Skip to Content
Download as PDF

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

1st Session, 37th Parliament,
Volume 139, Issue 76

Tuesday, December 4, 2001
The Honourable Dan Hays, Speaker


THE SENATE

Tuesday, December 4, 2001

The Senate met at 2:00 p.m., the Speaker in the Chair.

Prayers.

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

International Day of Disabled Persons

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, yesterday, December 3, we observed the International Day of Disabled Persons. Since 1981, when the United Nations declared the International Year of Disabled Persons, much has been done in Canada and around the world to make society sensitive to the needs of people with disabilities. Many Canadians, such as Terry Fox, Rick Hansen and others, have raised public consciousness of the capabilities of people with disabilities. We have come to realize that we should not impose barriers on those with disabilities any more than we would impose barriers upon those of us who have no disabilities.

[Translation]

Over the years, the Canadian government has responded to the needs of the disabled.

[English]

In 1981, section 15 was introduced into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability. We now have an officer for disability issues within Human Resources Development Canada.

Here in the Senate, many of us have been actively engaged on this issue. We have adopted an Action Plan on Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities. Last year, the Senate hosted an information fair, and it holds annual partnership days to provide experiences that benefit both Senate staff and the disabled community.

The theme of this year's International Day of Disabled Persons is arts, sports and disabilities. We should continue working together to provide access to employment opportunities for people with disabilities. This year, we should also work to become more cognizant that people with disabilities have a great deal to contribute to our artistic and sports communities, and we should welcome them as equal participants in every aspect of our society.

International Day for the Elimination of Slavery

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, yesterday was also the International Day for the Elimination of Slavery. Most Canadians think of slavery as a phenomenon of the past, but it has been suggested that the buying and selling of human beings may currently be more prevalent than at any other time in history. One estimate suggests that there may be as many as 25 million people who are slaves today.

Let me quote from Dr. Kevin Bales' book Disposable People, New Slavery in the Global Economy:

The "old" slavery was based on legal ownership and division along ethnic and racial lines. Slaves were expensive and relationships between slaves and slave owners were often long-term, sometimes multi-generational. The "new" slavery, in contrast, is based not on formal ownership but on other legal instruments such as contracts and debts. Slaves are cheap, even disposable, and drawn from the poor, vulnerable, and dispossessed rather than from particular racial or ethnic groups.

To deal with the continuing tragedy of slavery, we must also deal with the people who sell human beings, the traffickers. Last December, in Italy, Canada signed the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, which contained two protocols against trafficking of humans, particularly women and children, and also against the smuggling of migrants.

The federal government has attempted to deal with the traffickers by amending the Immigration Act, but this fails to protect domestically the Aboriginal child trafficked out of a community in Canada or the young girl trafficked from Nova Scotia to Vancouver. What about a Canadian citizen who is trafficked from Canada to another country?

These crimes do happen, honourable senators, and so the question becomes: What domestic law is there to protect these human beings from being trafficked? Some would say that the Criminal Code has sufficient provisions, such as kidnapping, but the Criminal Code is silent about trafficking in people. There is no definition. There is no severe penalty such as that provided by the new Immigration Act. Should a person who traffics people within Canada's borders be given a lighter sentence than a person or persons who traffic people from other countries into Canada? I believe the provisions of the Immigration Act dealing with human trafficking ought to be placed as well in the Criminal Code, together with provisions to protect Canadians from both domestic trafficking and being trafficked out of Canada.

As we mark the passage of this year's International Day for the Elimination of Slavery, we should reflect on the serious nature of the offences and the consequences to individuals. Parliament should enact a measure to place trafficking as an offence in the Criminal Code of Canada.

Organ Donation for Transplants

Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Honourable senators, as I rise to speak today, almost 4,000 Canadians are waiting for an organ transplant. People with end-stage kidney disease are staying alive only because of frequent and time-consuming dialysis. Many other patients waiting for a new heart or liver may not live long enough to receive the new organ they so desperately need.

Organ transplantation works. Nearly 98 per cent of all kidney transplants, 90 per cent of liver transplants and 85 per cent of heart transplants are successful. However, the success rate is obviously zero when there are no organs available. Last year, 147 Canadians died while waiting for organs that never came.

Canada continues to lag behind other industrialized nations when it comes to organ donation rates. There are fewer than 14 donors per 1 million people in this country as compared to more than 31 donors per 1 million in Spain. Even more discouraging is the widening gap between transplant patients on waiting lists and the number of available organs.

The government has recognized the need for increased efforts in Canada and has committed over $20 million over the next five years, with plans to increase and coordinate safe organ and tissue donation in Canada. The funding will go toward an awareness campaign on the importance of donation and will establish a permanent national secretariat.

(1410)

Individual Canadians can do their part without waiting for government action. Organ donation starts at home. Depending on where you live in Canada, simply signing an organ donor card or placing a sticker on your health card or driver's licence provides proof of your desire to donate.

However, honourable senators, after you have done this, you must discuss your wishes with your family. In most parts of the country, doctors will not proceed with organ donation without the family's consent. Statistics show that families who have not been informed only agree to donate organs 58 per cent of the time, compared to previously informed families, who agree to donate 96 per cent of the time.

To conclude, honourable senators, I encourage all Canadians who are able to donate to sign a donor card. Then tell your family about your commitment to donate so that your wishes will be carried through in time to give the gift of life to another.

Vanier Cup

Congratulations to St. Mary's Huskies on Win

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore: Honourable senators, I rise to extend congratulations to the varsity football team, the Huskies, of St. Mary's University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, upon their 42-to-16 victory over the University of Manitoba Bisons to win the Vanier Cup, emblematic of Canadian university football supremacy, at the SkyDome in Toronto this past Saturday evening. With this win, the Huskies completed a perfect 11-to-0 season, during which they outscored the opposition 608 to 66 and did not allow a single rushing touchdown, clearly a historic performance in the annals of Canadian university football.

We commend and respect coach Brian Dobie and the Bisons for the high calibre performance that they brought to this championship game.

We Santamarians are proud of the Huskies, their coach, Blake Nill, and his assistants, our athletic director, Larry Uteck, our athletic director emeritus, Bob Hayes, who started this exceptional football program on a bootstring budget in 1958, and to the silent hand of Father John J. Hennessey, S.J. We congratulate Ryan Jones, the team's composed quarterback, for his stellar performance, which earned him the game's Most Valuable Player on Offence award, and defensive lineman Kyl Morrison, who won the Bruce Coulter Trophy as most outstanding defensive player.

Well done, Huskies! You are our heroes.

Measures Against Terrorism

Hon. Laurier L. LaPierre: Honourable senators, I rise to deplore the presence of armed soldiers and helicopters across from the Canadian side of the mutual border that we share with the Americans, where our people are unarmed.

I rise as well to deplore the fact that some people might think that this situation is only temporary.

I deplore as well that eight additional countries will be humiliated by Canada imposing a visa upon them because the Americans desire it.

I deplore that Canada has agreed to change its refugee policy in some way in order to coincide with that of the Americans.

Canada's policy is founded on the fundamental values of the Canadian people. I understand why this is being done, but I deplore the fact that, in order to ensure our security and to maintain our prosperity, we are tempted and have decided to do this.

I used to read, when I was much younger, from a book that is known to everyone. In deploring this event and in speaking about prosperity and security, I should like to quote from Matthew 16:26: "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

Ruling of World Trade Organization Favouring Dairy Products

Hon. Jim Tunney: Honourable senators, I rise today to impart some good news. The good news is for all of us but, in particular, for the dairy industry: the producers, the processors, the distributors and the retailers of dairy products in this country.

Yesterday, a ruling came down from the WTO Appeal Board regarding the challenge brought by the U.S. and New Zealand against our method of marketing domestically and exporting dairy products. In that hearing, the U.S. and New Zealand totally failed to prove that there was a violation or that our system was not WTO-compliant.

It is the fifth time that we have been exposed to this kind of challenge. I believe on the fifth occasion we have some right to call it harassment. I trust that this will be the last time we will need to face this kind of attitude from our trading partner — a partner with whom we are supposed to have a free trade deal.

The Honourable Jerahmiel S. Grafstein

Congratulations on Success of Canada Loves New York Excursion

Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson: Honourable senators, I rise to pay compliment to Senator Grafstein for organizing a very successful event in New York.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Gustafson: The number of people who participated was unbelievable. I do not know how many people were there. The unfortunate thing was that many could not get into the building. However, it was a very successful event. The mood was great and people enjoyed it whether or not they got in, because there was good spirit throughout. It was good for relations between Canada and the United States at a time when they have gone through a difficult time.

Congratulations.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Recommendation to Add Road Salts to Evironmental Protection Act

Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, I wish to congratulate the Government of Canada for having published in the Canada Gazette the recommendation that road salts, which contain inorganic chloride salts with or without ferrocyanide salts, be added to Schedule 1 under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA. This means that there will be consultation. The government has two years to develop management measures to reduce the impact of road salts on the environment.

Road salt is quite a tremendous problem in Canada, as I am sure everyone understands. It is encouraging and very welcome that the government has taken this step in the face of some very active lobbying not to do so.

Congratulations.


ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Code

Bill to Amend—Report of Committee

Hon. Lorna Milne, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented the following report:

Tuesday, December 4, 2001

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its

TWELFTH REPORT

Your Committee, to which was referred Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, September 26, 2001, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment, but with observations which are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

LORNA MILNE

Chair

(For text of observations, see today's Journals of the Senate, Appendix "A", p. 1056.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

On motion of Senator Moore, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.

Foreign Affairs

Budget—Study on Issues Related to Foreign Relations—Report of Committee Presented

Hon. Peter A. Stollery, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, presented the following report:

Tuesday, December 4, 2001

The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs has the honour to present its

EIGHTH REPORT

Your Committee was authorized by the Senate on March 1, 2001 in accordance with rule 86 (1)(h) to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to Foreign relations generally.

Pursuant to section 2:07 of the Procedural Guidelines for the Financial Operation of Senate Committees, the budget application submitted was printed in the Journals of the Senate of April 25, 2001. On May 2, 2001, the Senate approved the release of $3,000 to the Committee. The report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration recommending the release of additional funds is appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

PETER STOLLERY

Chair

(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, Appendix "B", p. 1058.)

On motion of Senator Stollery, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

(1420)

Budget—Study on the European Union—Report of Committee Presented

Hon. Peter A. Stollery, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, presented the following report:

Tuesday, December 4, 2001

The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs has the honour to present its

NINTH REPORT

Your Committee was authorized by the Senate on March 1, 2001 to examine and report on the consequences for Canada of the evolving European Union and on other related political, economic and security matters.

Pursuant to section 2:07 of the Procedural Guidelines for the Financial Operation of Senate Committees, the budget application submitted was printed in the Journals of the Senate of April 25, 2001. On May 2, 2001, the Senate approved the release of $3,000 to the Committee. The report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration recommending the release of additional funds is appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

PETER STOLLERY

Chair

(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, Appendix "C", p. 1059.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

On motion of Senator Stollery, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

The Estimates, 2001-02

Supplementary Estimates (A)—Report of National Finance Committee Tabled

Hon. Isobel Finnerty: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, which deals with the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002.

On motion of Senator Finnerty, pursuant to rule 97(3), report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

Agriculture and Forestry

Budget—Report of Committee Presented

Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, presented the following report:

Tuesday, December 4, 2001

The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has the honour to present its

SEVENTH REPORT

Your Committee was authorized by the Senate on March 20, 2001, to examine international trade in agricultural and agri-food products, and short-term and long-term measures for the health of the agricultural and the agri-food industry in all regions of Canada.

Pursuant to section 2:07 of the Procedural Guidelines for the Financial Operation of Senate Committees, the budget application submitted was printed in the Journals of the Senate of April 5, 2001. On April 24, 2001, the Senate approved the release of $60,000 to the Committee.

The report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration recommending the release of additional funds is appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

LEONARD J. GUSTAFSON

Chair

(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, Appendix "D", p. 1060.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

On motion of Senator Gustafson, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

Study on International State and National State of Agriculture and Agri-Food Industry

Interim Report of Agriculture and Forestry Committee Tabled

Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the eighth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, which deals with the committee's fact-finding mission to Washington, D.C.

[Translation]

Fisheries

Budget and Request for Authority to Engage Services and Travel—Report of Committee Presented

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries, presented the following report:

Tuesday, December 4, 2001

The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries has the honour to present its

FOURTH REPORT

Your Committee, which was authorized by the Senate on March 13, 2001, to examine and report upon the matters relating to the fishing industry, respectfully requests, that it be empowered to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary, and to adjourn from place to place within Canada for the purpose of such study.

Pursuant to section 2:07 of the Procedural Guidelines for the Financial Operation of Senate Committees, the budget application submitted was printed in the Journals of the Senate of May 10, 2001. On May 15, 2001, the Senate approved the release of $40,750 to the Committee. The report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration recommending the release of additional funds is appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

GERALD COMEAU

Chair

(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, Appendix "E", p. 1062.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

On motion of Senator Comeau, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

[English]

Claim Settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) Implementation Bill

First Reading

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-37, to facilitate the implementation of those provisions of first nations' claim settlements in the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan that relate to the creation of reserves or the addition of land to existing reserves, and to make related amendments to the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act and the Saskatchewan Treaty Land Entitlement Act.

Bill read first time.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

On motion of Senator Robichaud, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.

Yukon Bill

First Reading

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-39, to replace the Yukon Act in order to modernize it and to implement certain provisions of the Yukon Northern Affairs Program Devolution Transfer Agreement, and to repeal and make amendments to other Acts.

Bill read first time.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

On motion of Senator Christensen, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.

Louis Riel Bill

First Reading

Hon. Thelma J. Chalifoux presented Bill S-35, to honour Louis Riel and the Metis people.

Bill read first time.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

On motion of Senator Chalifoux, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.

(1430)

Code of Canadian Citizenship Bill

First Reading

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) presented Bill S-36, respecting Canadian citizenship.

Bill read first time.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

On motion of Senator Kinsella, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.


QUESTION PERIOD

Prime Minister's Office

Invitation to Right Honourable Brian Mulroney to Investiture of Nelson Mandela as Honorary Citizen

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, some two weeks ago I asked the minister if she could tell this house why — and it appears that it was later confirmed — former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had not been invited to the ceremony at which Mr. Nelson Mandela was officially made aware that both Houses had passed a resolution granting him honorary citizenship. Does the minister have an answer for me today?

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I thank the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton for his question. The answer I have been given is that no former prime ministers were invited, that there was limited space in the room provided. The first intent, of course, was to call upon senators and members of Parliament who had participated in the resolution that made Nelson Mandela an honorary Canadian citizen, and then calling upon other groups of people that are frequently invited to such public occasions. Privy Councillors outside of those sitting in the present Parliament, including former prime ministers, were not invited.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, I do not know how the minister can give that reply with a straight face. It is absolute balderdash. There was room in the hall for children of MPs, for civil servants, and there was room in the hall for one extra chair. That chair should have been reserved for former Prime Minister Mulroney. He was not invited to attend the swearing-in of Mr. Mandela in South Africa as president of his country. He was not invited to attend a joint session of this Parliament when Mr. Mandela spoke to it some two years ago, and he was slighted deliberately a third time by not having been invited to the last ceremony mentioned. It was insulting to Mr. Mulroney and all the major contributions he made to allow South Africa to become the free state it is today. It is demeaning to the Parliament and to this country.

Human Resources Development

Auditor General's Report-Contributions to Employment Insurance Account

Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, my question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In her latest report, Canada's Auditor General has again raised the issue of EI premiums, pointing out that the Employment Insurance Commission failed to disclose to the public and to Parliament how it set EI premiums for 2001.

She said:

We expected the Commission to clarify and disclose the reasons for collecting $21 billion more than the maximum reserve suggested by the Department's Chief Actuary. The Commission did not explain the reasons for not accepting the Chief Actuary's suggested maximum reserve. Further, it did not provide an adequate justification for the $36 billion accumulated surplus at 31 March 2001. Therefore, we are unable to conclude that the intent of the Employment Insurance Act had been observed in setting the 2001 premium rates.

Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate advise the Senate why the government is unwilling to accept the recommendation of the HRDC actuary for the suggested maximum reserve in the EI account? Can she provide, in the words of the Auditor General, an "adequate justification" for the $36-billion accumulated surplus in the EI fund?

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, it is very interesting that the honourable senator has asked a question about the Auditor General's report with respect to EI this afternoon because it was just two weeks ago when this same senator stood in this chamber and argued that the government would not decrease the premiums for EI whatsoever. As he knows quite well, on November 30, 2001, the employment premiums were reduced by 5 cents to $2.20 in 2002. This reduction will put $400 million in the pockets of workers and businesses next year, said Minister Martin.

I thought that the honourable senator's question today would in some respect congratulate the Government of Canada because he was so convinced just a short period of time ago that they would not make that change, and it has, in fact, made the change.

Senator Stratton: Could I have an answer to my question?

Senator Carstairs: You have an answer.

Senator Stratton: Honourable senators, I do not think that is an appropriate answer at all. While I can argue about the 5-cent reduction in terms of what it means with regard to the $36-billion accumulated surplus as of March 1, 2001, what the minister is talking about is ridiculous. It is something like $20 a year for the average worker. I think the minister needs to get a little more real here and answer the question. How can the government justify not explaining to the Canadian people how it can have a $36-billion accumulated surplus as of March 31, 2001? Why is the government doing this? Why is it keeping premiums high when we have that kind of surplus? When people look at the $36-billion surplus, most or perhaps some get the idea that that is really where your surplus comes from in the first place.

Senator Carstairs: The honourable senator, of course, would like the government to cut premiums to EI.

Senator Stratton: Yes.

Senator Carstairs: That is certainly something that I respect. This seems to be a particular concern of his, and it is a legitimate concern from his perspective.

However, the law gives the power to the government to set this premium rate. It did set a premium rate for this year, which was a reduction from premium rates of the past and the result of eight consecutive times of reductions to premium rates. Clearly, the government is going in the right direction. With regard to the question the honourable senator asked, the Auditor General, of course, certainly has taken a position, and that position is respected by the government, but the government has acted on its legislative authority.

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Auditor General's Report—Public Reporting on Portfolio of Repayable Contributions

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It relates to comments by the Auditor General on the question of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

Generally, the auditor found that the agency had used due diligence in approving, assessing and monitoring commercial projects and managing its portfolio of repayable contributions. That is a positive aspect. On this side of the house, I wish to take some of the credit for the good planning that went into the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. As a matter of fact, I sat on the legislative committee that put it in place. Some of the credit goes to this side of the house.

It is always nice to take credit on this side, but we do have to find some fault with what is happening. In this case, the Auditor General found that the agency does not report publicly on the performance of its $400-million portfolio of repayable contributions. Will the minister indicate to this house whether this will be rectified in the near future so that we can return ACOA to the rightful positive image that it should have?

(1440)

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, it is important to note, as the Honourable Senator Comeau has just done, that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has come in for considerable praise by the Auditor General. She indicated that ACOA has become much more rigorous in its assessment of commercial projects. That is all to the good. They have also made some comments that would lead the government to do further things. The government has said clearly that it will read the report with great interest and that it will have a rigorous review and follow-up to the proposals of the Auditor General.

Auditor General's Report—Funding to Unsustainable Companies

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: Honourable senators, you will see as you read through the report with "rigorous" interest — which I hope you will — that the Auditor General found that ACOA continues to provide long-term funding to organizations that have little prospect of becoming self-sustaining and financing their own operations.

With that in mind, would the minister indicate whether this other shortcoming of ACOA will be rectified shortly?

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I can only give the same answer that I gave to the previous question. As it has in the past, the government has been following up, and it has been congratulated on that follow-up on a number of fronts by the Auditor General. The government has rigorously examined those areas that the Auditor General feels are not going well, and they will continue to be rigorous in their review of all the present recommendations.

Solicitor General

Royal Canadian Mounted Police—Questioning of New Recruits Regarding Sexual Orientation

Hon. Laurier L. LaPierre: Honourable senators, pursuant to the front-page article in the Ottawa Citizen of December 3, 2001 with respect to the questioning of prospective recruits by the RCMP as to their sexual orientation, will the Leader of the Government in the Senate be kind enough to provide answers to the following two questions:

Are prospective recruits to the RCMP currently asked questions concerning their sexual orientation?

What penalties, if any, does the RCMP currently inflict on members of the force who do not voluntarily admit to being gay or lesbian?

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): I thank the honourable senator for his question because, when I read the story, I had the same concerns that the honourable senator has. However, I did make inquiries.

Apparently there is a question — Question No. 35 to be exact — that is considered a security reliability question. It asks in general about behaviours that might leave a person at risk of coercion or blackmail. That is the nature of the question: Do you have anything in your life that might make you subject to coercion or blackmail? The specific subject or topic of sexual orientation never comes up during the interview because, quite frankly, it would be illegal to do so.

Senator LaPierre: Honourable senators, I hope that the Honourable Leader of the Government is aware that anyone who argues that anyone can be blackmailed for being gay or lesbian ought to be committed.

Senator Carstairs: I would hope that, in today's society, blackmail and coercion of any form against people based on any aspect of their life, be it their race, their creed, their colour or their sexual orientation, would not occur in Canadian society. It should be roundly condemned if it does.

[Translation]

Delayed Answer to Oral Question

Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table in this house a response to a question raised in the Senate on October 30, 2001, by Senator Forrestall, regarding efforts being made to increase the level of security and intelligence.

Privy Council Office

Efforts to Increase Level of Security and Intelligence

(Response to question raised by Hon. J. Michael Forrestall on October 30, 2001)

Significant workload increases have affected PCO and a number of other departments and that like any other manager, he needs to be concerned about the long-term sustainability of this situation.

While we cannot predict how events will unfold, the heightened security status is likely to continue past Christmas. As a matter of course, organizations facing significant new challenges adjust by rationalizing objectives and by finding efficiencies. PCO is doing this and I am confident this is providing some relief.

Mr. Fadden and his colleagues in the Privy Council Office have explored ways to share the workload and expertise, and are thus alleviating the pressure in the Security and Intelligence Secretariat in the short term.

As part of the immediate programming initiatives announced by the government in October, $30 million was slated for full-time equivalents (FTEs) to be shared by Customs, Immigration, the RCMP and Transport Canada. This represents about 300 new workers for border points.

Within the departments and agencies themselves, managers have prioritized their resources and redeployed individuals and resources to the war on terrorism where possible.

Ministers in the Ad Hoc Committee on Public Security and Anti-Terrorism are addressing the ongoing challenges facing the government brought about by the new threat environment.

The Intelligence Assessment Secretariat provides the government with policy neutral intelligence assessments based on all available sources, including intelligence provided by other government departments.

The ministers in the Ad Hoc Committee on Public Security and Anti-Terrorism are addressing the ongoing challenges facing the government brought about by the new threat environment.

Immediately after September 11, departments and agencies prioritized their requirements in light of the heightened workload and redeployed their resources accordingly. They have done this within their current allotments.

CSIS, CCRA, CSE and the RCMP undertake their own recruitment and hiring. Before and since September 11, they continue to seek out new employees in campaigns at universities and other specialized venues. There are lists of prequalified individuals who can be hired immediately, as well as lists of outstanding applicants who must undergo security clearances or other screening.

Other government entities, such as Transport Canada, Immigration and DFAIT hire through the Public Service Commission.

As part of the immediate programming initiatives announced by the government in October, $30 million was slated for full-time equivalents (FTEs) to be shared by Customs, Immigration, the RCMP and Transport Canada. This represents about 300 new workers for border points.

The departments and agencies are in the process of staffing these new positions. Most new hires will come from pools of people who have already prequalified, while new hiring processes are under way for the rest.


[English]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Income Tax Conventions Implementation Bill, 2001

Message from Commons

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, a message has been received from the House of Commons to return Bill S-31, to implement agreements, conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Slovenia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, Senegal, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic and Germany for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income; and to acquaint the Senate that they have passed this bill without amendment.

[Translation]

Export Development Act

Bill to Amend—Third Reading—Motion in Amendment—Motion to Further Defer Deferred Vote Adopted

Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(l)(i), I move:

That, notwithstanding any rule of the Senate, the Order adopted on November 29, 2001, with respect to the deferred recorded division on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Oliver to Bill C-31, be amended so that the division take place at 6:00 p.m. today, and that the bells sound at 5:30 for 30 minutes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

[English]

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Bill

Second Reading—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Tommy Banks moved second reading of Bill C-10, respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada.

He said: Honourable senators, over 100 years, Canadians have built a world-renowned system of national parks. This Parliament now has the opportunity to set the stage for building a system of national marine conservation areas. When we do that — and I hope we will — we will ensure that future generations of Canadians will be able to enjoy and appreciate the diversity of our magnificent marine environments in the same way that they now enjoy our national parks.

The long-term goal of this bill is to represent each of Canada's 29 marine regions in a national system of marine conservation areas much as we will establish a national park in each of the terrestrial areas of Canada. Each national marine conservation area, like each national park, should be an outstanding example of the region that it represents.

There is an assumption, though, that marine conservation areas will simply be national parks on the water. That is not so. In national parks, the maintenance of ecological integrity is the first priority when considering park zoning and use by visitors. In other words, parks are managed so as to keep them essentially unchanged by human activity from their natural state. National marine conservation areas, on the other hand, are designed to be models of sustainable use. The approach to management is one which balances protection and use. As a result, we need specific legislation tailored to national marine conservation areas.

I will give a quick overview of the legislation indicating how it is designed to manage protected areas in the complex world that is our marine environment.

(1450)

This bill establishes the legal and regulatory authority and framework for creating and managing national marine conservation areas. It does not, by itself, create any national marine conservation areas; instead, it provides a mechanism for formally establishing them under the bill.

A national marine conservation area is formally established when its land description is added to a schedule of the bill. This brings those lands under the formal protection of the legislation. As in the recently proclaimed Canada National Parks Act, about which I spoke, and I know all honourable senators remember that fondly, it sets out an Order in Council process for the establishment in law of national marine conservation areas.

While the Order in Council process will speed up the scheduling of new conservation areas, I remind the house that, as in the case of the National Parks Act, the supremacy of Parliament remains. The bill requires that proposals to establish new national marine conservation areas must be tabled in both Houses of Parliament, and should either House of Parliament demur, should it accept our committee report that the establishment should not take place, then the Order in Council does not proceed.

As is the case for our national parks, Bill C-10 requires federal ownership of all lands to be included in a national marine conservation area both above and below the water. This ensures that the Minister of Canadian Heritage will have administration and control of these areas. If a province, however, owns all or part of the land where Parks Canada proposes to establish a national marine conservation area, then the province would have to agree to the use of those lands for a marine conservation area and a federal-provincial agreement would be required to transfer ownership to the federal government. Without such an agreement, the proposed marine conservation area cannot and will not proceed and, for greater certainty, that requirement is specified in the legislation.

In marine areas where there is contested federal-provincial jurisdiction — and I would like to assure the house that the federal government has no intention of acting unilaterally — there will always be consultation with the province concerned with a view to finding a mutually satisfactory resolution.

There is a clear requirement in the bill — not merely a suggestion — for public consultation in the establishment of marine conservation areas with particular emphasis given to affected coastal communities. The nature of these consultations is set out in Parks Canada's policies. The steps required by these policies can take years to complete. The national marine conservation area feasibility studies, which have already been launched by Parks Canada, illustrate this policy in action.

If there is no public support for the creation of a national marine conservation area in a given location, then the proposal would not be brought forward to Parliament. In that circumstance, either House of Parliament would be able to, in effect, veto it. Parks Canada would look to another area in which to place a marine conservation area to represent that region.

When the government decides to take the final step and formally establish a national marine conservation area, Parliament will have the opportunity to examine the proposal in detail and to satisfy itself that there is community support, absent which either House of Parliament can veto the establishment of a marine conservation area.

The bill also calls specifically for active stakeholder participation in the formulation, review and implementation of management plans. Again, the legislation provides that those plans will be tabled in Parliament.

Coastal communities need certainty before an area is established. When a new proposal comes before Parliament, along with a report on the consultations that have been held and any agreements that have been reached with the provinces and other departments, there will also be an interim management plan. Management advisory committees will be established for each marine conservation area to ensure that consultation with local stakeholders continues on an ongoing basis. Those management plans must be reviewed at least every five years.

The government will take a "learn by doing" approach for every national marine conservation area. Ongoing consultations within each marine conservation area will allow Parks Canada staff to learn from local people, drawing on Aboriginal ecological knowledge of coastal communities and other things that attend the establishment of these areas.

Parks Canada has taken a partnership approach in the management of this program, and this is clearly reflected in the bill. Other ministers have statutory responsibilities that will affect the management of national marine conservation areas, and Bill C-10 has been carefully drafted to take that fact into account.

I should like to spend a few moments telling honourable senators how Bill C-10 reflects the government's commitment to working with Aboriginal peoples. The legislation includes provisions to establish "reserves" for national marine conservation areas. These are established when an area, or a portion of an area, which is proposed to be included in a national marine conservation area, is subject to a comprehensive claim for an Aboriginal land settlement on which the government has agreed to begin negotiations. Reserves are managed as if they were national marine conservation areas but without prejudice to the settlement of the claim. A non-derogation clause — this should be no surprise to honourable senators — will also be included in the bill, as it is in all bills these days. No provisions of this bill will derogate from rights guaranteed to Aboriginal peoples under the Constitution.

There is also a specific requirement in this legislation to consult with Aboriginal organizations and governments and with bodies established under land claim agreements. The legislation also explicitly recognizes traditional Aboriginal ecological knowledge in carrying out research and monitoring studies in national marine conservation areas.

Finally, the proposed legislation also includes provisions that would allow the Governor in Council to remove lands from national marine conservation areas or reserves by Order in Council if a court finds that the Aboriginal title exists and the title holder does not want the lands to remain as part of a marine conservation area or as part of a reserve.

Certain activities are prohibited through all national marine conservation areas contemplated in this bill. The most important of these prohibitions concerns non-renewable resources, specifically minerals, oil and gas. Marine conservation areas are managed for sustainable use and, by definition, extraction of non-renewable resources is not sustainable.

Other activities would be regulated through zoning. I want to emphasize to the house the importance of zoning as a powerful and flexible tool for managing use within a marine conservation area. In each of these national marine conservation areas there will be multiple use zones where ecologically sustainable uses are encouraged, including fishing. There will also be zones where special protection is afforded: for example, critical spawning grounds, cultural sites or whale calving areas and scientific research sites. There will be protection zones where resource use is not permitted. Each marine conservation area will contain examples of each of those two types of zones.

At the same time, enough flexibility is left in the bill to ensure that each area can have a zoning plan that is applicable to its individual situation. Parks Canada will identify the location of protection zones and surrounding multiple use zones for each proposed marine conservation area during the feasibility study for that area in full consultation with all the stakeholders.

Federal legislation such as the Fisheries Act and the Canada Shipping Act is already being used to manage activities in the marine environment. These statutes were not intended to cover the special requirements of national marine conservation areas. Bill C-10 includes a number of regulation-making authorities that will be used to fill in the gaps that exist in those other statutes. For example, the bill includes authorities to make regulations for the protection of cultural resources, visitor safety, the establishment of zones and the control of activities within those zones, and the control of overflights by aircraft which pose a threat to wildlife.

(1500)

The bill also has built into it considerable checks and balances on the substance of the regulations that might be made under the act. Specifically, any regulations that impact on the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Transport must be made on the recommendation of both the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the affected ministers.

This proposed legislation also includes penalties for offences against the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act or its regulations, which would be the same as those under Part II of the Oceans Act. Fines of up to $500,000 may be levied for offences under the act.

Honourable senators, I should like to reiterate that Bill C-10 is framework legislation. It provides the tools needed to create national marine conservation areas and to manage each one in a way that is appropriate to its unique characteristics. I believe the bill has struck a very appropriate balance between protection on the one hand and sustainable use on the other. Very few activities are completely prohibited, but tools are available to regulate activities so as to ensure that the structure and function of each area's ecosystem are not compromised.

There is an obligation to consult affected committees during feasibility studies and in the management planning process and in preparing the applicable regulations. Each area will be unique in its characteristics and uniquely managed. For example, the national marine conservation area in Georgian Bay would be quite distinct from one in the Beaufort Sea, in the Strait of Georgia or in the Bay of Fundy.

Canada needs this legislation, honourable senators, so that outstanding examples of our country's natural and cultural marine heritage can be provided long-term protection and so that all Canadians can learn more about and experience this shared heritage. I commend the attention of honourable senators to this bill.

On motion of Senator Comeau, debate adjourned.

Youth Criminal Justice Bill

Report of Committee—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Milne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., for the adoption of the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill C-7, in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, with amendments) presented in the Senate on November 8, 2001.

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore: Honourable senators, this afternoon I join the debate on the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs with respect to Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice bill.

My remarks are directed to the amendments numbered 4 and 5 on page 3 of that report, being the two amendments that I introduced at committee and which were adopted by the committee.

The first amendment is substantive. It calls for the inclusion of section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code in clause 38, being the sentencing part of this bill. This amendment simply gives to youth Aboriginal offenders the same considerations and opportunities upon sentencing as are provided adult Aboriginal offenders under the Criminal Code. This amendment states that a court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the principle that:

(d) all available sanctions other than custody that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all young persons, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal young persons.

To include that amendment is to be consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the landmark case of R. v. Gladue, which found that one of the purposes of section 718.2(e) of the code was to respond to Aboriginal over-incarceration.

The second amendment is non-substantive. It is merely the cross-reference change that would be required to clause 50 should the substantive amendment to clause 38 enjoy the favour of this chamber.

In his speech on November 29 last, Senator Joyal stated that these amendments seem to be natural. As reported at page 1829 of the Debates of the Senate, he said:

They flow from what we are trying to do here to deal with the rights and freedoms of a vulnerable segment of society; in fact the most vulnerable one, those who have less social support, less opportunity for education, a weakened family environment, and not the same opportunity that the average Canadian kid has to become a positive contributor to our society.

It is evident that our Aboriginal youth are among that most vulnerable segment of our society. The committee heard that while the non-Aboriginal youth population has remained constant, the Aboriginal youth population has increased steadily. As a direct consequence, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of Aboriginal youth who find themselves in our criminal youth justice system. Further, and sadly, we heard that 62 per cent of the youth in custody in Manitoba are Aboriginal, and that 80 per cent of the youth in custody in Saskatchewan are Aboriginal.

Honourable senators, this vulnerable segment of Canadians is crying out for our help.

The words "Aboriginal young persons" are mentioned only once in this entire bill. That inclusion is merely a reference in clause 3(1)(c)(iv) under the "Declaration of Principle." Upon consideration of the evidence before the committee, it is clear that the plight of our Aboriginal young offenders deserves and must have the full weight of the law, not merely such a statement of principle but, rather, a specific legislative provision as proposed in the substantive amendment before honourable senators.

On this point, the Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto submitted that in their opinion the provisions of this bill regarding the sentencing of Aboriginal youth are markedly inferior to similar provisions in the code. Citing this situation as "more than just absurd," they submitted that it is a violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that adult Aboriginal offenders are receiving a benefit that their younger brothers and sisters are not able to receive, which, in their opinion, is discriminatory on the basis of age and thus a violation of section 15 of the Charter.

Your committee was cautioned that if section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code is not placed in the proposed act, Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto will appear, at the first opportunity, before a youth court judge preparing to sentence a Aboriginal youth offender and bring a section 15 Charter challenge to that sentencing hearing. They are confident that such an application would be successful and that their challenge would survive appeals to higher courts. Honourable senators, this is not the preferable way to resolve this issue. The preferable way is to approve the proposed amendment to clause 38 of this bill.

A most impressive witness to appear before your committee was Judge Tony Mandamin, who is a member of the Wikwemikong First Nation on Manitoulin Island, Ontario, a university graduate in electrical engineering and law, and a Provincial Court Judge in Calgary, Alberta. He advised the committee that he attended a conference on youth justice committees that included native and non-native youth justice committees. He said:

There is a difference between the two. The native justice committees are people-oriented; they make connections with people and think of what to do. The non-native committees were rule-driven; they are concerned with protocol and rules. This bill fits the latter approach.

He went on to say:

If you are talking about the impact of the bill, consider that the percentage of Aboriginal youth involved in the criminal justice system is way out of proportion to that of non-Aboriginal youth. Lowering the age, introducing more adult sentences, and putting more conditions in terms of the dispositions will mean that the group most involved in that system will be the ones most caught by it.

In her superb speech last Tuesday with respect to the difficulties in acquiring adequate legal assistance, Senator Chalifoux pointed out that in such a fundamental issue as plea bargaining the vast majority of Aboriginal Canadians do not have the advantages of such "nuances and options" of our non-Aboriginal criminal justice system. Add to that the issues of geographical distances between home and court, the language barrier, and the foreign concepts of our non-Aboriginal criminal justice system and it is clear that these circumstances must receive particular attention when a court is sentencing an Aboriginal young offender. Consideration of these circumstances can only be truly assured if section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code is included in the bill as per this proposed amendment.

(1510)

Honourable senators, a number of you have spoken to me privately and encouraged me in these efforts, so I know that this amendment is on your mind and likely in your hearts. You have a gift, the very precious gift of being in the position of legislating the lives of your fellow Canadians. It is a privileged opportunity that carries an incumbent responsibility: the responsibility to put in place the laws by which Canada can stand up as the champion of compassion and fairness for her citizens, and the best country in the world in which to live. I urge you to support these amendments as set out in the subject report.

If you cannot vote for the report which includes these amendments, do not fret. You will have another opportunity to support these two important amendments, as I intend to move them on third reading of this bill.

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, I too, rise in support of the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Bill C-7. At the outset, I wish to concur with the comments of the Honourable Senator Moore and the Honourable Senator Joyal. All honourable senators worked arduously on this committee and were all moved by the testimony we heard over many weeks.

I should like to start my perspective of this bill with a quick examination of the role of the criminal power in Canada from the days of Confederation. All honourable senators will recall that section 91.27 of the Constitution Act, 1867, confers on the federal Parliament the exclusive power to make laws in relation to the criminal law. The section states:

27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.

Honourable senators should recall why the Fathers of Confederation were so obsessed with retaining for the federal Parliament the exclusive power to legislate on criminal matters. At the time of Confederation in 1867, the American experience inundated the Canadian Fathers of Confederation. You will recall that in the United States one of the causes of the civil war was a clash between the states, which had sovereign powers, and the central government. The Fathers of Confederation quite wisely decided that, in order to ensure unity in Canada and equality across the regions, they would guarantee that criminal power would be equal across all regions of the country. They wanted to avoid the sharing of the criminal power and other powers, as was so evident in the clash in the United States.

Therefore, the provinces established under Confederation were not to be sovereign. There is no such thing as a sovereign province. There were certain exclusive powers granted under section 92 to the provinces that they would exercise exclusively, but the Fathers of Confederation declared that even when a power was allotted to the provinces, it was not to be an absolute or exclusive power because the federal government could use three levers of restraint. The federal government had the residual power of "peace, order and good government"; the power to reserve provincial legislation; and the power to disallow provincial legislation. Specifically with respect to the criminal power, it was important that that power be uniform right across the country, equal in every region, equal treatment before the law.

Senators from the province of Quebec will remember that even at the height of the unrest in Quebec there was never a question with respect to the federal exercise of the criminal power. Even during the days of the emergency legislation, not once was the federal government's exclusive criminal power challenged.

There has been an unchallenged concurrence across the country that the criminal power should be equal in every region across the country. Of course, the administration of justice is left to the provinces so there will be local variations and local conditions, but the criminal power itself was to be equal across the land.

What about the origins and nature of criminal power? We need to go back to the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 16:20 says "Justice, justice shall you pursue." This was a double test of fairness. The patriarchs said that it was not good enough to say "justice" once, "justice" was repeated. In effect, it meant that the exercise of criminal power should never be used excessively, that it should be used very frugally, very carefully and very prudently. It should always be used with the greatest care and fairness.

Honourable senators, I come from the Laskin-Scott-Trudeau-Turner school, all of whom were fine criminal theoreticians. Chief Justice Laskin was a constitutional teacher of mine. Mr. Scott, from Quebec, was a constitutional expert. Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Turner, as we all know, were great ministers of justice. All of those gentlemen taught that police power should be used sparingly and frugally. The emergency powers that were adopted in Quebec during the Quebec crisis were just that, emergency powers, and they were quickly withdrawn when things got back to normal — excessive powers, yes, but quickly withdrawn.

It is clear that the excessive use, even theoretically, of the criminal power dilutes the power of the state. The more often you use the criminal power to solve a problem, the more diluted becomes respect for the state. Using it too often and too grandly dilutes the essential element of the criminal power, which is the apprehended application of the criminal power. If you threaten the criminal power too often, it dilutes the effectiveness of the state. All legal philosophers agree with this premise. They all concur that we must be wary of using or abusing the criminal power.

Canada had an interesting experience with this. The "Padlock Law" in Quebec virtually brought down that government. That was the beginnings of the Quiet Revolution in Quebec because that legislation was an excessive use of criminal power. In Ontario, the excessive police powers adopted by the provincial government almost brought down that government. Canadians abhor the use of excessive criminal power. It is true that in certain times they will overreact. Ultimately, they will say that anyone who abuses the criminal power will pay the price. Canadians do not like the excessive use of criminal power.

It is not surprising that the Senate committee studying the terrorism legislation spent all of its time on one singular objective: to reduce the state's use of the criminal power, to ensure that the federal criminal power was circumspect, to ensure that it is not used excessively.

We therefore have this bizarre situation. At the same time as the Senate agrees, almost unanimously, to a report of a committee to reduce the criminal power with respect to terrorism where there is an apprehended danger to public order, we have the application of the criminal power in this youth criminal justice act that expands criminal power as it applies to youth under the age of 16. This is more than bizarre.

(1520)

This increased criminalization is almost the opposite of the goals set out in the preamble to Bill C-7. The goals set out in the preamble are: to set up a therapeutic model for youth to reduce recidivism. We find increased criminalization most obscenely present as it applies to Aboriginal youth. Excessive incarceration does not reduce the problem. We just padlock them and think the problem will go away. What do we do when we are confronted by this invidious situation of high rates of Aboriginal incarceration? We increase the criminal power. We reduce the age for adult crime from 16 to 14, presumptively, so provinces can opt in and reduce the age by clause 61. What does that do? It puts in the hands of the provinces the ability to say, "In our province, at age 16 serious problems will be treated as criminal problems. We will criminalize youth even more. We will add even stiffer penalties."

The defenders of this bill and this provision say that the Supreme Court of Canada does not agree with me because different penalties can apply to different youth. As a matter of fact, a 14-year-old offender can be transferred to criminal court under the present law. That is so, but that is not the situation here. In that circumstance, if a youth offender is alleged to have committed a serious offence, either the Crown prosecutor or the defence can make an application, and the court decides case-by-case whether a transfer to adult court should be made.

That is entirely different from what the Minister of Justice proposes in this legislation. She proposes to give each cabinet of each province the right to reduce the age for serious crimes from 16 to 14. What will be the result? This is a wholesale delegation of the criminal power. Will there be equality across the land with respect to youth offenders? Not so; it will be a patchwork quilt of criminal landscapes. It will be different in Ontario, my province, than it will be in Quebec.

Quebec has the most enlightened model of youth offenders. Incarceration is lower. It is a great progressive model. I have often been a critic of Quebec on many counts. The Honourable Senator Nolin knows that. However, when Quebec does something right, we should support it fully. Quebec's model is progressive and working well.

My own province is retrogressive. My own province believes that we should incarcerate children: the greater incarceration rate, the stiffer the penalties, the better. That is counter-productive. It is contrary, as the Honourable Senator Joyal pointed out, to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I cannot agree with this, honourable senators. This is a misappropriation of state power. More important than that, it is an ultra vires wholesale delegation from the federal government to the provinces. The federal government has no right to delegate its exclusive criminal power province by province. It is contrary to the wishes of the Fathers of Confederation. It is contrary to the equality of law across the land under the Charter. Why should a youth be treated differently in one province than in another? Does he have fewer rights? Is he less a citizen? It does not make any sense.

We know why it happened. It is no surprise. There was a public outcry about serious crimes among youth. However, what are the statistics? The Honourable Senator Nolin knows this because he was on the committee. The statistics say that youth crime is on the decline. There are some spikes with respect to the odd serious crime, but overall, in the last 10 years, the statistics say that youth crime is declining. Why have this piece of legislation to satiate a public perception but not a reality? Why do that? Why play politics with the criminal power? Why play politics with the criminal power as it applies to youth in this country? It is wrong; it is unnecessary; it is unprincipled. I did not say that. The witnesses said that.

Who defends this bill, this provision? The Attorney General in my province defends it. The Attorney General in Manitoba defends it. Some police officers defend it, but even they are queasy about it. The overwhelming evidence was against this particular provision in clause 61.

If I have a choice, honourable senators, between the views of the Attorney General of my province or the Elizabeth Fry Society or the John Howard Society, I will take the views of the John Howard Society. I will take the enlightened opinions of the Elizabeth Fry Society. I will take the therapeutic model of the Province of Quebec, which, to a man and to a woman, is against this particular provision. That is my choice.

Honourable senators, I find that there are four problems with clause 61. It is ultra vires the Constitution. It is ultra vires in the sense that the Government of Canada is delegating exclusive power to the opting-in to provinces under section 91(27). It is contrary to section 15 of the Charter, the equality provision of the Constitution. The Honourable Senator Joyal made an eloquent statement about that. I will not repeat it, but I concur with his every argument.

It is contrary, in my view, to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and all the related international conventions. I concur again with Senator Joyal and other senators who have made the eloquent argument about the non-compliance of certain provisions in Bill C-7 with these international treaties and conventions.

It is contrary to the positive impact the bill should have on the Aboriginal youth in this country, who need help more than any other segment of our population.

Finally, it goes against the weight of the evidence. The committee sat hour after hour, and the evidence overwhelmingly supported the proposition that this provision is wrong. There were exceptions to the rule. The Minister of Justice had her view. The Attorney General of Ontario had his view. However, they are wrong in principle and in practice based on the weight of the evidence before the committee.

What are we to do, honourable senators?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I must advise the Honourable Senator Grafstein that his 15 minutes have expired.

Senator Grafstein: I ask for leave to continue, honourable senators.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?

Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, as long as there is a time limit, I have no problem in granting leave. Other senators were limited to five minutes.

Senator Grafstein: Honourable senators, the choice is clear. Do we choose the therapeutic model for young offenders that was so successfully adopted and works in Quebec, or do we retrogress to a criminal model, to the darker ages when we treated children as criminals? Why do that?

Beware, honourable senators, of the excessive use of the criminal power. This measure will come back to haunt us. The Bible is always right: Justice, justice shall you pursue.

Honourable senators, I support the report and I support amendment No. 6 in the report. It is interesting that 10 of the 12 senators who heard the evidence supported my amendment to clause 61. The chairman did not. I respect that. The proposer of the bill, Senator Pearson, did not. I respect that as well. However, all other senators, 10 out of the 12 senators who heard all the evidence as I heard it, supported my amendments.

Finally, honourable senators, if we do not do our work, if we allow clause 61 to be struck down by the courts, is not the Senate doing something even more improper? We are delegating our law-making powers to the courts. In the process, we will dilute the respect of Parliament, especially the Senate. Is it not dangerous to invite the courts to become legislators, contrary to the separation of powers under our Constitution, where Parliament was to be supreme in its law-making and it was for the courts to only interpret the law? This is the decision that we must make as we approach this particular amendment in the report.

Therefore, honourable senators, I respectfully ask you to join with those honourable senators who support this particular report and, specifically, amendment No. 6.

On motion of Senator Stratton, for Senator Andreychuk, debate adjourned.

(1530)

Aboriginal Peoples

Budget—Report of Committee Adopted

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fifth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples (budget-study on issues affecting urban Aboriginal youth in Canada) presented in the Senate on November 29, 2001.—(Honourable Senator Chalifoux)

Hon. Thelma J. Chalifoux moved the adoption of the report.

Motion agreed to and report adopted.

National Security and Defence

Budget—Report of Committee Adopted

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence (budget-release of additional funds) presented in the Senate on November 29, 2001.—(Honourable Senator Kenny)

Hon. Colin Kenny moved the adoption of the report.

Motion agreed to and report adopted.

[Translation]

Illegal Drugs

Budget—Report of Special Committee Adopted

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the third report of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs (budget-release of additional funds), presented to the Senate on November 29, 2001.—(Honourable Senator Nolin)

Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin moved the adoption of the report.

Motion agreed to and report adopted.

[English]

Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration

Ninth Report of Committee Adopted

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (budget of certain Committees-legislation) presented in the Senate on November 29, 2001.—(Honourable Senator Kroft)

Hon. Richard H. Kroft moved the adoption of the report.

Motion agreed to and report adopted.

Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Budget—Report of Committee Adopted

Leave having been given to revert to Order No. 4, Reports of Committees:

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the ninth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources (budget-release of additional funds) presented in the Senate on November 29, 2001.—(Honourable Senator Taylor)

Hon. Mira Spivak moved the adoption of the report.

Motion agreed to and report adopted.

Transport and Communications

Committee Authorized to Study Measures to Encourage French-Language Broadcasting

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gauthier, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gill:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to examine and report upon the measures that should be taken to encourage and facilitate provision of and access to the widest possible range of French-language broadcasting services in francophone minority communities across Canada.—(Honourable Senator LaPierre)

Hon. Laurier L. LaPierre: Honourable senators, it is my pleasure and my duty to support Senator Gauthier's motion:

[Translation]

That the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to examine and report upon the measures that should be taken to encourage and facilitate provision of and access to the widest possible range of French-language broadcasting services in francophone minority communities across Canada.

[English]

I make my own statement on the purpose of this motion, which is to examine the feasibility of a national francophone community network. Furthermore, I share the desire of the CRTC.

[Translation]

The CRTC submitted its response to the Governor General's Order in Council dated April 5, 2000, asking the CRTC to propose measures to encourage and to promote a better balance, in a report entitled "Achieving a Better Balance." The CRTC said in its conclusion that it would propose measures to encourage and facilitate access to the widest range of French-language broadcasting services possible in these communities and to ensure that the diversity of French-language communities across Canada is reflected in the Canadian broadcasting system.

In an annual report, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada informs us that it supports the report, but criticizes the CRTC for not doing more to improve conventional cable services and French-language broadcasting.

According to the federation's annual report, the day when this country's francophones have access to digital distribution is far off, however. The industry's most optimistic forecasts do not include phased-in implementation of this technology.

Honourable senators, the time has come to act.

[English]

Why? Because it is the Canadian way. Canada is a bilingual country. The benefits of bilingualism have been expressed in countless documents and statements, particularly in the fine report prepared by Senator Jean-Maurice Simard and presented to the Senate in November 1989, entitled "Bridging the Gap: from Oblivion to the Rule of Law." In that report, he says something of great importance:

Commonly, parliamentarians have little interest in official language questions. All too little in fact because they have not taken the time to understand the actual impact of the status and use of French and English as the official languages of Canada on the national psyche and on Canadians' pride in belonging to this country. Nor have they reflected sufficiently on Canada's future as a country or on Canadians' quality of life and prosperity now and in the future....

Linguistic duality is one of the main pillars on which Canada was built, a fundamental aspect of our country's history and future and a basic reality of the symbolic universe and daily lives of millions of Canadians.

(1540)

It is said, and I have done so countless times myself, that the cornerstone of the edifice of our Canadian values is based upon the acceptance of diversity. Diversity is a condition of our citizenship. The cornerstone of diversity is bilingualism, existing in law through the Official Languages Act, which states categorically that the Government of Canada is committed to it, as Senator Gauthier has demonstrated.

[Translation]

However, there is more. Francophone and Acadian communities must be able to express in French the dimensions and realities of their lives. They must be able to talk to each other and tell their story in French. They must have the means to promote all facets of their culture.

Honourable senators, it is not easy to live in a minority situation. I experienced it for 15 years in British Columbia. We often did not have the necessary resources to be heard and to talk to people who shared our culture and our language across the country.

At one point, I even set up an open line program at Radio-Canada, the French CBC. It involved francophone communities outside Quebec, but it was cancelled because Radio-Canada people in Montreal felt that we did not speak French well enough to be on the air.

It was very rare for Radio-Canada television in Vancouver to offer programs designed by French-language minorities was filtered through Radio-Canada. Often, all that was shown about French Canadian minorities was filtered through Radio-Canada's point of view, which was unreasonable and downright unacceptable.

[English]

To be a minority is to subject ourselves to a long litany of "bon-ententisme," to a list of slogans that have no reality and to enumerating a list of hopes that have to wait for a better day. To be a minority is to wait until it has convinced the majority to act; to be a minority is to accept to being a detail in the life of the nation.

During the 1960s, there was an explosion about language and culture in the city of Moncton focused on the students at the University of Moncton. The great Canadian movie filmmaker Michel Brault made an hour-long documentary on this issue. At the end of it, I will never forget this image of an Acadian woman and a Canadian woman sitting on their porch rocking and saying:

[Translation]

Acadia is a detail; it is not important, it is just a detail!

[English]

Honourable senators, this has been for too long the history of our people in a minority situation across Canada. We are not anybody's detail; we are a people who wish to be heard. We are a people who wish to be able to tell our stories to one another. In the final analysis, we want to stop the premise that, in order that our rights be protected, particularly in many aspects of radio broadcasting, we have to be satisfied with less in the name of the economically feasible, or in the stupid name of having reached the magical number that permits us to survive.

To be a minority is to have its existence mirrored to the keyhole of the majority, and that is not acceptable to any of us.

[Translation]

In short, what do we want? Honourable senators, we want the necessary instruments to be able to speak to one another, to tell one another our stories, to forge links between one another across this vast land, as our English-speaking fellow citizens do.

We want the right for our children — in my case, my grandchildren — to grow up with full pride in their great and noble tradition. This, honourable senators, is why Senator Gauthier's motion is so very important.

[English]

In conclusion, it is said — and I have said it — that you cannot be in Canada without being of Canada. Often, the minorities of French language across the country are in Canada but are not recognized all the time as being of Canada. For that to happen, for us to be of Canada —

[Translation]

— we need the means. As with freedom, means are not simply given, they are taken.

[English]

Consequently, I have no doubt that we shall act in the traditions of the Canadian way by authorizing the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to examine and report upon the measures that should be taken to facilitate the fullest exposure of the French-speaking minorities of Canada to the widest possible range of French-language broadcasting services. To speed us along the way, may I be permitted to read what Sir Wilfrid Laurier declared on June 25, 1901:

I love my country because it resembles no other. I love my country because even in the difficulties which arise it calls forth from the noblest resolutions, the strongest, the most generous qualities of man. I love my country above all because it is unique in the world, because it is founded on respect for rights, on pride of origin, on harmony and concord between the races who inhabit it.

Our pride refuses to follow along the beaten path. Henceforth we must march along other roads and towards other horizons. Let us have in view only the development, the prosperity, the grandeur of our country. Let us keep in our heart this thought: "Canada first, Canada forever, nothing but Canada."

The Hon. the Speaker: Is the house ready for the question?

It was moved by the Honourable Senator Gauthier, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gill:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to examine and report upon the measures that should be taken to encourage and facilitate provision of and access to the widest possible range of French-language broadcasting services in francophone minority communities across Canada.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

[Translation]

Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament

Committee Authorized to Study Time Allotted for Tributes

Hon. Jean Lapointe, pursuant to notice given November 21, 2001, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament be authorized to examine and report on the time allotted to tributes in the upper chamber.

Motion agreed to.

[English]

Agriculture and Forestry

Committee Authorized to Meet During Sitting of the Senate

Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson, pursuant to notice of November 28, 2001, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry have power to sit at 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, December 5, 2001, to hear from the Minister for International Trade, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, as we have now completed the Orders of the Day and our Notice Paper, is it agreed that this sitting be adjourned during pleasure, to reassemble at approximately 5:25 p.m. for the purpose of resuming the sitting, calling in the senators and completing the recorded vote on the amendment of Senator Oliver to Bill S-31?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Senate adjourned during pleasure.

(1800)

The sitting of the Senate was resumed.

Export Development Act

Bill to Amend—Third Reading—Motion in Amendment Negatived—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Ferretti Barth, for the third reading of Bill C-31, to amend the Export Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

On the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Oliver, seconded by the Honourable Senator Di Nino, that the Bill be not now read a third time but that it be amended in Clause 9, on page 3, by replacing line 31 with the following:

"(3) The directive is a statutory instru-".

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, pursuant to the order of the house, we will proceed with a recorded division on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Oliver.

Motion in amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Andreychuk, Atkins, Beaudoin, Bolduc, Buchanan, Carney, Comeau, Di Nino, Forrestall, Gustafson, Johnson, Kelleher, Keon, LeBreton, Lynch-Staunton, Murray, Nolin, Prud'homme, Robertson, Spivak, Stratton, Tkachuk, Wilson—23

NAYS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Austin, Banks, Biron, Bryden, Callbeck, Carstairs, Chalifoux, Christensen, Cook, Corbin, Cordy, Day, De Bané, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Finnerty, Fraser, Furey, Gauthier, Gill, Grafstein, Graham, Hervieux-Payette, Hubley, Jaffer, Joyal, Kenny, Kolber, Kroft, LaPierre, Lapointe, Lawson, Léger, Losier-Cool, Maheu, Mahovlich, Milne, Moore, Morin, Pearson, Phalen, Poulin, Robichaud, Rompkey, Setlakwe, Sparrow, Stollery, Tunney, Wiebe—49

ABSTENTIONS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Nil

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, we will now return to third reading debate on Bill C-31.

On motion of Senator Tkachuk, debate adjourned.

The Senate adjourned until Wednesday, December 5, 2001, at 1:30 p.m.