EXTRACTS FROM HANSARD -- PROCEEDINGS OF CANADA'S SENATE :

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
2nd Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 138, Issue 81
Tuesday, October 17, 2000
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker



---


Privacy Commissioner

Motion to Approve Appointment of George Radwanski Adopted

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hays, seconded by the Honourable Senator Graham, P.C.:

That, in accordance with Section 53 of the Privacy Act, Chapter P-21 of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1985, the Senate approve the appointment of George Radwanski as Privacy Commissioner.

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I thought Senator Kinsella had stood the motion in his name.

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, that is correct. I am making a comment with leave. Perhaps the leader for the other side has something to say about allowing the debate to continue in the absence of Senator Kinsella.

Senator Prud'homme: He is here now.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Kinsella is out for a few minutes and I was not aware that he wanted to speak to this motion.

I understand he does not want to speak to it.

Honourable senators, we were impressed with the presentation and the exchange last evening. We are quite ready to support the nomination. There is no more to debate on this side, yesterday's exchange proving very valuable in our assessment of the candidate.

Senator Prud'homme: Honourable senators, today we are asked to ratify the government's nomination of Mr. Radwanski for the position of Privacy Commissioner, perhaps one of the most important, if not sensitive, institutions of our parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Radwanski told us earlier that his great record makes him the most qualified person for the position. On this, I beg to differ. In 1983, Mr. Radwanski, then editor-in-chief of The Toronto Star, wrote a very reckless and scandalous editorial entitled "Shaking hands with a terrorist." In it he censured me for daring to shake hands with Mr. Yasser Arafat and daring to do what the whole world, minus Israel, had done in all the pertinent United Nations resolutions, 194, 242, 338, and that is to recognize that Palestinians are human beings like you and me who have a right to exist.

I need not bore you with the details of the obtuse editorial or remind you of the immense damage and inconvenience it has caused me, but let me briefly read it to you. It is very short.

The Toronto Star, February 18, 1983: "Shaking hands with a terrorist."

When back bench members of Parliament start to develop their own foreign policy, the results are embarrassing to the government, the party and the country. Marcel Prud'homme is a Liberal MP who has been a long time supporter of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Now he has turned up in Algiers, as an "observer" of a PLO meeting, smiling and having his photograph taken holding hands with Yasser Arafat, the chieftain of the PLO.

It's time some senior member of the government pointed out to him that the PLO is not recognized as a legitimate political organization by the government of Canada.

The PLO is a federation of terrorist gangs which has scorned international law in its violent campaign against Israel. If Prud'homme really wants to observe the PLO in action, he should watch some of their thugs shoot up a crowded bus on a highway near Tel Aviv, set off a bomb in a Jerusalem street, or lob a grenade into an Israeli farming settlement.

For several years, the PLO has been striving to get western governments to ignore its bloody past and treat it as an equal: a sort of government-in-exile and the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. When western politicians such as Prud'homme show up at PLO meetings and speak out publicly on behalf of the PLO, they are helping it to claim a respectability to which this collection of killers is not entitled.

Honourable senators, for me this was a classic piece of cultural terrorism that caused immense damage to my personal life and to my security for quite a long time thereafter. The questions that beg answers are many. Should we allow a person who holds such violently biased and clearly shabby views - and I will add racist - to hold such a sensitive position?

I should like to remind honourable senators that in 1970 I was sent to Egypt for a conference of parliamentarians for peace. In 1974 I was sent to the United Nations by Mr. Trudeau for a full meeting, even though certain events took place with Mr. Arafat there that the then ambassador, Mr. Rae, did not approve of. The Prime Minister did not see fit to recall me. The Prime Minister of Canada - and Mr. Radwanski wrote much about him - then sent me as his personal representative to the reopening of the Suez Canal in 1974. He took me to meet President Carter, and he took me to Japan. The Prime Minister allowed me to be chairman of the foreign affairs and national defence committees for over 10 years, and consulted me on the question of the American draft dodgers, et cetera.

Honourable senators, I always had the support of Mr. Trudeau in all my actions. Everyone claimed to be his friend, everyone claimed to have known him very well. I do not claim to have been a personal friend of Mr. Trudeau, but I always claimed to do what I saw fit and I never thought that he would discourage me. Far from it, his encouragement was very well known.

May I say to those who may not understand, especially the 40 new senators, that that is one of the reasons for my sitting here alone in this corner - I, a Liberal at heart and a Liberal in a question of support. I regret that it was not seen fit to put names before us, in order to have a better choice. I have no quarrel with Mr. Radwanski's support for the Liberal Party, as I said yesterday. I strongly supported Mr. Bruce Phillips, a Liberal, time and time again.

I have no quarrel with Mr. Radwanski's intelligence. What I have a quarrel with are some of his strongly held views. These views that he so strongly expressed had only one effect on the national Liberal caucus, and that was to discourage every single young member who wanted to play a role in international affairs. In my view, this is where the crime lies. It is not the fact that I was attacked; it is the fact that he discouraged people from taking sides in major international issues.

Honourable senators, we must remember that we are not provincial representatives, we are federal representatives, and that everyone who runs for federal office should have one thing at heart: They should remember that in addition to duties in their own areas of the country they should also have concern for international issues. Federal representatives who say that they have no international preoccupation should not sit in a federal house.

As difficult as the outcome may be, one must never be afraid to stand up for what one believes is peace and justice for all. As my father always told me, when you talk about justice and peace it is on behalf of everyone. He told me that one cannot pick and choose, and I have always refused to pick and choose. That explains why I got into so much trouble.

Honourable senators, when I hear this gentleman asking for our support, I do not think his views have changed and I do not think that I will give my support.

Honourable senators, I conclude with this question: Will this privacy commissioner be fair to all Canadians? This includes, whether we like it or not, Arab Canadians, Muslim Canadians, and people like me, who are searching for real peace in the Middle East. Perhaps what is most important, in light of all this new talk about "merit," "equity," "inclusivity," is whether Mr. Radwanski is the most qualified Canadian for the job. I sincerely hope that the Senate will ponder these questions seriously and not feed the public perception of us as a mere rubber stamp for the lower House.

The Hon. the Speaker: If no other honourable senator wishes to speak, I shall put the motion. It was moved by the Honourable Senator Hays, seconded by the Honourable Senator Graham, P.C.:


That, in accordance with Section 53 of the Privacy Act, Chapter P-21 of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1985, the Senate approve the appointment of George Radwanski as Privacy Commissioner.


Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Senator Prud'homme: No. I want a standing vote.

The Hon. the Speaker: Will those honourable senators in favour of the motion please say "yea."

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: Will those honourable senators opposed to the motion please say "nay."

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the "yeas" have it.

And two honourable senators having risen.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is there agreement on how long the bells will ring? If there is no agreement, they will ring for one hour.

Senator Hays: Honourable senators, I suggest that the bells ring for 15 minutes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is there agreement, honourable senators, for a 15-minute bell?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: The vote will take place at 4:25. Call in the senators.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Adams, Andreychuk, Austin, Bacon, Banks, Beaudoin, Bolduc, Bryden, Buchanan, Callbeck, Carstairs, Christensen, Cook, Corbin, De Bané, DeWare, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Finnerty, Fitzpatrick, Furey, Gill, Grafstein, Gustafson, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Joyal, Kennedy, Kenny, Kinsella, Kroft, Lawson, Lynch-Staunton, Maheu, Mahovlich, Mercier, Milne, Moore, Pépin, Poy, Robichaud, (L'Acadie-Acadia), Setlakwe, Sibbeston, Sparrow, Spivak, Squires, Taylor, Watt, Wiebe-49

NAYS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Atkins, Comeau, Di Nino, LeBreton, Nolin, Prud'homme, St. Germain-7

ABSTENTIONS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Forrestall, Gauthier, Meighen, Simard-4