Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

2nd Session, 39th Parliament,
Volume 144, Issue 28

Thursday, January 31, 2008
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker

---

• SENATORS' STATEMENTS
  • Tributes
    • The Honourable Ross Fitzpatrick
  • Visitor in the Gallery
• ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
  • Criminal Code
    • Bill to Amend—Report of Committee
  • Settlement of International Investment Disputes Bill
    • First Reading
  • Agriculture and Forestry
    • Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Meet During Sitting of the Senate
  • Foreign Affairs and International Trade
    • Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Refer Papers and Evidence on Study of Bill C-293 from Previous Session to Current Study
    • Study on Africa—Overcoming 40 Years of Failure: A New Road Map for Sub-Saharan Africa—Notice of Motion to Place Committee Report Tabled During Previous Session on Order Paper
• QUESTION PERIOD
  • The Cabinet
    • Ministerial Authority Regarding Heads of Government Agencies and Commissions
  • Industry
    • Competition Bureau—Job Security of Commissioner
  • Public Works and Government Services
    • Dispute with Rosdev Group—Involvement of Employee of Prime Minister's Office
  • National Defence
    • Use of French at Canadian Forces Base Borden
    • Afghanistan—Communication Strategy
  • Answer to Order Paper Question Tabled
    • Health—Reduction in Trans Fat
• ORDERS OF THE DAY
  • Foreign Service Officers
    • High Attrition Rate—Inquiry—Debate Adjourned
  • Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement Bill
    • Report of Committee
  • Conflict of Interest for Senators
    • Committee Authorized to Refer Papers and Documents from Previous Session
  • Agriculture and Forestry
    • Committee Authorized to Meet During Sitting of the Senate
  • Adjournment

THE SENATE

Thursday, January 31, 2008

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

Prayers.

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Tributes

The Honourable Ross Fitzpatrick

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have received a notice from the Leader of the Opposition to request, pursuant to rule 22(10), that the time provided for consideration of Senators' Statements be extended today for the purpose of paying tribute to the Honourable Senator Ross Fitzpatrick, who will retire from the Senate on February 4, 2008.

I remind senators that, pursuant to our rules, each senator will be allowed only three minutes and they may speak only once. However, it is agreed that we continue our tribute to Senator Fitzpatrick under Senators' Statements and that Senator Fitzpatrick hold his comments until the end of Senators' Statements. We will, therefore, have 30 minutes, not including the time allotted for Senator Fitzpatrick's response.

Is that agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(1335)

Hon. Sharon Carstairs: Honourable senators, the Honourable Ross Fitzpatrick is a man whom I hold in the highest regard. I could recount to you his innumerable accomplishments — as a mining executive, a political organizer extraordinaire, a land developer or a winery owner. Each one of these accomplishments would make him a person of significant note, and I know that others will pay tribute to these important accomplishments. However, I believe that Ross' highest achievements are in the role of family member — a husband, a father and a grandfather.

I have known Ross for 25 years, and it is in the roles of loving husband, father and grandfather to which I wish to pay tribute today.

It does not take many meetings with Ross to understand the depth of the devotion he has to his family. He and Linda are both very special people, and they are even more special together. The depth of their relationship and their mutual respect for the talents and skills of the other are the things upon which great marriages are made. They are not exclusionary. Their love is shared with all with whom they come in contact, and their hospitality, which I have personally experienced in Vancouver, Kelowna and Ottawa, is boundless. They like people, and it shows.

I have also had the opportunity to watch Ross with his son, Gordon, and with his grandchildren, Liam and Siobhan. Although I have not seen him with his daughter, Lesley, and her family, I have heard him speak often about her. This is a loving father who wants his children to be the very best they can be — but the love is an open one. He challenges them, but even when he thinks he knows best, he encourages them to make their own choices. I know, for example, that he wanted to have his daughter and family join him in Kelowna many years ago, and he is thrilled that they are there now. He understood that they needed to make their own way first and that it was by standing on their own two feet they would become more confident and self-assured. This is a man for whom they must stand tall, because he is a giant of a man and he wanted them to walk beside him as equals. In my view, this is truly the mark of a great man.

When he wanted Gordon to join him in the winery business, he knew that he was asking him to give up a successful business experience. However, he knew that for this to work, they had to work as equals, and then he would have to let go of some of the levers. That was not an easy decision for a man like Ross, but he knew he had to give Gordon space so that he could walk successfully by his side.

I have a project for Ross after he retires. Many families have been singularly unsuccessful in designing succession strategies. Ross has some of the right answers and should consider writing a book.

However, it is to watch Ross with his oldest grandchildren that is a joy to behold. I have not had the opportunity to see him with the younger two, but I suspect it is the same. There is such love in the way Ross watches them. I observed him one day watching Liam water ski and learning new skills. Liam, you might not have known it but your grandfather rode every wave with you. He was encouraging you to be successful and was full of pride when you were. He had the same pride when he spoke of and to Siobhan and her dancing — Irish, of course — and academic accomplishments. Children, you are indeed blessed to have him as your grandfather and to have had this very special time with him as you grow.

I remember the excitement with which Ross and Linda left to go to London to buy the layette for Lesley's first-born. The excitement was not quite the second coming, but close to it.

I will miss Ross in the chamber, but I know his absence here will give him more time in his beloved Okanagan, where he is regarded by all as a man to be respected, admired and indeed loved. John and I are deeply grateful and appreciative of his friendship.

(1340)

Hon. W. David Angus: Honourable senators, I have pleasure in saluting and paying tribute to Senator David Ross Fitzpatrick.

This good and decent gentleman served here for almost 10 years — diligently, without rancour and in good and positive spirit.

Ross' quiet wisdom and sound judgment together with his balanced and dignified approach to issues of the day have enhanced the Senate and have set an admiral standard for his colleagues at a time when our dear institution has been portrayed frequently in an unfavourable light.

Honourable senators, I do not mean to suggest that Senator Fitzpatrick spent 10 years in this place as a shrinking violet, without revealing his true colours in a partisan way — quite to the contrary.

There has been no mistaking the fact that Ross is a proud, loyal and longstanding member of the Liberal Party of Canada, with a deep and abiding interest in developing sound public policy, promoting good and responsible government, and making Canada a better place in which to live.

My point, honourable senators, is that Senator Fitzpatrick did not bring in-your-face political partisanship to the Senate. He has worn and exercised his politics quietly, comfortably and effectively, as and when necessary, here in the Senate. Throughout his tenure here, he has demonstrated a constant and genuine interest in and ability to work harmoniously and cooperatively with his colleagues, both in this place and in committees, endeavouring to make the Senate function as it should and fulfill its mandate as a responsible chamber of sober second thought.

Honourable senators, by now you may have guessed that I like Ross Fitzpatrick. Well, I do. How could you not? I believe most people who have ever come in contact with Ross like him — for, after all, he is a really nice, likeable guy.

Having said this, would you believe I never met Senator Ross Fitzpatrick personally before he was sworn in here as a senator in 1998? Yet, when he was escorted through that door, I felt as though I had known him for years.

It was quite extraordinary, given that, first, he lived in British Columbia and I lived in Montreal, Quebec; second, that he was a staunch Liberal and me a Tory through and through; third, that he was a businessman and I was but a simple lawyer; fourth, that we were not members together of any boards, secret societies, clubs or other organizations; fifth, that he is of Irish heritage whereas my background is Scottish and, finally, that he was a big wine man and I was into single malt whiskies.

So how could I feel this was a dear old friend coming through the door? It is quite simple, honourable senators: It seems we were and remain kindred spirits, destined to bond from the very outset. I believe our connection stems from the fact that our chosen and natural role for our respective political parties and leaders was that of chief fundraiser — or, to use the vernacular, bagmen.

As well, we both served on the boards of major airlines at a time when Canada's airline industry was in turmoil. Prior to the ultimate coming together of Canadian Airlines International and Air Canada, we heard each other's names literally on a daily basis, as we both worked hard, on opposite sides, to find a workable solution to a very thorny national problem.

Well, honourable senators, in recent years, political bagmen have become an extinct species in this country; Canadian Airlines International has disappeared; and Air Canada has been totally restructured. Accordingly, Senator Fitzpatrick and I have been able to console each other from time to time, and regularly, and focus together on our new careers as senators. As I said — two kindred spirits.

However, now Senator Fitzpatrick is leaving us for a quiet retirement? I doubt that very much. A little bird told me that he has a major new real estate development on the go and that his winery in the Okanagan is thriving and active.

So, Ross, we wish you much success in all your ongoing ventures. At the same time, we are hoping you will slow down just a wee bit, that you enjoy your new home in sunny California, sip up lots of your CedarCreek Estate wine and spend plenty of quality time with your dear Linda and your two children and four grandchildren.

Thank you so much for being here and for your valued friendship over the years as a kindred spirit.

(1345)

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I associate myself completely with Senator Angus' remarks concerning our departing friend.

Politics is an adversarial and highly competitive activity. This fact is true wherever one is engaged in it. All of us know of neighbours, close friends and even family members who stay out of each other's way during election campaigns so as not to impair those personal relationships afterwards. While the ends of politics are noble, the struggle can be ferocious. The experience is often one of bruised feelings, grievous disappointment, thwarted ambition and disillusionment. Not infrequently the most deeply felt personal frustration and conflict occur within one's own party. I once heard our former colleague, the Honourable Allan J. MacEachen, speak of politics as a "sudden death" game where reputations can be made and broken in an instant. My old friend, Dalton Camp, used to speak of "those ordinary and sensible people who maintain and assure the vitality of partisanship."

Still, it is a rare individual who can engage fully in the struggle without incurring resentments, losing friends or making enemies. Senator Ross Fitzpatrick is one of those rare and gifted people in politics. No one has been more intensely loyal to the Liberal Party and more prominently engaged, committed and effective in pursuing its political success throughout almost all his adult life. He is a partisan. In more than 40 years that I have known him, I have never heard him utter a good word about any other political party or a bad word about his own. He has never failed to show respect, decency, civility and cordiality to ally and adversary alike. In so doing, he has, by his engagement in it, helped elevate the partisan struggle to the point where it sometimes seems worthy of its overall, noble purpose.

Hon. David P. Smith: Honourable senators, it is an honour for me to rise and pay tribute to my old friend Senator Ross Fitzpatrick. I want to make several points. They are disconnected, but they are what come to mind.

First of all, he is a fascinating and, some might say, eccentric character. We know that he has owned a mine in California, but did honourable senators know he also has one in Burkina Faso? He has owned mines in countries most of us have never heard of.

He owned a ranch in Nevada, near the California border. It was built by a beautiful famous movie star from the silent movie period. I recall the acreage of that place: It was bigger than 32 countries; it was bigger than the Vatican, Monaco, Bermuda and even Malta. Years ago, I was invited to go to the ranch. However, being a good Baptist, it was too close to Las Vegas so I could not go.

He is a vintner par excellence. He owns the CedarCreek Estate Winery which has won numerous awards. The wine is as good as it gets in Canada.

I have always found these characteristics intriguing benchmarks of an interesting personality.

He has been a pillar and patriarch of the Liberal Party of Canada, particularly in the province of British Columbia. The only place we need more of such people is in Alberta.

(1350)

He has chaired campaigns, organized fundraisers for decades and has been one of Jean Chrétien's oldest, closest supporters and friends. These realities are badges of honour, from my perspective, and I would say the same thing about people who provide that service for the Conservative Party. If we do not have people carrying out these dynamics, the parliamentary democratic process does not work.

Ross, you have been a pillar and a patriarch of the Liberal Party of Canada and I pay tribute to you for that.

A day like today reminds us all how fleeting life is, and how time goes by. I met Ross over 40 years ago. We worked here, and Senator Grafstein was working here too. Ross was the executive assistant — and that is like chief of staff now, which sounds more grand — to the Honourable John Robert Nicholson. He held three portfolios in the Pearson government when Mr. Pearson became Prime Minister. He had been a distinguished businessman who ran Brazilian Light and Power. I was an executive assistant to Walter Gordon, and later, John Turner's assistant.

What a year 1967 was: Centennial year, and all the heads of state were visiting. If we had talked about things that happened in 1927, we would have been thought of as Neanderthals, but that is what the time was.

Ross, you have earned respect in all your roles: key staffer, party stalwart through thick and thin, as a businessman all over the world and as a great vintner. You have earned respect particularly as a senator on the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and also as a family man. Senator Carstairs touched on that aspect. We have had dinners and it is clear how much you love your wife, children and grandchildren. We will miss you, but I know our paths will cross. You are a great Canadian, and it is great to be your friend.

Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, now that Senator Smith has gone to confession, I can present my statement.

This day is a joyful yet sad one as we pay tribute to Senator Ross Fitzpatrick. It is joyful that we have had the opportunity to pay tribute to our friend and colleague, yet sad because he is taking his leave from this great institution. Last evening, Senator Grafstein put on an event in honour of Senator Ross Fitzpatrick and his gracious wife and partner, Linda, who is in the gallery today.

The event reflected the man; people were there from all walks of life and all political parties. The event rose above partisanship, as it should have, and most would have expected nothing less. Unfortunately, I have never had the opportunity to work on a committee with Senator Ross, but we have worked together to expedite files that had a positive impact on the First Nations people of British Columbia.

I have travelled back and forth to our beloved province of B.C., and it was always a pleasant experience to travel in the company of Ross and Linda. I will miss you, Ross and Linda, as I make that arduous trip, week after week.

Last evening, kind words were spoken, such as "gentle," "sensitive," "caring" and "sincere," to mention a few, that truly reflect this fine gentleman.

Senator Fitzpatrick has had an extremely interesting life, working here in Ottawa in his younger years, as pointed out by Senator Smith, and then establishing himself as a leading businessman in British Columbia. His volunteer activities are and have been a huge part of his life, always giving his time and success to good causes in the community: Vancouver Institute, B.C. Government House Foundation, Okanagan Thompson International Sculpture Society and the Okanagan Symphony, to name a few.

One remarkable attribute of this man is how partisan he really is: a true Grit, true Liberal, a Chrétienite, and yet always respectful of other people's divergent political views. Always a true gentleman, he never demeaned in any way, shape or form, those who were of a different belief or philosophy.

He has always placed the importance of the cause in various areas ahead of political partisanship. He has had commendable success on numerous files since coming to the Senate in March of 1998.

He has always done great work on Aboriginal files, and one of his other areas of focus has been the national park reserve proposal in the south Okanagan, an area extending from the U.S. border north to Oliver, B.C., and bounded by the Okanagan Valley on the east and the Similkameen Valley on the west. This area is a beautiful part of our province and country, and the wildlife and plant life are unique to the area. Hopefully one day this proposal will be a reality and, senator, you should receive a lot of the credit when it becomes so.

(1355)

Having said all this, I am not certain whether he has been so popular in this place as a result of his personal attributes or the fact that he owns, with his family, one of the most successful wineries in North America. CedarCreek produces some of the finest wines in the world and, as one would expect, Senator Fitzpatrick and his family would accept nothing short of perfection.

Yesterday evening a presentation was made to you and Linda by Senator Joyal, a piece of B.C. native artwork featuring the beaver and the eagle. Hopefully these symbols of the artwork will guide you as you leave here. I know you have been as industrious and honest as the beaver, and I hope you, Linda and your children will always soar with the eagles. B.C. and Canada will miss your good works. May God bless you all. Thanks for being a friend. See you in the desert at the restaurant they call "Le St. Germain."

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, I simply cannot believe that Senator Ross Fitzpatrick is leaving the Senate. I have known Ross for almost 50 years. We met in Ottawa in the 1960s to serve as young, energetic and ambitious, bushy-tailed ministerial executive assistants in Mr. Pearson's government of all talents. To us, he was always Mr. Pearson.

Quickly, all of us came to respect Ross. He was mature beyond his years; he was quiet; he was humble, a man of few but incisive words, so unlike myself.

Ross was and is a great listener and a greater doer. Ross has, as a few of you know, a quick and rather wicked sense of humour, which I have been able to enjoy over the years sitting beside him here in the Senate. We became fast friends, and even though over the years may have disagreed from time to time on personalities or policies, we never exchanged a word in anger or disrespect because we are both loyalists, Pearson-ites, Trudeau-ites, Turner-ites Chrétien-ites, Martin-ites and now loyal acolytes to Mr. Dion.

To recap Ross' success story, it is probably one of the most remarkable and untold Canadian success stories, almost unrivalled by anyone in this chamber or, indeed, Parliament in recent history.

Ross rose by the sheer dint of his own efforts from a modest background as a farm boy in the Okanagan where his grandfather and father were fruit farmers. He worked his way through school, first at the University of British Columbia and then on to the University of Maryland and Columbia University in the United States, gathering distinguished degrees along the way. Ross quickly caught the eye of John Nicholson, then a leading politician and baron, if you will, a minister from British Columbia, who was postmaster general, along with other portfolios, a very sensitive and political job requiring political skill, diplomacy and finesse. Ross had all these mature attributes in abundance. We all admired Ross for his smooth handling of contentious issues. He made everything look so easy, but when we tried ourselves, we saw how difficult it was.

We worked together on John Turner's leadership campaign in 1968, and Ross was a marvellous grassroots organizer. When he left Ottawa, he returned to British Columbia and built a remarkable business career in resources, transportation and real estate and especially in the creation, as others have pointed out, of one of Canada's, if not North America's, leading wineries in his beloved Okanagan.

He was a CEO in companies and resources in aerospace and did business not only in North America but throughout the Americas, in Asia and Africa, a remarkable story of Canadian entrepreneurship.

There is not a private cause — from health care, to the arts, to the environment — where Ross has not been a leader, a mover, a shaker and a donor. His was active not only in British Columbia but elsewhere in Canada and in the United States. In the United States, he has great friends in Congress who say to me: "How is my friend Ross Fitzpatrick?"

There has not been a federal or provincial political campaign in British Columbia where he did not take a leading role. He quickly became the confidante not only of politicians in Ottawa, but also mayors and premiers in his beloved province.

(1400)

Ross was, as others have pointed out, one of the two key outside and long-time loyal advisers to Jean Chrétien. A great deal of Mr. Chrétien's remarkable political success can be attributed to Ross who, over the years, never failed to provide him with tough, clear-headed and always sound and grounded advice.

I had the privilege of his cogent insights when I served as chair of the Banking Committee. He persuaded the committee to study interprovincial trade barriers that restrain Canada's markets, productivity and trade within Canada. It will be, I hope, a landmark study when completed.

Ross leaves the Senate but he does not leave his energetic commitment to the public good or to politics. I wish him great and good health as he returns to his beloved Okanagan.

I will miss him because it will be almost impossible to get a seatmate like Ross who can put up with me. I wish him and his family, and particularly the graceful and lovely Linda, who has always been at his side, best wishes.

Ross, the best is yet to come. Godspeed.

Hon. Marie-P. Poulin: Honourable senators, when we are asked what we like best about our work as parliamentarians in the Senate of Canada, we often say: "Over and above our responsibility to review legislation and contribute to public policy, that we are honoured to represent a region, to carry its concerns and challenges, to contribute expertise acquired after many years as a professional in a given field." Senator Ross Fitzpatrick fits the ideal of such a senator.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, Ross Fitzpatrick has put his heart and soul into promoting his region, the Okanagan, and the British Columbia interior in general. He has been an ardent champion of regional projects. He gave Westerners a chance to express their sense of alienation. Over the past decade, Ross Fitzpatrick has proven himself to be an intelligent and well-informed leader who is knowledgeable about national and international issues in business, finance and trade; issues that often come up in the Senate.

[English]

Honourable senators, I now have to admit that when asked to meet with visitors, usually students, here in our chamber, I personalize the chamber. I talk about the quality of the Canadians working here. I talk about several colleagues — most colleagues — five one day, five another, and so on. However, in every group of five I have been including Ross Fitzpatrick, for the above reasons. I have felt privileged to work alongside such a considerate and talented Canadian.

I offer a toast to you, Ross, with CedarCreek Estate wine, of course, as you move on to another phase of your life. You do so in very good company, your elegant and gracious wife, Linda.

Good luck, dear friend.

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government and Secretary of State (Seniors)): Honourable senators, today after a decade of service in the Senate of Canada we bid farewell to our colleague Senator Ross Fitzpatrick. He has been a valued member of this place and will not soon be forgotten by any of us.

When I came into the Senate chamber today, I was asked by several people: Why all the red scarves? I said, "Have you not heard? This is the day we are paying tribute to Senator Ross Fitzpatrick!" In my remarks, I will perhaps say there should have been green scarves as well, Senator Fitzpatrick.

As a native of Kelowna, in the beautiful Okanagan Valley, a place he continues to call his home — and who can blame him — Senator Fitzpatrick began his career in the business world after being educated in economics and business administration and found great success. Over the years that success came in a wide variety of areas, including mining, the oil and gas industry, the aerospace sector and, of course, the prestigious and excellent CedarCreek Estate Winery. With all of that experience, honourable senators, when we look at the work that is done in the Senate, there is probably not an area in which he could not have easily been an expert; but one can sit on only so many committees.

(1405)

On March 6, 1998, Ross Fitzpatrick was named to the Senate of Canada by the former Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien. With Senator Fitzpatrick's last name, it was highly appropriate that he be officially introduced to this chamber 11 days later, on St. Patrick's Day. Hence, we should wear green scarves today as well.

During his time in the Senate of Canada, Senator Fitzpatrick has always served as a strong advocate for his home province and for its continued prosperity and well-being. His considerable business experience and expertise has been a great asset to this place and has been of particular benefit to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, of which he has been a member for many years. He has worked tirelessly on behalf of the Aboriginal people of British Columbia and of Canada; the agricultural sector; and on behalf of the cause of environmental stewardship, for which he has received many accolades throughout his career.

In addition to his activities as both a senator and a businessman, Senator Fitzpatrick has continued his tireless efforts on behalf of many worthy non-profit organizations and groups, especially in his home province and community.

Honourable senators, I am certain that you will agree with me that it has been a great pleasure to work with Senator Ross Fitzpatrick. His good nature and sharp intellect will be missed by everyone. All my Conservative colleagues would want me to extend to Senator Fitzpatrick and his family our best wishes in the future, which I will not — and I am sure we cannot — define as "retirement" because I cannot believe that at your young age, Senator Fitzpatrick, you will retire.

Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Honourable senators, I would like to join with my colleagues in paying tribute to a friend: Senator Ross Fitzpatrick. As we all know, he has served his constituents of Okanagan Valley with dedication and enthusiasm for almost 10 years in the Senate of Canada. While he has been in Ottawa, he has worked on a number of initiatives for his area, including the Rotary Centre for the Arts in Kelowna, which he supported and helped create; an ecological interpretive centre, which the senator helped to establish; and the Westbank First Nation Self-government Agreement, the firststand-alone agreement negotiated under the inherent right to self-government policy.

As we have already heard, Senator Fitzpatrick came to Ottawa in 1963. He later moved into the private sector and has proved himself as an accomplished entrepreneur with interests in mining, natural resources and the aerospace industry. Today, he continues to be an outstanding and successful business person. His family's business, CedarCreek Estate Winery, has twice been named Winery of the Year and produces over 30,000 cases of premium wines every year.

Senator Fitzpatrick's energy and hard work has also been demonstrated through his community service. As Senator Grafstein said, Ross is a doer. Indeed, he has been involved in a number of non-profit and community groups over the years. I know that the Okanagan Partnership, which is an alliance of businesses, governments and organizations that foster green and sustainable development, is especially close to his heart, as is Okanagan College, for which he is the honorary chair.

Senator, I want to congratulate you for having served the Okanagan, your home province and your country so well here in the Senate. I know that your wife, Linda, has provided much love, support and encouragement over the course of your career. You will be missed in the Senate and I will personally miss the chats that we had here, every day in this chamber. I also know that you are looking forward to moving on to the next stage of your life so that you and Linda can spend more time with your children, Gordon and Lesley; and with your grandchildren, who will all be with you in the Okanagan.

Senator, I wish you and Linda all the best for a very happy and healthy retirement.

(1410)

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, I rise today to pay tribute to Ross Fitzpatrick.

Rudy Loeser of The Seniors Choice NewsMagazine calls Ross "a distinguished senator, entrepreneur, businessman, family man and an outstanding Canadian." Mr. Loeser is certainly right on all accounts, but, for me, Ross has been my mentor, a hard-working senator and, most of all, a friend.

I met Ross in the 1980s when he worked with my law partner Tom Dohm to promote the Liberal Party of Canada. In the late 1980s, I worked closely with Ross on the leadership race of Mr. Chrétien. As a result of my working with Ross, I have observed him to be an individual who is committed to making the Liberal Party of Canada a party for Canadians of all walks of life. I also know him to be a hard worker here in the Senate. Most of all, he is a loyal friend.

Since the day we met back in the 1980s, Ross has always been very supportive. He has always included and encouraged me to participate in the political process. I have a distinct memory of him helping my son Azool, then 14 years old, to be a convention delegate. Ross opened up the Liberal Party to people of all walks of life.

Ross has also worked very hard in the Senate and has shown the same dedication and work ethic to his Okanagan constituents. His constituents are richer for his work here and in helping them to bring resources to the Okanagan.

Honourable senators, once Ross becomes a friend of yours, he is always a friend. After all these years, my law partner Tom Dohm has not been forgotten by Ross. Ross, who is a very busy person, from time to time calls Mr. Dohm and brings sunshine into this old friend's world.

Ross Fitzpatrick has achieved so much with the help of his beautiful wife, Linda. They are inseparable and very supportive of each other. Today, I also wish to pay tribute to Linda, as we know that, without her, Ross would not have been able to achieve so much.

To his son and business partner, Gordon, and to his daughter, Lesley, and to his grandchildren — Liam, Siobhan, Cassandra and Isabella — I say thank you for sharing Ross with us.

Ross, as you retire today from Parliament, I wish to thank you for your service to Canada. You may be leaving the Senate today, but we know that you will never retire from our lives. Thank you.

Hon. Art Eggleton: Honourable senators, you have spoken eloquently about our friend Ross Fitzpatrick, his many accomplishments in business and in the Senate and in other contributions to community life — not to mention his human qualities, of course. I will not get into a repetitive speech, but I will say amen to all of those comments. They were all beautifully and appropriately presented by our colleagues.

Most of my friendship and time with Ross and his wife, Linda, go back to my days as a cabinet minister. Ross was always very supportive of the efforts I was making to reach out to British Columbia, and particularly the Okanagan Valley, in my portfolios during the Chrétien government.

I very much appreciate the assistance that you provided, Ross.

It was lovely to visit Ross and Linda's home as well and to partake in enjoyment of the product of the grape, which, of course, is prominent in the valley. I enjoyed that immensely.

You look terrific at 75, Ross. I hope I look as good as you do when I get to that age. I also hope I am able to make a fraction of the contribution you have made here in the Senate over the last 10 years.

I wish you and Linda and your family well. I do understand that you will keep busy beyond the Senate and that one of your objectives is to have a national park created in the Okanagan Valley. Members of the government over there might want to do something to help facilitate that, and maybe even name it after Ross.

Thank you very much, Ross. Best wishes.

(1415)

Hon. Ross Fitzpatrick: Honourable senators, as I stand here today to respond to the kind and generous remarks afforded me, I must say that I still feel the same sense of awe that I experienced the first time I rose to speak in this chamber. This is a very special place served by very special people.

I am also struck by the importance of this chamber and the significance of the work which is accomplished both here and in our committees. With the American presidential primaries underway, we are currently hearing much about the U.S. Constitution, its principles and the wisdom of their founding fathers. Honourable senators, I believe that our founding fathers demonstrated similar wisdom in establishing our parliamentary system of government, but perhaps under the even more trying circumstances of forging two societies into one great country.

We are indeed fortunate in Canada to have enjoyed fair, progressive and effective government for more than 140 years, and we should not take for granted the contribution of the Senate to this remarkable record. The Senate has always played an integral part in ensuring good, stable and wise government for our country, and beyond that it has been an important champion of so many critical national issues through its committee work and reports.

I say this today because we are all aware that some manner of Senate reform may be needed, as is the case of any institution from time to time. However, the government should listen very carefully to the needs of the country and should never lose sight of the value of the Senate to Canada over the past nearly century and a half.

Honourable senators, I believe that appointment to the Senate carries with it an onerous responsibility to draw upon one's ability and experience and to do one's best for the entire country, and I hope I have done that. The most compelling reason, however, for my acceptance of my appointment was to have the opportunity to devote my energies to regional responsibilities, particularly the British Columbia interior, and to represent the Okanagan and Similkameen Valleys to help pursue their aspirations to reach their full potential.

In that regard, I am especially thankful that I had the opportunity to assist in the progress of the Okanagan First Nations economic development by working with the Osoyoos Indian band in the establishment of the Nk'Mip Desert Cultural Centre and Winery, both of which have reached worldwide recognition, and by participating in negotiations and then guiding Bill C-11 through this chamber, which enshrined into law the Westbank First Nations Self-Government Agreement, the first stand-alone self-government agreement ever negotiated under the federal government's inherent right policy. Today, the economic activity generated under this agreement is one of the main economic forces in the Westbank-Kelowna area.

Honourable senators, I mention my experience in representing my region because I believe very strongly that there must be balanced regional representation right across this country. For that reason, I believe any steps toward Senate reform must include increasing the number of senators from the West and ensuring that rural areas are fully represented.

I have been very fortunate to serve in Ottawa on two occasions. The first time was, in my very formative years in the early 1960s, during Lester Pearson's minority government when I was an executive assistant in the office of the Honourable Jack Nicholson through a very heady and exciting period of time. That is when I first met the petit gars from Shawinigan, the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien. The second time I had the privilege to serve came some 35 years later when he appointed me to this chamber, and I thank him for that opportunity.

(1420)

It is an incredible feeling for me to look around this chamber and see others with whom I shared an amazing period: Senator Murray, who offered wisdom before his time; Senator Fairbairn, who is not here today, but reported the events of the time; Senator Smith, who was then organizing for the next campaign; and Senator Grafstein, my seatmate and my friend, as he says, for nearly 50 years, who was always busy pushing the important issues of the day. Sometimes, Jerry, some things never change.

This is all to say that I feel privileged to have experienced the opportunity to participate in the political arena of this great country; in particular, to have shared this past decade with such outstanding individuals as those who serve in this place.

Since the beginning of my tenure, I have received great support from our leadership, from my friend, Senator Carstairs, who in her position as deputy leader when I arrived made me feel comfortable from the very beginning; to our present leader, Senator Hervieux-Payette, who constantly dispenses good health advice to me.

Much generosity has been shown today by those who have spoken on my behalf with their tributes: Senator Callbeck, Senator Jaffer, Senator Carstairs, Senator Poulin, Senator St. Germain, Senator Grafstein, Senator Smith, Senator Angus, Senator Murray, Senator LeBreton and Senator Eggleton. — I thank you all for your kind words.

I would now like to thank the Speaker and the Speaker pro tempore for their consideration. I would also like to thank Senator Hays, as he was very helpful, and to remember former Senator Molgat, who was very good to me when I first arrived.

I am indebted to my staff, some of whom are in the gallery today; they have served me so well. I thank Ann Marie Muss, here today from Kelowna, who has been with me from the beginning and without whom I would be lost. Michelle Hancock has provided efficient and charming administration to my Senate office. Alex Swann, Darci McAulay, Andrew Brooke and David Schneider have all assiduously provided much-needed research and communication needs over the past 10 years; and Lisa Smith is helping with the task of packing up my office.

My appreciation to the Clerk and the table officers, who were always very helpful, although it is fair to say that I never really overtaxed them.

I also express my appreciation to the Black Rod, particularly for his work with the pages, and to his staff for their support; and, of course, the pages who constantly amaze me with their good cheer and intelligence.

I would like to take a moment to thank my two great friends, David Stowe and Lou Salley, who are in the gallery today. They both attended my swearing-in ceremony and insisted on coming all the way from Vancouver to make sure that I finish the job properly. Thank you.

What makes everything work for me is my family, who are also in the gallery. My son Gordon has been managing our winery in my absence and transformed it into a better business than I could have myself; my daughter Lesley and her big handsome Finnish husband Sam who we finally persuaded to move to Canada to work with Gordon on developing our new wine centre and wine lodge after Lesley's love for him had exiled her to Europe for the greater part of my tenure; to Yaz, our extended family member, who came to stay with us as a student from Burkina Faso 12 years ago and who now has his PhD in Mining Engineering from the University of British Columbia.

Of course, I want to mention my marvellous and wonderful wife, Linda, who is my lifeline and who has selflessly spent the last 10 years traveling back and forth to Ottawa with me. She is my love, my partner and my inspiration and without her support I would not even be here.

Honourable senators, all in all, this is both a sad and a happy day. It is sad because I am leaving behind good friends and wonderful memories, but it is happy because I will be returning home to my beloved Okanagan to pursue new challenges and to have more time with my family, particularly our grandchildren. Thank you.

[Earlier]

Visitor in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Dr. Norbert Lammert, President of the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) of the Federal Republic of Germany. On behalf of all senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

---

(1425)

[Translation]

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Code

Bill to Amend—Report of Committee

Hon. Joan Fraser (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition), Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented the following report:

Thursday, January 31, 2008

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

SIXTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-213, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (lottery schemes), has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Thursday, December 6, 2007, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

JOAN FRASER
Chair

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

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

Settlement of International Investment Disputes Bill

First Reading

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-9, An Act to implement the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention).

Bill read first time.

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

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

[English]

Agriculture and Forestry

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Meet During Sitting of the Senate

Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Honourable senators, on behalf of Senator Gustafson, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(a), I give notice that, later this day, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry have the power to sit at 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, February 5, 2008, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that Rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(1430)

Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Refer Papers and Evidence on Study of Bill C-293 from Previous Session to Current Study

Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the papers received, evidence taken and work accomplished by the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade during its study of Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad, in the First Session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament, be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade for the purposes of its study, during the current session, of Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad.

Study on Africa—Overcoming 40 Years of Failure: A New Road Map for Sub-Saharan Africa—Notice of Motion to Place Committee Report Tabled During Previous Session on Order Paper

Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the seventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled Overcoming 40 Years of Failure: A New Road Map for Sub-Saharan Africa, tabled in the Senate on February 15, 2007, during the First Session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament, be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

---

QUESTION PERIOD

The Cabinet

Ministerial Authority Regarding Heads of Government Agencies and Commissions

Hon. Sharon Carstairs: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Adrian Measner follows the law and, as President of the Canadian Wheat Board, obeys his elected board of directors — farmers who are elected by their peers — but refuses to take directions from the Minister of Agriculture because that is against the law. He is fired.

Linda Keen follows the law. She obeys her mandate to ensure the safety of nuclear reactors. She refuses to take her directions from the Minister of Natural Resources because that is against the law. She is fired.

This morning, I read that the Commissioner of Competition was required by an order of the Federal Court to maintain the confidentiality of the court but that Industry Minister Jim Prentice is annoyed and riled because the Commissioner of Competition obeyed the law and did not report the decision to him.

When will this government understand that the law takes precedence in this country and not the whims and wishes of this government?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government and Secretary of State (Seniors)): I thank the honourable senator for the question. In the case of the former President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, I answered those questions yesterday. There are many differences of opinions regarding her testimony the other day. The government sought Parliament's assurance and approval with regard to re-establishing the medical isotope supply by reopening the nuclear facility at Chalk River.

What was at stake was the health and safety of Canadians and people around the world. There were many opportunities for the former president to respond. The government came to the conclusion that there was no opportunity for an improvement in the matter. Linda Keen was not fired. She is still a member of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and she retains her full salary.

With regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, prior to the last election, the government campaigned on marketing choice for our grain producers in Western Canada. The government's policy today is different than past policy. The Conservative government's election platform in 2006 included marketing choice for grain producers; we are simply following through with our election campaign commitment.

(1435)

With regard to the story in the newspaper today, the issue is that when the minister read about it, he had no knowledge of this matter. I can only respond with what I read in the newspaper. I will determine what the proper process is for notifying the minister responsible when these decisions come down.

Senator Carstairs: I have a supplementary question to the minister. There is a process called Parliament. If we want to change the law, we bring a new law to Parliament and we change the law, provided there is sufficient agreement. What is not the law of this land is for a government to decide that, despite what the law has to say, they will disobey the law. Why is this government consistently incapable of bringing in new laws before they fire people?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, that is exactly what we did do with the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. We brought in a law, and it was fully supported in both chambers by all parties.

With regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, we have a policy on the board itself and on marketing choice. Every new government, when elected, has the opportunity to bring in their policies, and that is what we did. Yesterday, the minister announced the new head of the Wheat Board, supported not only by the government, but also by the various stakeholders.

I do not like to go into too much past history, but yesterday, when the honourable senator spoke about following the law, I asked her if she had ever heard of François Beaudoin. I ask also if she has heard of Bernard Dussault, the former chief actuary who was fired in 1998, six days after he refused for a second time to alter a coming report on the Canada Pension Plan finances that might have caused Paul Martin some difficulty. The Cobourg Daily Star reported on October 25, 2002, that the Liberal government at the time refused to provide adequate severance and sued Mr. Dussault after he said that he was fired for political reasons. The Liberal government ended up paying Mr. Dussault $364,387 to settle his wrongful dismissal suit.

Before anyone gets on his or her high horse, we have not fired the former president. She is still there as a commission member, getting her full salary. The issue of the Wheat Board has been before Parliament many times. We are implementing policies that we ran on, and on which we were elected. We are fulfilling a commitment to western farmers when we said that we wanted to provide marketing choice for wheat and barley.

Senator Carstairs: The western farmers elected the board according to the law. The Canadian Wheat Board has legislation that provides for the election of farmers, who will then direct the president. The government did not like what the president was doing, so they fired him. It was possible to bring in a law to change the rules governing the Canadian Wheat Board, but they did not do that. They also did not bring in a law on rules governing the operations of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

This government is trying to change the law by stealth. That is not good enough. When will they be up front? If they want to change the law, then they should do so by introducing legislation.

Senator LeBreton: We also respect the situation in Parliament, and we also respect the votes of farmers. The barley farmers voted 62 per cent to have marketing choice.

We were not elected, thank goodness, to implement the policies of the previous government. We were elected to implement the policies of our government that we ran on during our election campaign, and that is exactly what we plan to do.

(1440)

Industry

Competition Bureau—Job Security of Commissioner

Hon. Sharon Carstairs: Can the minister stand in this house and assure everyone here that the Commissioner of Competition will not be fired?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government and Secretary of State (Seniors)): First of all, yesterday Senator Goldstein gave a list of people. These people were not fired. Senator Carstairs know it. Senator Goldstein knows it. These claims are foolish partisan parliamentary games, and I will not respond to them.

We have a wonderful record of working with the public service, as I mentioned yesterday, The honourable senator should applaud us for this record. Perhaps the honourable senator should look at the appointments that have been made in the public service and some of the excellent, meritorious appointments we have made for the various agencies. Particularly in the public service, a number of women have been promoted and named as heads of the various departments and in senior positions in the Privy Council Office. Of course, I do not expect to hear any credit or praise for that from the honourable senator, but we have a good working relationship with the public service. We value their work, and I think nothing more needs to be said about this matter at this time.

Public Works and Government Services

Dispute with Rosdev Group—Involvement of Employee of Prime Minister's Office

Hon. James S. Cowan: My question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. It is now clear that a senior official in the Prime Minister's office and a Conservative Party fundraiser attempted to intervene in a dispute between a real estate developer and his department.

Prime Minister Harper said there was no impropriety because these appeals were unsuccessful.

This government has established a new guideline for lobbyists: It is okay for political staff and party fundraisers to lobby this government at the highest levels without complying with the lobbyist registration provisions of the Federal Accountability Act, so long as their efforts are unsuccessful.

Does the minister agree with the reported response of his former chief of staff who told Mr. Housakos, and I quote:

Leo, it is inappropriate. I don't want you lobbying me.

Hon. Michael Fortier (Minister of Public Works and Government Services): There are two issues here; one is with respect to Mr. Soudas, who works at the PMO. Mr. Soudas has said clearly that there had been inquiries from third parties, which he passed along to the department and my staff, and that is not being disputed, as I said yesterday.

With respect to Mr. Housakos, as the honourable senator said, a meeting was set up with my chief of staff, and as soon as that matter was raised, my chief — rightly so — put an end to the meeting. In my opinion, nothing untoward took place, and I am proud of my former chief of staff.

Senator Cowan: Does the minister also agree it is similarly inappropriate for the same official in the Prime Minister's office and the same Conservative Party fundraiser to meet with defence contractors seeking to do business with the government, as was reported yesterday by Radio-Canada and The Globe and Mail? Who were those contractors and were they successful in their lobbying efforts?

Senator Fortier: That meeting is alleged. Mr. Soudas and Mr. Housakos have both denied this meeting. They claim it did not take place. I will not comment on it.

Senator Cowan: The information the minister has is that those meetings did not take place?

Senator Fortier: I have the same information the honourable senator has, which is that both individuals have denied that meeting having taken place.

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre De Bané: Honourable senators, with all due respect, I have to say that what happened is most unfortunate. I was once the Minister of Supply and Services, a department that handled more than 1,000 contracts every business day. Naturally, some business people and companies complained about certain decisions the department made, and they certainly have the right, in a democratic country like ours, to complain to the minister and the minister's office. The minister has every right to review the matter.

What seems highly irregular to me is that, in this case, political staff in the Prime Minister's Office asked people from your department to meet with them, in the presence of these business people, to try to work out a solution to the problem.

(1445)

I believe that when there is a conflict, you, your representatives or your officials should look at these issues, but not everyone together. You and your officials are leaving yourselves open to this sort of pressure. In my opinion, the Prime Minister's Office should not call in officials from your office and ask them to try to solve these people's problem. I am not questioning their good faith, but I do not believe it is the right thing to do.

Senator Fortier: First, I would like to clarify the facts. People from Public Works and Government Services were never called to the Prime Minister's Office. Never! To my knowledge, it is not alleged that people from Rosdev were present at meetings with my staff either. That may not reassure you, but I believe that the facts are important here. Such a meeting never took place. We may disagree on that, but many Canadians call the Prime Minister's Office and other ministers' offices with questions. Does it make no sense that the people who receive these questions forward them to the department concerned? Personally, I do not think so; I think we have to have faith in the system.

My staff knows very well — and you are quite correct in saying there are thousands of contracts — that my office has absolutely no tolerance for interference. The Deputy Minister will tell you, there is absolutely no interference. I have trusted them since I became minister and there was no influencing, no interference, and no attempts at that since I have been minister. I want to assure you of that.

National Defence

Use of French at Canadian Forces Base Borden

Hon. Maria Chaput: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate and has to do with Canadian Forces Base Borden and the violation of the rights of francophone soldiers.

As we all know, Borden is a base that houses several schools that train many support staff, technicians and specialists. Borden is an essential part of the Canadian Forces personnel training system, which supports our forces' missions in Canada and around the world. Borden is a military establishment that reports directly to the Minister of National Defence.

Yet the ombudsman, Yves Côté, alerted us in 2006-07 to the fact that this base, where nearly 1,500 young francophones recruited by National Defence converge every year, was having difficulties in terms of intolerance and discrimination.

In a letter addressed to General Rick Hillier, Mr. Côté stated:

. . . the recruits who spoke to me expressed serious difficulties and frustrations flowing from the fact that the chain of command . . .

The ensuing correspondence between the two men led to a series of promises to correct the situation. Yet, in September 2007, nearly one year later, the ombudsman noted that nothing had changed:

Our investigators travelled to the base on June 19-21, 2007. After conducting "town hall" sessions and confidential surveys, they informed me that the situation was, in fact, worse and more widespread than I had previously understood.

(1450)

I have another quote:

When they arrive at Borden, francophone soldiers are told it is a unilingual anglophone base. Memos written in French are returned to them to be rewritten in English. The soldiers are told to learn English — or to find a translator.

Madam Minister, when will Peter McKay take his responsibility seriously with respect to linguistic rights in his department? Why has he still not intervened in the Borden case and why did he wait for the situation to deteriorate so much?

[English]

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government and Secretary of State (Seniors)): Honourable senators, I took questions on the issue of official languages and the Armed Forces from Senator Dallaire last fall. I shall have to check, but I thought we had provided a written answer as well to Senator Chaput last spring.

Since that time, there have been some actions taken at CFB Borden. Nevertheless, the question is long and detailed, so I shall take it as notice and get back to the honourable senator as quickly as possible.

Afghanistan—Communication Strategy

Hon. Jane Cordy: My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Canadian soldiers are doing an outstanding job in Afghanistan. This has been recognized by NATO, by President Karzai and by the Canadian people.

We continue, however, to lack government leadership on our mission in Afghanistan. We continue to hear contradictory messages from different ministers and confused messages from the PMO and from the Prime Minister himself. The communication and the lack of federal leadership on the Canadian mission in Afghanistan are abysmal. The Manley report speaks of the need for a communications strategy for open engagement with Canadians. Communication is so important to helping Canadians understand the role our military is playing in terms of defence, development and diplomacy.

When does this government plan to provide leadership and put in place a communications strategy for an open and honest dialogue with the Canadian people?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government and Secretary of State (Seniors)): I thank the honourable senator for the question.

The Manley report, which the government has fully endorsed, did raise some questions about communicating to Canadians, including the work that CIDA does, which does not get properly communicated.

As the Prime Minister acknowledged in his press conference on Monday, communication is something that the government will work much harder to improve.

A communications working group at Foreign Affairs and National Defence has been monitoring and sending out information about what is happening in Afghanistan. However, clearly, as the Prime Minister acknowledged, the work of this group must be expanded in order to have regular briefings for the public and the media.

Prime Minister Harper also acknowledged that the communications challenge is difficult because injuries, casualties and deaths are always hard to communicate. Canadians are involved in a very difficult mission in Afghanistan.

With regard to Mr. Manley's report, I do not think Mr. Manley, or any of the panel members or the Canadian public, for that matter, would expect anyone to communicate actions that are taken by the military in the field. None of those people would suggest that that was part of the communications problem, but that issue tended to get mixed up with the overall communications of the mission.

(1455)

The government and the Prime Minister have acknowledged that this is an area where we take what Mr. Manley and the panel said seriously. I believe honourable senators will see a vast improvement in the communications efforts of the group that has been working in Foreign Affairs, in CIDA and in National Defence. There will be a more coordinated effort to inform the Canadian public of all the work — and much of it is good work — that is being done in Afghanistan.

Senator Cordy: I think we all understand that there is confidential information in such exercises, particularly in field operations. We do not want to make public certain amounts of information. However, the reality is that over the past while this government has misspoken in many situations.

In May 2006, the Minister of Defence claimed that the Red Cross or the Red Crescent was responsible for observing the treatment of detainees once in the hands of the Afghan authorities. This was not the case. In March 2007, the Department of Foreign Affairs claimed that Canadian diplomats do not produce reports on Afghan human rights conditions. Not only did Canadian diplomats produce these reports, but these reports found that ". . . extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture and detention without trial are all too common." On November 6, we heard that the Canadian military stopped transferring prisoners to Afghan authorities. On November 14, Minister Bernier said that, "We have the process for monitoring detainees transferred to the Afghans in place and the process is going well." On January 4, we heard from Ms. Buckler that the government did not know the transfers had stopped. On January 25, Ms. Buckler said, "I misspoke."

Honourable senators, I have not noticed any difference this week in regard to communication, openness, or transparency. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate again: What steps will the government take, and how soon. I would have expected that for any government who says that they will put a plan in place on Monday, the plan would take place on Monday and not six months later.

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, the efforts of the government in Afghanistan, the Manley panel report, and all the communications with NATO are clear for all to see.

In the case of the actual activities in the field with the Canadian Forces, the government — and people would understand this — could not in any way jeopardize the safety of our Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan. As the Prime Minister said, and as we have said all along, this is a decision that will be made in the field by the military commanders. They will have to take into consideration certain criteria regarding the safety of their soldiers.

As far as the chronology the honourable senator listed, the fact is that there was great difficulty with the policies set up by the previous government. I remind the honourable senator that in the beginning, when the previous government not only sought out the mission in Kandahar, but also committed us to it, prisoners were initially being turned over to the United States. There was then put in place a situation where Taliban prisoners would be transferred to the Afghans. As the honourable senator pointed out in her chronology, there was some difficulty with that. Last May, we put in place a supplementary arrangement that clearly outlined the responsibilities of both Afghan and Canadian authorities with respect to the transfer of prisoners. This policy remains in effect. There is no change in the policy. There was one incident of a suspected case of abuse which was reported to Parliament by Minister Bernier last November. That was reported openly and honestly.

Honourable senators, I do not think for a moment that anyone would ever suggest that we should be in the business of sending out press releases when the Canadian Forces take Taliban prisoners. I do not think anyone is suggesting that. That is not part of the communications plan; that is a decision for the military leaders in the field. We are trying to assist the Afghans in building a democracy.

(1500)

We cannot say to them that we will be there taking and handling prisoners and claim, at the same time, that we are also there trying to help them build a democracy and further that, "Now that you are building a democracy, we will not transfer prisoners and we will not let you run your own democracy." We cannot have it both ways.

The policy has not changed, and any future information about the transfer of prisoners will come from the military. It will certainly not come from the government.

[Translation]

Answer to Order Paper Question Tabled

Health—Reduction in Trans Fat

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government) tabled the answer to Question No. 18 on the Order Paper—by Senator Spivak.

---

[English]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Foreign Service Officers

High Attrition Rate—Inquiry—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Sharon Carstairs rose pursuant to notice of January 29, 2008:

That she will call the attention of the Senate to the reasons for the high attrition rate of Foreign Service Officers and others who serve in Canadian Embassies abroad, most particularly the failure of this and past governments to recognize the rights of the partners of these employees.

She said: Honourable senators, I brought forward this inquiry because whenever I am abroad and meet with our foreign service officers, I am deeply touched by their efforts on behalf of our country. Those with whom I have had contact are bright and engaging, and I believe they truly want to serve all of us to the very best of their abilities.

For many years foreign service officers were woefully underpaid. Fortunately, in recent years there has been significant improvement, yet we continue to lose them. We spend millions of dollars on their training and relocation, and yet they leave. It is time for us to take a hard look at why, despite their ambition and skill, they choose to leave.

I hasten to state that this problem did not originate with this government. It has been a long-term problem that needs the cooperation of all of us to ensure it is addressed.

In my interaction with many foreign service officers, there is one story told over and over again. It is the story of the unfairness to which the spouses and partners of these representatives are treated. Today I want to share with you a number of stories that foreign service officers and their spouses have shared with me.

I will begin with one whose family has now retired from our foreign service. She writes:

It is impossible, however, for Canadian foreign service spouses to maintain any sort of continuous career unless they are also international employees of the Government of Canada. So, in order for the employee to become more expert and experienced in his/her career, the employee must accept a number of international postings, in each case rising in seniority. And each time, the spouse/partner leaves her/his job.

The email continues:

When the foreign service employee returns to headquarters in Canada the professional transition will be seamless, working under the same rules with the same systems in place. The spouse, on the other hand, will be unable to claim EI to which he/she was probably contributing before the posting; if she wasn't employed on posting her pension contributions for the period won't have been made. In addition, her job search will be profoundly affected by the gap and even the repeated gaps in her employment record. Employers are not at all enthusiastic about hiring and training an employee who is guaranteed to leave again within a very few years.

Further in the email it states:

The crunch is that as the employee rises in profession, the spouse/partner drops in his or hers. This puts incredible strain on foreign service marriages by forcing families, if they survive, to live on a single salary and finally on a single pension. The alternative is for the employee to leave the foreign service and take her/his professional training and international experience that were gained at taxpayer expense to another employer. The attrition rate in the foreign service is extremely high, and exit interviews in the first few years have shown that spousal issues are among the most important reasons.

The writer continues later in the same email:

My husband and I had six postings over 33 years with DFAIT. . . . I was employed under many contracts with our embassies and high commissions, but always at rates of pay that were much lower than I earned in Canada or by working for multi-national companies or Cdn firms operating locally. However, without fail I was made to feel that I was fortunate that the mission chose to hire me at all. I paid Cdn taxes on all my earnings. We have now relocated to Nova Scotia after my husband's retirement. I have no pension benefits.

Another story, honourable senators, comes from another woman:

My husband has been in the foreign service since 1990. We have been on posting for eleven years. While abroad I have been able to find employment, sometimes through opportunities in the Canadian government. . . . Before I left . . . my salary was $40k/year.

Her salaries in international postings have been $25,000, $12,000 or $19,000. She continues:

In our 11 years abroad I have lost at least $25,000/year in my salary, total $275,000, not including normal increases, as well as career advancement, a pension plan . . . and other benefits, normally calculated at 20 per cent . . . for a total loss of at least $475,000. When I am ready to retire, I will have less than half the pension I would have had if I had stayed in Canada.

Later she says:

After 11 years abroad, to my surprise, I found an even more difficult challenge in reintegrating into employment in Ottawa . . . They are encouraged to put their c.v. on the spousal website, but even if successfully interviewed cannot break into the public service except on very short term contracts.

(1510)

. . . Their work is always in jeopardy.

. . . Now I have a salary and position more appropriate for my background, and the opportunity to develop my own career. . . . Had I found some reasonable employment in Government I would be prepared to go out again in a few years. Now, it would be giving up a lot, and I am much less interested in being posted abroad again — ever.

I will relate another story:

For my own part I know that my story is not that too unfamiliar, but it was and still is hard to a large extent. This included me having to repatriate back to Ottawa on my own without a job, no real savings and no place to live! Imagine how much harder it is for being a foreign born spouse to deal with all this in addition to getting a divorce and dealing with a legal system I know nothing about.

As to how I was treated with DFAIT for employment opportunities here in 2002 when I got back it was pretty much I was on my own. . . .

— since she was now separated from her DFAIT partner.

Her conclusion is:

. . . I have gone on welfare, filed bankruptcy and as I write this I am awaiting the decision on my Employment Insurance. . . .

Another reads as follows:

While Foreign Service Officers suffer from the ham handed management of the amateurish Human Resource Section on a daily basis, our spouses, who have sacrificed so much for our careers, are treated even worse. While the Department has grudgingly acknowledged some level of duty towards Spouses, its actions have been perfunctory at best — more process and public relations driven than results orientated. That is to say, they only do as much as will permit them to substantiate a talking point stating that the Department is working on spousal issues.

. . . . I can attest that my spouse has been integral to my work. She has frequently served as a hostess in order to facilitate the development of my network of contacts, and has frequently thrown herself into embassy activities, when ever budget and manpower restraints required voluntary labour from the Canadian community. In light of the minimum support that she can expect from the Department in relaunching her career in Canada, or even establishing one overseas, I can only describe the relationship between the Department and spouses as exploitive.

He goes on to speak of experiences of others. He writes:

For example, in Havana, the US Embassy almost guarantees employment to each of the spouses and adult dependents of its diplomats. Other Western embassies provide a direct cash payment to the spouse as an acknowledgement of their contribution to mission's objectives. . . . Spouses of diplomats from Western countries have frequently told us that were their country to treat them as shabbily as Canada treats us, their diplomatic spouses would have to choose between their marriages and their careers.

Another reads:

As a foreign service officer abroad, I can state with honesty that spousal issues remain as one of the biggest challenges in the service, and leads to many people quitting the department. We have a long way to go to improving conditions for spouses. . . .

Yet another reads:

I was the spouse of a federal government (non-DFAIT) employee posted to the Canadian Embassy. . . .

During my wife's posting, I found work . . . as a contractor, then as a Locally Engaged Staff (LES) at the embassy, and finally as an employee of a —

— local —

— company. I reluctantly quit my job at the Embassy because the high Canadian tax, CPP and EI was automatically withheld at source due to my marital status (I would have been treated differently for the same job by CRA had I not been married to a government employee), and as a result, my after-tax take-home pay was far lower than that of other LES employees doing the same work. After I started this final private sector job, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) had assessed me as a "Deemed Resident" which enabled an exemption of my —

— local —

— earnings under the . . . Convention. . . .

However, fourteen months after returning to Canada . . . CRA changed its mind and I was retroactively reassessed as being "Resident" in Ontario while overseas and denied the previous exemption under the tax convention. Several other Canadian spouses were also blind-sided by similar retroactive assessments. I was issued a tax bill for $88,000. . . .

The result is that one Canadian department (DFAIT) has employment agreements (REAs) dictating that government spouses must pay foreign income tax as a foreign resident and give up their diplomatic immunity, while a second government department (CRA) is apparently pretending that this is not happening, probably because the Tax Act has not yet been updated since the 1980's to recognize that this scenario can now occur. This outdated Catch-22 seems to have been one of the main origins of my tax troubles.

Another reads:

I am a spouse of a Foreign Affairs employee. At the present time, my husband is posted in —

— one country while she has found work in another.

This is the best we could do after 37 years of marriage. . . . My husband comes visit me every other week-end —

— and that has been the state now for two and a half years.

DFAIT has a written policy to support spousal employment. From my 26 years experience, these are words and to be sincere I have not seen many actions supporting this policy.

Yet another reads:

My wife is a foreign service officer . . . and this summer we returned to Ottawa after four years. . . . During our time overseas I had full-time employment for only one year.

Another reads:

I have been 'married' to DFAIT for nearly 23 years, and have spent 11 of them abroad. I could bore you for hours with horror stories. My chief issue with DFAIT is what I consider to be the source of all of the problems, and that is their apparent inability to realize that foreign service couples operate as teams, much as other couples who also work together. . . . If we did not work together as partners our marriage would never have survived. As it is, we are considerably behind our contemporaries financially. We returned to Ottawa in September and I am still looking for a job. . . .

Finally, the last story that I will read to you this afternoon, although not the last story I received:

To be very honest with you, I don't see any hope after being married for 25 years to a Foreign Service officer . . . but I will give it another try —

— and try to explain the problem to you.

My ordeal started on my way back from our posting . . . where I worked for the High Commission and received an Award of Excellence for my work. When providing my CV to Human Resources at Foreign Affairs back in Ottawa, I received the suggestion to "delete" the mention of the Award of Excellence . . .

— because they thought it sounded pompous.

Two years later, my husband was posted —

— abroad.

I did not follow him . . . because I was hoping that —

— the post she found in Ottawa would become permanent. It did not and so she joined her husband in his posting.

. . . my husband understood the stress I had every time that I resign my jobs . . . to follow him and that it was time for him to help me. I was told that when a Foreign Affairs officer decides to return before the assigned term —

— because the spouse wanted some kind of permanent position somewhere —

— he could be penalized by paying the move and it was not appreciated by the Department if he returned ahead of time. . . .

When we were posted —

— abroad —

. . . Canada-based employees and spouses —

— were asked if they wanted to meet with a personnel officer. She did.

She was very polite and listened to me and seemed surprised on the way I was treated.

This person informed the personnel officer that she had sent numerous emails to the department over the years. The personnel officer said that she did not have any notice of such emails and she asked the person resend them, which she did, and she has heard nothing since.

(1520)

Honourable senators, I know that my time is up, but may I have a minute to finish what I am saying?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Carstairs: Few families today could raise their families and achieve a decent lifestyle in Canada without the participation of both partners in the workplace. The statistics are clear. Even parents with very young children in Canada have both partners in the workforce, and for parents of school-aged children, the numbers are even higher.

Therefore, if one of the partners is posted abroad, either as a Foreign Service Officer or any other posting that then comes under the regulations of DFAIT, the spouse must leave their employment in Canada. Spouses immediately lose eligibility to collect Employment Insurance because they are no longer physically located in Canada and eligible for work here. They can no longer make payments to Canada Pension Plan because any income they earn is not Canadian income, and they are therefore penalized, not only at the time of the posting but again at the end of their careers.

There are so-called reciprocal working agreements with many of the countries where Canadians are posted, but these agreements are rarely enforced. If they find work, particularly in underdeveloped countries, then the wages are far less than what they were paid in Canada.

Yes, they often have a lower cost of living in some of these countries, but there are no benefits tied to these employment opportunities, such as pensions.

If they are unable to find employment and decide for further education — this was a real shocker — they cannot deduct the tuition costs as they could in Canada because they are not in a Canadian post-secondary institution.

These are Canadians who have been posted abroad to represent us. They are not Canadians who have simply chosen to live in another country.

Honourable senators, I could move a motion to send this to either the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade or to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, but I am reluctant to do so. I think committees themselves should decide what their workload is and whether they would undertake to do such a study.

Therefore, I ask the members of those committees who have listened to what I have said here today to consider taking it under advisement and consider taking it as an activity for their committee sometime in the future.

Honourable senators, Canada needs every one of its educated and talented people to be able to maximize their talents. As Canadians, we need to be served by the best and the brightest. We cannot afford to lose them because of our inaction in relation to reciprocal agreements and policies at Human Resources and Social Development Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency. They all deserve much better from us.

On motion of Senator Andreychuk, debate adjourned.

Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement Bill

Report of Committee

Leave having been given to revert to Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees:

Hon. Joan Fraser (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition), Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented the following report:

Thursday, January 31, 2008

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

SEVENTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-11, An Act to give effect to the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, November 29, 2007, examined the said Bill and now reports the same with the following amendment:

New clauses 12.1 and 12.2, page 4: Add after line 26 the following:

"12.1 (1) Within ten years after this Act receives royal assent, a review of the implementation of this Act and the Agreement may be undertaken by Makivik.

(2) Makivik may submit a report on any review undertaken under subsection (1) to the Minister referred to in subsection 12.2(1).

(3) The Minister shall cause any report submitted under subsection (2) to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives it.

12.2 (1) Within ten years after this Act receives royal assent, a comprehensive review of the implementation of this Act and the Agreement shall be undertaken by the Minister designated by the Governor in Council for the purposes of this Act.

(2) The Minister shall cause a report on the review to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.".

Your committee has also made certain observations, which are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

JOAN FRASER
Chair

OBSERVATIONS

to the Seventh Report of the
Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Your committee has welcomed the opportunity to review Bill C-11 and the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement to which it gives effect.

Through its study, your committee has gained an enhanced appreciation of the complexities associated with the comprehensive land claim negotiation context, and of the significance, for all Canadians, of the successful completion of constitutionally protected comprehensive land claim agreements.

Accordingly, recognizing that complex negotiations are ongoing in a number of jurisdictions, your committee strongly urges the federal government to redouble its efforts to ensure that all prospective beneficiaries of comprehensive land claim agreements are kept fully informed, at all phases of the negotiation process, of both the specific contents of the agreement under consideration, and of the procedures and consequences of the ratification process through which they express their democratic choice.

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

Conflict of Interest for Senators

Committee Authorized to Refer Papers and Documents from Previous Session

Hon. Serge Joyal, pursuant to notice of January 30, 2008, moved:

That the papers and documents received and/or produced by the Committee on Conflict of Interest for Senators during the First Session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament, be referred to the Committee on Conflict of Interest for Senators.

Motion agreed to.

Agriculture and Forestry

Committee Authorized to Meet During Sitting of the Senate

Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck, pursuant to notice earlier this day, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry have the power to sit at 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, February 5, 2008, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that Rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.

Motion agreed to.

[Translation]

Adjournment

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

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (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 Tuesday, February 5, 2008, at 2 p.m.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, is leave granted?

Motion agreed to.

The Senate adjourned until Tuesday, February 5, 2008, at 2 p.m.

---