Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I would like to take
advantage of this opportunity to pay particular tribute to the Senate security
staff. Readers of the Hill Times or the Ottawa dailies will surely have
noted that the Senate security staff are being discredited. This is totally
inappropriate. It is true that negotiations are currently under way.
I wish to pay homage to our Senate security staff. I speak to them all. They
will not complain about this, but many of them are offended.
We are being very well served. We need no lectures from the other place, or
from others with their overall plans for Senate and Commons security. I find it
most regrettable that we are forced to read such comments, which may be
detrimental to the morale of Senate security staff.
If improvements are needed, let them be made. We should be very prudent as
far as our institutions are concerned. Is it a matter of change for the sake of
change, and of taking advantage of the paranoia about security that seems to
have taken hold of certain people, leading them to change institutions?
We are well served by our security staff. I think security can be improved,
but that does not mean it should be discredited. I believe the Senate should
join with me in showing them that we have total confidence in them. We will take
the steps that are necessary and the committee will be very prudent. We should
call upon the alumni, and you know what this means.
I include, in the list of alumni, Senator Graham and the others who have a
better institutional memory of the Senate than I.
I would wish to have the opportunity to comment before any change is made
concerning the security staff of the Senate.
Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, in May 2002, Canadians
will officially celebrate Asian Heritage Month for the first time.
We want to thank Senator Poy for her efforts on behalf of Asian Heritage
Thank you, Senator Poy.
Every year, Canadians are invited to take part in the festivities that
commemorate the legacy of Asian Canadians, past and present, during Asian
Heritage Month. This year, the Government of Canada has officially recognized
May as Asian Heritage Month. The month-long festival plays a significant role in
identifying and articulating the vibrant Asian-Canadian culture within Canada
and is a tribute to the individuals and organizations that come together each
year to showcase and highlight the diversity of the artists and cultural
expressions emerging out of Canada's Asian communities.
Under the leadership of President Bev Nann, the Vancouver Asian Heritage
Month Society has been organizing events to showcase Asian heritage for a long
time. This year's theme is "ExplorASIAN 2002" and will feature 150 events
across the lower mainland. We should be proud of Asian-Canadian contemporary
culture because it is homegrown culture. It represents Canada.
According to Bev Nann: "This is a culture which belongs to all Canadians and
which contributes to the advancement of multiculturalism."
On a personal level, it means that my daughter Farzana is taught
Bharatnatyam, Indian classical dance, by world-renowned Indian classical artist
Benoit Villeneuve, a native Quebecer whose Indian name is Jai Govinda.
Because of the existence of this new culture, he is able to teach traditional
Indian dance in British Columbia, and in French.
Our great country's diversity makes our celebration of Asian Heritage Month
belong to all Canadians.
Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, on Wednesday, April 24, I had the
privilege of attending the funeral of Private Nathan Smith at St. Luke's Church
in Dartmouth. Nathan Smith of Ostrea Lake, a small community outside of
Dartmouth, was one of the four Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
St. Luke's Church is located on Veteran's Avenue. It is surrounded by Louisbourg
Lane, Skeena Lane and Shawinigan Lane, all named after Canadian warships. The
minister who spoke at the service noted this coincidence. Many veterans attended
the funeral to remember and to honour Private Smith, even though many had never
What do we learn as Canadians from a tragedy such as this, that has taken the
lives of four young men? I spoke to a friend of mine whose children grew up with
NathanSmith, and she told me that her daughter's comment was, "Remembrance Day
will have a whole new meaning." This is a good thing, as we sometimes become
complacent about the service given to us by those who are members of the
At Private Smith's funeral last Wednesday, one of his comrades from the
Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry spoke about Private Smith, his
colleague and his friend. He noted what the military and soldiers, particularly,
have done to protect the freedom of Canadians. I will share with you a
paraphrase of his words.
When you read a poem or a book, thank not the poet or the novelist for the
freedom of speech, thank a soldier. When you are part of a demonstration or
rally, thank not an activist for the freedom to march, thank a soldier. When
reading a newspaper or watching television, thank not a journalist or a
broadcaster for the freedom of speech and expression, thank a soldier.
There is no one who so passionately salutes the Canadian flag with pride and
patriotism as our military. Let us not forget the freedoms our soldiers have
fought for in the past and continue to fight for today. Let us, too, say,
"Remembrance Day has a whole new meaning."
Hon. Vivienne Poy: Honourable senators, in December 2001, the Senate
voted unanimously to recognize May as Asian Heritage Month in Canada. This month
the Government of Canada will officially launch the first national celebration
of Asian Heritage Month. I have had many calls from Asians across the country
who are delighted by this official acknowledgement. They see this recognition as
a valuable opportunity to raise awareness among the mainstream community about
Asian Canadian contributions to Canada.
Asian Heritage Month is a cause for celebration and a chance to pay tribute
to the strength that Canada has derived from those of Asian heritage. Canadian
diversity has enriched this nation in so many ways — socially, politically,
economically and culturally — and it will continue to do so as Canada responds to
globalization by opening its doors to the world. Throughout the month of May,
Canadians can learn about Asian culture and community both in Canada and abroad.
It is my hope that new ties will develop between various communities through
intercultural exchanges and mutual education.
As the Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage, stated,
"Asian Heritage Month is an ideal occasion for all Canadians to celebrate the
beauty and wisdom of various Asian cultures."
Speaking personally, my own city of Toronto has benefited tremendously from
its Asian population. As the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, the Honourable
James K. Bartleman, wrote: "One only has to look at the dynamic cultural and
economic influence of Asian Canadians in Ontario's capital to see how life for
all citizens has been enriched." As a result of the important role played by
Asian Canadians, Mayor Mel Lastman of Toronto also proclaimed May as Asian
Heritage Month in Toronto.
Activities are taking place across the country to mark Asian Heritage Month,
which will have a positive impact on the lives of Canadians not only during the
month of May but throughout the year. Canadians from all over the world are
proud of our multicultural country, and during this month we will all have a
chance to once again celebrate our achievement as a unique and dynamic nation.
Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, I have the honour
to table the report of the Canadian delegation to the first plenary meeting of
the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas, held in Mexico City, Mexico, from
March 13 to16,2002.
Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, I give notice that,
at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:
That, recognizing the important efforts made by the Colombian government to
seek a lasting peace for the people of Colombia;
Regretting the breakdown in the peace process;
Stressing that the protection of Colombia's civilian population remains a
Noting that the intensification of violence since the breakdown in the
peace negotiations between the Government of Colombia and the Revolutionary
Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) is seriously undermining the legitimacy of the
electoral process; and
Considering that attacks by the armed actors, including the abduction of
Presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt on February 23, 2002, and plots to
assassinate other leading candidates, are compromising the democratic process
The Senate of Canada
Expresses concern regarding the violent events and recent threats to
democracy in Colombia;
Urges the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) for the immediate
and unconditional liberation of all hostages that remain kidnapped, including
Mrs.Betancourt and her assistant Clara Rojas; and
Calls on all parties to respect their obligations under international
humanitarian law and to take steps leading to a negotiated and just peace,
that will provide a secure future for all Colombians and end the armed
That a Message be sent to the House of Commons informing that House that
the Senate has passed this Resolution and requesting that House to unite with
the Senate therein.
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable
senators, I have the honour of tabling a delayed answer to the question raised
on April 24, 2002, by Honourable Senator Buchanan regarding the Cape Breton
(Response to question raised by Hon. John Buchanan on April24,2002)
The Cape Breton Development Corporation (Devco) discontinued its mining
operations in December 2001 and is in the process of surrendering its mineral
lease to the Province of Nova Scotia. There are no ongoing negotiations
between Devco and the Cape Breton Miners Cooperative to open the Donkin mine.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Poy, seconded by
the Honourable Senator Banks, for the second reading of Bill S-39, to amend
the National Anthem Act to include all Canadians.—(Honourable Senator
Hon. Francis William Mahovlich: Honourable senators, I rise today in
support of Senator Poy's Bill S-39, to amend the National Anthem Act to include
all Canadians. I must admit that, at first, I felt the lyrics of our national
anthem should be preserved as it is part of our tradition. However, I have
learned that the original 1908 text by the Honourable Robert Stanley Weir states
"true patriot love thou dost in us command." I believe this original line
reflects a key Canadian value — inclusiveness.
Moses, some 3,500 years ago, gave us the Ten Commandments. The fourth
commandment states, "Honour thy father and thy mother." It does not say "honour
only your father."
The line "in all thy sons command" had an appropriate use during the early
part of the 20th century, as all our soldiers at the time were men. There was an
immense contribution by women during the war effort; however, it was men who
died in combat. Times have changed.
Today, there are almost 7,000 women in our regular Armed Forces and many more
in the reserves who are willing to put their lives on the line for our country.
Right now, our troops are overseas risking their lives. Some of our troops are
women. Should we not recognize their contributions?
Using inclusive language is one way of emphasizing the responsibility we have
to take a stand against one of the forms of discrimination found in our country.
Language is powerful and formative. It determines how we perceive ourselves and
As a civilized society, we should be very proud of our accomplishments.
Today, we have women at the highest levels of government, in corporate
boardrooms, in the military, and in many other occupations that traditionally
have been exclusively male.
Of the Canadian athletes who represented our nation in Salt Lake City,
approximately 40 per cent were women. It was only 20 years ago that the rights of
women were enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Women have fought
hard for these gains. It seems only fitting that our anthem should reflect this
significant change in our society.
Yesterday, I was speaking with Michael Burgess, the famous charismatic
Canadian tenor who sings our national anthem at least once a day. He does not
see a problem with the amendment and agreed that the change may be a little
awkward at first, but we will get over it. It is the right thing to do.
In 1984, the song Advance Australia Fair was proclaimed as Australia's
national anthem. At that time, a parliamentary committee recommended amendments
to the song. The changes included amending the words "Australia's sons, let us
rejoice," to "Australians all, let us rejoice." The words "For loyal sons
beyond the seas" became "For those who've come across the seas." These
changes were made to include all Australians.
Our national anthem should be gender neutral and traditional, amended to
include all Canadians, reflecting the values for which Canada stands— tolerance,
diversity and equality.
Honourable senators, life is all about change. Change is inevitable. Nothing
is constant in life except, of course, death and taxes. Sometimes the right
thing to do is not always easy, but it should still be done. I remember the
tremendous pride I felt when I sang O Canada in Russia during the 1972
hockey series. I will feel the same pride today singing it with this small
I feel Canada should have an anthem that includes all Canadians.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator St. Germain, P.C,
seconded by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, for the second reading of Bill
S-38, declaring the Crown's recognition of self-government for the First
Nations of Canada.—(Honourable Senator Tkachuk).
Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, Bill S-38 would declare the
Crown's recognition of self-government for the First Nations of Canada.
Many honourable senators were appointed to this place after I was appointed.
Many honourable senators were appointed after I had begun my work on Aboriginal
I wish to take the opportunity today to outline my views. I have tabled three
private members bills in this place since March 1995. After two elections and
several prorogations, we now have
Bill S-38 before us, which is the same bill in principle, though greatly
improved upon after taking into account much of the testimony that was presented
in its past lives, and for which much testimony was gathered and heard. The
Senate has passed this bill in principle twice before.
When I began my work in 1994, before I introduced my first bill, the federal
government did not have a policy framework for self-government. What it did have
were negotiations that took place for both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown
accords. These provided for a seat at the national negotiating table for
FirstNations and a place that would be later incorporated into Canada's national
In his speech, Senator St.Germain talked about enabling legislation and that
Bill S-38 is the foundation only for "those First Nations with a land base who
seek an alternate route to becoming self-governing." The case I will make today
is for the need for this type of enabling legislation in the case of First
Nations with Aboriginal lands that are held under title.
I will begin by highlighting the title of this bill, the First Nations
Self-Government Recognition Act. This is significant because it echoes the
federal government's own acknowledgement and policy of recognition of First
Nations' inherent rights of
self-government since the Constitution Act, 1982, section 35 and the landmark
Delgamuukw case which was the Supreme Court of Canada's confirmation in 1997
of the legal and constitutional dimensions of Aboriginal title.
What about due process and result-oriented government, two principles upon
which the current federal government strives to legislate? Bill S-38 is
legislation that offers a real framework for self-government negotiations and
answers the dual calls of due process and result-oriented government. Many of
you will recall the Nisga'a agreement that eventually received the support of
Parliament, although not without some misgivings about whether it was the right
process, if the right settlement was made, if the right individuals and
community became self-governing.
Self-government does not mean that Canada washes its hands of its Aboriginal
populations. Far from it. For example, the Nisga'a agreement cost the Canadian
government a one-time payment of $255million, and that did not include any
provincial costs, foregone forestry revenue, or the ongoing annual costs agreed
to be paid to the Chief of the Nisga'a band, to be shared with the Nisga'a
people, which totalled a one time cost of $487.1million. This amount does not
fully include the funding the Nisga'a already receive under the Indian Act and
will continue to receive. With the signing of the agreement, the federal
government has agreed to an annual transfer of funds greater than what the
Nisga'a currently receive in support of program and service delivery of
education, health care, social and local services.
I am saying self-government is only the end of the negotiating process.
Self-government acknowledges in a practical way, not just in theory, the
fundamental rights, inherent rights and self esteem rights to which every
individual Canadian is entitled. However, self-government is only the beginning
for First Nations. It is the beginning of economic independence, social and
educational rights, further independence and cultural precedents.
It is important and essential that negotiations be concluded and not continue
over generations. Negotiations cost Canadian taxpayers and First Nations people.
The former see the policy landscape and the machinery of government preoccupied
with process and costs. The latter continue as wards of the state, foregoing the
true independence every Canadian merits. In the case of the Yukon Land Claims
Settlement legislation of many years ago, it cost approximately $90 million for
the negotiations that took place prior to the legislation's Royal Assent. The
self-government argument is contentious and emotional. Many who understand what
is it at stake, who spend years working with Aboriginals and policy makers, can
still disagree with others who have had the same insights and experiences. Some
argue, including the Assembly of First Nations, that self-government should be
based on race, where an Indian assembly would govern Indian people throughout
Canada. I do not believe this is possible, nor reasonable.
There is another school of thought on self-government that believes this
government and the government before it are doing everything they can at a rapid
pace to bring about
self-government for First Nations. If this were so, BillS-38 would not be before
us. We all know the Nisga'a agreement was settled because of a visit and a
promise made in the late 1960s by the current Prime Minister, who was then
Indian Affairs Minister, when he swore he would see an agreement for
self-government signed for those people. The Nisga'a agreement was not in line
with federal government policy. It was precedent setting, yet the Nisga'a are a
unique case. First of all, British Columbia has signed no First Nations
treaties. There is an enormous difference between what is happening today in
British Columbia and other provinces with large Aboriginal First Nations
populations. Second, there was a personal commitment on the part of Canada's
most powerful legislator, the Prime Minister himself.
Without framework legislation, enabling legislation, the queue for First
Nations to sign self-government agreements with the federal government will be
generations long. I truly believe that without enabling legislation such as Bill
S-38, what will be left of self-government will be a great economic machine for
chiefs, lawyers and constituents all at the expense of taxpayers, with results,
that at their best, are no better than this bill.
Honourable senators, you have all heard, seen for yourselves, or at least
intellectually understand that throwing money at a problem will not solve it.
The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has an annual budget of close to
$6billionthat serves approximately 1.3 million Aboriginal people, as well as
another $1 billion scattered throughout other departments. To compare, our
Department of National Defence has an annual budget of $11.8 billion, and our
Canadian Department of Health has a budget of $1.3 billion annually, that, I
referred to earlier, goes towards Aboriginal comprehensive health care.
The current Minister of Indian Affairs is Robert Nault. His personal goal is
to improve the lives of Aboriginals in Canada. I believe he may be able to do
that, but we have to give him tools to work with. We have to show him our
conviction that he is doing the right thing and the most necessary thing. We
have to give him Bill S-38, as he is arguing for an institutional framework at
the band level. Since he became minister, the government has issued guidelines
for self-government policy, and Bill S-38 fits into these guidelines.
The Constitution Act, 1982, through section 35, recognizes Aboriginals'
inherent right to self-govern. However, that on its own has not broken the
cycles of welfare and economic crisis on reserves, of which we all are too well
aware. What is the problem? The identification of the problem is simple: There
is a legal vacuum. I do not believe the framers of the Constitution in 1982
believed section 35 meant what it has come to mean today. Far from it. Courts
are deciding, in lieu of existing legislation, because our federal government
has failed to act, and we have failed to act.
In a book entitled A Poison Stronger Than Love, Anastasia Shkilnyk
It is one of the most compelling paradoxes of our public policy — that ever
increasing government expenditures on Indians find an exact parallel in ever
increasing indices of social disintegration on their reserves.
Senators, while we sit in this place, we must accept responsibility for this.
I should take a few minutes to discuss the current situation at Davis Inlet.
This is surely an example of federal government programing and policies gone
awry. Since 1990, the federal government has spent over $20millionthere. The
disturbing scenes of gas sniffing kids first shocked Canadians in 1990, yet we
saw the same scenes this year.
In the words of the late Senator Walter Twinn:
For someone to walk tall and proud, he must also be a contributor. How can
you be a contributor without economic development?
Bill S-38 is Indian community driven, not a federal government blueprint.
That is one of the reasons I support it. I am a believer in self-government. I
do not want to be responsible any longer for the lives of the members of
Canada's First Nations. Let them find their own way. Let them be responsible for
themselves. Let them make mistakes. Let them have successes.
When I think back to the testimony we heard on my first bill, Bill S-10, I
remember one of the witnesses saying that the Indians are not a burden on
Canada; the Department of Indian Affairs is a burden on Canada, and Department
of Indian Affairs is a burden on Indians as well. That was said on June 20,
1995, before the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
Honourable senators, what is the federal government's policy on
self-government? Up to the 1950s, it was clear that government policies
attempted to assimilate Aboriginal peoples into Canadian society. The people
affected by these policies are the same individuals still fighting for
self-government for their families and future generations. In 1982, the Special
Committee of the House of Commons on Indian Self-Government wrote the Penner
report. That committee was chaired by then member of Parliament Keith Penner.
The committee recommended that Indian First Nation governments would and should
form a distinct third order of government in Canada. It proposed the
constitutional entrenchment of self-government and, in the meantime, recommended
the introduction of legislation to fill the legal void.
Since the Penner Report, which marked a turning point in federal policy,
Aboriginals themselves have evolved into a relatively successful advocate group
for their inherent and recognized rights. In 1986, the federal government
released its policy oncommunity-based self-government negotiations.
It is important to note this was policy, not legislative authority, but the
future appeared to look clearer. The aspect of hope began to take form in all
Aboriginal-federal government negotiations.
In summary, the self-government agreements were entered into with delegated
legislative authority as their basis in the late 1980s.
Next, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, or RCAP, reported, in
November1996, that "Aboriginal peoples have a right to fashion their own
destiny and control their own government, lands and resources." The commission
actually detailed a self-government approach based on the recognition of
Aboriginal government as one of the three orders of government in Canada and,
among other things, called for the passage of an Aboriginal nations recognition
and government act.
In his speech, Senator St. Germain quoted more from Volume II of the RCAP
report. The phrase "genuine reconciliation and dual citizenship" stands out
for me. Surely this government and we as Canadians do not embrace the
circumstances of Davis Inlet. What is manifesting itself there should not be
considered genuine reconciliation.
Honourable senators, I want to register my disagreement with Senator
St.Germain on one point. In his second reading speech, the honourable senator
said that the end result is virtually the same if we follow the policy paper of
the federal government to help First Nations achieve self-government or if we
use Bill S-38 as an alternative route. I disagree. The end result will not be
the same. With the passage of time, and at the same time these negotiations are
taking place, lives are being lived and lives are being squandered away. At the
same time as these negotiations are taking place, millions of dollars that could
go toward meaningful health care, education and legal aid are being spent by
bureaucrats and politicians on what seem to be an endless rounds of hearings,
meetings and negotiations. We need only think back to Nisga'a to understand what
I mean. The Nass River Valley, which is Nisga'a land, was not even desirable
land to others, except for the forestry by-products and the sections of the
river where the salmon swim.
The money we are spending to make clear our consciences and to appease our
voters disturbs me.
The Liberal government's response to the RCAP took the form of a document
entitled: "Gathering Strength: Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan," which was
tabled in January of 1998 and included a statement of reconciliation expressing
Canada's regret for past actions.
Senator St.Germain has spent a lifetime meeting with Indian groups. He knows
and understands the issues and effects of agreements that are not negotiated. If
he sees genius in this bill, a bill that provides an alternative route to
self-government to what the federal government has come up with, a route that
has come from the First Nations themselves, I have to stop and ask myself, "Why
don't we do it?"
Honourable senators, whatever route First Nations choose as their ultimate
path to self-government, whatever federal government ultimately assists in
moving the agenda for
self-government and whatever generation successfully negotiates self-government
for its people, it will not affect me, my family or my community. The bottom
line is choice and who chooses.
Before I conclude, I want to explain the concept of enabling legislation. We
do it provincially with municipalities. The type of municipality is prescribed
in legislation. It is an easy process to become a village, hamlet or city.
Bill S-38 contains, of course, much broader powers. These are powers that the
courts, the federal governments and the First Nation groups have agreed upon
over time, including provincial powers. The provinces have washed their hands of
the Indian reserves. These powers would fill the legal vacuum created by the
provinces having abdicated.
Honourable senators, the powers in this bill are delegated and legislated. It
is a much healthier prescription than the one we passed with the Nisga'a
agreement where amendment is almost impossible. It is almost impossible to make
change. With legislation, we can make change.
The lack of self-government agreements does affect First Nations people
significantly. It affects their families and future generations. We should refer
this bill to committee as quickly as possible and ultimately pass this bill and
send it to the House of Commons.
The Hon. the Speaker: I must advise that Senator Tkachuk's time has
Hon. Charlie Watt: Would the honourable senator be prepared to accept
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before we proceed in that
way, it would be necessary for the Senate to grant leave.
Senator Tkachuk: I request leave to proceed.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable
senators, leave is granted for just one question and answer.
Senator Watt: Honourable senators, it bothers me that people talk
about self-government at the same time that they talk about delegated authority.
The honourable senator mentioned, in his concluding remark, the possibility
of doing things differently from the way that we handled the Nisga'a case. If I
understood correctly, the honourable senator was referring to flexibility
regarding delegated authority.
Bill S-38 speaks of self-government. Would that flow from section 91.24 of
the British North America Act or section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982?
Senator Tkachuk: Honourable senators, the Penner report said that
perhaps we should legislate self-government while the negotiation process
searches for a more permanent situation under section 35.
I cannot answer the question as a lawyer would, but I can answer the question
in principle because I have thought about it a long time. While this process
takes place, there must be an institutional framework amongst the Aboriginal
people so that they can get on with their lives. We should make this framework
as close as possible to what has been discussed in the past by the Aboriginal
people and the federal government.
Certainly, negotiations could take place after that. However, the Aboriginal
people would be living under a framework, in the interim, that would provide a
legal and coherent method for them to govern their reserves.
On the motion of Senator Chalifoux, debate adjourned.
Hon. Marie-P. Poulin moved the second reading of Bill C-441, to change
the names of certain electoral districts.—(Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C.).
She said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to speak to
Bill C-441. This bill received the unanimous support of all parties in the other
place and was passed at all stages on April19, 2002.
Bill C-441's intention is to change the names of certain federal electoral
districts to better reflect the changing demographics within the said districts.
Honourable senators, the Senate has passed similar bills quickly in the past.
As I pointed out, Bill C-441 has received the unanimous support of all parties
in the other place. I hope that will be the case here as well.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Banks, seconded by
the Honourable Senator Wiebe, for the adoption of the sixth report of the
Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence
(budget 2002-2003), presented in the Senate on April 25, 2002.—(Honourable
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, would Senator Kenny provide us with an explanation of the budget and
tell us whether he is satisfied with it?
Hon. Colin Kenny: Honourable senators, I am pleased to have an
opportunity to speak to this item. If the question is, is the committee
satisfied with the budget, the answer is "no." We had hoped for and requested
virtually twice the amount listed. We received 49 per cent of what we had asked
for and were part of the general thrashing and cutting exercise of the budget
sub-committee of the Internal Economy Committee to disburse the limited funds
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, the budget for committees
has been exhausted for this current fiscal year. Therefore, all allocations for
committees have been assessed and approved and that is all they will be allotted
for the current fiscal year. Therefore, my understanding is that although the
committee chaired by Senator Kenny received only 47 per cent of its budget, the
committee will have to make do with that until the new budget is approved by
this Chamber; is that correct?
Senator Kenny: Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton is correct. Our
committee must make do with this budget until this chamber approves a new
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the ninth report of the Standing
Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (budget 2002-2003) presented in the
Senate on April 30, 2002.—(Honourable Senator Wiebe).
Hon. Jack Wiebe moved the adoption of the report.
He said: Honourable senators, in anticipation of a question, I am encouraged
by the support for the reduced budget that the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry has submitted. We asked for a budget of $395,700. The
Internal Economy Committee has recommended a budget of $149,200, which is 37.7
per cent of the amount for which we asked. While the figure is in the
neighbourhood of the usual 40 per cent, we realize that we are getting 2.3 per
cent less than some of the other committees. However, we shall struggle on and
do the best job we can.
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, I have a question for the Deputy Chairman of the Standing Senate
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
Yesterday, Senator Taylor made reference to a supplemental budget that would
be sought later in the year by the Energy Committee. Is it the intention of the
Agriculture Committee to seek a supplemental budget later this year?
Senator Wiebe: Honourable senators, in answer to that question, I
cannot speak for the other members of our committee. However, it was certainly
our intention to revamp the work schedule we had set to fit within this budget.
I would be surprised if the members would be looking for supplemental funds.
Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: Honourable senators, would the Deputy Chair of
the Agriculture Committee advise the house how his committee could cope with a
77 per cent cut in its budget and whether it could continue with its work
Senator Wiebe: Honourable senators, it depends on what was originally
I think that a 77 per cent cut is a pretty dramatic cut, depending on whether
you fly WestJet or Air Canada, business class or economy class, and whether you
stay in elite hotels or others. These are areas that one would certainly need to
Unfortunately, I cannot really respond to that question because I do not have
any idea of the budget that was submitted. I know that, in the case of our
budget, we had decided to hold hearings right across Canada. We will now cut
back on some of those hearings. We believe that we can probably accomplish the
same thing by inviting individual witnesses to come to Ottawa to appear before
The unfortunate part of these cutbacks is their effect on one of the major
roles of this chamber, to take its presence to the general public in Canada to
give them a feeling that yes, there is someone in government who is listening.
By having our committees hold hearings throughout Canada, we can certainly
accomplish that. By bringing witnesses to Ottawa, unfortunately we cannot.
I hope that, in next year's budget, we can address some of these areas and
perhaps increase the amount of money available to all committees. However, as
far as this year is concerned, we are quite happy to live with the constraints
that have been imposed.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Comeau: I hope the senator was not suggesting, by mentioning
the means of travel, that the very frugal, economical and cost-effective
Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries travels in high style. I am quite sure
that is not what he was suggesting.
I did take note of the point that what the committee asks for will result in
some kind of percentage cut. I hope this is not a suggestion that we should be
inflating our budgets prior to submission so that we can get what we had wanted
in the end result. This would be a very counter-productive approach for
committee chairs and committees as a whole to take.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: It is unheard of.
Senator Wiebe: Honourable senators, that was certainly the furthest
thing from my mind when I said that it depends on what one asks for. I just used
the business class as an example. However, when committee chairs present a
budget they must be in a position to back up that budget when they go before the
committee. If you present a budget that is inflated knowing that it will be cut
down, the members of that committee will be able to see through that within the
first 10 minutes of your presentation.
Senator Stratton: That is easy for you to say.
Senator Wiebe: I do not feel I am getting myself into any trouble. I
have a point to make here, and that is that every committee in this house does
an honest and thorough job of presenting its budget. I also say that each and
every chairman of a committee, whether from this side or that side of the house,
recognizes the tremendous value that each and every committee provides to the
people of Canada.
Honourable senators will find that the majority of the budgets presented for
this year's work did not include very much international travel. The majority of
those budgets included travel within this country, and to me that is vitally
important. The more of that kind of work that this chamber does throughout our
country, the better the feeling that people in this country will have towards
the work of each and every one of us as senators.
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I hasten to assure the
Honourable Senator Wiebe that I do not have a criticism to make of the budget of
his committee. However, his comments on the process that is followed provide me
with the opportunity to make very briefly a point that my colleagues on the
Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration have heard me
make in the past.
The practice is that committee chairmen, having obtained approval of their
respective committees for a budget, bring that budget to a subcommittee of
Internal Economy, the Subcommittee on Budgets, very ably chaired by our
colleague Senator Furey. This subcommittee has a very difficult job. It must
interview the committee chairs, and while "haggle" might be too pejorative a
term to use, let me simply say that a great deal of negotiation goes into the
process at that point. It is entirely appropriate, therefore, that that stage of
the deliberations of the subcommittee be held in camera. I objected the
other day, however, when the report of the Budget Subcommittee came to the full
committee and we found ourselves meeting in camera.
Until fairly recently, the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets
and Administration always met in camera. We changed that a few years ago,
and I believe it was a change for the better. I believe firmly that once the
full committee is seized of a report from the Budget Subcommittee, those
deliberations ought to be held in public so that members of the Senate and
members of the public who are interested will have a much fuller idea of the
debate that surrounds approval of those budgets and their submission to the full
Senate and of the considerations that go into those discussions.
I simply flag that as a matter that I am interested in and give notice of the
fact that the next time we receive a report of the Budget Subcommittee, I will
certainly move, if necessary, that the full committee proceed not in camera
but in public.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kirby, seconded by
the Honourable Senator Poulin, for the adoption of the seventeenth report of
the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology
entitled: Volume Five: Principles and Recommendations for Reform — Part 1,
tabled in the Senate on April 18, 2002.—(Honourable Senator Keon).
Hon. Wilbert J. Keon: Honourable senators, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to make a few remarks concerning the Seventeenth Report of the
Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
I would like to first congratulate the members of the committee for their
continuous commitment over the past two years in seeing this study to fruition.
I would particularly like to congratulate Senator Kirby and Senator LeBreton for
the way they conducted the business of the committee. I must say it was a
pleasure to serve.
There are two things that Canadians all seem to agree on when it comes to
changing our health care system: first, that every Canadian should be entitled
to timely access to health care services regardless of their income; second,
that no one should suffer undue financial hardship as a result of having to pay
health care expenses.
Where the consensus falls apart, however, is reaching agreement on the means
of achieving these objectives.
One of the most sensitive issues that spark debate pertains to the role of
the private sector in the health care system. In fact, this is an area where
there are huge misconceptions. Many believe, for example, that the Canada Health
Act in some way prohibits the private sector from having a role in the provision
of health care services. This is simply not true.
While the act states that we cannot have competing private insurance for
"medically necessary services" and requires that the overall health system in
a province be administered by a public agency, it does not prohibit a role for
the private sector in the delivery of health services.
Today, the public share of health care spending in this country is
approximately 68 to 72 per cent, depending on the source, with private spending
accounting for 28 to 32 per cent.
In 1999, it was estimated that, on average, Canadians spent over $850 on
insurance and out-of-pocket health care costs, for a total of approximately $26
billion. For the most part, this was related to drugs, dental services and
vision care. Spending on drugs alone accounts for 31 per cent of private money,
with an additional 25 per cent spent on other health care professionals such as
physiotherapists and chiropractors.
Private management and delivery of health care services is evident in many
parts of the health system, as seen through the domination of private nursing
homes in the long-term-care facility sector, provision of home care services in
several provinces provided in large part by the for-profit private sector,
operation of private radiology clinics and private labs providing diagnostic
services under provincial health insurance plans, and contracting out of
services in hospitals to the private sector, services such as housekeeping, food
services, purchasing and building management contracts.
In reality, there is a broad range of options that must be fully explored,
including, for example, the merits of privately funded and privately delivered
services and the merits of publicly funded and privately delivered services.
There is some progress that can be made by improving efficiency in the way
health care services are currently delivered. Primary care reform, for example,
is high on every provincial and territorial government's agenda. Providing
comprehensive primary care through multidisciplinary group practices is seen as
one way to make most effective use of health resources.
However, efficiency changes alone will be not enough to sustain the health
care system in the long term. Finding new sources of financing will need to be
If one supports the argument that we need more resources to respond to all
demands being placed on the health care system, then the next question to be
answered is this: What trade-offs are acceptable to Canadians? Essentially,
there are three basic options. One is to ration publicly funded health care
services, either by consciously deciding to make some services available and
others not or by allowing waiting lists to grow. The second option is to
increase government revenue, either by raising taxes directly or through other
means such as health care insurance premiums. The third option is to make some
services available to those who can afford to pay for them, allowing a parallel
privately funded tier of health care services. These options are not mutually
Our fifth report lists 20 principles that provide a structural framework for
a reformed health care system. These include the retention of a single funder
for services covered under the Canada Health Act; stability in funding; defining
the federal role; new methods for remunerating hospitals with service-based
funding, as opposed to the global funding they get now; formation of regional
health authorities; private care reform; creation of an internal market where
primary care teams would purchase health services; a strategy for provision of
an adequate number of health professionals; accountability and transparency in
financing; outcome and evaluation systems and a health guarantee that would
define maximum waiting times and provide for treatment when they are reached.
I believe Senator LeBreton will enlarge on this when she speaks; therefore, I
shall not go into that at length.
We have emphasized the need for separation of payer, provider and evaluator.
I wish to emphasize this because I believe we have reached the point in Canada
where we simply cannot afford not to do this. We have to separate the payer,
provider and evaluator; otherwise, I do not see any way out of the conundrum we
are in at the present time. The payer would be an agency of government; the
evaluator, an arm's-length agency of government. This would provide for
competition and flexibility in the provider component of the system.
For example, if the payer continues to see that people are not hard done by
for health services, if the evaluation system is controlled by government, what
difference does it make who provides the care if it is provided up to standard
and at a reasonable cost?
For example, when our institutions were remunerated on a service-based
formula, if private institutions could provide equal or better service to public
institutions it would be reasonable to allow them the contracts.
We also recommended the implementation of regional health authorities, for a
number of reasons. Recognizing their successes and failures, we believe, on
balance, this would provide a framework for solving a number of problems,
including our manpower problems. Manpower could be developed to meet local needs
at all levels. There is no question about the serious shortage of doctors,
nurses and other providers, but there is also a serious problem with doctors
doing work that could be done by nurses, nurses doing work that could be done by
nursing assistants, technicians doing work that could be done by clerks, et
cetera. By approaching this at the local level, the issues could be addressed
and the true manpower needs more closely defined.
Therefore, ensuring that medicare will be there for our children and
grandchildren, and for those of us approaching old age, means getting all the
cards on the table and collectively working to find answers to difficult
questions. We will continue to pursue this goal.
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the twelfth report of the Standing
Senate Committee on Transport and Communications (budget 2002-2003), tabled in
the Senate on April 25, 2002.—(Honourable Senator Bacon).
Hon. Donald H. Oliver: I move the adoption of the report.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure,
honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable
senators, Senator Bacon wanted to move the adoption of the report, but she is
not present. I have a question for Senator Oliver, who is the committee's deputy
The same question was also put to the other committee chairs. Did the
Standing Committee on Transport and Communications receive the full amount
requested in its budget? If not, how much was its budget reduced by? Will the
committee be able to complete the work it had planned for this year with the
funds allocated to it?
Senator Oliver: Honourable senators, the committee did not receive the
amount that it requested. It sought $70,000 and received $45,000, or 64 per
cent. The committee is studying inner city busing at the request of Minister of
Transport David Collenette. To date, the committee has travelled to Vancouver,
Calgary, Montreal, Ottawa and Halifax to hold public hearings. It is hoped that
we can complete the report and file it before the end of the year within the
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators,
it was moved by the Honourable Senator Oliver, seconded by the Honourable
Senator Robertson, that this report be adopted now.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fourteenth report of the
Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (increase in
salary for Senate Executive Group), tabled in the Senate on April 25, 2002.—(Honourable
Hon. Richard H. Kroft moved the adoption of the report.
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the eighteenth report of the
Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (budget
2002-2003), tabled in the Senate on
April 25, 2002.—(Honourable Senator Kirby).
Hon. Michael Kirby moved the adoption of the report.
He said: Honourable senators, when the Standing Senate Committee on Social
Affairs, Science and Technology presented its budget, we did two things. First,
we tried to be economical in terms of travel within Canada. We said that if we
were to hold hearings, we would do what we have done since we began work on the
health study, which is to have seven senators travel instead of the whole
committee and we would rotate the members. Second, there have been no foreign
fact-finding missions to date, although this budget did contain two trips for
fact-finding. We said that we would limit that travel to four senators, again,
who would be rotated.
The important thing is to explain how the budget was constructed. The budget
that was approved is everything that the committee will need to get through to
the completion of its next report at the end of October.
The sizable portion of the budget for which we were not given funds relates
to the following issue, which I hope this chamber will consider at the
appropriate time. The committee strongly believes, consistent with the Senate
practice of analyzing and responding to reports of government tasks forces,
royal commissions and so on, that it would be appropriate for the Standing
Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to hold hearings on
the report of the Romanow task force once that report is tabled. Since that
report is not due to be tabled until November, those hearings would occur in the
first quarter of the next calendar year, or the last quarter of this fiscal
year. Senator Angus was the Deputy Chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on
Banking, Trade and Commerce when the two of us, along with the members of our
committee, did coast-to-coast hearings on the MacKay task force report. Out of
those hearings, the Banking Committee came up with 26 or 27recommendations, all
but one of which was ultimately included in the financial institutions bill that
went through Parliament four or five years ago.
Honourable senators, that is the piece that is missing from the budget. I
would hope that later this year this chamber would see fit to grant the
committee funds to engage public reaction and to conduct a detailed analysis of
whatever recommendations end up in Mr.Romanow's report.
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, I should like to congratulate Senator Kirby, Senator LeBreton and
their colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and
Technology for the work they are doing on the health study. It is a classical
example of how major areas of public policy can be explicated, examined and
explored by a Senate committeein a thorough fashion and at a fraction of the
cost of a royal commission. Studies represent a big percentage of the Senate's
budget for committees. The study being conducted into health by our colleagues
on the Social Affairs Committee is being done with a fraction of the funds that
have been made available to Mr.Romanow, to whom we wish every good wish in his
Honourable senators, a contingency plan is important for the Senate when the
Romanow royal commission report is tabled. It is important that there be some
follow-up. Expert knowledge will be generated by the work of the Senate
committee, against which the Romanow results can be tested.
What Senator Kirby talked about a few moments ago leads me to a
budget-related question as to what funds are left in the committee budget.
Unfortunately, the chairman of the Internal Economy Committee is not here.
Perhaps another member of that committee or Senator Kirby can answer this
question: Is any money left in the global Senate committee budget that can be
drawn on by other committees that may find themselves in the same situation, or
have all Senate committee monies been committed in this round?
Senator Kirby: Honourable senators, first, on behalf of all members of
committee, I should like to thank Senator Kinsella for his positive remarks on
the work we have been doing. I should tell honourable senators, for the record,
that even with the money that is now proposed in this motion that is before the
Senate, the total amount of money that the Senate committee will have spent on
the health care study, in the two years since we have been doing it, is slightly
over $300,000. That is an interesting number to place on the record in light of
the product. If it were a productivity measure, it would not be a bad one.
In answer to the senator's direct question, I have no idea. I do not know how
much money is left. I am not on the Standing Committee on Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration. Senator Kroft would be the best person to answer
Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a question for the Honourable
Senator Kirby. I would like to thank him for agreeing to establish a health
subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and
Technology, to study the report of the Fédération des communautés francophones
et acadienne du Canada on the healthcare situation in French- speaking
communities outside of Quebec.
To my knowledge, the Romanow commission has not yet touched on this issue. A
report was tabled and I believe that it was even forwarded to the committee. A
subcommittee chaired by Senator Morin met last week to look into the issue.
I wonder if the committee currently has the funds to undertake this study,
which will no doubt involve travel and research. Is there a budget set aside for
Senator Kirby: Honourable senators, no, that was not included in the
budget. The budget focused on the primary health care study — pardon the pun.
The observation is worthwhile. The corresponding document, which is likely to
be referred to the committee, examines the English language health care services
in the Province of Quebec. Thus, we will be looking at the minority language
delivery of health care services for Francophones outside Quebec and for
Anglophones in Quebec.
Hon. Laurier L. LaPierre: Honourable senators, to follow up on Senator
Gauthier's comments, the Senate absolutely must hold town hall meetings and
consult Canadians on this issue. They are the first to exercise their right to
good health. If the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and
Technology does not have the budget to hold such meetings, the report will be
weaker as a result.
It is important to consult Canadians because this issue affects them. It
seems that Senator Gauthier's remark about the
Franco-Ontarians could be included in town hall meetings held across Canada. I
would ask the honourable senator if he could see fit, should the committee award
him more money to accept it.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Kirby: I am more than prepared to follow the honourable
senator's suggestion. If the Senate would allow the committee to hold hearings
on the Romanow report dealing with the delivery of health care services to
minority language groups, that would inevitably be one area of the review.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure,
honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Resuming debate on the consideration of the fifth report (final) of the
Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence entitled: Canadian
Security and Military Preparedness, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on
February 28, 2002.—(Honourable Senator Lapointe).
Hon. W. David Angus: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the fifth
report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence
entitled, "Canadian Security and Military Preparedness," known sometimes in
Maritime quarters as "the Forrestall report," and elsewhere in Canada as
either "the Banks' report" or "the Kenny report."
At the outset, I would like to commend the excellent work of all members of
the committee. The report clearly lays the groundwork for more substantial and
extended work in the field covered by the report. The report clearly justifies
the modest budget that was voted in the chamber today following Senator Kenny's
Much of the work leading up to the report was done following or as a result
of the September2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon in the United States. Those events have changed our lives substantially
and have created a new paradigm for maritime security and the efficient
transportation of containerized cargoes bound for the United States. A vast
quantity of that cargo passes through Canada en route to crossing the
Honourable senators, the events of September 11 and the subsequent all-out
war on terrorism have and will continue to profoundly alter our lifestyle and
the way in which we must conduct our business in the maritime industry and in
the international trading world.
As we have done with previous events that brought major change to our lives
and to our business environments— I think of the advent of containerization,
computerization and globalization— we can and must now adapt to this change, as
dynamic and gut-wrenching as it may be.
International terrorism is more deadly than computers or the unitization of
cargo. It threatens our physical safety and security and it threatens our peace
of mind. The necessary and inevitable consequences and reactions are threatening
our established business practices and our patterns of behaviour.
Honourable senators, there is some good news, however, because suddenly, with
clear attention and focus, considerable resources are being made available for
dealing with some of the issues and problems that had previously been long
overlooked in respect of the free flow of legitimate goods and people across our
shared border with the United States. Important to all of us is the sudden, new,
high priority being given by both Canadian and American authorities alike to
facilitate the safe movement of goods and people across our shared border and
for the introduction of modern, state-of-the-art security measures to tighten
and enhance security at our seaports and airports.
However, if we wish to remain safe, secure and free as individuals, and
remain productive, competitive and economically free as well, we must take
immediate steps to commit the further necessary resources in Canada to help us
to adapt to this radically changed post-9/11 environment. We should not bury our
heads in the sand and say that there is no problem. We must heed the warnings
and make the necessary adjustments, even though initial extra costs and awkward
political consequences may be involved.
We cannot ignore the problems. We must heed the warnings and make the
necessary adjustments, even though, inevitably, there seem to be extra costs and
Honourable senators, if we are to continue to be free, secure and
economically competitive, we must do everything possible to strike a balance
between the new exigencies of national security and the need to maintain our
economic security. We should not overreact and exaggerate our response to
security demands, but we must act and react in a balanced way. We have advanced
technology and other modern ways, means and methods to help us adapt.
Due to the new requirements, I strongly believe that, in order to remain
free, safe, and economically competitive, we need to strike a balance between
our national security and our economic security.
The citizens of the United States and their government are committed to, and
they are deadly serious about, bringing terrorism to its knees and about
preventing and obviating the risk of another catastrophic terrorist event on
their own soil. They will take all possible measures to prevent dangerous
chemicals, anthrax, ebola, nuclear objects and other instruments of mass
destruction from crossing their borders into the U.S.A. They are not kidding.
Make no mistake. The Americans are totally serious and intend to do
everything necessary to prevent anything like the tragedy of September 11 from
Honourable senators, has anyone in this chamber seen the tapes that were
recovered from caves in Afghanistan? They depicted
al-Qaeda forces shooting flaming missiles at American icons such as the
President and other political leaders, as well as at sports heroes, film stars,
popular singers and musical groups. Once you see this footage, you will better
understand the depth of American resolve. You are all aware of the hair-raising
terrorist scenarios in respect of the maritime industry. One hesitates to even
contemplate a container ship carrying a concealed nuclear device being exploded
by terrorists in New York Harbor or a fully laden oil tanker being exploded in
the Strait of Hormuz, closing the narrow strait and sending the world economy
into a tailspin.
We must adapt or we will suffer negative consequences. This is relevant to
all ports and to maritime security overall so that our ports in Halifax,
Montreal and Vancouver, and others, can remain competitive and not lose traffic
to such U.S. ports as Newark and Seattle. We need to become more secure in the
contemporary sense. We need to remove those elements that have the potential to
nurture the growth of terrorist organizations. We must invest in and employ the
best available technology for the purposes of inspecting, assessing and
profiling people, cargoes, ships, containers, trucks, et cetera so that we can
provide the highest possible security and vigilance. If we do not do that, all
Canadians will surely lose out. To preserve our economic security at the same
time will be complex and will require full and complete cooperation between
business and government by way of continuing dialogue on the issues. It will
also require a major and immediate commitment of policy and money by the
It is at times like these that we tend to remember those important sayings of
our forefathers who pioneered democracy and defined not only the virtues of
freedom, but its high costs as well. Perhaps the best known and appropriate in
today's world is: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." These are words
often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but actually were uttered by Wendell
Phillips in 1852 in a speech before the Massachusetts anti-slavery society.
However, it was Jefferson who wrote in 1787:
The tree of the liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood
of patriots and tyrants. This is its natural manure.
As well, I am confident we were all inspired by the many moving phrases of
the late John F. Kennedy, including those contained in his inaugural address of
January 20, 1961, such as the following, which I believe is particularly
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay
any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any
foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
Honourable senators, it is encouraging to note those measures already
introduced at airports, seaports and elsewhere by way of identifying and
controlling some of the many more obvious terrorist risks before us. Other key
measures to address the security issues in the maritime and air industries
appear to be already on the drawing boards. The joint government initiatives now
under way by authorities both here in Canada and the U.S. are encouraging as
well, and the involvement of the private sector in the development of policies
and processes is, of course, gratifying and, I believe, essential.
However, more must be done. The $60 million allocated so far for marine
security in the December federal budget falls far short of what is really
needed. Attitudes need to evolve and barriers need to be broken. Our government
must do more than pay mere lip service to the pressing needs of maritime
security. It should commit fully to implementing the recommendations contained
in the committee's report and allocating the necessary funds and other resources
to minimize the opportunities in Canada for terrorists and to shore up security
now. At the same time, it must be careful not to unfairly burden ship owners and
other maritime industry businesses with the costs and liabilities arising from
special plans to protect our ports against the threat of terrorism. In the air
industry, some of the burden of costs for security measures has been placed on
the air industries and is causing them great hardship.
This is not the time for the Canadian government to waffle or dilly-dally on
critical issues of security, defence and cross-border trade. Now is the time for
action, leadership and cooperation with our allies, with business and law
enforcement agencies. Now is not the time to rest on our laurels, to be insular
and hide behind a smokescreen of illusory sovereignty issues. If we do,
Canadians will surely pay dearly through diminished economic security.
Every day, a vast number of containers from abroad, ultimately destined for
U.S. receivers, are trans-shipped via Canadian ports such as Vancouver, Montreal
and Halifax. Should the Americans have reason to believe any of these containers
are suspect, or have in any way been exposed to terrorist threats during
transit, the containers will be stopped and delayed at the Canada/U.S. border.
This, in turn, will lead to congestion and the border becoming a barrier against
the free flow of goods and people, with the potential to eventually choke off
Canadian exports and to stem the flow of foreign direct investment into Canada.
Without easy access to the U.S. market, businesses will be reluctant to
establish operations here in Canada. The reality is that the ability of Canadian
exporters to meet contracted delivery schedules set by U.S. customers has
significant implications for Canada's prosperity as a nation. In other words, if
our ports are not safe and secure for the transit of containers and other cargos
destined for the U.S.A., the consequences of our economic security could be
Honourable senators, there is clearly an awareness in industry and amongst
government officials of the challenges which lie ahead. All is not negative and
bad news at this time. There is an awareness of the needs to be met if we are to
succeed in striking the security balance I have referred to. We should be
especially pleased that Canadian customs inspectors will soon be equipped with a
number of VACIS scanners, enabling them to make more effective inspections of
containers passing through our ports. Let us hope that sufficient government
funding will be made available so these same officers will have those other
state of the art tools they need to do the highly technical searches required to
help defend us against terrorist attacks.
In earlier times, before income tax became the key source of government
funds, our customs officers at the Canada/U.S. border and elsewhere were
primarily on the lookout for smuggled goods so they could optimise their
collection of duties, which were then such a key element of national revenue.
Later, during the 1960s, seventies, eighties, and even into the nineties,
narcotic drugs became the main threat for customs. Nowadays, and especially
since the September 11 catastrophe, their focus is much more diverse, as they
must target a wide variety of non-traditional threats, which they categorize
under the letters CBRNE. That is to say, chemical, biological, radioactive,
nuclear and explosive. Honourable senators, the paradigm has changed. The focus
is now security against the tools of mass destruction. We must ensure we equip
our inspectors with the best technology available, plus proper police and
military back-up, so they can do their work efficiently and on at least a level
playing field with the forces of evil.
As honourable senators know, the Standing Senate Committee on National
Security and Defence states that during its investigations the committee heard
allegations that organized crime organizations are generally active within the
ports of Montreal, Halifax and Vancouver, and that an extraordinarily large
proportion of Canadian port employees have criminal records. As well, the
committee was told that criminal activity in these ports is uncontrolled. There
are numerous security lapses in the ports; including the lack of adequate
fencing and the absence of either effective pass systems or comprehensive
background checks on people who work at Canadian ports or have access to them.
The theft of containers and physical threats by dock workers against customs
inspectors checking on the contents of containers have become chronic problems
in the ports, and the senators were told many of the thefts are never even
With respect to one of the ports, Vancouver, the senators were told that all
traditional crime elements have infiltrated that port, including the Hells
Angels, Asian triads, Russian gangsters and Mexican and Colombian
narco-terrorists. The committee operated on the dual premises that ensuring the
security of Canadian ports has become a prerequisite for their economic
viability and that organised crime provides a fertile ground for terrorist
As a consequence, the committee concluded that the conditions in Canada's
three main ports —
The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Angus, I am sorry to interrupt, but I
must advise that your time has expired.
Senator Angus: May I have leave to continue?
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is leave granted?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable
senators, I am prepared to allow the honourable senator the time required to
complete his remarks.
Senator Angus: They concluded that the conditions in our three main
ports create national security problems which must be addressed both in the
interests of economic viability of the ports themselves, and the security of
Canadians and our North American neighbours generally.
Amongst the committee report's several strong and constructive
recommendations was No. 8 at page 129, which recommends that a public inquiry
under the Inquiries Act into significant ports be established as soon as
possible with a mandate that would include six elements relating to examining
the degree of control that organized crime has over Canadian seaport operations,
as well as the relationship between such control and threats to our national
The committee's report became controversial soon after its tabling here in
the Senate in late February. A number of port and customs officials, as well as
port users and customers, in Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax lambasted the
report, claiming, among other things, that it was based on hearsay, and denying
that crime was rampant in any of these three named ports.
Herein lies an important misunderstanding. The committee's study which lead
to the report did not purport to make findings of fact. Indeed, its mandate was
to "conduct an introductory survey of the major security and defence issues
facing Canada with a view to preparing a detailed work plan for future
In the course of conducting the requisite survey, the senators heard strong
and disturbing statements from credible law enforcement officers about crime and
security lapses in the ports. They did not conduct formal hearings to check out
all of these allegations. Rather, they issued their report to"raise security
questions" that merited further study.
Senator Kenny stated the following in response to these criticisms:
We don't come out as a bunch of crime busters, but we can see that there is
a potential for security risk in the ports. We're saying, "Here's what we
heard. We think somebody should look into it."
Honourable senators, the report suggests that organized crime is back in
business in all our major ports. There is a bit of déjà vu because, back in the
1960s, there were allegations of organized crime, loan sharks and all the worst
elements in our ports, particularly in Montreal. The port managers pooh-poohed
these allegations. There was a call to the government for an inquiry. The
inquiry was held under the leadership of the Honourable Mr.Justice A.I. Smith
under the Public Inquiries Act. What did they find? They found that organized
crime was rampant in the Port of Montreal. I detect a parallel in the current
situation, and I believe that the stakes now are significantly higher than they
were then. The price of tolerating the status quo likely will be the ultimate
failure of our ports from an economic and competitive standpoint. The time for
action is now. The need is critical.
Honourable senators, the report from the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence has been public for just under three months.
Nothing has been done about it. It is under study. The government leader in this
chamber has said, in response to serious questions from many senators, that it
is under study. However, therein lies the problem.
My urgent challenge to the government today is to not let the clear warnings
of this committee report fall on deaf ears. Do not let this report disappear
down a black hole into oblivion. Act now without further foolhardy and
potentially fatal delays. Accept committee recommendation No. 8 now by
establishing a public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act to review security
of Canada's major ports of Halifax, Montreal and Vancouver.
Hon. Norman K. Atkins: I move adjournment of the debate.
The Hon. the Speaker: I believe that Senator Lapointe had indicated a
desire to speak.
Hon. Jean Lapointe: Honourable senators, I will not speak today.
The Hon. the Speaker: I will accept the motion.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, I would like to know whether Senator Lapointe can give us any
indication of when he will be speaking on this?
Senator Lapointe: When it will be convenient, honourable senators.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Comeau, seconded by
the Honourable Senator Johnson, for the adoption of the fifth report of
Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries entitled: Selected Themes on
Canada's Freshwater and Northern Fisheries, tabled in the Senate on
February 19, 2002.—(Honourable Senator Adams).
Hon. Willie Adams: Honourable senators, I wish to support the speech
made by the Honourable Senator Comeau last week regarding the report of the
Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries. In the last year, the committee went to
Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. We visited Yellowknife, Inuvik,
Tuktoyaktuk and Broughton Island.
I was pleased that members of the committee visited Nunavut. It is not often
we share our northern hospitality with such important guests. We met with
members of local organizations and learned from them the problems and visions
they have regarding the fishing industry in the territory. We were told that
there is great potential for this industry.
The people of Nunavut are starting to do commercial fishing. Our people are
not equipped like the people down South or those on the East Coast. They have
big draggers and other types of equipment.
Our fishers cannot compete given the quotas set out by the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. Even if the quotas were good, some fishers do not have the
One of our challenges is the quota system. Nunavut has access to a very large
body of water and many fishing ships also have access to this area. Quotas
allotted to Nunavut fishermen are quite low as compared to quotas for southern
In 1999, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. took the federal government to court to
impress upon it to increase the turbot quotas off South Baffin Island after an
earlier ruling also said the quotas were acceptable. In October 2001, the
Supreme Court determined that the quotas would not be increased.
The turbot allocation for Nunavut fishers is currently 27percent of the total
resource in the area off South Baffin Island. In 2001, fishers had access to 100
per cent or 4,000 tonnes of the Canadian share of turbot further up into Baffin
Bay. This area has now become a desirable area in which to fish, and Nunavut
stands to lose its quota.
At the time of the land claims settlement, the Government of Canada did not
have a policy for the people of Nunavut. I remember that at that time we were
negotiating with the Nunavut government. We went to meet people. We did not have
a place to negotiate with the DFO in Ottawa. We found out that DFO had an office
in Newfoundland for those fishers.
It is difficult to negotiate something in the community. We would like to
have some benefit in the future. Fishermen down South usually get a subsidy from
the government to buy equipment.
We found out that the Government of Canada did not have a policy for the
native people. In Nunavut, we are hunting and fishing in the community for the
community. The Government of Canada finally recognized that we were commercial
fishermen. They had figured that we were living off the land.
I have here information regarding the turbot fishery. Nunavut has access to
27 per cent of the total turbot quota. The remaining 73 per cent of the quota is
for people who come from the South and the rest of Canada. The same thing is
true with the shrimp quotas. Nunavut was given a figure of 6 per cent for shrimp
fishing; Newfoundland, 70 per cent; Quebec, 12 per cent; NovaScotia, 7 per cent;
P.E.I., 1 per cent; and New Brunswick, 4 per cent. My estimate is that the people
in the South received approximately 94 per cent and those of us in Nunavut
received only 6 per cent. It is difficult to know the percentage of profits that
people in the community actually see.
The shrimp example can also be applied to turbot fishing. Nunavut receives
around 27 per cent of the quotas for turbot fishing. Financially, 27 percent
works out to about $2 million to $2.5 million in revenue for Nunavut from turbot
fishing. It is estimated that commercial fishing in Nunavut is worth $14 million
to $24 million.
Between turbot and shrimp fishing, no more than $4 million or $5 million goes
to the community.
Of the 27 communities in Nunavut, most are found along the coast. The
population of Nunavut is somewhere around 30,000. Senator Comeau has indicated
that of that population, 50percent have an average age of 25 years or younger.
I live in the region of Rankin Inlet. A large portion of 14- and 15-year-olds
in Nunavut have children of their own. My nephew's daughter had a child when she
was 13. Her child is now 6 years of age, and she is 19. That is one of the
reasons why young people in Nunavut have such difficulty getting jobs.
In the future, I hope that we will have a report that will make
recommendations for the people, especially in Nunavut and Nunavik. In the
meantime, I hope that this committee's report will be adopted.
The people in the communities of Nunavut are concerned about their situation.
I hope that the government will recognize that the people of Nunavut need help
to get into business. They need help from the people in the South. Nunavut sees
70 per cent of its fisheries money going south to work. We never have a chance
to pull in the kind of fish percentages caught in Nova Scotia, B.C. or
People from the East and down South have an opportunity to make money on the
quotas. Our people do not have the same opportunities because we have no
equipment. I hope that, in the future, honourable senators, we will address the
problems of Nunavut.
Leave having been given to revert to Reports from Standing or Special
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fifteenth report of the Standing
Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and
(budget 2002-2003) presented in the Senate on April 30, 2002.—(Honourable
Hon. E. Leo Kolber moved the adoption of the report.
Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, did the Standing Senate
Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce receive approval for its full budget?
If it did not receive approval of the full budget, what percentage of the full
budget was received? Is the chairman of that committee willing and prepared to
live with that budget for the rest of this fiscal year?
Senator Kolber: Honourable senators, I wish I could answer that
question, but I do not know the answer. I can advise the honourable senator what
the budget is for though, if he is interested.
Senator Stratton: Honourable senators, no doubt the request for monies
was based on good and valid reasons. However, I should like to know if the
budget was approved at full value. I should like to know if the budget was
reduced and, if so, by how much. If the figures in the budget were reduced, is
the chairman prepared to live with that budget for the next fiscal year?
If the chairman is unable to answer those questions, I suggest that perhaps
he adjourn the debate and return to the discussion when he is able to supply
Senator Kolber: Honourable senators, I do not know that I will ever
say that we are prepared to live with the budget for the rest of the year. Like
most committees, this is an ongoing process. We are starting a study on Enron
that we did not anticipate six months ago. I do not know how far in advance one
I will try to obtain the answers to the questions asked and I shall report
back to the chamber.
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Gauthier calling
the attention of the Senate to the important role of culture in Canada and the
image that we project abroad.—(Honourable Senator Lapointe).
Hon. Jean Lapointe: Honourable senators, as you know, it is late and I
will be brief.
Honourable senators, he was the first Canadian to break through the
impenetrable wall of the French song world, and his name was Félix Leclerc. He
was my friend. Throughout France, Switzerland, Belgium and other French-speaking
countries, he was known as "le Canadien, Félix Leclerc." It was the finest
thing he was ever called.
Indefatigable, he paved the way for Gilles Vigneault, RochVoisine, Isabelle
Boulay, Richard Desjardins, Linda Lemay, Garou and that undisputed queen of
international song, Céline Dion. I could name many others, but you know my
chronic aversion to wasting time.
When Félix came back from France, he had taken a different fork in the road
politically but, despite our differences of opinion, we remained very good
friends up until his death. We sometimes had some rather heated discussions, but
never without mutual respect. As Jacques Brel put it in Le Moribond, "We
set out from different shores, but were headed for the same port."
How many Canadian artists have made a name for themselves internationally in
various fields? In literature: Antonine Maillet, recipient of the much-coveted
Prix Goncourt, Anne Hébert, Marie-Claire Blais, Yves Thériault and many more.
How many internationally renowned actors has Canada produced? I am thinking of
Geneviève Bujold, Lorne Greene, Donald Sutherland, Dan Aykroyd, Michael J. Fox,
and so on. In painting, what about the success abroad of Riopelle, Pellan,
Colville, Morrice, Lemieux, Fortin, the Group of Seven, and others?
In the category of entertainment extravaganzas, we have Starmania and
Notre-Dame de Paris, with lyrics by Plamondon. And what about the
world-wide success of the Cirque du Soleil? I have given these examples of
Canadian successes because I wanted to show just how important a role Canadian
culture could play in the world.
When I was a child, my old father told me: "Son, remember that the wealth of
a country lies in its soil and in its culture." I remembered his advice. Over
the years, I came to realize how right my father was. This is why I believe it
is imperative — and I stress the word "imperative" — that the Senate create a
standing committee on culture, to ensure for years to come the promotion of
Canadian talent, both at home and abroad.
The Hon. the Speaker: If no other senator wishes to speak on this
inquiry, it shall be considered to have been debated.
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Callbeck calling
the attention of the Senate tothestatus of legal aid in Canada and the
difficulties experienced by many low-income Canadians in
acquiringadequatelegal assistance, for both criminal and civil matters.—(Honourable
Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, in the absence of Senator
Spivak, this being the fifteenth day, I rise to make a few comments about the
importance of legal aid in Canada. I congratulate Senator Callbeck for taking
the initiative to bring this inquiry forward. It is a timely and important
I first became involved directly in legal aid as a volunteer in 1965 shortly
after I was admitted to the bar in Nova Scotia. At that time, there was a
practice, as I recall it now, that the 52 most junior members of the bar had to
give free legal services for two weeks a year. I took on dozens of cases at that
time and got my feet wet in the courts, and that led to my 36-year career as a
As I will note later on, a number of Canadians are entitled to representation
before the courts and cannot afford it.
Our provincial bar societies are self-regulated, and perhaps it is time for
them to have a look again at the contribution societies can make to our legal
aid system in Canada. I feel it is extremely important that all lawyers provide
some pro bono assistance as part of their professional commitment to society.
In Senator Callbeck's inquiry, honourable senators will note that she is
looking at the status of legal aid in Canada and the difficulties experienced by
many low-income Canadians in acquiring adequate legal assistance for both
criminal and civil matters. Certainly, the most important cause is in criminal
In Nova Scotia today, we have at Dalhousie Law School a legal aid clinic that
is a community service of the university. The Nova Scotia Law Foundation, a
foundation set up to hand out money that is raised on the trust accounts of
lawyers in the province, of which I am a member, is a strong supporter of
Dalhousie Legal Aid Service. In recent years, that particular service has done a
series of test cases in the courts in litigation, including challenges to the
cohabitation rule; family benefits shelter allowance for disabled persons who
live with family; freedom of information and privacy; family benefits/social
assistance consent to release of information forms; National Child Benefit
clawback; association of single parent students; exercise of discretion in
denying special needs applications; admission and treatment under the Hospitals
Act, and many more.
In the test case on the admission and treatment under the Hospitals Act, for
instance, it is interesting to note that the action was commenced in 1994. It
tested a number of sections of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There were two issues sought to be addressed in that case. The first was breach
of the client's rights, in particular under section 7, security of the person;
section 9, arbitrary detention; section 10, right to counsel; and section 12,
cruel and unusual treatment. The students were seeking a declaration that these
rights were breached during an inappropriate admission and treatment of a
patient. They were also seeking a declaration that various sections of the
Hospitals Act are of no force and effect as they are inconsistent with the
Charter of Rights enumerated above.
This work is done through a clinical law course at Dalhousie Law School.
Under the educational mandate at the Dalhousie Legal Aid Society, third-year
students are provided with an extensive four-month, hands-on learning
At the heart of our legal system is the adversarial process, a process that
tests the merits of a legal aid case in the fire of reasoned debate within a
restrictive regime. The limits are generally well understood by the primary
players, and their remuneration reflects, in large measure, the skill and
experience they bring to the task.
Unfortunately, as Senator Callbeck's inquiry suggests, many Canadians find
that their ability to get effective access to our legal system is hindered by
the sheer cost involved. For many, it is simply out of reach without some form
of assistance. Legal aid is one form of assistance that has been made available
by provincial governments across the country.
There is no doubt that governments have an obligation to ensure that legal
proceedings are fair, particularly when there is significant risk to the
freedoms of the individual involved. However, for most civil actions, and where
less serious criminal offences are involved, legal aid may not be available at
In recent years, government cutbacks at the provincial level have left
lawyers viewing legal aid work as more akin to pro bono work than as a
legitimate portion of their income. In Ontario, the hourly rate has not risen
since 1987, the number of hours a lawyer can charge has declined, and there are
more severe restrictions on qualification for legal aid than was previously the
To raise awareness of the problem, defence lawyers in Ottawa boycotted
criminal courts for a week, two or three weeks ago. Lawyers in other provinces
have raised similar concerns this year, notably in Alberta and British Columbia.
Provincial governments are struggling to cope with the various financial
demands placed upon them. There is little doubt that federal cuts to transfer
payments have exacerbated the situation. With the administration of justice
falling clearly within the constitutional realm of the provinces, the role of
the federal government has been relatively limited. It has been argued that
national standards should be put in place with federal government participation
following a path similar to that of our health care system, including a funding
While throwing money at a problem is an inherently attractive approach
because so many people believe that problems can readily be solved that way, we
only have to look at the serious difficulties that currently mire our health
I have great admiration for the adversarial process, which has a lengthy,
proven track record as an effective means of searching out the facts while
protecting the rights of those involved in it.
In conclusion, there is another possibility. I hope that provincial
governments will take a closer look at what is called ADR— alternative dispute
resolution mechanisms— along the lines of mediation and arbitration, to deal
with many cases regarded as being less serious in nature than some of the major
criminal cases. While such alternatives are not likely to be implemented or
widely accepted overnight, they are likely to be less expensive than the current
court system and may well prove to be more effective.
Hon. Michael A. Meighen, pursuant to notice of April 30, 2002, moved:
That, notwithstanding the Order of the Senate adopted on October 4, 2001,
the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, which was
authorized to examine and report upon the health care provided to veterans, be
empowered to present its final report no later than October 31, 2002.
Motion agreed to.
The Senate adjourned until Thursday, May 2, 2002, at 1:30 p.m.