Skip to Content
Download as PDF

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

1st Session, 38th Parliament,
Volume 142, Issue 72

Thursday, June 16, 2005
The Honourable Daniel Hays, Speaker



Thursday, June 16, 2005

The Senate met at 1:30 p.m., the Speaker in the chair.



Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before we go to Senators' Statements, I wish to draw to your attention the presence in our gallery of a group of students from the seventh and eighth grades of l'École Saint-Joachim, who have come from La Broquerie, in Manitoba. As a result of activities organized by the teachers of these two classes, the students were able to raise enough money to visit the National Capital and to learn more about our Parliament and its surroundings. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Chaput.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.



Nova Scotia

Lunenburg—Restoration of St. John's Anglican Church

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore: Honourable senators, on November 6, 2001, I told this chamber about the fire that ravaged historic St. John's Anglican Church in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, five days earlier. At that time I stated:

We are prayerful that St. John's will rise again. We are confident that her parishioners harbour the will and can harvest the resources from across Canada to build a replica around those surviving pieces of worship.

Honourable senators, I am delighted to report that St. John's has been faithfully restored to its pre-fire beauty. The first service was held in this national historic site this past Sunday at 3 p.m. It was attended by an overflow congregation of parishioners, townsfolk and visitors, all of whom were warmly welcomed by Bishop Fred Hiltz and Reverend Michael Mitchell. At the beginning of the service, the altar was carried into the church and returned to its rightful place by the same six firemen who rescued it from the fire.

This was a most heart-warming event. All marvelled at the detail of the superb work of the craftsmen, tradesmen, shipwrights and artisans. This historic event could not have been realized without the assistance of the Government of Canada, the Province of Nova Scotia, and the Town of Lunenburg, generous friends from across Canada and without, and the devout parishioners of St. John's. We are most appreciative of that support. We are truly grateful for the work of the reconstruction team; all the volunteers, in particular the efforts of the volunteers who led the management of this project; those who led the raising of the funds necessary for this $6.7 million labour of love; and the leadership of the church wardens. Last, but not least, we thank the tireless women, men and youth of the parish and of the neighbouring parishes, who dug through the ashes to recover remnants to be included in the restoration. Congratulations to one and all. In closing, I urge honourable senators to tour this place of worship during your next visit to Lunenburg.



Franco-Manitoban School Division

Hon. Maria Chaput: Honourable senators, today, I would like to speak to you briefly about the Franco-Manitoban School Division, or FMSD. It was created by an act of the Manitoba legislature in July 1993, and the members of the first school board were sworn into office in November of the same year. Today, the FMSD operates 23 schools.

Since its beginnings, the school district's goal has been to provide students with a quality education in French through its programs and services and the working environment it offers. The FMDS also endeavours to deliver a dynamic cultural program in a French environment in order to develop within the students a greater awareness of their cultural and linguistic heritage.

To this end, FMSD tries to integrate, in the classrooms and in school activities, the reality of Franco-Manitoban life and to ensure a community dimension in each of its schools.

Today, I am proud to pay tribute to all those people who are dedicated to the education and development of our children and grandchildren as Canadians who are proud of their cultural and linguistic heritage and who are ready to make a commitment to their community, our society and the world.

I am speaking about this francophone school division today because, this morning, I had the pleasure of welcoming and talking with a group of students from the seventh and eighth grades of l'École Saint-Joachim, in La Broquerie, a francophone farming community in the heart of southeast Manitoba. Founded in 1883, La Broquerie used to be deeply involved in the dairy industry. Today, it is a modern community marked by a spirit of cooperation and respect for French-Canadian heritage and culture.

The students of La Broquerie are among the 4,500 children who benefit from an education in French provided by the FMSD to students in our province. La Broquerie is also the place where Franco-Manitobans celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste each year.

I would also like to speak to you about another French school in Manitoba, this one in a remote area. It is l'École Jours de Plaine, in Laurier, another farming community southwest of Winnipeg, where I will be going next Friday. On June 24, Brigitte Maguet, a twelfth-grade student at this school, will receive a millennium excellence award from the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. It will be my pleasure to present that award to this young Franco-Manitoban, who has been able to do her schooling in French because of the cooperation of numerous partners, including the federal and provincial governments and the francophone community of Laurier, well known for its ten-year fight to obtain a French school in the region.

Honourable senators, in closing, I take pride in paying tribute to the great achievements of all the dedicated people working in education, whose motto is "Learning and growing together."




Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act

Bill to Amend—Report of Committee

Hon. Tommy Banks, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, presented the following report:

Thursday, June 16, 2005

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources has the honour to present its


Your Committee, to which was referred Bill S-36, An Act to amend the Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, has in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, June 9, 2005, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Respectfully submitted,


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

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


Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Bill

Report of Committee

Hon. Joseph A. Day, Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, presented the following report:

Thursday, June 16, 2005

The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance has the honour to present its


Your Committee, to which was referred Bill C-9, An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 8, 2005, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

Deputy chair

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

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

Highway 30 Completion Bridges Bill

Report of Committee

Hon. Joan Fraser, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, presented the following report:

Thursday, June 16, 2005

The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications has the honour to present its


Your Committee, to which was referred Bill S-31, An Act to authorize the construction and maintenance of a bridge over the St. Lawrence River and a bridge over the Beauharnois Canal for the purpose of completing Highway 30, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Tuesday, June 7, 2005, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Respectfully submitted,


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

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

Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Bill

First Reading

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-56, to give effect to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement and the Labrador Inuit Tax Treatment Agreement.

Bill read first time.

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

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

Excise Tax Act

Bill to Amend—First Reading

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-259, to amend the Excise Tax Act (elimination of excise tax on jewellery).

Bill read first time.

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

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



Natural Resources

New Brunswick— Refurbishing of Point Lepreau Nuclear Power Plant

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, in my role as a senator from the province of New Brunswick I would like to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a few questions about the refurbishment needs of the Point Lepreau nuclear power plant. It is my understanding that discussions are ongoing among the federal authorities, the provincial authorities and the utility officials. Yesterday, a decision was made in the province of Ontario to keep a coal-fired generating plant operating for a further period of time. It is recognized that coal-fired generators are less friendly to the environment than nuclear plants.

Can the minister tell us how the federal government is progressing in its efforts with regard to the refurbishment of Point Lepreau, given the level of priority that we in New Brunswick think should be given by both levels of government?

Hon. Jack Austin (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I thank Senator Kinsella for his question. It is quite understandable that, as a senator from New Brunswick, he has an interest in the Point Lepreau nuclear plant and the negotiations on its refurbishment. Unfortunately, I cannot report on those negotiations which are continuing, and it would not be advantageous to any of the parties if I were to do so.


Senator Kinsella: I would like to thank the Leader of the Government for that response. I appreciate what he has said.

The fact that I have raised the matter on the record today perhaps might suffice to allow him to make a representation to his colleagues that there is great interest in that project among my colleagues on both sides of the house.

Senator Austin: I will be happy to draw to the attention of Minister Efford the representations made.

Fisheries and Oceans

Aquaculture—Impact on Wild Salmon

Hon. Michael A. Meighen: Honourable senators, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has, for many years, struggled to reconcile its mandate, both to promote aquaculture development, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to protect wild fish stocks and habitat. Five years ago, the Auditor General concluded that the DFO was not fully meeting its legislative obligations under the Fisheries Act to protect wild salmon stocks and habitat from the effects of salmon farming. The report went on to recommend, among other things, that the department act immediately to strengthen its monitoring and enforcement capabilities for salmon farming operations.

Honourable senators, the consequences of this contradictory mandate have once again come to the fore. Last month, two prominent international environmental organizations, the Atlantic Salmon Federation and the World Wildlife Fund, released their second progress report that was independently prepared by a distinguished international scientist. The report evaluated the efforts of six countries — Canada, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Scotland and the United States — to minimize the impacts of aquaculture on wild Atlantic salmon. The results for Canada are nothing short of a national embarrassment.

Since the first report was released in 2003, all the countries except for Canada have made dramatic improvements in minimizing the impacts of aquaculture on wild salmon. In fact, Canada is the only nation whose score went from a very poor 2.85 out of 10, in 2003, to only 2.1 this year.

In view of these troubling findings, will the Leader of the Government in the Senate take up this matter with his colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to determine what specific steps the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will now take to improve our poor record of protecting wild salmon from the effects of aquaculture?

Hon. Jack Austin (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, this question also touches me closely, being a senator from British Columbia, and the subject is of great moment and activity.

I will answer the question as best I can in the following way: Aquaculture on both coasts is under the jurisdiction of the provinces. This is a business that is conducted, yes, in the water, but it is conducted in waters that are within provincial and territorial limits. It is correct, however, that it is a shared jurisdiction in that concern for the wild salmon fishery is the responsibility of the federal government. Therefore, we have a cross-current, if you like, in the management of this industry, and federal-provincial cooperation is required to deal with both aspects.

Dealing with the Atlantic situation briefly, the Atlantic aquaculture industry has had a substantial loss in the last two years. The temperature of the water and other factors have caused a serious diminishment in aquaculture yields. That industry is in considerable economic distress at this moment.

I advise the house of this matter to say that the federal government and the provincial governments are in discussions with respect to the well-being of the Atlantic aquaculture industry. Those discussions flow into the question of the impact of current management techniques, including escape problems by farming methods in aquaculture; the way in which toxic materials are used for the prevention of the growth of various sea lice; and indeed the problem of anaemia that is now occurring in farmed fish.

Yes, honourable senators, there is problem in our industry, and yes, we have not met standards that we should meet. A great deal is being done to try to address the problem.

Senator Meighen: Honourable senators, I am heartened by the obviously detailed knowledge that the Leader of the Government in the Senate has on this question. I wish he could communicate the urgency that he obviously feels to his colleague. He mentioned the serious state of the aquaculture industry. Not only has the aquaculture industry serious problems, but the wild Atlantic salmon and the related recreational fishery also have problems. One must never underestimate the economic impact of the recreational salmon fishery and the jobs that are provided in areas where there are little or no other opportunities for employment.

Other countries seem to be doing a better job — if we believe this independent survey — of reconciling and harmonizing the two industries. Therefore, I urge the leader to make his representations in the most forceful way possible to his colleague to ensure that meaningful discussions between the DFO and the provincial authorities take place. If those discussions do not happen, we will have neither an aquaculture industry nor a recreational salmon fishery, and that would be a disaster for the East Coast and the West Coast.

Senator Austin: Honourable senators, I believe there is a question in Senator Meighen's statement. Therefore, I will say that I concur with him with respect to the urgency of the matter. I am paying a great deal of attention, personally, to fisheries issues in Canada. I know our own committee, headed by Senator Comeau, has had interesting things to say about the Pacific Coast industry; wild and aquaculture. The exchange of questions and answers here will be drawn to the attention of the Honourable Geoff Regan.

While I am on this subject, however, I would like to point out to the chamber that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Honourable Geoff Regan, announced today, with respect to the Fraser River salmon, a set of expenditures and programs to enhance enforcement, implement new catch monitoring programs and improve scientific research. Our own committee, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, has recently commented on the Fraser salmon industry, which is, of course, a wild salmon industry. The committee has also commented on fisheries policies with respect to other aspects, particularly economic aspects on the Pacific coast. The subject is an important one, and I am happy that our own committee is well engaged in the topic.

Disappearance of Salmon Species in Upper Bay of Fundy

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: Honourable senators, my question is a follow-up on a related issue.

First, I appreciate the minister's ongoing interest in issues related to the fishery about which I know he feels strongly. That is why I did not want to miss this opportunity to piggyback and relate Senator Meighen's issue to a more provincial issue, which is the state of the upper Bay of Fundy salmon runs. Over the last number of years, we have seen salmon species disappearing, with no ability to ever replenish certain species in some of these rivers. Senator Meighen is aware of this.


My question is quite specific to the upper Bay of Fundy. Perhaps the government leader would inquire of Minister Regan, while he is looking at the broader issues, as to whether any attention can be placed on the upper Bay of Fundy salmon rivers and what we could do to slow down the disappearance of these historical species that we may lose completely.

Hon. Jack Austin (Leader of the Government): I thank the Honourable Senator Comeau. I will certainly do so.

One of the problems I continuously point out to every fisheries minister is the lack of aggressive science work in this area.

On the Pacific Coast and in the Fraser River one of our most interesting and difficult problems is that a number of different salmon species swim together, but they migrate to different breeding areas. Some of those species, like the Cultus Lake salmon, are threatened now. Yet, bringing in species-at-risk type measures would almost undermine the commercial and the Aboriginal part of the fishery because other species are sufficient in number, and they want access to those. To deny them for 47 or 147 fish seems to them to be quite unreasonable.

This area of fisheries policy is not an easy one. It is intriguing. I would like to repeat that the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans plays an important part in our regional representation role.

Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Firearms Centre—Cost of Gun Registry

Hon. David Tkachuk: Hill & Knowlton have completed a financial report for the Treasury Board that was revealed to Mr. Garry Breitkreuz after Access to Information Act requests. Parts of it are quoted in the Calgary Sun in an article on the gun registry:

Costs for the controversial gun registry program could continue to "spiral out of control" unless the federal government takes critical steps to curb spending.

The article goes on to say:

Recommendations include establishing centralized decision-making with a firm eye on the impact of cost, complexity, and program deliverability.

The document is filled with blocked out and blacked out information on the study.

Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate tell us what the government is trying to hide from Canadians in the censored areas of this document regarding this utterly botched program? Can he obtain this document and table it in the Senate where it will be available for all of us to see so we, as legislators, can take action on it; or will the cover-up about what is going on in the gun registry continue?

Hon. Jack Austin (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am not aware of the report. To the extent that the access to information law has required a disclosure, I am sure the government has complied fully with that law in tabling this report or making it available publicly.

I would point out to Senator Tkachuk that portions of Bill C-43, the budget bill, deal with funding the gun control problem. Perhaps he could enlighten us further in a debate at that time.

Senator Tkachuk: It is very difficult to enlighten the Senate further. I am sure the law itself is being followed but certainly not the spirit of the freedom of information law. The government is hiding information on the registry that we would like to see tabled in the Senate so we can examine it.

We do know that at first the gun registry was supposed to cost $2 million; then it was $20 million; and now it is up to $2 billion, 100 times more than the original estimate. We have many years of evidence that the gun registry is out of control, spending is out of control and guns are not being registered. When will the government admit these mistakes and scrap the program or put evidence on the table that the program is successful?

Senator Austin: Honourable senators, the gun control program is one of the major policies of this government and has been overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Canada. That there have been problems with its administration is undoubted.

Senator Kinsella: That is an understatement.

Senator Austin: I might shyly admit that there probably are continuing problems, but it is important to remember that this program must continue. The government is continuously working to deal with making it more effective.

Senator Tkachuk: The government has been using the excuse that all of this money is worth it, but we have seen no evidence of that. No evidence has been tabled in the Senate. Information on a study done by the government has been requested under the Access to Information Act. The government responded by blocking out whole sections of the study so that the people of Canada who are paying for this program cannot find out what is truly going on. If the program is going so well, this study should be tabled in the Senate so that it can be examined in committee to find out if the program is indeed working.

Senator Austin: Honourable senators, as I said, I am not aware of the study, but I will make inquiries. I will be happy to table any part of the study or the government's response to the study that is now made public.

Senator Tkachuk: We can read that.


Strategy for Automotive Sector

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Honourable senators, looming on the horizon is a layoff of up to 4,000 workers at General Motors, which, in turn, could place as many as 20,000 spin-off jobs at risk. Last October 15, the Minister of Industry told the other place:

...the government is working hard on automotive sector strategies that will benefit not just Ontario but all of Canada...

That was eight months ago. Does the government have a specific strategy now for the automotive sector?

Hon. Jack Austin (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the government is in an advanced stage with respect to its automotive strategy. Honourable senators may have noticed that the government has made $200 million, I believe, available to General Motors and another large sum in that range to Ford. Discussions are ongoing with DaimlerChrysler with respect to its expansion of operations in Ontario, and recently an announcement was made with respect to financial support to the Toyota greenfields plant, also to be located in Ontario.

I understood the topic sentence of Senator LeBreton's question included the phrase "looming on the horizon." At this minute, the Canadian auto industry is proving to be as productive and efficient as any in North America. We have not seen moves against the Canadian auto industry by General Motors or any of the other auto producers to close off employment.

We have seen General Motors make announcements in the media with respect to its activities and employment in the United States, but I have seen nothing up to this time that focuses on Canada.


Budget 2005—Removal of Business Tax Measures

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: On Friday of last week we learned that Canada's manufacturing sector had seen the loss of 91,000 jobs over the past year, with 18,000 during the month of May alone. The government's policies are not working, and our manufacturers are laying off people.

Earlier this year, a study by the C.D. Howe Institute found that our corporate marginal tax rate was the third highest of 20 nations studied, after factors such as depreciation rules are taken into account. The business tax reductions in the last budget provide a small bit of help to address a very uncompetitive tax regime for investment. The government, as part of its deal with the NDP, has taken the business tax cuts out of the Budget Implementation Act, promising to put them back in another bill later.


Can the Honourable Leader of the Government in the Senate tell us what kind of message is sent to potential investors, not to mention to our manufacturing industry and business group, with such confusing and mixed signals?

Hon. Jack Austin (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the measures that are under consideration for removal from Bill C-43 in the other place relate to large corporation taxation, and I am sure that honourable senators are aware that medium and small business taxation is being reduced in that budget.

With respect to the large corporations, the government has said that it will introduce those same measures in a separate bill, so that the overall effect of the government's budget Bill C-43 is intended to be as it was placed before Parliament initially.

With respect to what is taking place in the manufacturing sector, there are many mixed signals. There are certain moves with respect to the reduction of manufacturing jobs, but other jobs are being created in other sectors of the Canadian economy. You may have noticed, for example, that in May 35,000 new jobs were created in Canada. The Canadian economy is performing as well as, or better than, that of any of the other G8 countries overall.

Therefore, I would suggest that there may be some very interesting exchanges in this chamber when we receive Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 with respect to various aspects of the Canadian economy.

Canada-United States Relations

North Dakota—Devils Lake Diversion—Initiation of Discussions

Hon. Terry Stratton (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I congratulate the government on getting such a rapid response to the question about the Devils Lake project in North Dakota, as announced in the National Post, but it seemed to have taken the name of Brian Mulroney to get some action. I am wondering if there is a coincidence here, or if it really did work.

At any rate, now that we have that matter on hold, as announced by the Governor of North Dakota, I would like to know from the Leader of the Government in the Senate what the next step in the process might be. Having achieved the stoppage as of July 1, what is the intention of this government? What would it like to achieve?

There are two options, as I see it. The first is that we refer the matter to the International Joint Commission, and the other is that we work out a mutual agreement without going to the IJC. What is the government's intention here, if I might ask?

Senator Kinsella: They do not know.

Hon. Jack Austin (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I thank Senator Stratton, I think, for his opening compliment. If the use of the name of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney could produce that type of results, I would certainly want to employ it in the softwood lumber issue, the BSE issue, the duram wheat issue, and any other issue that might possible arise.

Senator LeBreton: Why not?

Senator Austin: Honourable senators, whatever works. However, I do have a small amount of scepticism that the employment of that name would make any effective difference.

With respect to the question itself, the current discussions between Canada and the United States are an endeavour to create a settlement of Canadian concerns without a reference to the IJC. In other words, I would summarize it in this way: We would like an IJC-like conclusion and recommendation without the IJC process. That, as Premier Doer has made clear, would be very satisfactory to Manitoba.

The prime concern, as you well know, relates to parasites and other water-borne organisms that might damage the existing ecological balance in the Red River. Measures are now being focused on determining whether there is a physical capacity to prevent those organisms from being discharged into the Red River. Quite frankly, we are seeing a positive engagement by both sides in an attempt to find a pragmatic solution to Canada's concerns.

Senator Stratton: Honourable senators, there is frustration on the part of the folks in North Dakota about concluding this matter, and frustration on the part of Manitobans that nothing seems to be evolving as a solution to this problem. We do not want that frustration to erupt on either side of the border, with the result that the Governor of North Dakota decides that it is time to open those gates and let the water go. That is the last thing we want. I should hope that the government would take every step possible to prevent it.

Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate have any indication as to how soon this matter can be resolved? We have gone along for a fair length of time now and have not reached a conclusion. The hang-up is the parasites currently, or theoretically, in the lake. They have not proved that conclusively. They also have some wonderful striped bass, I hear. That is the good part.

At any rate, does the leader have any indication whatsoever, and I think it is important, as to how quickly this matter can be resolved? It is important for both sides to have some kind of indication.

Senator Austin: Negotiations have begun, Senator Stratton, and they will be continuous until there is concurrence on what must be done or it is clear that there can be no agreement. The only assurance I can give at this time is that these negotiations are ongoing and are being handled in an expeditious way.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

Income Stabilization Program—Review of Administrative Aspects

Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson: My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization, or CAIS, program has a serious fault in it, as the minister will know, in the reference margin beside what type of payment the farmer will get. If a farmer has had three or four poor crops, there is no reference margin, or it is very low. Farmers who do not need the money are getting most of the payment and farmers who do need it most are not getting it at all.

I understand from the minister, who appeared before the committee, that the department intends to examine this aspect of the matter. I understand also that a board has been struck to look specifically at how the CAIS program is administered.

Could the leader bring us up to date as to what has happened to this time on that specific situation?

Hon. Jack Austin (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the best way I can attempt to answer the question specifically is to say that at a meeting in Ottawa held in March 2005, federal and provincial ministers asked officials to develop alternatives to the current CAIS program, particularly the deposit part of it, and to consult with the industry. Options have been developed that will be considered by ministers again at a meeting next month.

I have a lot of information in general about CAIS that I could put on the record for Senator Gustafson, but I will not do that because he already knows what I would say.



Delayed Answers to Oral Questions

Hon. Bill Rompkey (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have the honour of presenting two delayed answers to oral questions raised in the Senate. The first is in response to an oral question raised on June 7, 2005, by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk regarding Budget 2005, the creation and auditing of and contributions to foundations.


The second delayed answer is in response to an oral question raised on April 21 2005, by the Honourable Senator Cochrane regarding Bill C-43.


Budget 2005—Creation and Auditing of and Contributions to Foundations

(Response to questions raised by Hon. David Tkachuk on June 7, 2005)

This clause provides the Government with flexibility to allocate the funds to the appropriate entities, following consultations as to how best to achieve the policy objectives.

Monies could be allocated to provinces, municipalities, not-for-profit organizations, trusts, foundations or through existing government programs. The ultimate recipient will be dependent on these consultations with the stakeholders involved.

To be eligible to receive payment, these entities must exist at March 31st and be independent from, and not controlled by, the Government.

This threshold is considerably lower than that proposed in Private Members' Bill C-277, which set a threshold of $100 million over twelve consecutive months.

It is also lower than the threshold of $500 million in federal assistance received as recommended by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in its 14th report and more inclusive that the threshold of $100 million in assets as recommended in the more recent 6th report of Standing Committee of Public Accounts.

Of the $10.5 billion transferred to foundations since 1996-97, over 90 per cent of this funding would be subject to the provisions in Bill C-43.

The Auditor General, in a letter to the Chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts, indicated that she was interested only in the larger allocations of funding. The Auditor General was consulted and is comfortable that $100 million is a reasonable threshold of materiality.

The funding of $40 million to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation will bring total funding to that foundation to $390 million. Bill C-43 allows the Auditor General to conduct a performance audit in that foundation.

The funding for the other foundations listed falls under the $100 million over the last five consecutive years. The government has no plans, at this time, to ask these foundations to submit to a performance audit by the Auditor General. However, there are provisions in some funding agreements, including that of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, for Ministers to conduct performance audits and they may, through Governor in Council, request the Auditor General to conduct such audits under authority of Section 11 of the Auditor General's Act.

Natural Resources

Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador—Splitting of Revenue-Sharing Agreement on Offshore Oil Revenues from Budget Implementation Bill

(Response to question raised by Hon. Ethel Cochrane on April 21, 2005)

There is no validity to the question raised by the Honourable Senator. While an amendment was made in the other place that removed one incidental amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the essential legislative components of the government's Climate Change Plan remain intact in Bill C-43, namely the Climate Fund agency and the Technology Fund.

Bill C-43 contains provisions for government priorities, such as early learning and child care, the new deal for cities and communities, healthcare, and Kyoto.

As the Leader of the Government in the Senate mentioned in his response, the Atlantic Accord is also a part of Bill C-43 and the Government of Canada remains committed to ensuring this legislation is passed by both Houses of Parliament before the summer break.


Canada Border Services Agency Bill

Second Reading—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Tommy Banks moved second reading of Bill C-26, to establish the Canada Border Services Agency.

He said: Honourable senators may remember that the last bill that it was my honour to introduce to you was characterized by me as a "machinery of government" bill. It contained, however, a matter of some contention, as you will recall. It also had the effect of abolishing the Office of the Solicitor General of Canada. Notwithstanding that, it was a machinery of government bill, as is Bill C-26, which is a bill to establish the Canada Border Services Agency.

This is a simple, straightforward machinery bill that will have an enormous impact on the safety and security of Canada and Canadians, and its passage is vital if we are to maintain the security and integrity of our border with the United States, in particular. I am proud to sponsor this very important piece of legislation, which will create an innovative border management organization based on Canadian values of fairness and respect of the rule of law and of equity and equality. It will also strengthen our nation's capacity to respond swiftly and effectively to ever-escalating risks and threats to our country.

When this country was formed, honourable senators, our forefathers and forebears and the Fathers of Confederation made a conscious decision to establish a country that would be founded on peace, order and good government. Security is the cornerstone of our society and, as has been said by others here before, the security of its citizens is the first business of a government. Successive governments and generations of Canadians have upheld that ideal, with the result that we now enjoy a standard of living and a quality of life that is the envy of the world. However, the repeated and unprecedented challenges that we have confronted since the turn of the century have exposed vulnerabilities to peace, order and good government that put our way of life at risk. No one is immune to the damaging effects of the sometimes sinister forces that face us in our increasingly connected world.

Since September 11, 2001, it has been particularly difficult, and a hard lesson for Canadian businesses that depend on a free and open border with the United States for close to $2 billion a day of cross-border trade, as well as for the millions of travellers who once took cross-border travel for granted.

While terrorist threats are a serious, new challenge, we all know that they are not the only ones, because previously unknown diseases, such as SARS and the avian flu in North America, have underlined the fact that national security in the 21st century includes protecting the health of our citizens as well as the vitality of our economy and our physical safety.

Illegal migration is another issue that confronts most developed nations, including Canada. The International Organization for Immigration puts the current estimate of global immigrants at 175 million a year.

There is also the matter of organized crime employing technology to break Canadian laws in new ways, whether trafficking in drugs, weapons, pornography or prostitution, and creating all kinds of problems for our communities across the country.

In recent years, it has become clear, honourable senators, that in order to protect our citizens, our economy and our society, we must better anticipate and be prepared to address any and all hazards that arrive from whatever source at our doorstep. That is why public safety and emergency preparedness legislation and its corresponding portfolio was created in December 2003 and made legal by the bill we passed several weeks ago, to bring together key national agencies dedicated to public safety that include the Canada Border Services Agency — the subject of this bill — the Correctional Service Canada, the RCMP, CSIS, the National Parole Board and the Canada Firearms Centre. It is the responsibility of those organizations to protect Canadians and to evaluate information from domestic and international sources to assess the whole range of risks that our country faces.

The Canada Border Services Agency has already built on the progress made jointly with the United States in the 2001 Smart Border Declaration, including a number of initiatives that have been aimed at allowing low-risk travellers and cargo to be processed quickly. It is very important for low-risk cargo and low-risk passengers to be processed very quickly in crossing our border so that the necessary time can be taken to look more closely at high-risk cargo, travellers and trade.

The next generation of the Smart Border Action Plan is a component of a broad government strategy for stronger links among Canada, the United States and Mexico. This agenda both deepens and broadens the existing action plan and includes new areas such as food safety, cyber-safety and security, public health, and marine and transport security.

With the passage of Bill C-26, the bill before us, Canada will move forward with an integrated and multifaceted approach to border management, which is a key component of the national security policy. It is, in fact, already enabling this agency to better protect Canadian citizens while facilitating lawful migration and trade. In the 18 months since this agency was created, the CBSA has accelerated a number of progressive and smart measures which, while complex and diverse, are carried out with the expectation that people and businesses will comply with laws and regulations. Most do.

However, the agency has put in place risk management strategies to identify, detect and interdict high-risk people and high-risk goods. I want to address CBSA's approach to risk management because it is important. It draws on a wide variety of strategies and technologies to concentrate resources on high risks or unknown risks and to keep lawful travellers and lawful trade moving freely. Separating high-risk from low-risk cross-border traffic depends on CBSA's ability to collect information and to manage that information. It is in the interests of public safety and of legitimate cross-border traffic, travel and trade that that information be managed properly.

The information gathered both by the agency and from other government agencies is disseminated to field offices as required through a combination of electronic and manual methods, including lookouts, notices — from various police departments, for example — or watch lists. All those sources are protected when entered into the enforcement system, bulletins and alerts. Based on experience and analysis in managing that information, CBSA has compiled a list of what it calls "risk indicators" which, when they are present in certain combinations — algthough not so much by themselves — could result in a referral decision with respect to either traffic of goods or people. Those criteria include compliance history, specific information in the form of lookouts, notices from other governments, the behaviour of the traveller and the known links or association that he or she might have, the place of origin of a flight, its route and transit points, and the particulars that are gained from information about a ticket purchase. All these indicators are monitored for relevancy and effectiveness in the management of information, and they are refreshed regularly. Regardless of the reason for the referral, the level of examination is progressive, and it is based on reasonable suspicions.


Every single individual who comes into this country, whether for the first or the twenty-fifth time, arrives initially at what is called the primary inspection line, PIL. From that point, some individuals are referred to the secondary line, and asked a few extra questions. Most are then sent on their way. Others in the second line are required to open their baggage for inspection, and still others are held for more detailed questioning, personal search and other kinds of disposition.

The level of examination is directly related to the level of suspicion on the part of the officer. Individuals are released from that secondary line as soon as the officer is satisfied that they do not pose a risk to Canada and Canadians. The practice of pre-approval by the use of managed information makes it possible for those officers to speed up the process involving legitimate passengers and their cargo, particularly those with good track records who have been pre-cleared. The role of the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, is to prevent the entry of any goods, including animals, plants or food products that threaten the safety of Canadians.

Since the Canadian National Risk Assessment Centre became operable on a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week basis last year, the CBSA is now able to share those automated lookouts and pieces of information with U.S. Customs and Border Protection. These lookouts describe persons or shipments of interest. The centre serves as the focal point for managing and coordinating that information, including lists of lost and stolen passports and other travel documents, to stop high-risk travelers from entering into Canada. That assessment centre ensures the timely distribution of the information to field officers who are ready to act quickly and decisively to apprehend and stop the entry of terrorists, high-risk people, illegal contraband, drugs and weapons into Canada.

The management of that information and the issue of information sharing continue to draw attention. I want to talk about information management and sharing a little bit, because the CBSA administers over 90 acts on behalf of other government departments and agencies. The CBSA can ensure that all travelers coming into Canada are admissible and comply with our laws and regulations and that all applicable duties and taxes are paid.

The information that is collected on travelers from abroad by CBSA before the travelers arrive in Canada allows officers to facilitate efficiently lawful trade and lawful entry into Canada by travelers and to focus on those shipments and people that pose a high risk. Frankly, the approach is grounded in the understanding that with millions of arrivals every year in this country, it is much easier to identify and stop dangerous people and cargo once you clear the millions of low-risk ones.

Separating the high-risk travelers and traffic from the low-risk ones depends on the agency's ability to collect and manage information. Intelligence is gathered to forewarn of activities likely to occur. Intelligence helps to establish indicators and trends. It also enhances the risk management capacity and supports decision-making and enforcement efforts.

The CBSA shares information with other government departments, both domestic and foreign, with the goal of maintaining and protecting the health and safety of the people of Canada and partner countries. Information sharing is essential in the administration and enforcement of immigration, customs and food inspection laws. This sharing of information maximizes the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency's operations, as it allows officers to process millions of lawful travelers.

All information sharing is subject to the terms and conditions of applicable legislation. The CBSA is governed by written collaborative arrangements outlining the purpose for the sharing as well as the safeguards that protect information. The CBSA manages its information in accordance with the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act and the Treasury Board Guidelines. The CBSA also strongly supports the government policy of greater transparency.

The Privacy Commissioner and her office have been consulted and have also been reassured that data collection and sharing will be subject to the terms and conditions of all applicable legislation.

An important example of how the CBSA uses and shares information is the requirement for advanced passenger information, API, and personal name record, PNR. The agency asks airlines to provide information on passengers before they arrive in Canada. This information allows officers to assess the risk and identify potentially high-risk individuals for closer scrutiny while clearing the vast majority of low-risk and law-abiding travelers quickly and efficiently.

Basic information is provided, such as the traveler's name and date of travel, birth date, citizenship, nationality and passport or other travel document data, along with more detailed information such as the prior travel history of the passenger and the passenger's address and check-in information. All this is collected through airline reservation and ticketing systems.

Previously, this information would have been available to officers through their review of travel documents and their questioning of travelers after the travelers arrived in Canada. Now, with API and PNR, that information can be reviewed by officers in advance, and they can assess the risk in advance. This advance review has the potential to reduce long waits at entry points without compromising security, efficiency and safety, because officers can concentrate on the traffic and people who might present a risk.

Collective information that is maintained and distributed electronically contributes to an objective assessment, because the electronic technology that officers use is not susceptible to outside influence or judgment of any kind. Machines will never replace the keen observations of persons on the spot, but they remain a necessary tool in front line operations.

Container screening is another matter that is dealt with by the CBSA. I wish to remind you that in the 2005 federal budget the government provides $88 million over five years for Canada to work with the United States on the container security initiative. We are committed to that partnership with the United States, and we have been pushing the borders out by that means to secure North America from threats further away from our borders.

The CBSA has done much more and will do much more in the months ahead with the passage of this bill. Additional funding from the present budget, Budget 2005, will be invested in critical areas, such as immigration enforcement, employment, employee health and safety, business line support and the hiring of additional border service agency staff at key border locations across Canada.

The CBSA is the first point of contact in ensuring that these rights and freedoms that we value so highly are protected as the agency manages the movement of people and goods into and out of Canada. Given the positive start that this new agency has had since its founding, I believe and hope that all senators will give this legislation consideration and speedy passage.

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

The Senate

Motion to Establish New Numbering System for Senate Bills Adopted

Hon. Bill Rompkey (Deputy Leader of the Government), pursuant to notice of June 15, 2005, moved:

That, in order to facilitate references to the various classes of bills introduced in the Senate, namely government bills, public bills or private bills presented by Senators, the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament be authorized to examine and report upon establishing a new system of numbering for Senate bills.


He said: I do not think a lot of time need be spent on this issue, honourable senators. It is fairly straightforward.

The suggestion is that, in order to avoid confusion, we adopt a new way of numbering Senate bills that is somewhat similar to what takes place in the other place. Over there, they have allocated between C-2 and C-199 for government bills and from C-200 onwards for public and private bills.

What we propose through this motion is that our Rules Committee study the issue to see if it would make more sense for us to so number our bills in order for us to more clearly distinguish one from the other and follow the process of each, whether they are government, public, or private bills. That is essentially the proposal. I hope that honourable senators will support it and allow the Rules Committee to give us the benefit of their discussion on it.

Senator Stratton: Question!

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are senators ready for the question?

Hon. Senators: Question!

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

First Nations Government Recognition Bill

Second Reading—Order continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator St. Germain, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LeBreton, for the second reading of Bill S-16, providing for the Crown's recognition of self-governing First Nations of Canada.—(Subject-matter referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on February 22, 2005)

Hon. Terry Stratton (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, Bill S-16 is at day 15. The subject matter is now referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. I understand that witnesses are now being heard. I would ask, therefore, that the clock be rewound.

The Hon. The Speaker pro tempore: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

On motion of Senator Stratton, debate adjourned.


Study on Operation of Official Languages Act and Relevant Regulations, Directives and Reports

Interim Report of Official Languages Committee—Motion Requesting Government Response—Debate Adjourned

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the sixth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, entitled: French-Language Education in a Minority Setting: A Continuum from Early Childhood to the Postsecondary Level, tabled in the Senate on June 14, 2005.—(Honourable Senator Corbin)

Hon. Eymard G. Corbin moved:

That the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, entitled French-Language Education in a Minority Setting: A Continuum from Early Childhood to the Postsecondary Level, tabled in the Senate on June 14, 2005 be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 131(2), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Social Development, the Minister of Justice and the Minister responsible for Official Languages being identified as Ministers responsible for responding to the report.


He said: Honourable senators, I would like to say a few words on this report. I do not think the ink has completely dried. I tabled it just a couple of days ago in the Senate, and I know that a number of you are still in the process of digesting its contents.

There are some things that the chair of a committee should always say. The first thing I would like to do is thank all the members of the committee for their hard, persistent and consistent work. There is no way that this report could have been tabled without the full cooperation of all members on the committee.

I would especially like to single out the deputy chairman of that committee, the Honourable Senator John Buchanan, who was present at all of the meetings and contributed wisely to our deliberations.

I would like to name everyone, but allow me to thank, on behalf of the members of the committee and on behalf of all of us, the Honourable Senator Viola Léger, who is taking her leave from this place today. She has done dedicated work, not only in this committee, of course, but in others as well. Her contribution, especially in consideration of cultural matters, was extremely useful for the committee. We will not forget her very wise advice.

Thank you, Senator Léger.


I want to tell honourable senators about the origins of this study. However, first, I must say that the committee decided to focus on French-language education in a minority setting, excluding English-language education in Quebec and second-language learning in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. This decision was motivated by one reason in particular. We did not want to confuse the different issues. Francophone Canadians have completely different needs from those of anglophones in Quebec. It is necessary to distinguish between second-language learning, which is not actually a right, after all, and the right of francophone parents in every province and territory in this country to have their children educated in their own language.

We will address these other issues at future stages of the committee's work. For now, we deliberately focused on this issue in order to minimize any confusion and ensure the report was not overly onerous and complicated. That was our initial intent.

This work originally began under the leadership of the Honourable Rose-Marie Losier-Cool, who resigned as chair of the committee when she agreed to serve as government whip in the Senate.


I do not know if her decision is to be applauded or regretted. She helped to launch this study, and while she was in the chair, the committee held hearings in Western Canada, in the fall of 2004, where we met with representatives of the four Western provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Those hearings were the true source of this whole study. We must thank Senator Losier-Cool for having steered the committee in that direction. Since then, there has been an election and changes in ministerial portfolios. Three different ministers have been in charge of the Government of Canada's Action Plan for Official Languages. There have been significant delays. There have also been periods when the committee could not do its work.

Finally, last fall, we collectively decided that we would revisit the subject of education in francophone communities, and we heard from numerous witnesses and experts in the field of education in a francophone environment. The list included Professor Pierre Foucher of the Law Faculty of l'Université de Moncton, who focused us right from the start on the importance of section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms concerning the right of parents to have their children educated in primary and secondary school in their mother tongue.

In the same vein, he also referred us to the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, which described the development of the policies and programs of the federal government and which helped all stakeholders — the federal and provincial governments, and the school boards — to better understand their obligations in this matter.

The committee had the pleasure of welcoming the Institut canadien de recherche sur les minorités linguistiques and its director general, Rodrigue Landry. We heard from representatives of the Commission nationale des parents francophones, the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, which completed a very successful convention here in Ottawa just two weeks ago. We heard witnesses from the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, the Réseau des cégeps et des collèges francophones du Canada, the Alliance canadienne des responsables des enseignants et des enseignantes en français langue maternelle, the Interdisciplinary Research Centre on Citizenship and Minorities of the University of Ottawa, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Department of Social Development and the Privy Council Office, under the auspices of the Honourable Mauril Bélanger, the Minister responsible for Official Languages.

I have intentionally named all those groups. We were able to conduct a dialogue with what we believe are some of the most important stakeholders in this field in Canada. When considering the matter of education in French, it is clear that the committee, chaired by Senator Losier-Cool, had an opportunity to meet with stakeholders who play an important role as well.

I feel that our meetings, for example, with the Assistant Deputy Minister of Manitoba's Department of Education and Youth, the Honourable Ron Lemieux, as well as our meeting with Jacqueline Gosselin, Manitoba's Director of Educational Support Services, were valuable because they allowed us to see into the bureaucracy and better understand how things are done. That is just one example.

At that time, the committee also met with ministers and with representatives of universities and school boards. To our great disappointment, I must say — and this is pointed out in the foreword to our report — the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada; the Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française; and the Réseau d'enseignement francophone à distance du Canada decided to decline the committee's invitation to appear and present their viewpoints on the subject under study.

We found this reluctance surprising because they are, after all, key players, particularly the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. This is the body with which the federal government negotiates and establishes protocols for the funding of all activities and obligations that fall under section 23 of the Charter.

I personally have considerable difficulty understanding this reluctance. Canada is, after all, a great democracy and a modern state. We are obliged to be answerable to Canadian taxpayers. We in Parliament have set ourselves the mission of trying to improve the government's programs and approaches, not only internally but also in its relationships with other jurisdictions. I feel that the CMEC has deprived us of a source of information that would have been useful in helping us understand the mechanisms that cause the slowdowns and delays we often encounter in negotiating agreements and protocols. If anyone can explain why we do not have access to that information, I would appreciate it.

I thought the CMEC and Canadian Heritage were in the best position to explain to us why there were so many delays — delays that are prejudicial to the people who benefit from section 23 of the Charter and from programming and funding by all levels of government.

The committee is not in a position to provide any explanations on this. However, as stated in my motion, if the Senate decides to adopt the report, the government will again have an opportunity to react and to tell us whether the situation could in fact be improved.

The present agreement is a good two and one half years behind the target date. Like a number of others, I feel this is totally unacceptable.

That said, I would like to make honourable senators aware that francophone education encompasses 160,000 students in 665 schools throughout the country, with the exception of Quebec, which are administered by 35 school boards or school districts, or whatever term is used in their particular province.

The committee feels that the education provided to francophones in this country must not be of lesser quality than the education provided to the linguistic majority in this country.


This is not a favour anyone is doing or requesting. It is mandatory under section 23. We are far from having reached this ideal, despite the very significant progress made since section 23 of the Charter came into effect.

Again, the results have to be equal and the infrastructure to achieve these results has to be of equal quality; the pedagogy and pedagogical tools must be equal. Otherwise, we cannot talk about linguistic equality in this country.

The Official Languages Act is not just for Quebec and Ontario. It is intended for all Canadians, no matter where they live in this country. Make no mistake, if we do not start by looking after the official language minority and giving it the tools and instruments it needs to achieve full equality, we might as well forget about the Official Languages Act.


The Hon. the Speaker: I am sorry to advise that the honourable senator's 15-minute time period has expired.

Senator Corbin: Could I have perhaps another three minutes?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Terry Stratton (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): You said what, sir?

Senator Corbin: Three minutes.

Senator Stratton: Thank you. I wanted to make sure I heard correctly.

Senator Corbin: I know you are taking into account the comments I made yesterday, which I do not mind. I always attempt to stay within the rules. However, this is exceptional.

I will conclude my remarks by skipping many points I wish to put on the record today. However, I do want to say that one of the important and fundamental aspects of our study was to look at education as a continuum.

Do not forget that the little French boys and girls and their parents, who want to maintain their language and culture under the rights and provisions of article 23, have to work much harder than the majority language group anywhere in this country. Indeed, we had a report of a study — and I heard about it in the press — by the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada to the effect that French language minority students lag behind in the field of science. That finding should say something to all of us. If it is so in the field of science, it must be so in many other fields.

It is something for the Council of Ministers of Education to have made that discovery, but to us in the francophone minority it is not something new. That is something I had to live through when I was a youngster, before my parents sent me to college. That situation still prevails today.

Our report attempts to bring the quality of instruction in this country to a level of equality between the two official languages, nothing more and nothing less. That is essentially the thrust of our report.

Hon. John Buchanan: Honourable senators, I understand that I have three minutes.

Senator Stratton: That is right.

Senator Buchanan: I need more than three minutes. Has anyone ever seen me talk for only three minutes?

Senator Stratton: That was two minutes ago.


Senator Buchanan: Honourable senators, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, entitled French-Language Education in a Minority Setting.


It has been both an honour and a privilege to serve as deputy chairman of the committee for the past four months and to participate in all of the hearings and the many all-day sessions and part-day sessions.

This report represents the hard work of all members of the committee. I do want to single out and congratulate Senator Corbin, the chairman of the committee, for the effective and professional way in which he conducted all of our committee meetings. His expertise, developed over many years in an Acadian area of New Brunswick, many years as a member of Parliament and many years in this place, certainly was manifested by his incredible knowledge of the substance of French language education in a minority setting. We can see that throughout this whole report.

I would be remiss if I did not express my congratulations and appreciation to our very able clerk and the members of her staff and to our researchers. Without their expertise, this report would not be before us today. Let me tell senators how hard they worked. On the weekend, we were to prepare the forward and the preface to the report. I received a draft last Friday. I had intended to respond to it the first of the week. I was away on Saturday, and when I got back to Halifax on Sunday, another fax from the clerk was waiting for me, informing me that she and her staff had been working all weekend on the report, the preface and the forward. She asked if I would review it and get my comments back to them as quickly as possible. I called her after I had gone through it, and she was still there in her office at five o'clock on Sunday afternoon. That is what I call dedication to the Senate, the chairman, myself and the other members of the committee.

Senator Tkachuk: Slave drivers!

Senator Buchanan: Slave drivers, yes. That is why I won so many elections over the years.

The staff was determined to finish this report so that the chairman could table it on Tuesday.

I also wish to congratulate and thank my dear friend Senator Léger. I have served on committees in this place over the years. I have served on other committees in other legislatures.

I want to tell you, my dear, that it has been a privilege and an honour to serve on a committee with you.

Honourable senators, Senator Léger is extraordinary. Her background comes through wonderfully well in a committee setting. She thrilled people like me and our witnesses were all taken aback by her expertise and her greatness.

We will miss you, senator.

I had the honour of serving on this committee and also on the Aboriginal Peoples Committee with Senator Léger. On both, she was a dedicated, determined and wonderful young lady.


As a result of the work of this committee, I have a much different appreciation of section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms than I had previously. I was present when the Charter was passed in 1981, but I did not have a full appreciation of section 23 until I served on the Official Languages Committee and learned about French language education in a minority setting.

All honourable senators should read this report carefully. It is one of the most important reports in which I have participated in my 14 years in the Senate. We on the Official Languages Committee hope that the federal and provincial governments of Canada will act quickly and effectively on the eight recommendations in it. The document is well-researched and well-written, and it will be recognized by both francophone and anglophone communities throughout this country.

We hope that the document will not gather dust in offices, schools and libraries. This report should be an integral part of studies in the schools and universities across this country.

Three organizations declined our invitation to appear before the committee — the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada; the Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française and the Réseau d'enseignement francophone à distance du Canada. I find that most unfortunate, and the committee regrets it very much.

Honourable senators, I want to reiterate what a privilege and honour it has been for me to participate actively in this committee. When I was elected deputy chairman of the committee, I wondered why my colleagues would elect me to this position. I was told that it was because the official languages of Canada are English and French and, as the chair is a francophone Acadian and I am an anglophone, it was appropriate that I be deputy chair. I am very honoured to have been elected and I hope to continue to serve in that capacity until I leave this place.

I hope this report will do much good in this country for those communities at which it is aimed.

On motion of Senator LeBreton, for Senator Kinsella, debate adjourned.


National Security and Defence

Motion to Authorize Committee to Meet During Sitting of the Senate—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Nolin, seconded by the Honourable Senator LeBreton:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence have power to sit on June 20, 21 and 22, 2005, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto; and

That if the Senate has adjourned for a period exceeding one week, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be empowered, in accordance with rule 95(3), to sit on June 20, 21 and 22, 2005.—(Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C.)

Hon. Fernand Robichaud: Honourable senators, yesterday I asked to have this matter stand because I had some questions for the committee chairman, the Honourable Colin Kenny, regarding his rush, as this motion attests, to authorize the committee to sit on June 20, 21 and 22 even if the Senate is sitting. I would have liked him to explain his decision to us. The Honourable Senator Nolin offered to provide an explanation, but I preferred to wait until today because I also wanted to ensure that staff, who are, as we all know, overworked at this time of year, would be available. I have been informed that this is possible. Could someone explain to me the urgent need to sit for three days while the Senate is sitting? If so, I shall not draw this out any longer.


Hon. Terry Stratton (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, Senator Rompkey and I discussed this morning the National Defence Committee request for permission to sit on June 20, 21 and 22, 2005. June 20 is a Monday, which is their normal sitting day, so there is no problem with the committee sitting on that day, as I understand it. I expect that the chair of the committee will be back here on Monday night, as the Senate is sitting then. We would like to ask our questions of him at that time, which would allow for the continuation of the committee's hearings on June 21 and 22.

We would like to hear from the chair. This issue is too critical not to hear from him on it.


Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, one of the reasons in favour of a decision today is the fact that, on the morning of Wednesday, June 22, the committee is to hear some 15 expert witnesses who have already appeared before it, but who have sufficient knowledge of the Canadian military to give us, before we begin drafting the initial report, their viewpoint on the contents. It would be unfortunate if we had to put this exercise off until September. It is important for the committee to obtain leave to sit on June 20, 21 and 22, especially on the morning of June 21, because of the presence of these expert witnesses.


As some 15 witnesses are involved and most of them do not live in the Ottawa area, we have to work out with them the details of their coming to Ottawa on Wednesday morning. This is why we require a decision by the chamber as quickly as possible.


The Hon. the Speaker: Do other senators wish to comment? We are on Senator Robichaud's time.

Is your motion to adjourn, Senator Robichaud?


Senator Robichaud: Honourable senators, as I indicated, I will be satisfied with a response from a member of the committee. However, Senator Stratton would prefer to wait until Monday for a response from the chair. I have received some answers. However, perhaps we should consider Senator Stratton's request, which I agree with.

Senator Nolin: You have to be kidding.


The Hon. the Speaker: I believe the motion is that we adjourn debate until Monday.

Is that right, Senator Stratton?

Senator Stratton: Honourable senators, this does not necessarily preclude the committee from meeting or arrangements being made. We insist on hearing from the chairman. We are not just speaking for our side but both sides in this particular instance since we have not had the opportunity to question the chairman on this issue. Because it has been so fluid with respect to location, duration, voting, one-hour bells and number of witnesses invited — which ranges from 9 to 40 — we need answers from the chairman. Therefore, I move the adjournment of the debate.


Senator Nolin: Honourable senators, I am prepared to provide answers. The meetings will be held within the parliamentary precinct. Fifteen expert witnesses will be in attendance Wednesday morning. We have to organize their travel to Ottawa as quickly as possible. Monday evening will be too late.

As to participation by members of the committee in a possible vote, the bell that will apply to all senators will apply as well to the members of the committee. I see no other problems.

I understand that the committee chair is absent because of a death in the family. I think, honourable senators, that we have to be satisfied with this response. Otherwise, I will have to conclude that my colleagues are not acting in good faith, a conclusion I would certainly not want to reach.

On motion of Senator Stratton, debate adjourned.


Budget Implementation Bill, 2005

First Reading

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-43, to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005.

Bill read first time.

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

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


State of Post-Secondary Education

Inquiry—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Callbeck calling the attention of the Senate to the state of post-secondary education in Canada.—(Honourable Senator Tardif)

Hon. Claudette Tardif: Honourable senators, I am extremely pleased to speak today in this debate on Senator Callbeck's inquiry on the state of post-secondary education in Canada. Having been a student, professor, dean of Faculté Saint-Jean and Vice-President of the University of Alberta, I am delighted at the depth of the debate on post-secondary education in this chamber.

I must thank Senator Callbeck for drawing this most vital matter to our attention. Thanks are also due to Senators Moore, Kinsella, Atkins and Mercer for their contributions on the importance and the problems of post-secondary education in Canada.

Today, I would like to revisit some of these issues in a more general way and then focus more particularly on the problems unique to French-language universities outside Quebec.


What comes to my attention when I look back on the previous inquiries of our good senators is the diverse range of issues that arise when we speak about the state of post-secondary education in Canada. These issues include tuition costs and student finances, research funding, commercialization, participation and completion rates for the general population, participation and completion rates for Aboriginal peoples, the rural-urban divide, regional concerns, fundraising and life-long learning. This does not even begin to cover the individual needs of different forms of post-secondary education, from universities and colleges to technical schools and centres for distance learning.

What I also see, honourable senators, is agreement by all in the Senate that these issues are important, if not critical, to the future social and economic prosperity of Canada. This is a most encouraging development, one that I believe is representative of a growing understanding by the Canadian population.

More and more of our citizenry are realizing the social and economic benefits of a post-secondary degree and are seeking to attend schools across the country. The challenge, then, for all levels of government is in providing, for those who desire it, a post-secondary education that is accessible, affordable and of high quality.

In his essay, "The Mission of the University," Professor George Fallis speaks of the four core missions of a modern research university: teaching, research, community service and commercialization. Each of these components are critical because, as Fallis and so many others like him note, the modern economy has transitioned from being resource-based into one that is driven by knowledge.

As far back as 1963, Clark Kerr wrote that:

The basic reality, for the university, is the widespread recognition that new knowledge is the most important factor in economic and social growth.

Today, writers like Dr. Richard Florida speak about the rise of the creative class, that is to say, those who are trained to excel in the knowledge-based economy and the economic and social value that this class has upon a city and a region.

As such, universities are one of the critical drivers in the success of a modern society and economy. Not only do universities train and draw in the talent necessary to the success of a region, but they also provide the technology that leads to modern innovations in areas such as health care, energy and agriculture.


Universities also promote the tolerance that is the basic requirement of a civil democratic society. If we look at the impact of the University of Alberta on Edmonton and the province of Alberta, we can see that that is indeed the case. The University of Alberta opened nearly 100 years ago, in 1908. Today, the university receives over 35,000 students in more than 370 academic programs in 18 faculties. Nearly 50,000 alumni currently live in Edmonton, and over 194,000 live around the world.

Annually, University of Alberta graduates working in Edmonton spend some $3.8 billion after taxes. There is over $2.5 billion associated with the ripple effect of spending by the University of Alberta, its employees, students and visitors, which helps support roughly 50,000 jobs.

My point in all of this, honourable senators, is that this is only part of the effect of one university in one city in one province in Canada. It barely scratches the surface. Add in the other universities, colleges and technical institutes from every province and territory in this country, from British Columbia to Newfoundland, and we would then begin to see the true depth and scope of social and economic power. There is not a single aspect of our lives that is not bettered by post-secondary education, whether it is our health, environment, standard of living, education, social development, political understanding or cultural undertakings.

The good news is that provincial governments across the country, as well as the federal government, recognize the importance of post-secondary education in the lives of Canadians. We have seen, over the past year, major investments in post-secondary education in several provinces, and I note British Columbia and Ontario.

In my own province, Alberta, we have seen a significant increase in public support for post-secondary education, which has, in turn, led to an increase in public funding.

In April of 2005, the Government of Alberta committed to providing, over the next three years, a 30-per-cent overall funding increase for post-secondary education. The federal government continued its support of post-secondary education in this year's budget, with important dollars being placed towards scholarships and innovations in climate change, as well as research and development in Canadian universities. All these initiatives and investments must be recognized and acknowledged for what they are, significant contributions to the public good.

They are significant contributions to the public good because the success of Canada will be measured according to the successes of post-secondary education. Canada's future prosperity, as well as its place in the global community, is dependent upon its ability to properly transition itself into the knowledge-based economy. That transition can most easily be facilitated by post-secondary institutions. Not only will post-secondary institutions allow Canada to be a global competitor, they will also provide to individual Canadians a better life. Canadians who receive a post-secondary education will, on average, lead healthier lives, make more money, be more engaged as citizens and have greater opportunities and choices than those who simply complete high school.

We must create, support, sustain and build our knowledge capital in the optimistic hope that, by doing so, we will create of Canada a capital of knowledge that is the envy of the world.

Yet, many challenges face post-secondary education today. Although tuition increases across the country have not created an overall decline in attendees to Canada's major post-secondary institutions, we know youth from high-income families are twice as likely to attend university as youth from low-income families. That cost is the single largest reason given by those who choose not to attend post-secondary institutions.

We know that it is becoming more difficult to achieve the grades necessary to get into the limited spots that post-secondary institutions can provide. The average secondary school marks needed to gain entrance to a university in Canada have increased 10 percentage points over the last decade. This is increasingly burdensome on low-income students, as they are more likely to have missed out on various forms of support that tend to foster academic achievement.

We know that while provincial governments and the federal government are making significant contributions to research, development and the commercialization in Canada's post-secondary institutions, we must do more if we wish to maintain our economic and social status in the world, gain rather than drain the most talented minds and provide innovative and efficient solutions to pressing concerns such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, climate change and spiralling health care costs. If we are to find innovative solutions to modern problems, and if we wish to compete globally with countries such as the United States, India, China or the European Union, we must place a greater priority on research and development in this country.


We must also make use of this innovative thinking to solve the problems faced by French-language universities outside Quebec. In addition to facing the same challenges as their counterparts elsewhere in the country, these universities often face the additional challenges that come with being an institution in a minority setting.

Obstacles faced by these institutions were prioritized in the 2005-10 action plan of the Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne.

Lack of students is a major problem for all French-language universities in a minority setting — and for good reason. Their recruitment pool is more limited than that of English-language institutions in the same locations.

Adequate funding will certainly help these universities increase their enrolment capacity by exploring the interesting possibilities available through long-distance learning, and, more important, by becoming the first choice of overseas and French-immersion students.

Support for student and professor mobility is something else institutions count on to increase their presence in the international francophonie.

French-language universities outside Quebec are just as concerned about increasing their potential enrolment as developing their research capacity. Again, universities in French-language minority settings are scarcely any better off, not necessarily because of language considerations, but because these institutions, except for the University of Ottawa, are small. These institutions are not known for having large research teams or always meeting the high criteria for getting the research budgets generously funded by the Government of Canada.

When he was the minister responsible for the Action Plan for Official Languages, Minister Dion maintained, and rightly so, that more needed to be known about official languages and official languages communities. This vital information should be provided by the researchers who, in his opinion, played a key role in implementing the action plan.

Mr. Dion's remarks are just as relevant today. Improving knowledge about minority communities and language policies and rights is vital and must be the responsibility of those most directly affected, that is, the institutions of these communities.

The vitality of post-secondary institutions in minority communities lies in broader recruitment, greater research capability, a greater openness to the world and effective use of new technologies. For many, myself included, the achievement of these objectives is dependent on the financial involvement of the federal government.


The reasons are twofold. In addition to their mandate to prepare the next generation to share — in French — in the country's future prosperity, these universities have a responsibility to help promote French and to revitalize francophone communities.

Government of Canada support has always been the cornerstone of the creation and development of the French-language college and university networks.

French-language post-secondary institutions expect a lot from the federal government, especially since it has indicated its determination to take further action in connection with access to education with the Action Plan for Official Languages.

In her most recent report, the Commissioner of Official Languages reminds us, however, that the action plan "is not yet off the ground, particularly with respect to education and teaching."

It is vital that we take immediate action and give the universities direct access to the tools they need. Although education is a provincial responsibility, the federal government can use its spending power to address the needs of universities, without necessarily going through the provinces. Numerous precedents related to the official languages support this view. As Mr. Yves Fontaine, President of the Université de Moncton and President of the Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne, mentioned when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the federal government already directly supports universities through the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, the Atlantic Innovation Fund and even ACOA.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senator, I am sorry but your time has expired. Do honourable senators agree to grant leave for an additional five minutes?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Tardif: The funds directly transferred from Health Canada to francophone communities and universities in order to improve health care programs are additional proof that it is possible for the federal government to conclude agreements directly with universities in a minority setting in order to facilitate access and reinforce their research capacity.

Honourable senators, the examples provided to date on the multiple facets of post-secondary education in Canada encourage action. Our ability as a nation to play a leading role in the new knowledge-based economy depends on the attention we pay to the diagnosis we have made here, which others outside this chamber support.

We cannot allow ourselves to sit idly by. I call upon the various levels of government to invest in our future and the welfare of our societies by making post-secondary education a national priority and by giving our post-secondary institutions the means to face these many challenges and fulfill their noble mission.

Hon. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Honourable senators, before I move adjournment of the debate, I should like to thank Senator Tardif warmly and sincerely for this fine speech.

It is your first in the Senate, but your expertise shows through very clearly. You know your subject. Congratulations. You will get our rapt attention any time you give a speech like that one.

I know that Senators Callbeck and Moore will want to speak to this topic, so I move that the debate be adjourned.

On motion of Senator Losier-Cool, debate adjourned.

International Development Assistance

Motion Urging Government to Meet Commitment—Debated Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Andreychuk, seconded by the Honourable Senator Johnson:

That the Senate of Canada calls upon the Government of Canada to establish a specific timetable that will enable Canada to meet its long-standing commitment to provide 0.7 per cent of its gross national income as official international development assistance; and

That the Senate of Canada calls upon the Government of Canada to provide funds, within the budgetary process, to achieve this objective at latest by the year 2015, beginning with an immediate 100 per cent increase in official development assistance in the next fiscal year.—(Honourable Senator Corbin)

Hon. Eymard G. Corbin: Honourable senators, this motion is on its eleventh day on the Order Paper, and I do not want to wait until day 15 to speak, although I do not plan to keep you long.

The motion by Senator Andreychuk calls upon the government to set a timetable that will enable Canada to meet its long-standing commitment to provide 0.7 per cent of its gross national income as official international development assistance.

As a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, I have paid a great deal of attention to all those who have appeared before us since the decision was made to focus on the problems of Africa, which are very complex, given, for one thing, the large number of countries that make up that continent.

During our deliberations, I learned that there may be other ways to provide international aid than by using the magic formulas proposed from time to time. The testimony revealed that the world — when I talk about the world, I mean the West, although some eastern countries also have the ability to contribute generously to international development — is possibly on the brink of finding new methods, and we do not need to cling to the current formulas. I would not say those formulas are outdated, since the amount required from the federal government does, in fact, run into the billions of dollars. What is important is not the amount of money but the willingness to use a more direct and sectoral approach to the challenges of international development.

I have always wondered why the private sector — in Canada, I mean — has not supported the federal government more in providing this aid.

This happens in other countries. I believe it is in Holland that private enterprise works together with NGOs and the government on on-site development programs throughout the world. This is not really done in Canada or, if so, on a very small scale.


The money involved still belongs to the taxpayers. The money is anonymous in a way. It comes from the taxpayers, goes through the Government of Canada and ends up abroad. We know that some of this money is likely to be wasted or to disappear. The programs are not always well designed. They cannot count on continuity. The funds often fall into the hands of corrupt regimes and can end up in banks in Switzerland, Luxemburg or elsewhere. We do not have all the answers to the problem, but we do know that some money disappears.

A number of steps were taken recently. The latest one was the Blair commission report. The Canadian Minister of Finance contributed substantially to this commission. Suggestions have come from many countries that have expressed a new desire to approach the challenges of governance. I therefore believe that we should give further thought to this matter and involve the Canadian public more, specifically many Canadian companies operating abroad in Africa, South America, Central America, Asia and elsewhere.

There are Canadian companies operating on almost every continent. Most of them are working to extract the resources of the countries in which they operate. They pay various royalties to these countries and then they pocket the profits before they pull out. In general, they leave nothing behind, making no social and educational impact. They contribute almost nothing to training, skills and trades. In my opinion, Canada should break new ground with its partners in the private sector. NGOs have always heavily lobbied the government to change its approach, policies and the quality of its programs.

I believe that no one will fundamentally oppose the objectives set out in this motion. However, for some reason, it has never been possible to achieve them to our satisfaction. Before we pass this motion, I suggest that the government further consult Canadians and private enterprise to see if we can develop new kinds of partnerships that would benefit the countries with which we do business and whose resources we are exploiting. When I talk about the exploitation of resources, let there be no mistake. Canadian companies also tend to exploit human resources. Therein lies the problem, and it troubles me a great deal.

We must change how we do things in developing countries. We must innovate and become leaders in the field. We have been leaders in other areas such as international peacekeeping. We must rise to this special challenge; otherwise, we will continue to spend billions of dollars in these countries, year after year.

This matter deserves our consideration, honourable senators.


Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire: Honourable senators, 80 per cent of humanity lives in inhuman conditions, in blood and mud and suffering, below any conceivable level of human respect and dignity. We have seen the expression of rage from that 80 per cent of humanity through terrorism and, as such, it has found its way into our realm of security and security concerns.

The subject of 0.7 per cent of GDP has massive significance not only for the human beings who are suffering under conditions of underdevelopment but also, by extension, for our own security. As such, I would like to propose the adjournment of the debate on this motion.

On motion of Senator Dallaire, debate adjourned.

Conference on Women's Rights

Inquiry—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool calling the attention of the Senate to the Millennium Development Goals, more particularly to Goal number 3, seeking to promote gender equality and to empower women.—(Honourable Senator Fraser)

Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, it is my intention to speak to this inquiry on Tuesday afternoon, but that will be day 15 of the inquiry, and, as we all know, accidents can sometimes happen in Parliament. I ask the indulgence of the Senate to start the clock again today.

Hon. Bill Rompkey (Deputy Leader of the Government): Just so that the record is clear, the debate stands adjourned in the name of Senator Fraser.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Fraser, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, that further debate be adjourned for the balance of her time until the next sitting of the Senate. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

On motion of Senator Fraser, debate adjourned.

Banking, Trade and Commerce

Committee Authorized to Extend Date of Final Report on Study of Issues Dealing with Demographic Change

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein, pursuant to notice of June 15, 2005, moved:

That, notwithstanding the Order of the Senate adopted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004, the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, which was authorized to examine and report on issues dealing with the demographic change that will occur in Canada within the next two decades, be empowered to extend the date of presenting its final report from June 30, 2005 to December 31, 2005; and

That the Committee retain until March 31, 2006 all powers necessary to publicize its findings.

Motion agreed to.

Committee Authorized to Extend Date of Final Report on Study of Issues Dealing with Interprovincial Barriers to Trade

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein, pursuant to notice of June 15, 2005, moved:

That, notwithstanding the Order of the Senate adopted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004, the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, which was authorized to examine and report on issues dealing with interprovincial barriers to trade, be empowered to extend the date of presenting its final report from June 30, 2005 to December 31, 2005; and

That the Committee retain until March 31, 2006 all powers necessary to publicize its findings.

Motion agreed to.

Committee Authorized to Extend Date of Final Report on Study of Consumer Issues Arising in Financial Services Sector

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein, pursuant to notice of June 15, 2005, moved:

That, notwithstanding the Order of the Senate adopted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004, the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, which was authorized to examine and report on consumer issues arising in the financial services sector, be empowered to extend the date of presenting its final report from June 30, 2005 to November 30, 2005; and

That the Committee retain until December 31, 2005 all powers necessary to publicize its findings.

Motion agreed to.




Leave having been given to revert to Government Notices of Motions:

Hon. Bill Rompkey (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(h), I move:

That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until Monday, June 20, 2005, at 6 p.m., and that rule 13.1 be suspended in relation thereto.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

The Senate adjourned until Monday, June 20, 2005, at 6 p.m.