Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, I rise to call your
attention to a Canadian first. My wife and I were honoured yesterday to attend,
in Halifax, the official launch of the first ever Canadian Chair in Autism.
Senators will know that autism is a developmental disability of the brain that
affects one to two of every thousand births. Its causes are not known.
Through the vision, kindness and generosity of Jack and Joan Craig of
Halifax, the chair is now officially up and running. The endowment provided by
Joan and Jack Craig led to a cooperative arrangement between the Izaak Walton
Killam Health Centre for Children in Halifax and Dalhousie University. The first
director, Dr. Susan Bryson, has been installed. Dr. Bryson will be a member of
Dalhousie University's faculty of medicine and the IWK Health Centre's pediatric
department. The inaugural public lecture will be given this Thursday evening in
Honourable senators, I suspect that we all know a family with an autistic
child. People with autism may have problems with social development, such as
difficulties in forming relationships; communication, including use of language;
and behaviour, particularly a dislike for changes in routine.
Autism was once thought to be a life sentence. Today, major improvements can
be made in nearly 90 per cent of the population with appropriate intervention,
treatment and education. This is a very serious disease about which very little
is known. It is sometimes referred to as "infant autism" or "autistic disorder."
Treatment of the disorder is very difficult and prolonged. Parents, teachers
and therapists work together in coordinated efforts to encourage social
adjustment and speech development in the child.
Thanks to the establishment of this chair, the problems and treatment of
autism can now come out of the closet. Present at the conference announcing the
launch of the chair were the provincial Minister of Health, the Honourable Jamie
Muir, and the President of Dalhousie University, Dr. Tom Traves, who spoke of
their support for this initiative. They also both praised the vision and
perseverance of Joan and Jack Craig. All speakers, including Dr. MacDonald, the
Dean of Medicine, thanked the Craigs for their philanthropy and for their
generosity not only to the visual and performing arts but also in the health
I had the opportunity to speak to the new director, Dr. Sue Bryson, who
indicated that to her knowledge the endowed chair in autism founded with money
from the Craig Foundation is probably the first chair of its kind in North
America. This is truly a first.
Honourable senators, I consider this to be a magnificent achievement that
continues to point to the vision and generosity of Canadians. At a time when so
many people in the world are nervous, afraid and worried as a result of
September 11, it was a delightful experience to attend the launch of something
with the potential to lead to scientific discoveries that will ultimately make
life better for a number of children and families who have been suffering too
long because of a misunderstanding of autism.
Hon. Vivienne Poy: Honourable senators, last week I received a letter
from a constituent whose personal experiences with schizophrenia led him to
believe that not enough public attention is being paid to this condition. He
requested that I bring the subject to the attention of the Senate. He said that
everyone is afraid to talk about mental illness, particularly schizophrenia,
and, therefore, research and support for mental illness always lags far behind
that for other diseases.
In support of all those affected, I should like to speak about mental health
issues and the toll that mental illness takes on individuals, families, the
workplace and our society. Mental Illness Awareness Week was October 7 to 13.
Honourable senators, what do we know about mental illness? First, we know
that it is common. According to the Canadian Mental Health Association, one in
five adult Canadians will suffer from a mental disorder at some time in their
lives. While schizophrenia affects 1 in 100 individuals, approximately 10 per
cent of Canadians suffer from depression.
Second, know that mental illness is costly. According to a report entitled
"The Unheralded Business Crisis in Canada: Depression at Work" published last
year by the Business and Economic Round Table on Mental Health, the economic
costs of mental illness in Canada today are equivalent to 14 per cent of
Canada's net operating profits. In monetary terms, depression alone accounts for
$60 billion in lost revenue to the NAFTA economy, mostly due to reduced
productivity. In the wake of the tragedy of September 11, honourable senators,
levels of depression and anxiety are rising.
Third, mental illness affects not only individuals but also members of their
families and associates. If left untreated, mentally ill patients can bring
havoc to their communities.
Fourth, no one is immune to mental illness. Psychiatrists have only begun to
understand the complex interaction of genetic, environmental and physiological
factors that lead to mental illness. As such, the disease can often strike at
random, seemingly without warning.
Finally, we know that in the majority of cases mental illness is treatable.
Early detection, diagnosis and proper treatment could save many people from
needless suffering, which would also increase productivity and lower replacement
and disability costs.
Honourable senators, it is in the interests of government business and all
individuals to end the silence around mental illness and provide the necessary
financial support for appropriate and effective treatment. It is the right of
all members of our society to have the opportunity to lead productive and
Hon. Lois M. Wilson: Honourable senators, during the last week of the
Senate in June, I was in Sudan and Kenya, and this fall, when the Senate
reconvened, I attended the IGAD Partners Forum core group meeting on Sudan in
Oslo, Norway. Consequently, I have missed a number of Senate sittings.
Over a period of time, it has become obvious that neither of the belligerents
are seriously interested in pursuing peace negotiations by making compromises
because they both think they can win militarily, and they continue on in this
course. It has also become obvious that brokering peace between two parties that
have not moved in their positions in the last two years is a frustrating cause
to support. Nevertheless, the core countries — the U.K., Norway, Canada, the
United States, Italy and the Netherlands — had a full discussion of the options
in light of the intransigence of the parties to the conflict. They decided to
continue supporting the IGAD — the Intergovernmental Authority on Development —
the Horn countries charged with brokering peace through the Kenyan Secretariat,
but to also develop complementary initiatives, either bilaterally or with NGOs,
that would enhance the prospect for peace.
This opens the way for Canada to develop creative initiatives with
like-minded countries to bring peace to the largest country in Africa — Sudan.
However, such a commitment from Canada will call for more resources and
personnel at a time when there are enormous calls on current resources.
The situation in Sudan is not disconnected with the events of September 11.
In the midst of the current preoccupation with appropriate security measures in
Canada in the aftermath of the tragedy of September 11, I remind us all that
over 2 million Sudanese civilians have lost their lives in the current civil
war. Just because Sudan is not capturing the current headlines does not mean it
is time to put it on the back burner or to forget or abandon people caught in
that wretched situation.
Our commitment to ongoing work for peace, particularly in the continent of
Africa, is as urgent as it ever was. I count on the continued support and
interest of senators for Canada's efforts in what promises to be a very long
commitment to achieve an effective peace.
Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, I rise to draw the attention
of the Senate to an important milestone that Minister of Finance Paul Martin
passed over on the weekend. Perhaps his leadership needs this little boost. I
know it is unusual for a member of the opposition to point out the achievements
of the government, but this is worth noting.
As of Saturday, it has been 600 days since the last full federal budget in
February 2000. No Canadian finance minister has ever gone that long without
presenting a budget. Indeed, Paul Martin was already only the second finance
minister ever to go 500 days without presenting a budget — a mark last achieved
If he holds off until early February, Paul Martin will become the first
finance minister to ever go 700 days without a full budget. It he holds off
until February 28, it will be two full years. If this were hockey or basketball,
we would congratulate Mr. Martin for any kind of record extending back over 600
This is not hockey, however, and in light of current circumstances, I would
urge the Minister of Finance to end this dubious streak and bring in a full
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
I should like to table a document entitled "Position of Deputy Chairperson of
the Proposed Refugee Appeal Division," which I indicated to the Leader of the
Opposition I would try to get for him today.
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable
senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the transition
report of the Canadian Tourism Commission for the nine-month period ending
December 31, 2000.
Hon. Jane Cordy, for Senator Kirby, Chair of the Standing Senate
Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, presented the following
Tuesday, October 23, 2001
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has
the honour to present its
Your Committee, to which was referred Bill C-11, An Act respecting
immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who
are displaced, persecuted or in danger, has, in obedience to the Order of
Reference of Thursday, September 27, 2001, examined the said Bill and now
reports the same without amendment. Your Committee appends to this Report
certain observations relating to this Bill.
(For text of observations, see today's Journals of the Senate,
Appendix to Report, p. 869.)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be
read the third time?
On motion of Senator Cordy, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third
reading at the next sitting of the Senate.
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation to two
special meetings of the Canada- United States Inter-Parliamentary Group held in
Washington this past spring and summer, June 25 and 27, and July 15 and 18,
2001, wherein we met with 16 senators and 46 congressmen.
Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present
305 signatures from Canadian Home Children and their descendants from all across
Ontario and Saskatchewan, particularly around the Rosetown-Herschel area, who
are researching their ancestry. They are petitioning the following:
We the undersigned request that the Canadian Government make available all
post 1901 Census returns since they are the only public means available to
Canadian Home Children and their descendants, who make up 10 per cent and more
of our population, to access the whereabouts of their siblings and relatives
from whom they have been separated by this country's tacit acceptance of a
policy now recognized by the British Government as being misconceived and the
cause of irreparable and irrevocable damage to the child migrants and their
I have now presented before this Thirty-seventh Parliament petitions with
12,684 signatures. I presented petitions with over 6,000 signatures to the
previous Parliament, all calling for immediate action on the release of
post-1901 census information.
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I have a question for
the Leader of the Government in the Senate. First, I wish to raise concern in
the Senate about the decision by the Department of National Defence, the
Minister of National Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff to eliminate the
only capability we have in the Canadian army with respect to chemical,
biological, radiological or nuclear attack.
In total, we have about 100 people who are skilfully trained in
decontamination. It has come to my attention, as I have indicated, that the
government has decided to eliminate the Pioneer Platoons from the infantry
battalions. These are the only forces that have this capacity.
Considering our current lack of preparedness admitted by the government and
its own witnesses, would the government give some consideration to halting the
elimination of these platoons from the infantries and battalions so we might
retain this trained corps?
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
I wish to begin by welcoming Senator Forrestall back. It is good to see him back
on his feet and in obvious good health.
As to the honourable senator's specific question, I have no knowledge that
those two platoons are being eliminated, but I will certainly take the
information that the honourable senator has given to me this afternoon to the
Minister of Defence.
Senator Forrestall: I appreciate the leader's response, but the order
has been issued, so I am told. Anything we can do to retain that capability will
augur well for our Canadian Forces, particularly in these days.
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, the Prime Minister
has announced that Canada will send ground troops to Afghanistan to keep peace
after this war on terrorism comes to an end. We all know that the Canadian army
is engaged in keeping just 1,900 soldiers abroad in Bosnia and on peacekeeping
missions. We need four times that number of people in the rotation cycle to
simply sustain that force.
My question is rhetorical but very meaningful: From where will these other
soldiers come? Will the mission to Afghanistan be a one-shot deal for six months
or so with a battle group? Will the government lengthen tours to nine months or
a year? Will the government drop its Balkan commitment, or will it mobilize the
reserves? We must find these troops if we are to give meaning to the Prime
Minister's undertaking to offer peacekeeping forces to serve in Afghanistan
after the war.
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): The honourable
senator makes reference to one of the outstanding roles that Canada has played
in the world for a great many years and which was celebrated this weekend at the
peacekeepers' memorial here in Ottawa.
Preliminary plans are being debated for what may take place in Afghanistan
following the cessation of the present activities. Canada's contribution to that
has still not been determined. I am sure the honourable senator would not expect
it to be determined.
However, I want to assure the honourable senator that since September 11,
there has been an increase in the number of applicants to serve in our Armed
Forces. Many Canadians felt compelled by the actions of September 11 to enter
our Armed Forces. The recruitment still goes on, and the objective of
appropriately training those troops will be undertaken over the next few months.
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, can the Leader of the
Government in the Senate ascertain the name of the sixth ship, yet unnamed, that
will fulfil the government's six-ship commitment to the war on terrorism? If
that is not known, could the minister discover whether, for our edification and
information, it is because they cannot find a crew for her?
At the same time, we all know there are seven brand new Cormorants sitting on
the ground with fully trained crews quite capable of being in operation. The
Cormorant rescue helicopters are sitting on the ramp in Italy awaiting the
Canadian government's decision to take delivery.
Is it a question of the government not wanting this equipment here in Canada
or engaged with the aging Sea Kings in the sphere of operation they have entered
into so proudly?
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): First, I wish the
honourable senator to know that his colleagues on the other side were concerned
that the kinds of questions he would want to ask be asked in this chamber. The
question he asked about the sixth ship last week was asked by Senator Stratton,
and the question he asked about the Cormorants was asked by Senator Meighen.
Those senators took good care of my honourable friend's position as critic while
he was away.
Senator Forrestall: I have given the leader two days to give the
answer. I just want the answer.
Senator Carstairs: I will in fact give my honourable friend the
answer. The sixth ship has not yet been determined because the coalition has not
yet determined what services it wishes this ship to perform. This has nothing to
do with finding a crew.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: You have to train them.
Senator Carstairs: The Cormorants are going through final testing. As
soon as that is completed, they will be delivered.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: They are sitting at an airport.
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, my question is also to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It
relates to the news of last week that the Government of Canada decided to breach
the patent on the anti-anthrax drug, Cipro, held by the Bayer company.
That decision having been made, Canadians would like to know the tendering
process that was followed by the Government of Canada when it decided to ask the
Apotex company to produce the million or so copycat pills? Was the request
indeed put out to tender or is this another example of sole-sourcing?
Senator Lynch-Staunton: A split dip.
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
to the best of my knowledge, there was no tendering. The government was
concerned about ensuring that the safety of Canadians would be adequately
protected. They felt they needed quantities of Cipro on hand. At that time,
according to my information and apparently according to the information of the
Minister of Health, Bayer was not able to honour the production of the drug as
required. Information now would indicate that Bayer can and will produce the
quantities required by the Government of Canada.
Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, on Friday last, a senior
executive officer of Bayer held a press conference at which he announced that in
storage in Toronto were some 2 million Cipro pills. Notwithstanding that, the
Government of Canada took a decision to break the drug patent law and ask a
generic drug company to make the copied pills.
Why did the Government of Canada not consider asking Ranbaxy Laboratories
Limited, which also can make Cipro but at one-thirtieth of the cost? If the
Government of Canada wanted to take the generic drug route, why did they not go
to Ranbaxy Laboratories?
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, I read with great interest
this morning in The Globe and Mail that when The Globe and Mail
reporter asked Bayer last week if they had sufficient quantities available, they
argued that, no, they did not. Apparently confusing information about Bayer's
production capacity was getting not only to the Government of Canada but also
into media outlets. As to whether the government could have gotten an even
better price, I do not know the answer. Clearly, the government wanted to move
quickly to ensure adequate availability of antibiotics, particularly Cipro,
should Canadians need it. Thanks be to God, they have not yet needed it.
Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, I have another supplementary
question. The minister will know that the Patent Act governing drugs provides in
section 19.1(2) for cases of national emergency or extreme urgency.
The Minister of Justice yesterday told the special committee that the
anti-terrorist legislation is not based upon an apprehension of emergency but,
rather, is based upon the criminal law in the Criminal Code. If there is no
apprehension of emergency in the mind of the Minister of Justice, where does the
Minister of Health get the idea that an emergency might exist such that it could
make a claim — even though they did not make such a claim — pursuant to the
Patent Act? Does an emergency exist or does it not exist?
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, there have been no diagnoses
of anthrax in Canada. There have been a number of anthrax-related deaths in the
United States. A number of Americans have apparently been in contact with the
less virulent form of anthrax, which is a skin anthrax as opposed to an inhaled
The national emergency would exist clearly at the moment when individuals in
this country are diagnosed with anthrax in any of its variety of forms. That
national emergency would require the medication to be available immediately.
It took many weeks, after the planes went into the World Trade Center and
into the Pentagon and into a Pennsylvania field, before the Americans took
action in their anti-terrorism war. We would not have that kind of time frame in
a situation where anthrax is spreading across this country. The time frame
between an emergency being declared and the requirement for action on that
emergency is extraordinarily tight.
Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, can the minister provide any
information or can she secure information from the Department of Health as to
the testing process to be used to determine whether the generic drug that is
being copied will meet health standards? What is the shelf life of that drug?
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, those are very specific
questions. I will ask them of the Department of Health and try to return the
answers to this chamber as soon as possible.
Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, since the Leader of the
Government in the Senate is going to ask questions of the Minister of Health,
could she explain to us the facts about the availability of the generic drug?
Was last week's decision to purchase generic drugs, drugs with a copied
formula, based on the information we received from the Minister of Health to the
effect that the copied drug was already available, or was going to be?
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, the Department of Health and
the general public had clear knowledge that Apotex was able to produce this
quantity of drug. There were ongoing interactions, legal and otherwise, between
Bayer and Apotex about this particular drug. The ability of Apotex to make the
drug was relatively well known.
Senator Nolin: Was it also understood that Bayer could produce the
Senator Carstairs: There is no question, honourable senators, that
Bayer had the potential to produce the same drug, but the indication was that
they were not able to supply it at the time when the government wanted it.
Hon. Roch Bolduc: Honourable senators, why does the minister not tell
us the truth, that Department of Health officials wanted to save money? Did they
not say to the minister: "We are not just anybody, we are the government, and
so we will buy drugs at a savings from companies that manufacture generic
products instead of from Bayer"?
The minister need only admit that the government made the wrong decision and
offer his apology. That is all.
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, the minister has done that to
some degree. Bayer will now supply the drug. Apotex will also supply its drug.
It will be held in storage and will not be used unless absolutely necessary.
Senator Bolduc: The fact is that the minister did not consider himself
an ordinary citizen, and this is never a good idea.
Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, my question is for the
Leader of the Government in the Senate. It is a question that seeks
clarification of government policy on commuter bus and rail systems throughout
Today's Toronto Star carries a story in which the Ontario Minister of
Transport, Mr. Clark, criticized the federal government for refusing to come to
the table. The story said that Clark had hoped to hammer out an agreement that
would see the federal government pick up one third of the $9-billion plan to
fund Ontario's transit.
My question is the following: What is the government's policy with respect to
assisting provinces and municipalities regarding this transportation?
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
there are ongoing discussions on a fairly regular basis between the Department
of Transport and provinces and their municipalities. It is a rare thing, as you
know, for the federal government to enter into negotiations directly with
municipalities unless it is through the vehicle of their parent, which is the
provincial government. In this particular case, the government has made the
decision not to proceed.
Senator Oliver: Honourable senators, in the news story, the Minister
of Transportation, Mr. Collenette, is alleged to have said that a task force on
urban issues, headed by MP Judy Sgro, is delving into the issue and would have
recommendations this year. Could the minister tell us the scope of the task
force that is doing that study?
Senator Carstairs: The study is actually a caucus study, honourable
senators. The chairperson is a member of the House of Commons from the Toronto
area and a former city councillor in Metropolitan Toronto. The scope of the task
force is very broad. It has been asked to study all urban issues, particularly
in relation to a concern frequently raised by municipalities, which is the
offloading of provincial responsibilities onto municipalities.
Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, my question is addressed to
the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As was shown this morning with the
drop in the Bank of Canada interest rates by a further three-quarters of a
percentage point, the economy now has come to a full and abrupt halt. This will
affect the bottom line dramatically. The government cannot count on a growing
economy to yield the growing revenues needed to keep its books in the black. At
the same time, there are new cost pressures arising from the response to
terrorism. The Finance Minister refuses to set a date, preferably for a budget,
but, failing that, for some kind of proper accounting on how much he expects to
spend and raise this year and next. It is 600 plus days now since the last
budget. Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate assure us that there will
be a budget or some kind of fiscal update prior to the Remembrance Day break?
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
the honourable senator says that the economy has come to a full and abrupt halt.
I do not think there is any indication that it has come to a full and abrupt
Senator Stratton: I said "appears."
Senator Carstairs: There is indication, and quite clearly indication,
that there has been a slowdown in the Canadian economy, a slowdown that is far
less than the slowdown in the American economy. For example, retail sales
increased in August. One would anticipate they have been down since September
11, but we do not have those figures yet. We do know that Canada is the third
most competitive country in the world, according to the 2001 Global
Competitiveness Report. We know that manufacturing shipments also went up in
August, and that wage settlements increased in August as well.
As to the honourable senator's specific question, the Minister of Finance
promised an economic update and/or budget sometime in the month of October, and
I have no reason to think that it is not coming down during this month.
Senator Stratton: Honourable senators, I hope I said "appears"
rather than making a de facto statement about falling off the table. I said, "hopefully it would appear," and if I did say
"fall off" or "has fallen
off" or "ground to a halt," then I apologize. The economy is still moving,
but the question is, to what degree?
The Bank of Canada has dropped its rate considerably over the last few
months, and it has now dropped it by three-quarters of a percentage point, when
most economists and individuals were expecting a half point, perhaps a quarter
point drop. The three- quarters of a percentage point drop announced today is a
clear indication that there are problems down the road as we head into the next
fiscal year and as we finish off this quarter. We need to hear quickly. Please,
can the leader try to get a clear indication of what day? It is October 23, and
the leader has assured us that it would be by October 31. Usually the minister
makes an announcement and then a week or 10 days later makes the statement. We
need to have a clearer indication than what the leader has indicated.
Senator Taylor: What was your question?
Senator Carstairs: The honourable senator knows that the decrease in
the bank rate by the Bank of Canada was to keep pace with the bank rate drop in
the United States. In terms of when a date will be announced, I will let this
house know as soon as I learn and can make it available for public consumption.
Hon. Douglas Roche: Honourable senators, I have a question for the
Leader of the Government. Today the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs,
Science and Technology tabled in the Senate the report on Bill C-11 without
amendment but with a lengthy series of observations, among which is the request
for an in-depth study of all aspects of Canada's immigration and refugee
protection system. The Senate would conduct this study for the purpose of
defining the fundamental issues in the Canadian immigration and refugee systems.
Would the minister support that recommendation?
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
it would appear to me that since it was the Standing Senate Committee on Social
Affairs, Science and Technology that made such a recommendation, it would be the
Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology that would come
forward with a proposal for such a study. At that time, it will be debated and
discussed in this chamber and given a priority, as all studies of the Senate are
priority issues. I see no reason why I would have any objection to such a study.
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable
senators, it is my pleasure to table a delayed answer to the question raised by
Senator Di Nino on September 19, 2001, on the subject of the terrorist attacks
on the United States and the effect on the people of Afghanistan.
(Response to question raised by Hon. Consiglio Di Nino on September 19,
Of the additional $6 million that Canada has announced since the events of
September 11, $500,000 will be provided to CARE Canada to respond to needs
both in Pakistan and inside Afghanistan. The remaining will be provided
through the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Food Program
and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
There are very few Canadian NGOs who have a history of working inside
Afghanistan. CARE Canada, Doctors Without Borders Canada as well as FOCUS have
programs in Afghanistan through their international networks. Both these
organizations have received significant funding from CIDA for their work in
the country. Other Canadian based organizations that are active in Afghanistan
via local Afghan partners include the International Disaster Relief Foundation
as well as McMaster University's Centre for Peace Studies.
A number of Canadian humanitarian NGOs have informally contacted CIDA in
the past two weeks to inform us of their plans to respond, many through their
international networks, to the most recent crisis. Proposals are expected for
both activities in Afghanistan and in neighbouring countries where large
refugee influxes are expected. These NGOs include CARE Canada, Doctors Without
Borders Canada, World Vision Canada, OXFAM Canada, the Canadian Red Cross,
Médecins du Monde and Save the Children Canada. CIDA is in touch with these
organizations as it reviews what further steps to take in responding to this
With the development of the Canadian Peacebuilding Initiative in 1997 and
the subsequent creation of the Peacebuilding Fund, CIDA has taken a pro-active
role in supporting mechanisms to resolve violent conflict through peaceful
means, including mobilizing development assistance to support conflict
The CIDA Peacebuilding Unit is actively engaged in dialogue with Canadian
NGOs with expertise in peacebuilding on how to address this impending
emergency situation in Afghanistan and surrounding countries. The goal of a
peacebuilding approach is to address the root causes of conflict and to find
ways to address grievances. The very best peacebuilding is conflict
prevention, and the best conflict prevention is sustainable social and
economic development, which is at the heart of what CIDA does.
CANADA CONTRIBUTES $1 MILLION IN SUPPORT FOR AFGHAN REFUGEES
(2001-64) News Release September 19, 2001
Calgary, Alberta-Maria Minna, Canada's Minister for International
Cooperation, today announced that the Canadian International Development
Agency (CIDA) will contribute $1 million to the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to help respond to emerging needs of Afghan
refugees in the region.
Thousands of people have been massing at Afghanistan's borders since the
terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th. In condemning the
attacks, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has said, "Our fight is against
terrorism. It is not against any one religion or faith."
"In the wake of increasing global tension, large numbers of Afghans are
currently on the move," Minister Minna said. "Afghanistan was already
experiencing one of the most serious humanitarian crises globally...Canada
will continue to deliver humanitarian assistance to alleviate the incredible
hardships the Afghan people are facing."
After 20 years of conflict and three years of devastating drought, the
population is extremely vulnerable. Many Afghans are dependent on
international assistance for their survival...even before the developments of
last week, the World Food Program warned of pre-famine conditions in
Afghanistan. There are already over 3.5 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan
and Iran, and one million displaced persons inside the country. The situation
will be further exacerbated by the onset of winter. The Canadian assistance
announced today will be used by UNHCR for shelter, water and sanitation
facilities, as well as basic health care.
Following the attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, and the
growing international pressure on Afghanistan, all international aid workers
have left the country. However, efforts to maintain humanitarian aid will
continue through the local staff of UN agencies.
Funding for this initiative was provided for in the February 2000 federal
budget and is therefore built into the existing financial framework.
Office of the Minister for International Cooperation
Telephone: 819 953-3160
Media Relations Office
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
Telephone: 819 953-6534
CANADA CONTRIBUTES AN ADDITIONAL $5 MILLION FOR AFGHAN REFUGEES
September 29, 2001
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced today, following a meeting with
United Nations Secretary- General Kofi Annan in New York, that Canada is
contributing an additional $5 million to help respond to emerging needs of
Afghan refugees and internally displaced people in the region. This brings
Canada's contribution to the current crisis to $6 million.
"We are concerned about the welfare of the refugees and the people
amassing along the borders of Afghanistan and its neighbouring countries,"
said the Prime Minister. "Canada has always been there in such emergency
situations and we cannot turn our backs. We will continue to monitor the
situation and will respond accordingly."
The funds will be provided by the Canadian International Development Agency
and will be used to respond to the immediate needs of those affected by the
situation and to help efforts to cope with the expected flow of refugees and
internally displaced people. The contribution will be as follows:
- $1.5 million for food aid;
- $1.5 million for the International Committee of the Red Cross;
- $1.2 million for the United Nations High Commission for Refugees;
- $500,000 for CARE Canada; and,
- $300,000 for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of
Long-term conflict, persistent drought and the tension caused by the recent
terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11 have led to an increase
in the number of refugees and internally displaced people relying on aid for
survival. According to the United Nations' worst-case scenario, the number of
people at risk could jump from 5 million to 7.5 million people.
Funding for this initiative was provided for in the February 2000 federal
budget and is therefore built into the existing financial framework.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C.,
seconded by the Honourable Senator Finestone, P.C.:
That at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 4, 2001, the Senate resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole in order to receive officials from the
Department of National Defence and the Department of Public Works and
Government Services for a briefing on the procurement process for maritime
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C.,
seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., that the motion be amended by
striking out the words "Thursday, October 4, 2001" and replacing them with
the following: "Tuesday, October 30, 2001."
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, I think we can carry the amendment changing the dates right now. It is
up to the government to decide.
As much as we were pleased to have the minister accept the idea of a
Committee of the Whole on the question of the Maritime Helicopter Procurement
Process, we were equally disappointed when the motion was tabled to find that
the study would be limited strictly to the examination of witnesses from the
Department of National Defence and the Department of Public Works who in effect
will be invited, if this motion is passed, simply to defend the government's
The purpose of the request to have a Committee of the Whole was to have all
sides come before the Senate. The issue has been clouded with a great deal of
evidence from both sides, but so far it has not allowed anyone looking at it
objectively to come to a clear conclusion.
It can be argued that the request was in words that can narrow the purpose of
the briefing, but the Leader of the Government in the Senate, interestingly
enough, understood the purpose of the motion to have this Committee of the
Whole, as demonstrated in an exchange with Senator Forrestall on June 5. I shall
read from Debates of the Senate of June 5, at page 1001. Senator
Would the minister entertain some suggestions as to individuals from the
military that we might hear from?
The Leader of the Government replied:
Honourable senators, I would think that would be a logical follow-up to the
announcement that there would be a Committee of the Whole and the subsequent
deliberations as to when that day is to take place. A suitable witness list
will also be determined.
A "suitable witness list," by our interpretation, is a list including
individuals who can explain both sides of the issue, to allow us, it is hoped,
to come to a satisfactory conclusion.
In line with the wishes of the Senate, as expressed, particularly in the
exchange between Senator Forrestall and Senator Carstairs, I should like to move
an amendment. Before I do so, I shall suggest witnesses who have been selected
for their past and present knowledge of the entire helicopter issue. Some of
them have questioned the process; some of them are with the department and,
therefore, will defend the process. One of them is the president of the
Aerospace Industry Association, which represents all the potential bidders of
whom we are aware. The names that are the most prominent are members of this
The individuals I shall suggest in this amendment as witnesses before the
Committee of the Whole have been actively involved in the past in the entire
helicopter activities of the armed services, or represent manufacturers and
potential bidders, or are at present senior members of the Armed Forces. Having
said that, I shall move the motion, pursuant to rule 59(1), and seconded by
The Hon. the Speaker: I suggest we deal with the amendment first,
which seems to be non-controversial, and then the honourable senator can, as
anticipated, put his amendments.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, as a result, I move, pursuant to rule 59(1), seconded by Senator
That the motion to resolve the Senate into a Committee of the Whole on
October 30, 2001, at 3:00 p.m. for a departmental briefing on the procurement
process for maritime helicopters be amended by adding after the words
"maritime helicopters" the following sentence:
"And upon completion of this briefing to adjourn to the call of the Chair
to hear further witnesses on matters pertaining to the maritime helicopter
procurement process, in particular, Colonel Lee Myrhaugen, retired; Mr. Peter
Smith, President of the Aerospace Industry Association; Staff Admiral G.
Garnett, former Vice Chief of Defence Staff; Lieutenant General George
MacDonald, Vice Chief of Defence Staff; and General L.C. Campbell, Chief of
Air Staff, and such other witnesses as the Committee may decide are necessary
to determine the fairness and equity of the maritime helicopter procurement
process as developed by the Government of Canada."
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
I rise to say that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition makes reference to my
reply to Senator Forrestall, in which he asked if we would be willing to accept
some suggestions from the military. In fact, one of the military witnesses that
the Leader of the Opposition wrote to me about this summer has been accepted by
this side and will be appearing as part of the briefing. In fact, one of the
reasons it has been delayed to this time has been because that particular
individual was not always available.
On motion of Senator Forrestall, debate adjourned.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kinsella, seconded
by the Honourable Senator Keon, for the third reading of Bill S-6, to assist
in the prevention of wrongdoing in the Public Service by establishing a
framework for education on ethical practices in the workplace, for dealing
with allegations of wrongdoing and for protecting whistleblowers.—(Honourable
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, Bill S-6 has been at third reading stage in this chamber since last
spring, and the debate had commenced with my moving third reading and beginning
to speak on the content of the bill, which I thought was a good bill.
In the meantime, as honourable senators no doubt recall, a few days after we
rose in June, the President of the Treasury Board issued a policy statement for
the Treasury Board that deals with the same topic. The minister's presentation
of the Treasury Board's new policy recognized the work that we had been doing on
whistle-blowing with Bill S-6 and drew liberally from that work.
It seems to me, honourable senators, that it would serve our objective in
wanting to see an infrastructure within the Public Service of Canada that deals
with whistle-blowing, and also the objective of the President of the Treasury
Board, who thinks that she can accomplish the same objective through a policy
The minister appeared before our National Finance Committee on a related
topic and at that time informed honourable senators that she would be quite
happy to return to the National Finance Committee of the Senate to explicate the
policy once that policy was developed. Therefore it seems to me, honourable
senators, that it would be reasonable and efficacious for us if an opportunity
were given to the minister to comment on the Treasury Board's policy on
whistle-blowing and to compare that policy to our bill, which received unanimous
support at all stages from all sides of the Senate.
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): With that
background, honourable senators, pursuant to rule 30 and with leave of the
Senate, I move, seconded by Senator Stratton:
That Bill S-6, An Act to assist in the prevention of wrongdoing in the
Public Service by establishing a framework for education on ethical practices
in the workplace, for dealing with allegations of wrongdoing and for
protecting whistleblowers, be not now read a third time but that it be
referred back to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance for the
purpose of assessing the Bill in the context of the President of the Treasury
Board's June 28, 2001, statement and release of the Policy on the Internal
Disclosure of Information Concerning Wrongdoing in the Workplace.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?
Leave having been given to proceed to Motion No. 82:
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein, pursuant to notice of October 16, 2001,
That the Senate:
- Considering Resolutions 1368 and 1373 adopted by the Security Council of
the United Nations on September 12, and September 28, supporting initiatives
to eradicate international terrorism that threaten peace, security, human
rights and freedoms and the political order of the free and democratic
- Considering that in its special session of October 2, 2001, the North
Atlantic Council determined that "the attack against the United States on 11
September was directed from abroad and shall therefore be regarded as an
action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an
armed attack on one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be
considered an attack against them all";
- Condemn unequivocally the use of violence and terrorism to overthrow the
democratic order and the elimination of human rights and freedoms;
- Support the decision of the Government calling upon the Canadian Armed
Forces on active service to join the international campaign against the
perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of September 11;
- Express its preoccupation that humanitarian support be given to the
civilians affected by that campaign;
- Express its urgent concern that the authors and supporters of those
terrorists attacks are brought to justice accordingly;
- Express its strong belief that it is through negotiation and peace
settlement that legitimate claims of the States should be dealt with in the
International Order; and
- That upon adoption of this motion, the said motion should be deemed
referred to the Standing Senate Committees on Foreign Affairs and Defence and
Security for study and report back to the Chamber in the next 30 days.
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
I should like to thank the Honourable Senator Grafstein for bringing this debate
to the floor of the Senate.
September 11, 2001, will be a day etched in the minds of citizens around the
world. When we watched hijacked planes turned into weapons used to kill people
in New York City, Washington D.C. and rural Pennsylvania, we knew that our world
had changed. We were, and will always be, shocked by the cruelty of those events
and could not apprehend the pain that has been inflicted on so many innocent
people. Thousands of innocent lives were taken in an appalling and brutal
manner, including the lives of some 40 to 75 Canadian citizens.
In the ensuing weeks we have watched biological organisms turned into
The random nature of the violence used is disconcerting and serves only to
increase our fears in situations that would not normally bother us. As you know,
Senate employees had to be quarantined early last week. Some of them had to go
through disinfection and examination procedures we thought were limited strictly
In light of these events, we must proceed with caution and considerable
thought to an appropriate response. However, while we are beginning to see the
impact of terrorism in our daily lives, we also must remember that the real
threats to Canadians originate right here at home.
The actual causes of death in Canada are familiar to us — heart disease,
cancer and stroke. We hear so often of the dangers of smoking, or a poor diet,
or a sedentary lifestyle, that it has become a familiar refrain which we
routinely dismiss. While we must acknowledge that terrorist attacks have caused
changes in our lives, let us not allow them to be lived in a heightened state of
fear, but instead one of heightened awareness, an awareness that, in most ways,
our daily lives have not changed since September 11; and an awareness that the
real dangers to our lives have been the same ones we have always known, the same
diseases which have touched all our lives, and which have always lived among us.
Let us also not diminish the importance of these assaults on our way of life.
The Government of Canada has taken decisive steps to address the new realities
that have become part of our lives since the tragic attacks on September 11.
In some ways, this campaign against terrorism is unlike anything we have seen
before. We are exposed to new weapons that have never before been seen on our
planet and, just as we have found a resolution to the mutual antagonism of
nuclear superpowers, we will find a resolution to the threat we are facing
No one predicted the end of the Cold War as it actually happened. It was a
triumph of quiet diplomacy and a recognition of the benefits of democratic
values. Today's conflict is one marked by contrariness. There are no
conventional soldiers, no conventional battlegrounds. A few people can attack a
great nation. Their methods can be simple but devastatingly effective.
NATO nations and their allies have recognized that they must come together in
order to combat this new type of threat.
The leaders of this international anti-terrorism coalition showed themselves
firmly resolved to prevent future attacks against other countries. All
Canadians, first ministers, chairs, members of cabinet, and secretaries will
recall the tragic events of September 11, which have led to a call for action.
These terrorist attacks have affected our decisions, our policies and our
diplomatic relations, and have profoundly changed the way public business is
conducted in all regions of the world. Furthermore, Canada has a key role to
play in this campaign against terrorism.
Canadians have always had a sense of how small our world is, and of how much
we are all affected by our neighbours. We have been world leaders in advancing
understanding, communication and mutual respect between nations. We invented
peacekeeping, and our international development and assistance programs are
among the best in the world. We do this in order to promote Canadian values and
make our world a better place in which to live.
What do we mean when we say that we want to preserve Canadian values? That we
are committed to educating our children? That we support universal health care?
That we believe in individual rights and personal freedoms? It means all of that
and much, much more.
Canadian values transcend any particular aspect of our lives. We are
committed to something larger than ourselves, to something larger even than
Canada itself. That is why internationalism has been a part of our identity as a
nation since its inception. The Prime Minister referred to our commitment to,
and I quote, "global courage and common purpose." Canadians have always
recognized that nations must cooperate, because our common interests are more
important than our differences. In the face of recent and future threats, we
will continue to fight for justice and peace in our world.
Our new enemies do not want to occupy our country but to destroy it from
within. They want to topple our economy, to instigate hatred between different
cultures and to set citizen against citizen. However, Canada is not vulnerable
to these threats. Even in our darkest moments, Canadian history has been marked
by cooperation, acceptance and foresight. Our political public service and
business leaders have always recognized that we are in this together. We have
defined our goals by their degree of mutual benefit and respect.
The most visible sign of Canada's engagement in the fight against terrorism
is the launch of Operation Apollo. Last week, in Halifax, our Prime Minister
watched the departure of Her Majesty's Canadian Ships Preserver,
Iroquois and Charlottetown. They will join HMCS Halifax,
already in the Persian Gulf, and HMCS Vancouver, which is either on its
way or soon will be. The people on board these ships and in all our Canadians
Forces are our heroes. They are a visible and unmistakable statement in response
to terrorist attacks.
Some have doubted the need for military action and have suggested that
perhaps it is an overreaction. I would invite them to review the recent history
of terrorist actions taken against our allies. The events of September 11 were
not against one nation but an attack against the entire international community,
against those who do not share the same views as the terrorists. That makes it
an attack on all nations who value life, tolerance and liberty. We are not
targeting the innocent; we are targeting the guilty. They are only a small
number of people, but they are spread throughout the world, and it will require
a worldwide response to eradicate this doctrine of destruction. I would like to
emphasize that military action is only part of our response to this threat of
My colleague the Honourable John Manley has been appointed chair of the new
Ad Hoc Committee of Ministers on Public Security and Anti-Terrorism. This
committee will be a coordinating effort on the part of the government to respond
to terrorism and threats to public safety.
Two weeks ago, the government announced a $250-million package of national
security measures. We are enhancing airport and border security and increasing
the number of intelligence officers.
The proposed Anti-Terrorism Act, introduced early last week in the other
place and now engaged in special pre-study in this place, includes provisions to
more easily identify and prosecute terrorist groups and to cut off their sources
of funds. Measures are included to give law enforcement the ability to expand
surveillance operations and to broaden the guidelines under which warrants are
issued. The government will not limit itself to these measures. Our goal is to
respond appropriately to changing conditions and to introduce additional
measures whenever necessary.
While we take action, we are ever mindful of the need for peace. All
Canadians want our troops to return home as soon as possible, but only when the
job is done. We must eradicate terrorism in all its ugliness wherever we find
it. The battle will not be quick and may not be defined with visibly decisive
victories, but it must be fought with the resolve that all people in this world
should live in peace and harmony with one another.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, Senator Grafstein's
motion refers to two resolutions taken by two international bodies that Canada
is part of, the first being the Security Council of the UN and the second being
the North Atlantic Council, of which, of course, Canada is a founding partner.
With respect to the support that the motion is seeking from our institution for
the decision of the government, what role is the government contemplating for
the UN in that coalition?
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, with respect to the
resolutions of the Security Council, it is my understanding that 10 of the 12
aspects have already been put into force and effect. The remaining two are part
of the anti-terrorism bill. In terms of the NATO commitment, of course, that is
exactly the reason that our troops are where they are, either moving quickly
towards the Persian Gulf or, with the HMCS Halifax, already there.
If the question pertains to what we are going to do after the fact, I can
assure the honourable senator that negotiations are ongoing with all the
partners, that discussions, even this weekend at the APEC meeting, involved what
we could do after the present terrorist situation has been dealt with.
Senator Nolin: My question is really focused on some concern from
Quebecers that I heard through radio and TV programs. There is a sense of strong
preoccupation that everything will be decided in Washington and Canada. Senator
Robichaud can say no, but the perception of many Quebecers is that the President
of the United States will decide everything and that Canada will be informed
subsequently. We are part of two important international organizations, and at
least one works on consensus, NATO. In the UN, it is quite different, and we
have a strong problem with that, but at least in NATO things works on consensus.
What is Canada asking our two ambassadors in those two bodies to defend? What
should be the role of those two important organizations? That was specifically
why I asked the question.
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, as the honourable senator
probably knows, the United Nations has already sent out a request through the
Security Council for a great many dollars, some of which would be used for the
refugee programs now, but many of those dollars will be used for the
rehabilitation initiative that will need to be undertaken. Canada will be a part
of not only the present program but the future program, and that will be an
individual initiative and decision made here in Canada as to what exactly our
role will be.
In terms of a present coalition and the NATO agreement, it is by consensus.
It is by consensus that Canada is with the United States at the present time.
However, I think that what we have discovered in the past, and what we will
surely discover after this, is that there is a trust level for Canada that does
not exist with some of the greater powers, and I include the United States in
that. As we find the rehabilitation and, perhaps, the peacekeeping efforts that
will be required in Afghanistan, there will be great calls put out for Canada
because we have in the past served with such distinction. There is also the view
in the international community that we are balanced and that we are focused on
the long term and not just the short term.
After the war, it will not be easy for the Afghani people to turn to the
United States, although certainly the German people did so after the Second
World War and the Marshall Plan. It is difficult to turn with ease to the
conqueror. Sometimes it is easier to turn to a third party. Canada will be a
willing third party in that.
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, if the opposition
intends to speak on this, I will certainly defer to them. However, I am ready to
speak now if that is your desire.
Senator Kinsella: Go ahead, then.
Senator Grafstein: Honourable senators, when we sing "O Canada, we
stand on guard for thee," what are we asked to "stand on guard" against
today? What is the nature of the current threat to Canada as of September 11? Is
the current threat an assault on Canada's vital interests? If so, beyond
deploying our military forces, beyond military force itself, beyond
anti-terrorism measures and the interdiction of terrorist financial support at
home and abroad, what can we do? What more can Canada do?
Let me modestly commence by noting the current dialectic that avoids the
"W" word. Are we at war? If we are neither at "war" nor at "peace," have
we entered into a new twilight zone that requires clear definition? It seems
clear to most that even if this can be called a "war," it is a war with more
diffuse means and opaque ends. As some have suggested, it is at best an
asymmetric war against an amorphous, tiny widespread enemy. Have we yet grasped
the nature and the reach of that threat? Only by appropriate definition can an
appropriate response be crafted.
Honourable senators, have no doubt about this: The assault in the United
States on September 11 is a direct threat to Canada's vital economic and
political interests. Canada's entire economic trade and foreign policy is
dependent upon multilateralism, international openness and interdependency and
trade. We pride ourselves on our leadership in world organizations such as the
WTO, the World Bank and the OECD. Why? All this effort is made for one singular
goal: to keep the avenues of international commerce and global human rights open
and growing. Yet, September 11 and the events following have disrupted, debased
and damaged these open avenues of commerce and humane activity that lay at the
base of our economic and foreign policy. Whether we like it or not, we must
examine this direct threat to Canada's economic model and the threat as well to
our Canadian ideal, the Western ideal, of democracy, which is at the heart of
this new darkness, which it aims to stifle and suffocate.
Where can we turn for guidance to examine the nature of the threat we face
and then propose some prudent means to accomplish our democratic ends? While our
modest but skilled and courageous Armed Forces face the military risk, what is
the political, intellectual and diplomatic dimension that can be addressed now?
What tools do we have to deploy in this new robust, global battle for
intellectual space, peace, security and stability?
Let me use as my first text a book published in 1951 by Eric Hoffer, an
American longshoreman and self-taught street philosopher. Hoffer, from the
vantage point of the horrors of the mid-century, analyzed the threat to
democracy. His book was called, The True Believer. In it, he described
the three Horsemen of the Apocalypse, the three miserable "isms" of the
Twentieth Century: Fascism, Nazism and Communism. He added a fourth which, like
family, encompasses all three: fanaticism.
Honourable senators, we have no choice but to enter the gates of darkness to
examine the bacillus of fanaticism, to take autopsies and to study the pathology
of this new scourge. Albert Camus reminded us in his book, The Plague,
which was written after the Second World War, that a complacent, intellectual
attitude that breeds indifference to fanaticism and appeases fanaticism, feeds
fanaticism. What do we know now? We know fanaticism's war aims. Fanaticism is
only satiated by world domination. Fanaticism targets the innocent as a
strategic objective. Fanaticism preaches purity, not pluralism. Fanaticism
preaches superiority, not equality. Fanaticism breaches cultural singularity
rather than cultural diversity. Fanaticism abhors religious freedom, and worse.
Fanaticism practises ethnic cleansing, be it Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu or
Buddhist, agnostic or atheistic alike.
The real irony is that this virulent brand of fanaticism proposes a U-turn
against modernity. Their chosen path lies in their quest to return to the past,
to return to an earlier age of servitude. Yet they enlist the very tools of
modernity. They school in colleges of engineering and science; they deploy
satellites, the Internet, fax, jets, electronic banking, global television
networks, modern methods of destruction, and worse, biochemical arsenal that was
outlawed by the entire world when its use was first deployed in World War I.
Honourable senators, look around us. Look at the World War I paintings that
adorn this Senate Chamber. Look at that painting. There you will see gas masks
on Canadian soldiers who were maimed and crippled with that first global
experience of chemical warfare. How sad today that we cannot, in the year 2001,
bequeath to our children a better world than we inherited after we believed we
had erased the scourges of World War II and the Cold War just a little over a
Hoffer profiled the "true believer" and discovered that these fanatic
leaders were neither poor nor uneducated. They come from the educated, wealthy
or middle class elites. Rather they "substitute" and "transfer," in Freudian
terms, their own inner failures and frustrations to liberate themselves from
their own failed and frustrated lives by preaching an illusive, purer utopian
life for all. Only in this way can they liberate themselves from their own
failures. The key word is "transfer" — transfer to others the burden of all
ills. They never look within themselves and always blame others. Failures in
their own countries, they travel and they choose the poor down trodden of other
nations to sow their bacillus of nihilism. What they cannot do at home, they
seek to do abroad. As Fouad Ajami, an astute Arab observer pointed out, "unable
to overthrow the ruling order in their home countries, they turn their
resentment to the West."
The greatest folly of all is to raise the expectations and hopes of the
masses by proposing that, by "transfer" and "substitution" of all their ills
to others, they will be remarkably transformed and their lives will be improved,
if not in this world certainly the next. They will be martyrs; they will be
purified. The next world will be their Nirvana.
We are confronted with a revivalist mass movement that preaches a U-turn and
a line of march back swiftly to the darkness of the past. Redemption lies not in
destroying others, as Fouad Ajami notes, but in choosing to renovate and open
and modernize, peacefully, one's own societies. So they abuse modernity. V.S.
Naipaul, the Nobel Prize winner for literature, in his recent book affirms both
Hoffer and Ajami's analysis. The fanatic takes us, as Naipaul called his book,
Beyond Belief. The fanatic takes us beyond belief.
Honourable senators, our fight is for the hearts and the minds of the masses
who have one and only one model of purity, singularity and domination presented
to them. Certainly it is not the model of pluralism and diversity that has
propelled Canada and the West to an ever upward economic spiral. This is the
model they wish to destroy. This is the model they wish to demolish.
What can we do beyond the military option? Obviously, we must quarantine and
crush the cells of fanaticism planted among us and paralyze the financial
tentacles of the networks back to the hubs, to the transponders of these
cancerous cells, and eradicate them, if we can. Here we can use the same
financial networks if there is a consistent, committed, multilateral effort to
do so. Canada can lead the way here. Canada is respected in all international
financial circles around the globe.
Like the fight against cancer, we need all our tools: media, military,
strategic, intelligence, financial and diplomatic, to fight this new war on all
fronts and destroy the equilibrium of the networks that expropriate our open
avenues of commerce and liberty. That is easier said than done. The taxes of
terrorism are high, from more security to defences against the illusive threats.
There are, however, modest steps that can be taken on the offence. First and
foremost, we must demonstrate how the Canadian model of openness and diversity
works as an economic growth model. How can we do this quickly? First, we should
reinstate Radio Canada International. We should consider a global television
network combining the best of CBC and private Canadian broadcasters to broadcast
Next, we need a diplomatic agenda of action. To these farther reaches, we
must re-order priorities within the Department of Foreign Affairs. Canadians,
who are respected in the very places we neglected, yet where we are prepared to
send our troops, have no diplomatic representation whatsoever on the ground, nor
intelligence, in Central Asia. In that corner of the globe, we have only one
solitary diplomatic outpost. We need our diplomats on the ground in that part of
the world. We must enter into a new strategic and military alliance with Russia.
Russia is struggling in its democratic evolution. We must not marginalize Russia
by the thoughtless expansion of NATO. We must re-energize the NATO coalition
consensus, especially those EU partners who are now flagging and appear divided.
We must engage Turkey, the only secular Muslim democratic state in the world to
play a greater role in NATO and in the coalition itself. We must persuade our EU
allies to assist Turkey to enter the circle of developed states sooner rather
than later. Turkey has been waiting for decades to join the EU and still it sits
at the end of the EU queue.
We must galvanize the Commonwealth as Mr. Pearson did to join this coalition
of democracy against fanaticism. Our colleagues in Australia, New Zealand and
Great Britain can be robustly enlisted in this effort.
We must instigate the Organization of Security and Co-operation where
Canadians, myself included, play a proud and active role. There, Canada and the
U.S. and many of the affected Central Asian countries are equal members as
messengers of democratic practices and principles ready to present a model of
governance in the aftermath of the military option. This we can do today.
Sooner than later we must quarantine and isolate as "pariah states" those
that covertly support this fanaticism. We know who they are. We must be on guard
We must harness Canada's multicultural leaders and send them abroad, back to
these regions as goodwill ambassadors of Canada. We have great Pakistani,
Afghani and Kirghiz natives in Toronto and across Canada. We must harness the
power of these multicultural leaders and send them abroad to preach the Canadian
economic model of prosperity, diversity and democracy. There cannot be economic
prosperity without diversity and there cannot be diversity without democracy and
the use of the rule of law.
We cannot neglect our relations with the U.S. where more than 85 per cent of
our two-way trade is transacted. Just as we need a minister to mobilize against
terrorism, we need a "super minister" to take responsibility for our
relationship with the U.S. We suffer from clogged corridors and trade disputes.
We need to immediately regain our mutual zone of confidence.
At home, of course, we must move swiftly to cut the lifeblood of fanaticism,
the financial networks and safe houses at home and do this in conjunction with
our friends and allies around the world. We should consider establishing one Web
site where citizens can swiftly interface their knowledge about fanatic
terrorist support at home and abroad. People on the streets of Toronto know
about this. I recently heard on CBC midday radio a Lebanese cleric in Toronto, a
recent immigrant, complaining about his fears and those of his moderate
parishioners of other more fanatical members of his own church on Queen Street
in Toronto. I wondered, as I listened to the interview, whether there was anyone
out there to respond to his plea of fear.
We can devise means to assist those who wish to fight fanaticism amongst
their own ranks. Violence can never be a substitute for the commerce of
peaceful, political negotiations and democratic settlement. Trudeau reminded us
that we should never confuse a "just" defence of civic order against those who
are compliant with unbridled violence targeted at innocents.
Honourable senators, fanaticism is not a clash between civilizations. It is a
grand battle of ideology that seeks to eradicate every principle of liberal
democracy that we hold dearly. We know that liberty, too, has its costs. Camus
counselled us against those fellow travellers such as Sorel and Sartre and
others who preached the "ethics of violence" as a means for those who desire
political change. Senators should read Sorel's Reflexion sur la Violence
to remind us that nothing has changed when intellectuals counsel or appease
violence as a political tool either at home or abroad.
Regretfully this grand battle will not be over in a day or a week, a month or
a year, or even a decade. Yet, as Churchill once said at another fateful moment,
"Let us begin."
Politics est res dura. Politics is a hard thing. Yet we need new,
fresh political ideas to mobilize public opinion against this latest, most
obdurate threat to liberty in our lifetime. Then, honourable senators, we can
sing aloud again, "O Canada, glorious and free."
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the third report of the Standing
Senate Committee on Fisheries entitled: Aquaculture in Canada's Atlantic and
Pacific Regions, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on June 29, 2001.—(Honourable
Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: Honourable senators, I rise to speak on the
third report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries entitled Aquaculture
in Canada's Atlantic and Pacific Regions, which was tabled with the Clerk of the
Senate on June 29, 2001. Last year, the committee conducted a series of informal
fact- finding meetings on the east and west coasts of Canada to discover
firsthand the challenges and constraints facing the aquaculture sector. These
informal discussions were later supplemented by video conferences and recorded
hearings here in Ottawa.
There were many reasons for undertaking a study of aquaculture, also known as
fish farming, not the least of which is that farmed fish and shellfish
ultimately end up on our dinner plates.
In Canada, supporters of aquaculture say that it is a rural activity
providing precious jobs and numerous economic benefits to coastal communities
hard hit by the depletion of wild fish stocks, that it supports the traditional
fishery, that it provides undeniable opportunities in the related technology and
services sectors, and that its development possibilities are astonishing.
Around the globe, the fishing industry has been undergoing a historic
transition. Referred to as the "blue revolution" in food production, fish
farming has become the source of a steadily increasing percentage of the seafood
consumed worldwide. In Canada, where aquaculture represents about one quarter of
the value of the fish and shellfish catch, proponents of the industry argue that
regulatory constraints will hurt the sector's expansion of jobs, or will cost
jobs, and that the government's support of industry expansion should naturally
With only two decades of significant commercial production, Canada's
aquaculture sector is relatively new, but it has also been growing and evolving.
Its complexion and level of development also changes notably from one province
to the next.
Although aquaculture is a growing activity in the inland provinces, the
committee limited the scope of its study to the maritime coastal provinces that
dominate production. Committee members can certainly attest to the fact that
there are many examples of successful enterprises on both the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts. According to preliminary estimates by Statistics Canada, the
industry generated revenues of $674 million in the year 2000.
Honourable senators, aquaculture promises significant future economic
benefits. This is especially so in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, provinces where
finfish farming is relatively new and where participants can learn from past
mistakes. This is also the case for the cultivation of shellfish, activities
that are generally considered to be environmentally friendly and that appear to
offer economic opportunities for small entrepreneurs.
The enhancement of the sea ranching of shellfish such as scallops holds the
promise of increasing stocks for commercial fishers in the traditional capture
fishery. Some coastal communities embrace fish farming as an economic generator.
However, others have misgivings.
Much of the debate centres on the possible environmental consequences of
salmon farming, especially in British Columbia and New Brunswick where almost
all the farmed salmon in this country is produced, where 83 per cent of all fish
farming revenues originate, but also where industry regulation has fallen quite
short of the expectations of many. Concerns include the potential ecological and
genetic effects of escaped farmed salmon on local fish species, the interaction
of fish farms with aquatic animals and other animals, the incidence of disease
in farmed and wild stocks, and the possible environmental risk associated with
fish farm waste, to name only a few. Some believe aquaculture and traditional
fisheries to be mutually exclusive.
Suffice it to say that a major challenge faced by government now and in the
years ahead will be to achieve an acceptable balance between various competing
uses of the marine environment. Opinions are divided, but there would appear to
be at least some common ground in the form of shared interests and objectives.
For example, neither side wants to see the escape of farm fish or the
transmission of disease, and both want a clean environment as well as more
research. In at least some respects, aquaculturists, environmentalists,
conservationists and fishermen are potential allies. The difficult task at hand
will be to build on common interests and cooperate to ensure that aquaculture
will be environmentally sustainable and economically successful in the future.
While the salmon farming industry has no doubt made significant progress in
its management practices, the sector's ecological impact, or footprint, is
At this point in time, it may be fairly said that science firmly supports
neither side of the environmental debate, and without sound scientific knowledge
it is difficult to see how regulatory agencies can set meaningful environmental
standards and objectives. Without sound scientific knowledge distrust of the
industry will continue. Our study points to the need for much more research to
address concerns, and more research will require an investment in additional
It may be reasonably argued that the findings of further scientific study may
not provide the answers quickly enough. On reducing risk, the precautionary
approach, commonly referred to as erring on the side of caution when dealing
with uncertainty, would be a prudent course to follow.
In many respects, the aquaculture report is a snapshot in time. A number of
major developments, announcements and reports occurred during the course of our
Accordingly, in August 2000, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans launched
the Program for Sustainable Aquaculture, known as the PSA, which provides $75
million in funding over five years. In February 2001, the Auditor General of
Canada tabled chapter 30 of his December 2000 report. The same month, an expert
panel established by the expert panel committee of the Royal Society of Canada
tabled a report on the regulation of food biotechnology, which included a
chapter on aquaculture. In June 2000, in the first phase of a review of
legislation and regulations on aquaculture, the Commissioner for Development of
Aquaculture submitted 36 recommendations to the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans. His report, dated March 2001, was released at the end of April this
In British Columbia, where most of Canada's finfish aquaculture output is
produced, the newly elected provincial government appears to favour lifting the
1995 moratorium placed on the expansion of new salmon farms.
In early September, citing the findings of the Auditor General of Canada and
those of the Senate committee, the David Suzuki Foundation took what it calls
the extraordinary step of raising funds to set up an independent citizens
inquiry on salmon farming headed by Stuart Leggatt, a retired Justice of the
British Columbia Supreme Court and Ethics Commissioner for the Vancouver
Whistler bid for the 2010 winter Olympics. Federal and provincial authorities
have since announced, on September 25, that they would not participate in the
If the broad coverage of the committee's report in the print media and the
many domestic and foreign sites on the World Wide Web that link to it are any
indication, our work has been worthwhile. At the very least, it has highlighted
the more salient issues and has helped focus government and public attention on
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has been
conducting a similar study on fish farming for some time now, and I look forward
to that committee's report in the not-too-distant future.
In closing, I thank the committee members for their hard work and
perseverance. On their behalf, I also thank the many individuals and
organizations who so generously made time available to participate in our study.
They include finfish and shellfish farmers, fish farm workers, interest groups,
research scientists, veterinarians, members of the public and federal and
provincial government officials, including the federal Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans who appeared before the committee on two occasions.
Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, could Senator Comeau
indicate why the French title indicates it is an interim report, but the English
title does not?
Senator Comeau: Honourable senators, the report is entitled "interim
report." If we table reports in the Senate before the end of a given mandate,
the report is called "interim report." In fact, it is the final report on
aquaculture for the moment, and we are analyzing other studies.
Hon. Nicholas W. Taylor: Honourable senators, I have a question for
The federal government has authorization over fisheries, particularly inland
fisheries. It is intriguing, as I discovered while considering Senator
Grafstein's bill on water and the Food and Drugs Act, that water can be poisoned
or made so dirty that people will die, and that is not a federal responsibility.
Yet, if fish die, the federal government comes after you.
Taking that thought and projecting it into what the senator is talking about,
is fish farming a provincial or federal responsibility? Where is the line?
Senator Comeau: Honourable senators, as I understand it, when inland
or marine fish are in the water, either being raised or as wild fish, the
responsibility is federal. The ocean or lake habitat in which the fish live
happens to be a federal responsibility.
I am glad the senator asked this question because it relates to the next
portion of our study. Senator Nolin asked a few minutes ago whether this was an
interim report. The next phase that the Fisheries Committee wishes to study is
the question of habitat, whether we, as federal parliamentarians, are placing
enough attention on the value of habitat and whether government programs are
protecting the habitat of future generations. In the future, you will be hearing
from us again on this subject.
The subject of whether one can throw poison into the water, and it only
becomes a federal responsibility once the fish is poisoned, is quite
interesting. I imagine the federal government would have something to say about
that matter, but once the fish leave the water they become a provincial
responsibility; they become a product of the province. The federal government
might come back in again once the fish leave the province and go into a foreign
jurisdiction. Once the fish leave the province, they become a federal
responsibility again, under an export provision of Health Canada.
Honourable senators, this is a rather complicated set of rules. One can
imagine the poor fishermen who try to put some kind of framework around all of
this. They need to hire a Philadelphia lawyer to understand these rules.
Hon. Willie Adams: Honourable senators, I am a member of the
committee. We have a little difficulty, especially in Nunavut and Nunavik. Right
now there is a law that allows fish hatcheries in the South. At one time, we had
Arctic char commercial fishing in some of the communities. Some of the people
who own restaurants in the South and bought char from northern communities are
now finding it too expensive. Therefore, they have switched to buying Arctic
char from hatcheries in the South.
In a trip down to Iqaluit a couple of years ago, we found out from the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans that they are not concerned about commercial
fishing by natives because they have no jurisdiction. The government recognizes
that people of Nunavut and the territories are living off the land and the sea —
the fish and caribou — but there is no recognition from Ottawa of our people
having a commercial fishery.
In the community of Pangnirtung, 40 fishermen were seeking funds from the
Government of Canada to buy a dragging boat. They were told that the federal
government was not responsible, that they would have to go to St. John's,
Newfoundland, to find out what the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has to say
about that proposal. I am really concerned. We no longer have commercial fishing
in the communities, except for Pangnirtung.
What is the future of Arctic char in the North, now that the fish hatcheries
in the South are forcing fishermen out of their jobs in the communities?
Senator Comeau: Honourable senators, Senator Adams raises two
extremely important subjects. When our committee visited his area, many of the
people raised these two issues. One was the question of Arctic char being raised
in some of the southern aquaculture sites, precluding the sale of some of the
products that come from the North. The second concern was a question of
adjacency, the fact that the people of Nunavut are not able to access the
resources right off their shores, and that fishing fleets are coming from the
South to supplement their fishing season. Why would the government not have in
place measures to allow the people of the North to access the resources right
next to their shores?
They make a compelling case. We, as parliamentarians, should ask why the
people of Nunavut and Nunavik cannot have access to the resources closer to
their shores. These are extremely important questions to which I heard no
response that satisfied me, so it is a question we will have to answer.
Senator Nolin: Honourable senators, Senator Comeau raised the question
of jurisdictions in his response to Senator Taylor. Did his committee examine
the relationship between aquaculture and sport fishing? Is it studying the
impact on the resource of sport fishing versus commercial fishing? Is it looking
at relations between provincial and federal jurisdictions? In my opinion, the
provinces have jurisdiction over sport fishing. Is his committee looking at this
aspect? It strikes me as very complex. Where does federal responsibility begin
and provincial responsibility end?
Senator Comeau: Provincial responsibility begin at the site chosen?
The province determines the locations of fish hatcheries. Once the fish is out
of the water, the province has jurisdiction over it. The federal government is
responsible for the diseases that fish in cages could transmit to other fish.
There are two jurisdictions.
In addition, the federal government is responsible for licences issued to
commercial fishers. This is another aspect. Commercial fishers have expressed
some rather serious concerns about the farming of fish, particularly salmon,
trout and so forth.
As for the concerns of those who fish rivers for sport regarding fish
escaping their cages and beginning to interact with wild fish, this comes under
federal jurisdiction over the interaction between wild fish and hatchery fish
escaping into rivers and into the ocean.
Discussions are underway between the provincial and federal governments to
reach agreement on these jurisdictions. They are going very well. There are
regular meetings, at least twice a year, between federal and provincial
ministers. The relations between provincial ministers and the federal minister
are quite good. The relations between fishers and the minister are sometimes not
so good. It is a very complicated business.
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Finestone, P.C.,
calling the attention of the Senate to three diseases which are sweeping the
developing world and which draw many to ask whether intellectual property
rights over patented medicines haven't taken precedence over the protection of
human life.—(Honourable Senator Poy).
Hon. Vivienne Poy: Honourable senators, I wish to speak to the inquiry
introduced by the Honourable Senator Finestone. Senator Finestone provided us
with some background information about the three diseases that are sweeping
As the honourable senator noted, taken together, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and
malaria kill 4.1 million individuals per year. Aside from these diseases, there
are many others that are endemic to developing nations. Why is this happening
and what can we as Canadians do to prevent this tragedy?
Drugs to combat many of these diseases are simply not available. One of the
reasons for the lack of availability is ignorance, as my learned colleague
Senator Finestone emphasized. A new report by Médecins Sans Frontières entitled
"Fatal Imbalance: The Crisis in Research and Development for Drugs for
Neglected Diseases" argues that the health revolution of the past 30 years that
has improved the life expectancies of many in the Western world has left much of
the developing world behind. This is because most research and development
focuses on Western diseases while neglecting tropical diseases that take an
enormous toll on those living in absolute poverty.
According to the report, only 10 per cent of global health research is
devoted to conditions that account for 90 per cent of the global disease burden.
This research vacuum exists despite the fact that the World Bank has found that
eliminating communicable diseases would almost completely level the mortality
gap between the richest 20 per cent of the world's population and the poorest 20
It is clear that research and development is not at the service of public
health but, instead, is harnessed to profit. Governments, therefore, must play a
role. Public policy must develop strategies to address neglected diseases
specifically. One option is public- private partnerships involving universities,
governments, NGOs and private companies. Another is a policy whereby a specific
percentage of pharmaceutical profits from newly patented drugs would be
channelled into research on neglected diseases.
However, there are drugs that already exist to fight some diseases, such as
tuberculosis. TB was a major problem in Canada less than 50 years ago. In 1953,
there were 19,000 beds in hospitals in Canada allotted to TB patients. As a
result of a systematic treatment program, tuberculosis was virtually eliminated.
I say "virtually" because TB is still killing people in Canada, and it remains
one of the biggest killers in other parts of the world, with numbers of deaths
rising. It is clear that if we are to eliminate TB in our borderless world where
immigration is commonplace, we must apply the same principles of access to
medication to developing nations as we have in Canada.
Medicines are also available to treat AIDS. Some 20 years after the first
case was identified, AIDS is no longer a death sentence as it once was. Since
the mid-1990s, it has been treatable with a cocktail of drugs called the highly
active anti-retroviral therapy, or HAART. HAART dramatically reduces suffering
and increases life expectancy, allowing patients to live comfortably with a
chronic disease. However, since 95 per cent of the 36 million HIV-infected
individuals in the world live in low-income countries, only a small fraction of
these people have access to HAART. In Africa, access is limited to only about
10,000 out of 25 million HIV-positive individuals.
AIDS has already taken 22 million lives worldwide and created more than 13
million orphans. An estimated 4 million new infections occur every year. In the
end, no country will escape this disaster. The disease promises to fundamentally
destabilize the social, political and economic fabric of the world.
Currently, development is being eroded in many of the world's poorest
countries. For example, Botswana, which has long been considered an African
success story, has already had its life expectancy dropped by 25 years to 44
years, and this may decline to as low as 29 years if the spread of the virus is
not slowed or reversed. President Festus Mogae warns that the country, in which
one-third of the adult population is infected, faces the prospect of extinction.
Last spring, I attended a speech given by Mr. Stephen Lewis, who is the
special envoy named by the United Nations to deal with the HIV/AIDS epidemic in
Africa. Mr. Lewis told the audience about the accelerated access agreement
reached by UNAIDS with a number of the world's major pharmaceutical companies to
furnish anti-retroviral drugs to poor countries at a reduced cost. Negotiations
led to agreements on price reductions in four countries — the Ivory Coast,
Rwanda, Senegal and Uganda.
The rules were that countries would receive discounts of up to 90 per cent in
exchange for pledging to respect patent rights and not allowing lower priced
drugs to enter the black market. This would appear to be a good example of a
public-private partnership that could potentially lower the cost of drugs for
What happened? By early this year, the accelerated access initiative had not
produced the expected results. Prices were still being maintained significantly
above production costs. Meanwhile, generic drug companies, particularly in
India, were offering to supply products to South Africa at a lower price than
the accelerated access price. In what Stephen Lewis called a "double and
duplicitous game," the major drug companies were fighting to keep the cheaper
generic drugs out of South Africa by taking the South African government to
court to stop it from engaging in parallel imports, a practice that is
specifically authorized under the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights agreement, or TRIPS, in the case of public health emergencies. The reason
drug companies cited for the court challenge was the need to maintain profits to
fuel research and development, despite the fact that Africa represents a little
more than 1 per cent of the total worldwide drug market. In April of this year,
the pharmaceutical companies backed down.
Faced with bad PR internationally, the pharmaceutical companies are heralding
a new study published on October 17, 2001, co-authored by Amir Attaran of the
Harvard Center for International Development and Lee Gillespie-White of the
International Intellectual Property Institute, which claimed that patents were
not the issue in the battle against AIDS. Médecins Sans Frontières and other
NGOs argued that the study was misleading and that it was an attempt to sabotage
the initiative of the developing world to break down the barriers to access to
Stephen Lewis and NGOs such as Oxfam, Médecins Sans Frontières and many
African countries are unanimous in supporting a "public health" interpretation
In September 2001, at a TRIPS council session on access to medicines, 60
developing nations jointly issued a statement arguing that "nothing in the
TRIPS agreements shall prevent members from taking measures to protect public
health." Developing nations are being supported by the European Union. However,
their joint declaration, which will be considered at the next WTO ministerial
conference, has been opposed by the United States, Switzerland, Japan and
Canada. If nothing changes, beginning in 2006, all WTO members will be obligated
to grant 20-year minimum patents for medicines.
Perhaps Canada's position needs to be reassessed in the light of the
potential of our own public health emergency. Bioterrorism poses an imminent
threat. In light of the current situation, a broad interpretation of the term
"public health emergency" in TRIPS may be necessary in order to ensure that
patents do not override global health concerns, whether in Canada or in other
parts of the world.
Developing countries suffering under the burden of diseases need to have
access to the cheapest drug available, regardless of whether it is produced by a
generic drug company or a brand- name company. Both India and Brazil already
have developed the capacity to manufacture a wide variety of generic drugs that
could be exported to other developing countries. In Brazil, the introduction of
generic anti-AIDS drugs has led to a 79 per cent reduction in the price of
drugs. As a result, mortality rates from AIDS have dropped by 50 per cent. HAART
has also been made available in Thailand, Costa Rica and in a pilot study in
Other countries have been less lucky. There are gross price discrepancies
from one country to the next. Let me give you one example of how radically
prices can differ from country to country. Last year, Médecins Sans Frontières
reported that a drug called fluconazole, which treats a form of meningitis
common in HIV-positive individuals, was priced at U.S. $1.20 per daily dose in
Thailand for a generic version, compared to U.S. $17.84 per daily dose in South
Africa for the patented drug. The discrepancy has since been corrected by the
manufacturer, after a public outcry.
Three factors are necessary if widespread treatments are to be made available
in developing countries. They are as follows: research and development,
affordable drugs, and international aid, designated specifically for this effort
by donor countries. If change is to happen, it will depend on the political will
of the international community.
The protection of intellectual property rights cannot take precedence over
the protection of human life. Countries such as the United States are currently
attacking parallel importation, which allows for the importation of medicines
from foreign countries at lower cost, and compulsory licensing, which allows for
production of medicines by other than the patent holder. Both these trade
practices were specifically included in TRIPS to be used in instances of public
health emergencies or in the case of unfair pricing practices. Canada must
defend these provisions at the WTO so that generic drugs are made available to
developing countries where health crises exist.
It is also important to note that in many cases developing countries cannot
even afford to pay the lowest prices available for drugs. Often, the yearly cost
of a drug, even if it is priced at the cost of production, may be more than the
annual per capita income of many families. A global tiered pricing strategy, as
suggested by Médecins Sans Frontières, would allow for lower priced drugs in the
developing world with research and development being funded by standard prices
in the developed world.
CIDA's resources are currently stretched to the limit. For example, last
year, Canada spent 0.25 per cent of its gross national product on official
development assistance, the lowest portion in the 35 years since major foreign
aid programs were established. More money is needed if CIDA is to have any
effect on stemming the tide of disease sweeping across the developing world.
The world is a global village; we cannot afford to neglect the needy, who now
make up the majority of its citizens. The decision to act to provide affordable
and accessible medicine is a pragmatic decision because the future of developing
nations is ultimately our future. Otherwise, the results of this death toll will
be weakened economies and fragile political and social structures. For too long
we have ignored developing nations, their poverty, their diseases and their
conflicts, assuming we lived in a protected world. Since September 11, we know
the world is a much smaller place. Nevertheless, if we are to act to fight
against the ravages of disease, the decision must be based not on self-interest
but on our common humanity. In this international effort, Canada needs to take a
Honourable senators, we cannot allow more people to die when we have the
means to save them.
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, this inquiry has taken on a new importance since Senator Finestone
initially commenced it by drawing our attention to the whole issue of
intellectual property rights as it relates to patented medicines. The honourable
senator who has just spoken has eloquently and thoughtfully identified some of
the issues that may very well cause Parliament to revisit the 1993 drug Patent
We are very fortunate to have in this chamber Senator Day, who is an expert
on copyright matters. I would hope that we can draw him into our debate on this
important, timely topic because of the events last week when the Minister of
Health, quite wrongly, in my opinion, allowed his department to arbitrarily
break the drug patent law.
Hearing a defence of that illegal act made in terms of, "Well, there is an
emergency," I looked at the drug Patent Act. As Senator Poy is indicating,
there must be circumstances when the life of individuals, indeed, the life of
whole communities, may be at stake, given the threat of bioterrorism in the
world that we live in today. Perhaps it is very important that we revisit this
On the one hand, we recall from the earlier arguments that were made when we
were looking at that legislation that if we are to have in the pharmaceutical
research community the kind of ongoing research to identify means, techniques
and medicines that can respond to old diseases and new ones, they must be
motivated. They must have the means with which to do this, unless the states
will be sponsoring all the necessary research. That research is done by the
pharmaceutical companies at tremendous cost, and they recover their costs if
they successfully come up with a new medicine that is successful in combating a
We must be very cautious not to paint people into boxes. Companies that
invest in research come up with a new medicine, and have a patent on that
medicine for a period of time to allow them to recoup their research investment
cost. We do not want to dissuade them, surely, if it is to have the effect of
discouraging research. That is, unless the states will come to the table and
say, "We will pay for all the ongoing research." I do not think that is in the
Having mentioned the metaphor box, I think we honourable senators are very
much living in a time when we must start thinking outside of the box. We will
have to reach down and draw on creativity like never before because the
circumstances in which we find ourselves these days have never been before us.
Many of our colleagues, who are in the pre-study committee as we speak, will
have to be creative there. The government is doing its job and I give it full
credit for attempting to come up with appropriate responses and with the new
tools that are necessary to combat terrorism. I have no quarrel with that, but
we equally must be creative in coming up with new safeguards so that there is
the proper oversight.
I agree with Senator Poy also in the area of drug patents. We do not have to
throw the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bath water. I would draw the
attention of honourable senators to what we have in place already. It is not
bad. Subsection 19(1) of the Patent Act provides:
19(1) Subject to section 19.1, the Commissioner may, on application by the
Government of Canada or the government of a province, authorize the use of a
patented invention by that government.
We have a legislative framework in place that can respond to the exigencies
that have been described by our colleague Senator Poy. That, unfortunately, was
not followed last week, and we must learn from that. We must learn from what
happened last week in terms of emergency and the panic that may occur in public
administration circles. People are anxious to respond, but it is important that
they respond within the context of the rule of law. Here is a provision that
clearly states that the commissioner of patents can receive an application from
a provincial government or from the Government of Canada, and it may very well
authorize the use of a patented invention. This applies, for example, to the
minister responsible for CIDA. If we are intervening in one of the countries to
which CIDA contributes, it may very well be legitimate for the CIDA minister to
make application to have the patent set aside so that a cheaper copy could be
made and provided to the country that we are aiding.
It is noteworthy that, subject to that section, the use of the patented
invention may be authorized for such purposes, for such periods and on such
other terms as the commissioner considers expedient. However, the commissioner
shall settle those terms in accordance with the principles — and this is
important — which are as follows:
19(2)(a) the scope and duration of the use shall be limited to the purpose
for which the use is authorized;
(b) the use authorized shall be non-exclusive; and
(c) any use shall be authorized predominantly to supply the domestic
That raises the following question: How do we get around a CIDA intervention?
Subsection 19(3) states:
The Commissioner shall notify the patentee of any use of the patented
invention that is authorized under this section.
Clearly, had that been done last week, pursuant to the statute, the
scandalous situation that the Minister of Health found himself in when Bayer
announced to Canadians Friday evening that it had 1 million Cipro pills in its
warehouse in Toronto would not have occurred.
Subsection 19.1(1) states:
The Commissioner may not authorize the use of a patented invention under
section 19 unless the applicant establishes that —
— that would be either a federal government or the provincial government —
(a) it has made efforts to obtain from the patentee on reasonable
commercial terms and conditions the authority to use the patented invention...
That did not happen last week at all. There was no negotiation within the
meaning of that section. The statute goes on to state:
(b) its efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period.
Again, there is a failure on the part of either the government or the
Minister of Health. This is very important because we have heard the phrase
"national emergency" come up several times. Subsection 19.1(2) states that
this whole area of the application of the act is not applied in cases of
national emergency or extreme urgency, or where the use for which the
authorization is sought is a public non-commercial use. This exception clause
does speak quite directly and in plain English of national emergency or extreme
The point I want to make, honourable senators, is that we do have a
framework. The framework was developed and adopted in Parliament. Both sides of
the equation were thoroughly examined by members not only in this place but also
in the other place. If we are to return to this issue, we must do so in an open
manner. I would not be hesitant at all for us to do that.
In her remarks, the honourable senator made reference to the availability of
generic drugs manufactured in India. I do know that an Indian generic drug maker
last week offered to supply the United States with 20 million anthrax antibiotic
tablets a month, reopening the controversy about whether drug patents should
hold in medical emergencies. What was interesting about the offer of that
particular pharmaceutical company in India is that they were able to produce the
drug at one-thirtieth of the cost. If that drug could be copied and produced at
such a tremendously low price compared to the commercial price, then it makes a
very attractive argument from the commercial standpoint — that is, from the
purchaser's point of view — to go offshore in search of generic manufacturers.
However, that raises other questions, including the health protection dimensions
of medications, generic or otherwise, that we would be using in Canada. An
important topic is raised with this inquiry, perhaps far more important because
of recent events.
Hon. Lorna Milne rose pursuant to notice of June 14, 2001:
That she will call the attention of the Senate to the recent trip by the
Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group to Taiwan on May 18 to 25, and to
the issues which were raised and discussed by the delegation with
representatives of the Government of Taiwan.
She said: Honourable senators, rather than bore you with a blow-by-blow
account of our trip to Taiwan in the spring, I will just give you the bare bones
of the trip and urge you to read the daily details of our individual meetings
The details are in this report that, with the permission of the Senate, I
will now table with the clerk.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Milne: I will try to give honourable senators a flavour of the
island, because Canada's connections with Taiwan are of great importance. I will
also offer some of my conclusions arising from the trip.
The members of the official delegation were Senator Finestone and myself from
the Senate, and Alan Tonks and Ghislain Lebel from the other place. We were
accompanied by appropriate spouses, and also by James Tien, the director of the
public affairs division of TECO.
We were in Taiwan from Saturday, May 19, 2001 until the following Friday, May
25, 2001. While there, we visited the following people, places and sites:
Kenting National Park Headquarters; the National Museum of Marine Biology and
Aquarium; Sun Yat Sen University; the city hall in the port city of Kaohsiung;
the Department of Economic Affairs; Vice-President Annette Lu, who was standing
in for the president who had just left to visit South America via New York;
Premier Chun-hsiung Chang; deputy foreign minister Tzu-dan Wu; Taiwan's science-based industrial park; the Mosel company and officials; the Taiwan Power
Company; the Atomic Energy Council; the Ministry of the Environment; the
National Youth Commission; the deputy speaker of their government; the Chinese
National Association of Industry and Commerce; the China External Trade
Development Council; and the Taiwan World Trade Center. We certainly needed a
seven-day rest when we came home. We covered much ground in five or six days.
Taiwan is an island about the size of Vancouver Island. It has a population
of over 22 million people. Most delegations that go to the island do not get
very far out of Taipei, at the north end of the island. We were lucky enough to
fly to the south end of the island, to a tropical area about an hour outside of
Taipei. On the way there, we caught glimpses of the interior of the island, made
up of five mountain ranges, heavily treed and rugged. As we flew over the area,
it was evident why only one quarter of Taiwan is arable.
Coming into the airport at Kaohsiung, we had a great aerial view of the vast
port facilities there. There were huge cargo ships anchored offshore waiting to
enter. Kaohsiung is the heavy industry capital of Taiwan, with an enormous
shipbuilding facility, a huge container port and a large oil refinery. Taiwan's
steel industry is also centred there and their third nuclear generating plant is
nearby. Kaohsiung is the fourth busiest port in the world, after Hong Kong,
Rotterdam and Singapore. Officials there would very much like to be twinned with
a Canadian port city.
While in the south, we visited the headquarters of Kenting National Park. The
park consists of 33,000 hectares spread along the southern coastline of the
island. Many thousands of people live within the borders of the park, but most
of the land is owned by 3,000 Aboriginal inhabitants. Most of the land in the
five national parks in Taiwan is owned by their aboriginal people, descendents
of early proto-Austronesian people. These people are more closely related to
present day Polynesian and Maori people than to the people of mainland China.
The waters in this area are full of coral reefs and beautiful tropical fish,
perfect for skin diving if one is so inclined. The above-water shoreline rocks
are mainly the eroding remains of coral reefs. The entire shoreline is slowly
rising as one tectonic plate slides beneath another in the area. As a result,
Taiwan has over 2,000 earthquakes a day, most so small that one cannot feel
them, but they register on scientific instruments.
The park receives about 2,500 millimetres of rain each year. Most of the rain
occurs during the five-month rainy season; the rest of time it can be pretty
dry. Taiwan is also hit by three or four typhoons each year. While we were
there, the temperature was about 30 degrees every day and extremely humid.
While we were at the National Sun Yat Sen University in Kaohsiung, we met a
Canadian citizen, a woman who spent much of her life in Ottawa, Mrs. May Lin.
She was a most forceful advocate for the recognition of Taiwan, claiming that
the people of Taiwan are truly Taiwanese now, not Chinese. According to her
recital of Taiwan history, China has never exerted any effective control over
Taiwan. It was first an island of the proto-Austronesian aboriginal tribes.
About 400 years ago, people fleeing the Chinese dynasty of the day from Fujian
province began to colonize it, seeking freedom from China. The government of the
day in China considered that Taiwan was a barren wasteland not worth bothering
about. These Fujianese people intermarried with the aboriginal inhabitants, so
that there are now very few people left of the aboriginal blood, only 2 per cent
of the population. Both the Dutch, who named the island "Formosa," meaning
beautiful island, and the Spanish sent colonists to Taiwan to set up colonies in
the early 1800s. By the late 1800s, the British had arrived but only considered
the island a base from which to attempt to control the pirates who swarmed
around the islands at that time. They never considered Taiwan to be a colony.
The Japanese arrived in Taiwan in 1895 and they governed there until the end the
Second World War.
When the communist forces on the mainland won the civil war in China, in
1949, Chiang Kai-shek and his Republic of China government relocated to Taiwan.
This was the first time that a Chinese government, even though it was in exile,
had accurately claimed to govern the island. Since then, the 15 per cent of the
1949 population who came with Chiang Kai-shek, and who were truly Chinese, have
gradually intermingled with the resident Hakka, Fujian and mixed people of
Taiwan. People like Mrs. Lin claim, and I believe very proudly and accurately,
to be Taiwanese.
When we were back in Taipei, the executive director of the Canadian Trade
Office, David Mulroney, provided us with an excellent briefing. I will go
through it briefly because he spoke of Canada's ties with that island.
Canada has donated over $500,000 to earthquake relief in Taiwan, half through
the Red Cross and half through other NGO bodies. The trade office has kept up
its efforts to try to lessen the disastrous effects of the 1999 earthquake by
gathering books to be donated to some of the remote aboriginal schools that lost
everything. Senator Finestone and I handed over the large bag of books that we
had taken over for that purpose.
The Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto lent its McKay collection of Taiwanese
Aboriginal artifacts, the finest in the world, for display in Taipei beginning
in June on the one-hundredth anniversary of Dr. McKay's death. Dr. McKay was a
Presbyterian missionary from Oxford County in Ontario who spent most of his life
in Taiwan. He started not only a mission in Tamsui but also began a school
there, which he called Oxford University College. He began a medical clinic and
experimented with natural medicines. During his years there, he accumulated this
wonderful collection of early Aboriginal artifacts from the area.
A Taiwanese Aboriginal dance group also left for Canada while we were there
in Taiwan. They performed here in Ottawa, in Niagara Falls, Mississauga and
The Bata Shoe Museum of Toronto set up an exhibition that was opened by Mrs.
Sonja Bata there in June. The Royal Winnipeg Ballet visited in June. Many young
Canadians go to Taiwan to teach English as a second language also.
From the official point of view, the Canadian trade office there is the
largest issuer of visas for visits to Canada in the world; 150,000 were issued
from there last year and they have a 36-hour turnaround in processing. There are
presently between 7,000 and 10,000 Canadians registered as living in Taiwan, but
there are probably more who have not registered with the trade office. They
issue 1,200 Canadian passports per year. They issue many student visas and are
trying to build up an alumni group in Taiwan, mainly promoted through
The trade office's "9/21 initiative" — named in remembrance of the
earthquake — gives the message to people there that Canada still does care and
still remembers them. As I said, the Aboriginal areas were hit the hardest.
The Canadian Trade Office in Taipei runs a "Business Partner Seminar"
regularly and is pushing aerospace, transportation, environmental products and
services, biotech products and services, agri-food. There is Cdn. $250 million
worth of trade in agri-food with Taiwan every year. In addition, the trade
office pushes venture-100 capital funds, looking for investment possibilities
Matthew Lien, a folk singer from the Yukon, is one of the most popular
singers in Taiwan.
The trade office also sponsors the annual Terry Fox Run.
It is obvious that our connections, both cultural and business, are numerous
and important to both countries. Our meeting with Taiwanese Vice-President
Annette Lu was rather discomfiting. She began by asking, point blank, why Canada
does not officially acknowledge the Republic of China. She continued with
questions about Canada's stance on Taiwan's expulsion from the UN back in 1971
and emphasized the fact that they have been paying their UN dues ever since with
the expectation that they would eventually be reinstalled.
Vice-President Lu also made a point of mentioning the very enthusiastic
reception that President Chen was getting in New York at that particular time on
his way through to South America, with President Bush of the U.S. going to the
length of saying that Taiwan should be accepted into the WTO before mainland
China is accepted.
While we were there, we also attended a "triple occasion" at the Canadian
Trade Office marking the opening of their newly expanded facilities, a farewell
to the "Aboriginal Chorus" who were leaving for Canada the next day, and also
our own visit to Taiwan. Members of the delegation were coerced into joining the
Aboriginal dance group in a dance, and my wind is not what it used to be.
This "Aboriginal Chorus" troupe was established in an attempt to encourage
the preservation of the rapidly disappearing culture of the nine Aboriginal
tribes. These particular young people were members of the Amei tribe. Their
features, costumes and style of dancing clearly indicated their close ancestral
relationship with the Maori people of New Zealand.
Canada has signed a Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation between Canada
and Taiwan on Aboriginal affairs. Since then, there have been many cultural
events and exchanges between our two countries.
We met with the Honourable Chang Chun-hsiung, the premier of the country, who
told us that many of their difficulties as a brand new democracy arise from the
fact that they still must convince the general population and educate them in
the new democratic ways. Canada and Taiwan still only have people-to- people
relations through groups such as our Canada-Taiwan Friendship Group, but since
Taiwan also believes in democracy, human rights and the rule of law, continuing
dialogue between us is very important.
Taiwan appreciated our support during their missile crisis, but they want
into the WTO and the WHO. They feel it is essential to protect and bolster their
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable Senator Milne, I regret to advise
that your 15 minutes have expired.
Senator Milne: May I have leave to continue?
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Milne: In conclusion, we saw many things and visited many
places. We toured the Mosel company in Hsinchu, which is presently investigating
opening a very large manufacturing facility near Montreal. Mosel is the seventh
largest manufacturer of microchips in the world.
Honourable senators, I believe that these informal trips to Taiwan by members
of this friendship society will retain their importance to both countries at
least until Canada formally recognizes Taiwan as an independent country. The
contact between our governments at this time is only through the work of our
trade office in Taipei, but any discussion of other matters comes about
informally or through personal contacts between the individual politicians and
the business people of our countries. I hope we reconsider our policy. Taiwan is
a democratic country committed to human rights and the rule of law. It is also
Canada's seventh-largest trading partner.
Canada seems to be highly regarded in Taiwan, yet the Taiwanese are very
concerned about what they see as our lack of strong support on the issue of
their admittance to the World Health Organization. They appreciated our support
to gain observer status, and they hope to become a full member of that
The issuance of Canadian visas remains an extremely sensitive point with the
present leadership. They seem to ignore the fact that our office in Taipei is
the largest issuer of Canadian visas in the world.
The people of Taiwan are extremely entrepreneurial, but they are disturbed by
their present unemployment rate of 4.5 per cent, which they regard as
unacceptably high. As entrepreneurs, they have a high regard for Canadian
business people and companies and are most eager to expand business ties between
our two countries, as well as political ties.
I remain somewhat embarrassed by the fact that this one-sided "exchange" of
visits is sponsored solely and entirely by the Government of Taiwan, so that
visiting politicians could feel themselves to be under some obligation to that
government for their hospitality, even though increasing Canada's political and
business contacts with Taiwan is a valid and reasonable objective.
I note with some concern that Taiwan was excluded from this year's APEC
meeting, the informal economic leaders meeting held just last week, even though
Taiwan is a full and equal member of APEC. That not only threatened the
interests of harmony in that cross-strait region, but it deprived APEC of the
contributions of a valuable member of the association.
In conclusion, in spite of the official "one China" policy of both the
Taiwanese government and of our own government, the fact is quite obvious that
the people of Taiwan are increasingly of mixed heritage and consider themselves
to be Taiwanese and not Chinese. As soon as the Government of Taiwan officially
stops claiming to be the "Republic of China," the legitimate government of
mainland China, I firmly believe Canada should recognize this democratic and de
facto independent country.
The Hon. the Speaker: If no other senator wishes to speak to this
inquiry, it will be considered debated.
The Senate adjourned until Wednesday, October 24, 2001, at 1:30 p.m.