We were not anti- or pro-NATO. Our report is the result of This Committee recommends that, to deal with intentional investigations and hearings, not one that was already in our false accusations of abuse or neglect, the federal minds when we started. That is very important, because there are government assess the adequacy of the Criminal Code in anti-NATO people and pro-NATO people. The Foreign Affairs dealing with false statements in family law matters and Committee of the Senate was very independent. develop policies to promote action on clear cases of mischief, obstruction of justice or perjury. • (1720)

The government’s response to that report was to announce a We questioned a broad range of witnesses in Ottawa, London, further three-year study. We do not have a government proposal Paris, Bonn, Brussels and Mons, Washington, and at the United or even an indication before Parliament as to how it wishes to Nations in New York.

[ Senator Forrestall ] May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES 1195

For the record, the project was an exhausting one; it really In 1996, I believe, the Foreign Affairs Committee undertook was. During our four or five days in Brussels, we included its first European study, and we ended up in Brussels. Naturally, meetings at the European Union, which resulted in our report when we were in Brussels, we went to NATO. We got the NATO entitled “Europe Revisited.” Our former chairman, my briefing that everyone always gets, and the question could not predecessor, former senator Stewart, tabled that report in the escape us: What do they do now? The Soviet Union does not Senate before he retired in November. In these investigations, we exist any longer, so just what does the organization do? This, of did two reports at the same time, although it must be said that our course, is a question that a lot of people are asking. efforts were concentrated on the new NATO and the evolution of peacekeeping. Honourable senators, in our report, we made 16 recommendations, all of them extremely good. Honourable senators, Senator Lynch-Staunton played a very important role in the genesis of this study. I must say, however, We questioned the legal basis for these interventions. We do that shape of the study changed as it went along. It was a very not think Canada should be involved in interventions that are not strange experience. Our chairman, along with many of the authorized by the United Nations, or else there should be some members, perhaps all of them, became more interested as we other very clear and good reason for our being involved. went along. Remember, honourable senators, our study began about a year ago, just as events in Kosovo were unfolding. Although we did not set out to study Kosovo, we could not We would like to know more about the definition of “human ignore the fact that NATO, the subject of our study, had just security.” We think that we are in favour of human security but become involved in, I think, its first non-NATO campaign, we would like to know what the internationally accepted because Kosovo, as we have noted very clearly in our report, was definition is. what is known as an out-of-area operation or, to those who study NATO matters, a non-Article 5 intervention. That is why, in Recommendation No. 14, we recommend that the Main Estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs and This is very important, because anyone who takes the time — International Trade and the Department of National Defence be and it does not take very much time — to read the 16 articles of referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs for the original NATO treaty will know that the treaty is a short, review. clear, and simple treaty. One does not have to be a lawyer or an expert in drafting to understand the NATO treaty. Article 5 is the Let me remind all honourable senators that this is a unanimous guts of the treaty. It explains that it is a mutual self-defence treaty report. Both parties in the Senate support this report. We are very and states that, if any of the members is attacked, the others have interested in having some meetings with the Department of to go to their defence. Foreign Affairs and the Department of National Defence so that some of the questions members of the committee have can be NATO got its start in 1949, at the beginning of the Cold War. answered as we look at the estimates of the two departments. We The problem for NATO became that the enemy left; the Soviet think that would be an important reform of the system. If there is Union was no longer there. The Soviet Union collapsed, and the any single point that leaps out at one, it is that there does not question became: What does NATO do? That is what the seem to be a great deal of parliamentary input into these committee studied. What does NATO do? NATO, itself, in fact, decisions. has been wondering what it does. It changed its original terms of reference in November 1991 and again last April. While the • (1730) original NATO treaty is very simple, a reading of the NATO terms of reference after the fall of the Berlin Wall is evidence of We have also noted very strongly that Parliament should be a much more vague treaty. That resulted, last year, in NATO more involved in decisions that involve sending Canadian involving itself in its first non-Article 5 intervention. That is the soldiers to conflict situations, peacemaking and peacekeeping term that is used. missions. We suggest that the government clearly spell out Canada’s interests and the scope of Canadian involvement. In Of course, members of the committee asked: What is the legal Recommendation No. 12, we say that Parliament should have a basis for a non-Article 5 intervention? Speaking for myself as the direct role in the review of important international agreements, new chairman, I found the replies unsatisfactory. What was the while Recommendation No. 13 states: legal basis for the Kosovo intervention? NATO is a self-defence organization, authorized under the Charter of the United Nations, That both houses of Parliament have the opportunity to but when they attempted to establish a legal basis for the Kosovo debate and approve at the earliest possible moment intervention, it became less than clear. Canadian participation in any military intervention or external conflict situation, including peacekeeping and peacemaking missions, with the Government clearly In our report, we deal with the old NATO, the one before 1990. spelling out Canada’s interest in the situation and the scope That is the NATO we all understood during the Cold War. Then of Canadian involvement. we talk about the new NATO — the moving target, as I describe it. The terms of reference have been changed twice, and undoubtedly will be changed again, because NATO is looking for These are good recommendations. They are very important a role. recommendations. 1196 SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

In the changing international environment, NATO is looking does he see the executive being tied to an executive decision for a role that is unclear. We discussed the European Strategic before action is taken? Defence Identity in our report. Will the Europeans, because of their dependence on the United States in NATO, develop their own defence arrangements, in particular, regarding heavy lift? My second question concerns the National Missile Defence Presently, they are unable to get the equipment there. As well, Initiative that is being proposed by the United States. Senator what about satellite communications and a common procurement Forrestall gave a speech on this subject and it was raised in policy? Question Period as well. Regarding the post-Cold War role of NATO and the possible divorce between Europe and North America in terms of the current cohabitation through NATO, It is fair to say that the members of the committee were more what should our position be on the National Missile Defence skeptical of the European strategic defence initiative at the Initiative of the United States and our participation in it? beginning of our hearings than we were at the end. At the end, many of us thought, “Where does this all leave Canada?” That is the question: Where does it leave us? What if the European Senator Stollery: Honourable senators, I cannot respond to Union, the world’s most powerful trading block, develops its the question concerning that defence system because the own army — and they have talked about it — as well as a committee did not discuss it. It was not in our mandate. The common foreign policy and a common defence policy? If they go information in our report is based on the evidence we collected. ahead, as they say they will and as some people say they should, We did not put anything in the report that we did not hear a lot of we do not know where that leaves the Americans. Furthermore, evidence about. I cannot comment about the missile defence where does it leave Canada? That is the question our committee system. It may well be part of the evolving NATO. That is to say, wants to put to Canadians and to the Canadian government. it may well be that the Americans will defending themselves rather than NATO. I do not know. Honourable senators, we are a founding member of NATO, but what if NATO leaves us, which is the phrase we use in our As to the senator’s first question about Parliament, we have report? been very careful not to bind the government. We understand perfectly well that the executive in our parliamentary system The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, the makes decisions. We have been very careful not to impede the speaking time for the Honourable Senator Stollery has expired. Is power of executive decision. We discuss this issue in the report he asking for leave to continue? and did a thorough job on that subject. We heard from an excellent legal advisor. Senator Stollery: May I have leave to continue, honourable senators? Chapter VIII of the report is entitled “Parliament and Canada’s External Security Commitments.” We state that the first role of Parliament is to examine the financing of these operations. The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted, However, we do not believe that the examination of the financing honourable senators? has been particularly thorough. For example, from where did the money come to pay for Kosovo? In our system of government, Hon. Senators: Agreed. when the minister or the departmental officials go before a committee of the House of Commons, they are asked questions Senator Stollery: Where does this leave us, honourable about how the money was spent. It has been said that this is not senators? The Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate will being done very effectively. We have allotted an entire chapter to certainly be following this issue and asking these questions. this subject.

I will end by thanking my colleagues from the Foreign Affairs Over the years, Parliament has been consulted less and less on Committee, who put in an enormous amount of time working on matters of foreign involvement. It has been the opposite in other this report. We are all proud of our work and of the result of our countries. Even in 1939, Prime Minister King spoke to the House work. I want to thank them for taking so much of their time of Commons. In Canada, there has been a lessening of contributing to this report. parliamentary consultation. We think that should be ended, but not to the degree that the government cannot act. We are not Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): saying that. I think that answers Senator Hays’ question. Honourable senators, would Senator Stollery permit a brief question? [Translation]

Senator Stollery: Yes. • (1740)

Senator Hays: Senator Stollery referred to Recommendation Hon. Roch Bolduc: Honourable senators, I should like to No. 13 as a parliamentary role — that is, when the executive point out that Senator Lynch-Staunton was particularly active in takes a decision such as the stretch that they took using NATO to the committee. He made an outstanding contribution, and I intervene in Kosovo. I remember the event because I was there. should not forget the Deputy Chair of the committee, Senator It caused a controversy. It came to Parliament’s attention. What Andreychuk, who already has a long experience in international more would he envisage Parliament doing and to what extent affairs.

[ Senator Stollery ] May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES 1197

[English] The potential danger here, honourable senators, is that of state activism which can arise because there are no longer any clear decision-making centres, or because Parliament is ignored or Honourable senators, when faced with the threat of the Soviet information on potential missions is defective or biased or the Union after World War II, it became obvious to Americans and cost of missions are concealed. We must be clear and selective. Europeans that they had to create a strategic defence alliance. It Our interests must also be concerted in establishing the criteria was for this purpose that NATO came into existence. It was for that will guide Canada’s actions. this reason that West became bound to Western Europe. This is what happened and it was a success in that peace was maintained without any major armed conflict. In the case of Kosovo, for example, it is now quite certain that Canada has made a long-term commitment without any real, preliminary or serious public discussion in Canada. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Soviet threat faded, but the transatlantic link remained an essential insurance policy for world peace, as it was not known what would become of Russia. The Treasury Board, for example, estimates Canada’s costs in this operation at $500 million in 1999; and at $350 million for 2000. There were probably also costs in 1998 in the preparation As for trading nations such as Canada, world peace was an period, but the figure for that is not given. I hope that we have essential condition to our prosperity. The same was true of the not placed ourselves in the situation of another Cyprus, a 25-year United States-Japan defence alliance, in light of the uncertainty venture which, in 1987, cost us $1 billion per year, because it surrounding China’s future. Together with the Americans, also partly justified our presence in Germany at the time. Canada also joined NORAD, to provide for the joint defence of North America. [Translation] Apart from these geo-political uncertainties, NATO has focussed over the past decade on other less global but, Data now available on the conflict in Kosovo seem to indicate nevertheless real threats to what foreign affairs has called that, first, Mr. Clinton had other existential concerns when he “human security” — that is to say, the security of civilians as said yes to Mr. Blair, who himself might have been driven by his opposed to that of the alliance states, which, more often than not, own eloquence; second, that atrocities did not cease during the is threatened by conflicts such as inter-racial issues, terrorist acts, war; and, third, that we have not yet reached the end of the tunnel and so on. in this conflict in former Yugoslavia.

These types of conflicts alter NATO’s activities and add a new I will let others debate the legality of the NATO intervention dimension to its international role. This was how we came to in Kosovo and simply say that, in the future, we will have to be develop the concept of peacemaking as opposed to the more careful before ignoring the will of the Security Council, peacekeeping activities of our armed forces, activities that have even if it needs to seriously review its mandate and ignore the long been under way in the context of the United Nations. will of the United Nations.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has spoken out several times However, this conflict has had a positive impact on another in recent years to explain and justify this type of intervention. level: the image that Europeans have of themselves. I think that Among other things, I am thinking of the minister’s speeches at the European conscience, which was heretofore monopolized by Middlebury College, last February, in Calgary, in March, and his economic and financial issues, has now been extended to security recent address to the Security Council. and defence issues.

We are far from being on the verge of nuclear war, even Western Europeans realized, honourable senators, their though certain Middle Eastern states and North Korea are still logistical incapacity to deploy their forces on their own special cases. We have not forgotten the tension between India continent, their lack of equipment and tactical information, the and Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, and other countries. We are thinking absence of coordinated management of personnel, and so on. In mainly of the delicate situation in the Balkans and tribal conflicts short, it was a clear reminder that NATO is first and foremost in Africa, where Europe maintains an interest. U.S. might, even 50 years after World War II.

The concept of peacemaking is still developing, but the The resulting European defence initiative is a healthy and remarks by the UN Secretary General and Mr. Axworthy reveal legitimate movement. It will take a lot of time and goodwill to the varied nature of the causes of peacemaking efforts and of the coordinate the defence budgets of our European allies. It will be security activities to which they are likely to lead. This situation as important a test as Maastricht with regard to the willingness of is thus likely to alter the nature of our armed forces. Authorities the French, the British and the Germans to work together and to refer at times to armed intervention as a way to stop conflicts coordinate their forces and their materiel purchases. such as those in Kosovo. With others, they consider policing efforts, such as where the RCMP is involved — and here I am referring not only to Haiti — and at others they engage in civil What is important for us is that this initiative is developing administration and even social work in regions devastated by within NATO in order to preserve the transatlantic tie to which I conflict. was referring earlier and which is so vital to us. 1198 SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

I should now like to talk about the very important issue of In security matters, it cannot be taken for granted that what the government accountability in foreign affairs in general, but minister wishes will always be desirable for the people. For particularly in the area of defence and, to a lesser extent, in the example, if the minister is in favour of policing operations, he area of international aid. It is not the first time that I raise this will want to establish order around the world, despite the sage issue here. I do so again today because I believe that it is advice of our former ambassador to the United States, who fundamental to Canadian democracy and that an adjustment is maintains that even the United States cannot do that. Thus, if the necessary in the evolution of our parliamentary practices. minister is a proponent of military operations, he will need troops on every front. If he is more of a social worker, he will have to be Under the Canadian Constitution, which is 133 years old and involved in all humanitarian undertakings. inspired by Westminster, the government or executive has the upper hand over foreign policy, including security matters; the • (1750) government enters into treaties, declares war and deals with foreign countries. Honourable senators, I submit that it is wise that ministerial aims be viewed against those of Parliament so that what the For its part, Parliament either amends or does not amend people view as important foreign policy, security and Canadian laws to bring them in line with the obligations international aid issues can be ascertained. stemming from the treaties entered into by the government and either appropriates or does not appropriate the funds necessary for war expenses or foreign aid. A very serious effort must therefore be made to remedy Parliament’s virtual absence from these important areas, which is Parliament may also hold debates on any issue it deems an unhealthy development for Canadian democracy. necessary to bring to the public’s attention; it may also question the government on its public policies or criticize them. In a nutshell, this is where Canada’s constitutional law is at in this I understand that the British tradition of our parliamentary regard. system favours the executive branch of government, which historically held all powers, much more than the republican systems of the United States and France. The British system Parliamentary practice in this respect varies a lot. In the 1920s, existed prior to the advent of democracy and, although it has Prime Minister Mackenzie King, frustrated by the military been influenced by that event, it remains, perhaps more so in commitments involving Canada made by London, made sure that Canada than in England itself, characterized by this Parliament passed a resolution in the summer of 1939 before predominance, although not domination, of the government’s Canada declared war in September 1939. power.

The United Nations Charter, in 1945, and the NATO treaty, in 1949, were submitted to Parliament before they were ratified by Honourable senators, I submit that, in the year 2000, it is high the government. The same approach was followed to amend the time we change the way in which we do things and that we NATO treaty in order to admit Greece and Turkey, in 1952, and submit the government to rules that, while allowing it reasonable Germany, in 1955. room to manoeuvre in order to be effective, reasonably restrict its discretionary power. The other Western democracies appear to give their parliaments a broader official role in reviewing major During this period, Parliament’s participation in the decision to foreign policy decisions: declaration of war resolutions, prior deploy troops abroad has been sporadic, as stated by our debate and approval of treaties, debate on important agreements, committee chairman, Senator Stollery. In the case of Cyprus, the and authorization to deploy military forces abroad. Golf War and Somalia, Parliament was consulted, but it was not on Korea, Zaire and Kosovo. In England, for example, our report discusses the “Ponsonby” [English] rule, which, since 1920, has required that international agreements that are to be ratified be communicated to the Houses of Parliament at least 21 days prior to ratification — hence, the Similarly, the NORAD agreement, in 1958, was not submitted importance of our recommendations 12 to 15 on page 84 of this for Parliament’s approval, nor was the admission of new report. members such as Spain, in 1982, or Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, in 1999. Even well-established customs such as the tabling of international agreements in Parliament was I personally would prefer to see a constitutional amendment abandoned. partially limiting the discretion of the executive branch in foreign policy. In other words, it seems to me that the general rule of Honourable senators, I submit that this situation is utterly liberal societies that the government may do nothing unless unacceptable and that Parliament must be more consistent with authorized by Parliament is a wise rule, whereas it now appears the requirements of democracy in the 21st century. It is not to be the rule that the government can do everything except what because Canada is a member of the United Nations organization it is prohibited from doing. I would remind honourable senators that it must take part in all operations authorized by the United that, in true liberal societies, it is individuals that enjoy this Nations, the nation’s voice must be heard before young people freedom, not governments, which should be governed by the rule are sent to face enemy fire. that they may do nothing except what is permitted by law.

[ Senator Bolduc ] May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES 1199

Failing an appropriate constitutional amendment, we should wish, I suggest that if we go past six o’clock and we only have a perhaps consider including in the Department of Foreign Affairs’ few items of business with which to deal that we not see the enabling statute criteria that will set limits for departmental clock. intervention abroad in the field of human security, such as, for example, a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly in the case of mass genocide. The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It is agreed, honourable senators?

In his speech at Middlebury College, Minister Axworthy Hon. Senators: Agreed. spoke more openly than previously about the criteria for military intervention outside Canada. BILL TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET OUT IN THE OPINION OF THE We have addressed security issues here. In closing, I wish to SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN THE QUEBEC emphasize that this rule should also prevail as regards SECESSION REFERENCE development assistance to Third World countries and in national and international commitments through the specialized MOTION TO INSTRUCT COMMITTEE TO AMEND— institutions of the UN or those established under the Bretton POINT OF ORDER—SPEAKER’S RULING Woods accords. Here, as well, limits must be placed on ministerial discretion through clear statutory criteria known to all. On the Order:

Motion of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, While that discretion must be broad enough to permit flexible seconded by the Honourable Senator Kinsella: ministerial action where required, its limits must not be so unclear as to lead to bureaucratic abuse. I would recall here that an organization as important as CIDA was not even constituted That upon committal of Bill C-20 to committee, that the by an act of Parliament, but by a mere Order in Council. committee be instructed to amend Bill C-20 to rank the However, this organization annually allocates $2 billion in public Senate of Canada as an equal partner with the House of funds for various purposes. Statutory criteria are clearly called Commons, and report back accordingly.—(Speaker’s for here in order to set parameters for administrative action. Ruling).

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, on Just as in security matters, Parliament’s voice must be heard Tuesday, April 11, when Senator Lynch-Staunton, the Leader of before the government gives orders to the Armed Forces, so the the Opposition, moved a motion of instruction, Senator Hays, the voice of the people must guide the diplomatic actions of Deputy Leader of the Government, rose on a point of order. ambassadors. Senator Hays claimed that the motion of instruction was out of order because it was not in the correct form. The motion of Senator Lynch-Staunton seeks to instruct the committee that would examine Bill C-20 to make certain amendments “to rank You must understand, honourable senators, that as a former the Senate of Canada as an equal partner with the House of senior public servant I have the greatest respect for military Commons.” According to Senator Hays, this instruction is personnel, diplomats and ministers, but, in free societies, the law mandatory in form and, consequently, is out of order. Senator as enacted by Parliament must rightly be the supreme guide of Hays argued that the instruction must be permissive, rather than government action. mandatory, because the power to amend the bill is a power that the committee already possesses. In support of his position, Senator Hays referred to a ruling of November 1995, as well as On motion of Senator Andreychuk, debate adjourned. to Bourinot’s Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada.

[Translation] [Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, it is Subsequently, there were some other interventions by several 6 p.m. Is leave granted for the Chair not to see the clock? senators, including Senator Lynch−Staunton who supported his motion with a citation from Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules & Forms as well as a reference to the Companion to the [English] Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings to the House of Lords. I want to thank all senators who spoke on the point of order. I have reviewed the material and the references that were Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Ido cited during the discussion on the point of order. I am now not think it is quite six o’clock, Your Honour. However, if you prepared to give my ruling. 1200 SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

[English] [English]

Applying this basic distinction to the rules of the Senate as Motions of instruction are relatively infrequent in Canadian they are presently written, it would seem to me that motions of parliamentary practice. They are not a regular feature in either instruction to a committee with respect to the study of public the Senate or the House of Commons, and it is not altogether bills must be in the permissive form. This is because our rules surprising that their use can give rise to some confusion. A already authorize any committee examining a bill to recommend motion of instruction was last moved in the Senate December 6, any relevant amendments it deems appropriate. Thus, a 1999, by Senator Murray. In that particular case, the instruction committee looking at Bill C-20 has the power to amend it in the proposed to empower the committee to divide Bill C-6, a bill way suggested by the motion of instruction proposed by Senator dealing with electronic commerce. This motion was taken up for Lynch-Staunton. The text of the motion, however, is mandatory consideration immediately after the bill had received second in its form and this is contrary to established usage. This position reading. As it happened, however, no decision was taken with is supported by recent Canadian authorities, including respect to the motion, because it was withdrawn some days later Beauchesne, and is confirmed in the latest Canadian after the Senate had actually disposed of Bill C-6. parliamentary manual, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 641 as follows: • (1800) Motions of instruction respecting bills are permissive rather than mandatory. The point of order raised by Senator Hays focuses on the question of whether the motion of instruction should be in a permissive form rather than in the mandatory style proposed by [Translation] Senator Lynch-Staunton. If it is determined that the point of order is well founded, then the motion must be ruled out of order. Moreover, the present motion of instruction, even if it had been written in the permissive form, would still not past muster procedurally. There are various criteria listed in Erskine May on In trying to determine the proper answer to this proposition, I admissible and inadmissible instructions. Admissible instruction felt obliged to investigate some of the history of motions of can authorize a committee to treat legislation in a variety of instruction in earlier editions of Erskine May’s Treatise on The different, but specific, ways. Among the instructions which are Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament,the acceptable are motions empowering a committee to divide a bill, British parliamentary authority. This seemed appropriate given to consolidate several bills or to report separately on different the limited use made of instructions in the Canadian Parliament parts of a bill. The motion of instruction of Senator and the fact that these motions are derived from British Lynch-Staunton seeks to do none of these things. Rather it seeks parliamentary practice. to instruct the committee to do something which it already has the power to do. This in fact, is a form of instruction which is recognized to be inadmissible because it is superfluous. [Translation] [English]

Motions of instruction developed in the British Parliament at a Beyond this, there is still another reason the motion would time when the powers of committees were narrowly defined and give rise to some doubts about its acceptability, quite apart from severely constrained. Through the 18th century and into the first what has already been discussed. Any motion seeking to decades of the 19th century, it would seem that the authority of authorize or direct a committee in its study of a particular bill committees to amend bills was so limited that they frequently must be clear and explicit. As I read it, the current motion does required instructions from the House to carry out their work not meet this standard. In seeking to have the committee make effectively. A partial remedy to this problem was to incorporate whatever changes are required “to rank the Senate of Canada as within the rules or standing orders of the House certain powers an equal partner with the House of Commons,” the motion is not whereby the committees acquired the authority to make providing an instruction that is adequately explicit. The language amendments to legislation so long as those amendments were is not clear or specific enough. It does not allow the committee to generally within the scope of the bill and were relevant. understand definitely what provisions the Senate desires that it Thereafter, the need for instructions became less frequent and should take into consideration. For these reasons, therefore, I rule they developed certain characteristics which remain generally the that the motion of instruction proposed by Senator same to this day. Among these characteristics was the distinction Lynch-Staunton is out of order. between permissive and mandatory instructions. The more ordinary instruction was the permissive instruction which empowered a committee to exercise certain powers at its As a final comment, while the point of order was raised at the discretion. Instructions had to be in the permissive form if they earliest opportunity when the motion of instruction was first were to apply to committees which already possessed some called, I think it advisable to note that a motion of instruction authority under the standing orders. Instructions could be either cannot properly be taken up for debate prior to the adoption of permissive or mandatory if the committees involved possessed the second reading motion on the bill to which it relates. Again, no powers because they were created on an ad hoc basis or if all the authorities are clear on this. Beauchesne states, at they concerned private bills. paragraph 684 on page 204, that: May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES 1201

The time for moving an Instruction is immediately after The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, is the committal of the bill, or, subsequently, as an independent leave granted to allow that Motion No. 56 standing in the name motion. The Instruction should not be given while the bill is of Senator Gauthier be withdrawn from the Notice Paper? still in the possession of the House, but rather after it has come into the possession of the committee. If the bill has Hon. Senators: Agreed. been partly considered in committee, it is not competent to propose an Instruction. Motion withdrawn.

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND ADJOURNMENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Leave having been given to revert to Government Notices of MOTION URGING RECONSIDERATION OF RULING DENYING Motions: TVONTATIO REQUEST TO DISTRIBUTE TÉLÉVISION FRANÇAISE DE L’ONTARIO IN QUEBEC WITHDRAWN Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government), with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(h), moved: On Motion No. 56: That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand That the Senate recommend to the Government of Canada adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 3, 2000, at 1:30 that it request the Canadian Radio-Television and p.m.; Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to reconsider the decision handed down on March 1, 2000, regarding the That at 3:30 p.m. tomorrow, if the business of the Senate application by TVOntario − TFO (French-language has not been completed, the Speaker shall interrupt the television channel), in order to allow the only network proceedings to adjourn the Senate; producing French and cultural programming outside Quebec to distribute that programming in Quebec by cable. That should a division be deferred until 5:30 p.m. tomorrow, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings at Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): 3:30 p.m. to suspend the sitting until 5:30 p.m. for the Honourable senators, I rise at the request of Senator Gauthier to ask leave of the Senate to withdraw this motion standing in his taking of the deferred division; and name. Briefly, the reason for the request is that Senator Gauthier has, in the absence of a response from the Chairman of the That all matters on the Orders of the Day and on the CRTC, become frustrated with this approach and has commenced Notice Paper, which have not been reached, shall retain their a legal action to seek a remedy, the thrust of this motion being position. the reconsideration of a CRTC decision. Motion agreed to. Therefore, on behalf of Senator Gauthier, I request leave for this motion to be withdrawn from the Notice Paper. I should be The Senate adjourned until Wednesday, May 3, 2000, at happy to give further clarification, if requested. 1:30 p.m.

APPENDIX

Officers of the Senate

The Ministry

Senators

(Listed according to seniority, alphabetically and by provinces)

Committees of the Senate ii SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

THE SPEAKER

THE HONOURABLE GILDAS L. MOLGAT

THE LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT

THE HONOURABLE J. BERNARD BOUDREAU, P. C.

THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

THE HONOURABLE JOHN LYNCH-STAUNTON

______

OFFICERS OF THE SENATE

CLERK OF THE SENATE AND CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS

PAUL BÉLISLE

DEPUTY CLERK, PRINCIPAL CLERK, LEGISLATIVE SERVICES

GARY O’BRIEN

LAW CLERK AND PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL

MARK AUDCENT

USHER OF THE BLACK ROD

MARY MCLAREN May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES iii

THE MINISTRY According to Precedence ______

(May 2, 2000) ______The Right Hon. Jean Chrétien Prime Minister The Hon. Herbert Eser Gray Deputy Prime Minister The Hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs The Hon. David M. Collenette Minister of Transport The Hon. David Anderson Minister of the Environment The Hon. Ralph E. Goodale Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board The Hon. Sheila Copps Minister of Canadian Heritage The Hon. Minister of Industry The Hon. Minister of Finance The Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton Minister of National Defence The Hon. Anne McLellan Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada The Hon. Minister of Health The Hon. Lawrence MacAulay Solicitor General of Canada The Hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services The Hon. President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure The Hon. Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec) The Hon. Jane Stewart Minister of Human Resources Development The Hon. Stéphane Dion President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs The Hon. Minister of International Trade The Hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons The Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau Leader of the Government in the Senate The Hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food The Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans The Hon. Minister of Labour The Hon. George Baker Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) The Hon. Robert Daniel Nault Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development The Hon. Minister for International Cooperation The Hon. Minister for Citizenship and Immigration The Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew Secretary of State (Children and Youth) The Hon. Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific) The Hon. Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women) The Hon. Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa) The Hon. James Scott Peterson Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions) The Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification) and Francophonie The Hon. Andrew Mitchell Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario The Hon. Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development) The Hon. Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) iv SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

SENATORS OF CANADA

ACCORDING TO SENIORITY

(May 2, 2000)

Senator Designation Post Office Address

THE HONOURABLE Herbert O. Sparrow...... Saskatchewan ...... North Battleford, Sask. Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker...... Ste-Rose ...... Winnipeg, Man. Edward M. Lawson...... Vancouver ...... Vancouver, B.C. Bernard Alasdair Graham, P.C...... The Highlands ...... Sydney, N.S. Raymond J. Perrault, P.C...... North Shore-Burnaby ...... North Vancouver, B.C. Louis-J. Robichaud, P.C...... L’Acadie- ...... Saint-Antoine, N.B. Jack Austin, P.C...... Vancouver South ...... Vancouver, B.C. Willie Adams...... Nunavut ...... Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Lowell Murray, P.C...... Pakenham ...... Ottawa, Ont. C. William Doody...... Harbour Main-Bell Island ..... St. John’s, Nfld. Peter Alan Stollery...... Bloor and Yonge ...... Toronto, Ont. Peter Michael Pitfield, P.C...... Ontario ...... Ottawa, Ont. William McDonough Kelly...... Port Severn ...... Mississauga, Ont. E. Leo Kolber...... Victoria ...... Westmount, Que. Michael Kirby...... South Shore ...... Halifax, N.S. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein...... Metro Toronto ...... Toronto, Ont. Anne C. Cools...... Toronto-York ...... Toronto, Ont. Charlie Watt...... Inkerman ...... Kuujjuaq, Que. Daniel Phillip Hays...... Calgary ...... Calgary, Alta. Joyce Fairbairn, P.C...... Lethbridge ...... Lethbridge, Alta. Colin Kenny...... Rideau ...... Ottawa, Ont. Pierre De Bané, P.C...... De la Vallière ...... , Que. Eymard Georges Corbin...... Grand-Sault ...... Grand-Sault, N.B. Brenda Mary Robertson...... Riverview ...... , N.B. Jean-Maurice Simard...... Edmundston ...... Edmundston, N.B. Michel Cogger...... Lauzon ...... Knowlton, Que. Norman K. Atkins...... Markham ...... Toronto, Ont. Ethel Cochrane...... Newfoundland ...... Port-au-Port, Nfld. Eileen Rossiter...... Prince Edward Island ...... Charlottetown, P.E.I. Mira Spivak...... ...... Winnipeg, Man. Roch Bolduc...... Golfe ...... Sainte-Foy, Que. Gérald-A. Beaudoin...... Rigaud ...... Hull, Que. Pat Carney, P.C...... British Columbia ...... Vancouver, B.C. Gerald J. Comeau...... Nova Scotia ...... Church Point, N.S. Consiglio Di Nino...... Ontario ...... Downsview, Ont. Donald H. Oliver...... Nova Scotia ...... Halifax, N.S. Noël A. Kinsella...... ...... Fredericton, N.B. John Buchanan, P.C...... Nova Scotia ...... Halifax, N.S. Mabel Margaret DeWare...... New Brunswick ...... , N.B. John Lynch-Staunton...... Grandville ...... Georgeville, Que. James Francis Kelleher, P.C...... Ontario ...... Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. J. Trevor Eyton...... Ontario ...... Caledon, Ont. Wilbert Joseph Keon...... Ottawa ...... Ottawa, Ont. Michael ...... St. Marys ...... Toronto, Ont. Normand Grimard...... Quebec ...... Noranda, Que. Thérèse Lavoie-Roux...... Quebec ...... Montreal, Que. J. Michael Forrestall...... Dartmouth and Eastern Shore .. Dartmouth, N.S. Janis Johnson...... Winnipeg-Interlake ...... Winnipeg, Man. Eric Arthur Berntson...... Saskatchewan ...... Saskatoon, Sask. A. Raynell Andreychuk...... Regina ...... Regina, Sask. Jean-Claude Rivest...... Stadacona ...... Quebec, Que. Terrance R. Stratton...... Red River ...... St. Norbert, Man. May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES v

ACCORDING TO SENIORITY

Senator Designation Post Office Address

THE HONOURABLE Marcel Prud’homme, P.C...... La Salle ...... Montreal, Que. Fernand Roberge...... Saurel ...... Ville Saint-Laurent, Que. Leonard J. Gustafson...... Saskatchewan ...... Macoun, Sask. Erminie Joy Cohen...... New Brunswick ...... Saint John, N.B. David Tkachuk...... Saskatchewan ...... Saskatoon, Sask. W. David Angus...... Alma ...... Montreal, Que. Pierre Claude Nolin...... De Salaberry ...... Quebec, Que. Marjory LeBreton...... Ontario ...... Manotick, Ont. Gerry St. Germain, P.C...... Langley-Pemberton-Whistler .. Maple Ridge, B.C. Lise Bacon...... De la Durantaye ...... Laval, Que. Sharon Carstairs...... Manitoba ...... Victoria Beach, Man. Landon Pearson...... Ontario ...... Ottawa, Ont. Jean-Robert Gauthier...... Ottawa-Vanier ...... Ottawa, Ontario John G. Bryden...... New Brunswick ...... Bayfield, N.B. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool...... New Brunswick ...... Bathurst, N.B. Céline Hervieux-Payette, P.C...... Bedford ...... Montreal, Que. William H. Rompkey, P.C...... Newfoundland ...... North West River, Labrador, Nfld. Lorna Milne...... Peel County ...... Brampton, Ont. Marie-P. Poulin...... Northern Ontario ...... Ottawa, Ont. Shirley Maheu...... Rougemont ...... Ville Saint-Laurent, Que. Nicholas William Taylor...... Sturgeon ...... Bon Accord, Alta. Léonce Mercier...... Mille Isles ...... Saint-Élie d’Orford, Que. Wilfred P. Moore...... Stanhope St./Bluenose ...... Chester, N.S. Lucie Pépin...... Shawinegan ...... Montreal, Que. Fernand Robichaud, P.C...... New Brunswick ...... Saint-Louis-de-Kent, N.B. Catherine S. Callbeck...... Prince Edward Island ...... Central Bedeque, P.E.I. Marisa Ferretti Barth...... Repentigny ...... Pierrefonds, Que. Serge Joyal, P.C...... Kennebec ...... Montreal, Que. Thelma J. Chalifoux...... Alberta ...... Morinville, Alta. Joan Cook...... Newfoundland ...... St. John’s, Nfld. Ross Fitzpatrick...... Okanagan-Similkameen ...... Kelowna, B.C. The Very Reverend Dr. Lois M. Wilson...... Toronto ...... Toronto, Ont. Francis William Mahovlich...... Toronto ...... Toronto, Ont. Calvin Woodrow Ruck...... Dartmouth ...... Dartmouth, N.S. Richard H. Kroft...... Manitoba ...... Winnipeg, Man. Douglas James Roche...... Edmonton ...... Edmonton, Alta. Joan Thorne Fraser...... De Lorimier ...... Montreal, Que. Aurélien Gill...... Wellington ...... Mashteuiatsh, Pointe-Bleue, Que. Vivienne Poy...... Toronto ...... Toronto, Ont. , P.C...... Montarville ...... Montreal, Que. Ione Christensen...... Yukon ...... Whitehorse, Yukon Territory George Furey...... Newfoundland ...... St. John’s, Nfld. Melvin Perry Poirier...... Prince Edward Island ...... St. Louis, P.E.I. Nick G. Sibbeston...... Northwest Territories ...... Fort Simpson, N.W.T. Isobel Finnerty...... Ontario ...... Burlington, Ont. J. Bernard Boudreau, P.C...... Nova Scotia ...... Halifax, N.S. Tommy Banks...... Alberta ...... Edmonton, Alta. John Wiebe...... Saskatchewan ...... Saskatchewan vi SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

SENATORS OF CANADA

ALPHABETICAL LIST

(May 2, 2000)

Senator Designation Post Office Address

THE HONOURABLE Adams, Willie...... Nunavut ...... Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Andreychuk, A. Raynell...... Regina ...... Regina, Sask. Angus, W. David...... Alma ...... Montreal, Que. Atkins, Norman K...... Markham ...... Toronto, Ont. Austin, Jack, P.C...... Vancouver South ...... Vancouver, B.C. Bacon, Lise...... De la Durantaye ...... Laval, Que. Banks, Tommy...... Alberta ...... Edmonton, Alta. Beaudoin, Gérald-A...... Rigaud ...... Hull, Que. Berntson, Eric Arthur...... Saskatchewan ...... Saskatoon, Sask. Bolduc, Roch...... Golfe ...... Sainte-Foy, Que. Boudreau, J. Bernard, P.C...... Nova Scotia ...... Halifax, N.S. Bryden, John G...... New Brunswick ...... Bayfield, N.B. Buchanan, John, P.C...... Nova Scotia ...... Halifax, N.S. Callbeck, Catherine S...... Prince Edward Island ...... Central Bedeque, P.E.I. Carney, Pat, P.C...... British Columbia ...... Vancouver, B.C. Carstairs, Sharon...... Manitoba ...... Victoria Beach, Man. Chalifoux, Thelma J...... Alberta ...... Morinville, Alta. Christensen, Ione...... Yukon Territory ...... Whitehorse, Yukon Territory Cochrane, Ethel...... Newfoundland ...... Port-au-Port, Nfld. Cogger, Michel...... Lauzon ...... Knowlton, Que. Cohen, Erminie Joy...... New Brunswick ...... Saint John, N.B. Comeau, Gerald J...... Nova Scotia ...... Church Point, N.S. Cook, Joan...... Newfoundland ...... St. John’s, Nfld. Cools, Anne C...... Toronto-York ...... Toronto, Ont. Corbin, Eymard Georges...... Grand-Sault ...... Grand-Sault, N.B. De Bané, Pierre, P.C...... De la Vallière ...... Montreal, Que. DeWare, Mabel Margaret...... New Brunswick ...... Moncton, N.B. Di Nino, Consiglio...... Ontario ...... Downsview, Ont. Doody, C. William...... Harbour Main-Bell Island ..... St. John’s, Nfld. Eyton, J. Trevor...... Ontario ...... Caledon, Ont. Fairbairn, Joyce, P.C...... Lethbridge ...... Lethbridge, Alta. Ferretti Barth, Marisa...... Repentigny ...... Pierrefonds, Que Finestone, Sheila, P.C...... Montarville ...... Montreal, Que. Finnerty, Isobel...... Ontario ...... Burlington, Ont. Fitzpatrick, Ross...... Okanagan-Similkameen ...... Kelowna, B.C. Forrestall, J. Michael...... Dartmouth and Eastern Shore .. Dartmouth, N.S. Fraser, Joan Thorne...... De Lorimier ...... Montreal, Que. Furey, George...... Newfoundland ...... St. John’s, Nfld. Gauthier, Jean-Robert...... Ottawa-Vanier ...... Ottawa, Ont. Gill, Aurélien...... Wellington ...... Mashteuiatsh, Pointe-Bleue, Que. Grafstein, Jerahmiel S...... Metro Toronto ...... Toronto, Ont. Graham, Bernard Alasdair, P.C...... The Highlands ...... Sydney, N.S. Grimard, Normand...... Quebec ...... Noranda, Que. Gustafson Leonard J...... Saskatchewan ...... Macoun, Sask. Hays, Daniel Phillip...... Calgary ...... Calgary, Alta. Hervieux-Payette, Céline, P.C...... Bedford ...... Montreal, Que. Johnson, Janis...... Winnipeg-Interlake ...... Winnipeg, Man. Joyal, Serge, P.C...... Kennebec ...... Montreal, Que. Kelleher, James Francis, P.C...... Ontario ...... Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. Kelly, William McDonough...... Port Severn ...... Mississauga, Ont. Kenny, Colin...... Rideau ...... Ottawa, Ont. Keon, Wilbert Joseph...... Ottawa ...... Ottawa, Ont. Kinsella, Noël A...... New Brunswick ...... Fredericton, N.B. May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES vii

Senator Designation Post Office Address

THE HONOURABLE Kirby, Michael...... South Shore ...... Halifax, N.S. Kolber, E. Leo...... Victoria ...... Westmount, Que. Kroft, Richard H...... Manitoba ...... Winnipeg, Man. Lavoie-Roux, Thérèse...... Quebec ...... Montreal, Que. Lawson, Edward M...... Vancouver ...... Vancouver, B.C. LeBreton, Marjory...... Ontario ...... Manotick, Ont. Losier-Cool, Rose-Marie...... New Brunswick ...... Bathurst, N.B. Lynch-Staunton, John...... Grandville ...... Georgeville, Que. Maheu, Shirley...... Rougemont ...... Ville Saint-Laurent, Que. Mahovlich, Francis William...... Toronto ...... Toronto, Ont. Meighen, Michael Arthur...... St. Marys ...... Toronto, Ont. Mercier, Léonce...... Mille Isles ...... Saint-Élie d’Orford, Que. Milne, Lorna...... Peel County ...... Brampton, Ont. Molgat, Gildas L. Speaker...... Ste-Rose ...... Winnipeg, Man. Moore, Wilfred P...... Stanhope St./Bluenose ...... Chester, N.S. Murray, Lowell, P.C...... Pakenham ...... Ottawa, Ont. Nolin, Pierre Claude...... De Salaberry ...... Quebec, Que. Oliver, Donald H...... Nova Scotia ...... Halifax, N.S. Pearson, Landon...... Ontario ...... Ottawa, Ontario Pépin, Lucie...... Shawinegan ...... Montreal, Que. Perrault, Raymond J., P.C...... North Shore-Burnaby ...... North Vancouver, B.C. Perry Poirier, Melvin...... Prince Edward Island ...... St. Louis, P.E.I. Pitfield, Peter Michael, P.C...... Ontario ...... Ottawa, Ont. Poulin, Marie-P...... Northern Ontario ...... Ottawa, Ont. Poy, Vivienne...... Toronto ...... Toronto, Ont. Prud’homme, Marcel, P.C...... La Salle ...... Montreal, Que. Rivest, Jean-Claude...... Stadacona ...... Quebec, Que. Roberge, Fernand...... Saurel ...... Ville Saint-Laurent, Que. Robertson, Brenda Mary...... Riverview ...... Shediac, N.B. Robichaud, Fernand, P.C...... New Brunswick ...... Saint-Louis-de-Kent, N.B. Robichaud, Louis-J., P.C...... L’Acadie-Acadia ...... Saint-Antoine, N.B. Roche, Douglas James...... Edmonton ...... Edmonton, Alta. Rompkey, William H., P.C...... Newfoundland ...... North West River, Labrador Rossiter, Eileen...... Prince Edward Island ...... Charlottetown, P.E.I. Ruck, Calvin Woodrow...... Dartmouth ...... Dartmouth, N.S. St. Germain, Gerry, P.C...... Langley-Pemberton-Whistler .. Maple Ridge, B.C. Sibbeston, Nick...... Northwest Territories ...... Fort Simpson, N.W.T. Simard, Jean-Maurice...... Edmundston ...... Edmundston, N.B. Sparrow, Herbert O...... Saskatchewan ...... North Battleford, Sask. Spivak, Mira...... Manitoba ...... Winnipeg, Man. Stollery, Peter Alan...... Bloor and Yonge ...... Toronto, Ont. Stratton, Terrance R...... Red River ...... St. Norbert, Man. Taylor, Nicholas William...... Sturgeon ...... Bon Accord, Alta. Tkachuk, David...... Saskatchewan ...... Saskatoon, Sask. Watt, Charlie...... Inkerman ...... Kuujjuaq, Que. Wiebe, John...... Saskatchewan ...... Saskatchewan Wilson, The Very Reverend Dr. Lois M...... Toronto ...... Toronto, Ont. viii SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

SENATORS OF CANADA

BY PROVINCE AND TERRITORY

(May 2, 2000)

ONTARIO—24

Senator Designation Post Office Address

THE HONOURABLE 1 Lowell Murray, P.C...... Pakenham ...... Ottawa 2 Peter Alan Stollery...... Bloor and Yonge ...... Toronto 3 Peter Michael Pitfield, P.C...... Ontario ...... Ottawa 4 William McDonough Kelly...... Port Severn ...... Missassauga 5 Jerahmiel S. Grafstein...... Metro Toronto ...... Toronto 6 Anne C. Cools...... Toronto-York ...... Toronto 7 Colin Kenny...... Rideau ...... Ottawa 8 Norman K. Atkins...... Markham ...... Toronto 9 Consiglio Di Nino...... Ontario ...... Downsview 10 James Francis Kelleher, P.C...... Ontario ...... Sault Ste. Marie 11 John Trevor Eyton...... Ontario ...... Caledon 12 Wilbert Joseph Keon...... Ottawa ...... Ottawa 13 Michael Arthur Meighen...... St. Marys ...... Toronto 14 Marjory LeBreton...... Ontario ...... Manotick 15 Landon Pearson...... Ontario ...... Ottawa 16 Jean-Robert Gauthier...... Ottawa-Vanier ...... Ottawa 17 Lorna Milne...... Peel County ...... Brampton 18 Marie-P. Poulin...... Northern Ontario ...... Ottawa 19 The Very Reverend Dr. Lois M. Wilson...... Toronto ...... Toronto 20 Francis William Mahovlich...... Toronto ...... Toronto 21 Vivienne Poy...... Toronto ...... Toronto 22 Isobel Finnerty...... Ontario ...... Burlington 23 ...... 24 ...... May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES ix

SENATORS BY PROVINCE AND TERRITORY

QUEBEC—24

Senator Designation Post Office Address

THE HONOURABLE

1 E. Leo Kolber...... Victoria ...... Westmount 2 Charlie Watt...... Inkerman ...... Kuujjuaq 3 Pierre De Bané, P.C...... De la Vallière ...... Montreal 4 Michel Cogger...... Lauzon ...... Knowlton 5 Roch Bolduc...... Golfe ...... Sainte-Foy 6 Gérald-A. Beaudoin...... Rigaud ...... Hull 7 John Lynch-Staunton...... Grandville ...... Georgeville 8 Jean-Claude Rivest...... Stadacona ...... Quebec 9 Marcel Prud’homme, P.C...... La Salle ...... Montreal 10 Fernand Roberge...... Saurel...... Ville de Saint-Laurent 11 W. David Angus...... Alma ...... Montreal 12 Pierre Claude Nolin...... De Salaberry...... Quebec 13 Lise Bacon...... De la Durantaye ...... Laval 14 Céline Hervieux-Payette, P.C...... Bedford ...... Montreal 15 Shirley Maheu...... Rougemont ...... Ville de Saint-Laurent 16 Léonce Mercier...... Mille Isles ...... Saint-Élie d’Orford 17 Lucie Pépin...... Shawinegan ...... Montreal 18 Marisa Ferretti Barth...... Repentigny ...... Pierrefonds 19 Serge Joyal, P.C...... Kennebec ...... Montreal 20 Joan Thorne Fraser...... De Lorimier ...... Montreal 21 Aurélien Gill...... Wellington ...... Mashteuiatsh, Pointe-Bleue 22 Sheila Finestone, P.C...... Montarville ...... Montreal 23 ...... 24 ...... x SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

SENATORS BY PROVINCE—MARITIME DIVISION

NOVA SCOTIA—10

Senator Designation Post Office Address

THE HONOURABLE 1 Bernard Alasdair Graham, P.C...... The Highlands ...... Sydney 2 Michael Kirby...... South Shore ...... Halifax 3 Gerald J. Comeau...... Nova Scotia ...... Church Point 4 Donald H. Oliver...... Nova Scotia ...... Halifax 5 John Buchanan, P.C...... Nova Scotia ...... Halifax 6 J. Michael Forrestall...... Dartmouth and Eastern Shore .. Dartmouth 7 Wilfred P. Moore...... Stanhope St./Bluenose ...... Chester 8 Calvin Woodrow Ruck...... Dartmouth ...... Dartmouth 9 J. Bernard Boudreau, P.C...... Nova Scotia ...... Halifax 10 ......

NEW BRUNSWICK—10

THE HONOURABLE 1 Louis-J. Robichaud, P.C...... L’Acadie-Acadia ...... Saint-Antoine 2 Eymard Georges Corbin...... Grand-Sault ...... Grand-Sault 3 Brenda Mary Robertson...... Riverview ...... Shediac 4 Jean-Maurice Simard...... Edmundston ...... Edmundston 5 Noël A. Kinsella...... New Brunswick ...... Fredericton 6 Mabel Margaret DeWare...... New Brunswick ...... Moncton 7 Erminie Joy Cohen...... New Brunswick ...... Saint John 8 John G. Bryden...... New Brunswick ...... Bayfield 9 Rose-Marie Losier-Cool...... New Brunswick ...... Bathurst 10 Fernand Robichaud, P.C...... New Brunswick ...... Saint-Louis-de-Kent

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND—4

THE HONOURABLE 1 Eileen Rossiter...... Prince Edward Island ...... Charlottetown 2 Catherine S. Callbeck...... Prince Edward Island ...... Central Bedeque 3 Melvin Perry Poirier...... Prince Edward Island ...... St. Louis 4 ...... May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES xi

SENATORS BY PROVINCE—WESTERN DIVISION

MANITOBA—6

Senator Designation Post Office Address

THE HONOURABLE 1 Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker...... Ste-Rose ...... Winnipeg 2 Mira Spivak...... Manitoba ...... Winnipeg 3 Janis Johnson...... Winnipeg-Interlake ...... Winnipeg 4 Terrance R. Stratton...... Red River ...... St. Norbert 5 Sharon Carstairs...... Manitoba ...... Victoria Beach 6 Richard H. Kroft...... Manitoba ...... Winnipeg

BRITISH COLUMBIA—6

THE HONOURABLE 1 Edward M. Lawson...... Vancouver ...... Vancouver 2 Raymond J. Perrault, P.C...... North Shore-Burnaby ...... North Vancouver 3 Jack Austin, P.C...... Vancouver South ...... Vancouver 4 Pat Carney, P.C...... British Columbia ...... Vancouver 5 Gerry St. Germain, P.C...... Langley-Pemberton-Whistler .. Maple Ridge 6 Ross Fitzpatrick...... Okanagan-Similkameen ...... Kamloops

SASKATCHEWAN—6

THE HONOURABLE 1 Herbert O. Sparrow...... Saskatchewan ...... North Battleford 2 Eric Arthur Berntson...... Saskatchewan ...... Saskatoon 3 A. Raynell Andreychuk...... Regina ...... Regina 4 Leonard J. Gustafson...... Saskatchewan ...... Macoun 5 David Tkachuk...... Saskatchewan ...... Saskatoon 6 John Wiebe...... Saskatchewan ...... Saskatchewan

ALBERTA—6

THE HONOURABLE 1 Daniel Phillip Hays...... Calgary ...... Calgary 2 Joyce Fairbairn, P.C...... Lethbridge ...... Lethbridge 3 Nicholas William Taylor...... Sturgeon ...... Bon Accord 4 Thelma J. Chalifoux...... Alberta ...... Morinville 5 Douglas James Roche...... Edmonton ...... Edmonton 6 Tommy Banks...... Alberta ...... Edmonton xii SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

SENATORS BY PROVINCE AND TERRITORY

NEWFOUNDLAND—6

Senator Designation Post Office Address

THE HONOURABLE 1 C. William Doody...... Harbour Main-Bell Island ..... St. John’s 2 Ethel Cochrane...... Newfoundland ...... Port-au-Port 3 William H. Rompkey, P.C...... Newfoundland ...... North West River, Labrador 4 Joan Cook...... Newfoundland ...... St. John’s 5 George Furey...... Newfoundland ...... St. John’s 6 ......

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES—1

THE HONOURABLE 1 Nick G. Sibbeston...... Northwest Territories ...... Fort Simpson

NUNAVUT—1

THE HONOURABLE 1 Willie Adams...... Nunavut ...... Rankin Inlet

YUKON TERRITORY—1

THE HONOURABLE 1 Ione Christensen...... Yukon Territory ...... Whitehorse May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES xiii

DIVISIONAL SENATORS

Senator Designation Post Office Address

THE HONOURABLE 1 Normand Grimard...... Quebec ...... Noranda, Que. 2 Thérèse Lavoie-Roux...... Quebec ...... Montreal, Que. xiv SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF STANDING, SPECIAL AND JOINT COMMITTEES (As of May 2, 2000) *Ex Officio Member

ABORIGINAL PEOPLES

Chair: Honourable Senator Austin Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator St. Germain Honourable Senators: Andreychuk, Chalifoux, *Lynch-Staunton, Sibbeston, (or Kinsella) Austin, Christensen, St. Germain, Nolin, *Boudreau, DeWare, Watt. (or Hays) Pearson, Gill,

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of Selection Andreychuk, Austin, Beaudoin, *Boudreau (or Hays), Chalifoux, Christensen, Comeau, DeWare, Gill, Johnson *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Pearson, Sibbeston, Watt. ______

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

Chair: Honourable Senator Gustafson Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator Fairbairn Honourable Senators: Banks, Gill, Oliver, St. Germain, *Boudreau, Gustafson, Robichaud, Stratton, (or Hays) (Saint-Louis-de-Kent) *Lynch-Staunton, Wiebe. Chalifoux, (or Kinsella) Rossiter, Fairbairn, Sparrow,

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of Selection *Boudreau (or Hays), Chalifoux, Fairbairn, Fitzpatrick, Ferretti Barth, Gill, Gustafson, *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Oliver, Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), Sparrow, Spivak, St. Germain, Stratton. ______

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY (Agriculture and Forestry)

Chair: Honourable Senator Fitzpatrick Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator St. Germain Honourable Senators: *Boudreau, Fitzpatrick, *Lynch-Staunton, St. Germain, (or Hays) (or Kinsella) Gill, Stratton. Fairbairn,

______May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES xv

BANKING, TRADE AND COMMERCE Chair: Honourable Senator Kolber Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator Tkachuk Honourable Senators: Angus, Furey, Kolber, Meighen, *Boudreau Hervieux-Payette, Kroft, Oliver, (or Hays) Kelleher, *Lynch-Staunton, Tkachuk. Fitzpatrick, (or Kinsella) Kenny,

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of Selection Angus, *Boudreau (or Hays), Fitzpatrick, Furey, Hervieux-Payette, Joyal, Kelleher, Kenny, Kolber, *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Meighen, Oliver, Tkachuk. ______

ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Chair: Honourable Senator Spivak Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator Taylor Honourable Senators: Adams, Christensen, Kelleher, Spivak, *Boudreau, Cochrane, Kenny, Taylor. (or Hays) Eyton, *Lynch-Staunton, Buchanan, (or Kinsella) Finnerty, Chalifoux, Sibbeston,

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of Selection Adams, *Boudreau (or Hays), Buchanan, Chalifoux, Christensen, Cochrane, Eyton, Furey, Kenny, *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Sibbeston, Spivak, St. Germain, Taylor.

______

FISHERIES Chair: Honourable Senator Comeau Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator Perrault Honourable Senators: *Boudreau, Cook, Mahovlich, Perry, (or Hays) Furey, Meighen, Robertson, Carney Johnson, Perrault, Robichaud, Comeau, (Saint-Louis-de-Kent) *Lynch-Staunton, (or Kinsella) Watt.

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of Selection *Boudreau (or Hays), Carney, Comeau, Cook, Doody, Furey, *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Mahovlich, Meighen, Murray, Perrault, Perry, Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), Watt. ______xvi SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Chair: Honourable Senator Stollery Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator Andreychuk Honourable Senators: Andreychuk, Carney, Di Nino, Pearson, Atkins, Corbin, Grafstein, Stollery, Bolduc, De Bané, *Lynch-Staunton, Taylor. (or Kinsella) *Boudreau, (or Hays)

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of Selection Andreychuk, Atkins, Bolduc, *Boudreau (or Hays), Corbin, Carney, De Bané, Di Nino, Grafstein, Lewis, Losier-Cool, *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Stewart, Stollery.

______

INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION Chair: Honourable Senator Rompkey Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator Nolin Honourable Senators: *Boudreau DeWare, *Lynch-Staunton, Poulin, (or Hays) (or Kinsella) Forrestall, Robichaud, Cohen, Maheu, (Saint-Louis-de-Kent) Kelly, Comeau, Milne, Rompkey, Kenny, De Bané, Nolin, Stollery. Kroft,

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of Selection *Boudreau (or Hays), Cohen, De Bané, DeWare, Forrestall, Kelly, Kenny, Kroft, *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Maheu, Milne, Nolin, Poulin, Robichaud (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), Rompkey, Rossiter, Stollery. ______

LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS Chair: Honourable Senator Milne Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator Beaudoin Honourable Senators: Andreychuk, Cools, *Lynch-Staunton, Moore, (or Kinsella) Beaudoin, Fraser, Murray, Mahovlich, Buchanan, Joyal, Nolin, Milne, *Boudreau Pearson. (or Hays),

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of Selection Andreychuk, Beaudoin, *Boudreau (or Hays), Cools, Fraser, Ghitter, Joyal, Kelleher, *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Milne, Moore, Nolin, Pearson, Poy.

______May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES xvii

LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT (Joint)

Joint Chair: Honourable Senator Louis Robichaud Deputy Chair: Honourable Senators: Atkins, Grafstein, Poy, Robichaud, (L’Acadie-Acadia) Finnerty, Grimard, Ruck.

Original Members agreed to by Motion of the Senate Atkins, Finnerty, Grafstein, Poy, Robichaud (L’Acadie-Acadia), Ruck. ______

NATIONAL FINANCE

Chair: Honourable Senator Murray Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator Cools Honourable Senators: Bolduc, Doody, Kinsella, Moore, *Boudreau, Finestone, *Lynch-Staunton, Murray, (or Hays) (or Kinsella) Finnerty, Stratton. Cools, Mahovlich, Ferretti Barth,

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of Selection Bolduc, *Boudreau (or Hays), Cools, Finestone, Finnerty, Ferretti Barth, Kinsella, *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Mahovlich, Moore, Murray, Perry, Stratton.

______

OFFICIAL LANGUAGES (Joint)

Joint Chair: Honourable Senator Losier-Cool Deputy Chair: Honourable Senators: Beaudoin, Gauthier, Losier-Cool, Rivest. Fraser, Robichaud, (L’Acadie-Acadia)

Original Members agreed to by Motion of the Senate Beaudoin, Fraser, Gauthier, Losier-Cool, Meighen, Pépin, Rivest, Robichaud (L’Acadie-Acadia).

______xviii SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

PRIVILEGES, STANDING RULES AND ORDERS

Chair: Honourable Senator Austin Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator Grimard Honourable Senators: Austin, DeWare, Joyal, *Lynch-Staunton, (or Kinsella) Beaudoin, Di Nino, Kelly, Robichaud, *Boudreau, Gauthier, Kroft, (L’Acadie-Acadia). (or Hays) Grafstein, Losier-Cool, Rossiter. Corbin, Grimard,

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of Selection Austin, Bacon, Beaudoin, *Boudreau (or Hays), DeWare, Gauthier, Ghitter, Grafstein, Grimard, Joyal, Kelly, Kroft, *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Maheu, Pépin, Robichaud (L’Acadie-Acadia), Rossiter. ______

SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS (Joint)

Joint Chair: Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette Deputy Chair: Honourable Senators: Cochrane, Grimard, Hervieux-Payette, Moore, Finestone, Rivest.

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of Selection Cochrane, Finestone, Furey, Grimard, Hervieux-Payette, Moore, Perry, Rivest. ______

SELECTION

Chair: Honourable Senator Mercier Deputy Chair: Honourable Senators: Atkins, DeWare, Kinsella, Mercier, Austin, Fairbairn, Kirby, Murray. *Boudreau, Grafstein, *Lynch-Staunton, (or Hays) (or Kinsella)

Original Members agreed to by Motion of the Senate Atkins, Austin, *Boudreau (or Hays), DeWare, Fairbairn, Grafstein, Kinsella, Kirby, *Lynch-Staunton or (Kinsella), Mercier, Murray. ______May 2, 2000 SENATE DEBATES xix

SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Chair: Honourable Senator Kirby Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator LeBreton Honourable Senators: Beaudoin, Carstairs, Fairbairn, *Lynch-Staunton, (or Kinsella) *Boudreau, Cohen, Keon, (or Hays) Milne, Cook, Kirby, Callbeck, Roberston. Corbin, LeBreton,

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of Selection *Boudreau (or Hays), Callbeck, Carstairs, Cohen, Cook, Di Nino, Fairbairn, Gill, Kirby, Lavoie-Roux, LeBreton, *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Pépin, Robertson.

______

THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO UPDATE “OF LIFE AND DEATH” (Social Affairs, Science and Technology)

Chair: Honourable Senator Carstairs Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator Beaudoin Honourable Senators: Beaudoin, Carstairs, Keon, Milne. *Boudreau, Corbin, *Lynch-Staunton, (or Hays) (or Kinsella)

______

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

Chair: Honourable Senator Bacon Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator Forrestall Honourable Senators: Adams, De Bané, Johnson, Poulin, Bacon, Finestone, *Lynch-Staunton, Roberge, (or Kinsella) *Boudreau, Forrestall, Spivak. (or Hays) Perrault, Furey,

Original Members as nominated by the Committee of Selection Adams, Bacon, *Boudreau (or Hays), Callbeck, Finestone, Forrestall, Johnson, Kirby, LeBreton, *Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella), Perrault, Poulin, Roberge, Spivak. ______xx SENATE DEBATES May 2, 2000

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS (Transport and Communications)

Chair: Honourable Senator Poulin Deputy Chair: Honourable Senator Spivak Honourable Senators: *Boudreau, Johnson, *Lynch-Staunton, Poulin, (or Hays) (or Kinsella) Kirby, Spivak. Maheu,

______CONTENTS Tuesday, May 2, 2000

PAGE PAGE

The Late Honourable Richard A. Donahoe, Q.C. Replacement of Sea King Helicopters. Senator Robertson...... 1178 Tributes. Senator Murray...... 1170 Senator Boudreau...... 1178 Senator Graham...... 1170 Senator Forrestall...... 1171 The Senate Senator Carstairs...... 1172 Report of Special Joint Committee on Code of Conduct— Senator Oliver...... 1172 Government Response. Senator Oliver...... 1178 Senator Boudreau...... 1172 Senator Boudreau...... 1178 Senator Austin...... 1178

National Defence SENATORS’ STATEMENTS Proposal to Develop Ballistic Missile Defence System with United States—Government Position. Senator Bolduc...... 1179 Holocaust Memorial Day Senator Boudreau...... 1179 Senator Cohen...... 1173 Research and Development Canada Book Day Requirement that Federal Research Senator Fairbairn...... 1173 Grants have Private-sector Partners—Effect on Areas with No Senator Lynch-Staunton...... 1174 Commercial Interest. Senator Spivak...... 1179 Senator Boudreau...... 1180 National Defence Report on Sea King Talon41 Incident. Senator Forrestall...... 1174 Pages Exchange Program with House of Commons The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore ...... 1180 National Native Role Model Awards Senator DeWare...... 1174 ORDERS OF THE DAY

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Elections Bill (Bill C-2) Third Reading—Debate Adjourned. Senator Hays...... 1180 Special Senate Committee on Bill C-20 Senator Oliver...... 1180 Notice of Motion to Appoint. Senator Hays...... 1175 Bill to Give Effect to the Requirement for Clarity as Set Out in the Opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the QUESTION PERIOD Quebec Secession Reference (Bill C-20) Second Reading—Debate Continued. Senator Hervieux-Payette...... 1181 National Defence Senator Murray...... 1182 Replacement of Sea King Helicopters—Report on Talon41 Incident. Senator Forrestall...... 1175 Senator Nolin...... 1183 Senator Boudreau...... 1175 Senator Kinsella...... 1183 Senator Comeau...... 1176 Senator Beaudoin...... 1184 Senator Tkachuk...... 1176 Senator Cools...... 1185 Senator Kinsella...... 1177 Senator Forrestall...... 1185 Replacement of Sea King Helicopters—Possible Examination of Senator Lynch-Staunton...... 1186 Airworthiness of Aircraft by Transportation Safety Board. Senator Austin...... 1186 Senator Lynch-Staunton...... 1177 Senator Cogger...... 1187 Senator Boudreau...... 1177 Replacement of Sea King Helicopters—Clearance to Fly Aircraft Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Bill (Bill C-23) in Unites States Air Space. Senator Kinsella...... 1177 Second Reading—Debate Adjourned. Senator Pépin...... 1187 Senator Boudreau...... 1177 Senator Robichaud...... 1190 Replacement of Sea King Helicopters—Request for Review of Senator Kinsella...... 1191 Maintenance Records by Transportation Safety Board. Senator Cools...... 1191 Senator Forrestall...... 1177 Senator Joyal...... 1191 Senator Boudreau...... 1177 Senator Hays...... 1192 Replacement of Sea King Helicopters—Clearance to Fly Prime Minister in Aircraft. Senator LeBreton...... 1178 Heritage Lighthouses Protection Bill (Bill S-21) Senator Boudreau...... 1178 Second Reading—Debate Adjourned. Senator Forrestall...... 1192 PAGE PAGE

Criminal Code (Bill S-9) Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued Motion Urging Reconsideration of Ruling Denying TVOntatio Senator Kinsella...... 1194 Request to Distribute Télévision Française de L’Ontario Changing Mandate of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Quebec Withdrawn. Senator Hays...... 1201 Report of Foreign Affairs Committee on Study— Debate Adjourned. Senator Stollery...... 1194 Senator Hays...... 1196 Senator Bolduc...... 1196 Adjournment Bill to Give Effect to the Requirement for Clarity as Set Out Senator Hays...... 1201 in the Opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference (Bill C-20) Motion to Instruct Committee to Amend—Point of Order— Speaker’s Ruling. The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore ...... 1199 Appendix ...... i

Canada Post Corporation / Société canadienne des postes

Postage Paid Post payé

03159442

If undelivered, return COVER ONLY to: Public Works and Government Services Canada — Publishing 45 Sacré-Coeur Boulevard, Hull, Québec, Canada K1A 0S9

Available from Public Works and Government Services Canada —Publishing Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9