Hon. Larry W. Campbell: Honourable senators, I rise today with great
pride. As all hockey fans know, the Vancouver Canucks are Canada's last hope for
the 2009 Stanley Cup. While the Senators and Leafs unfortunately failed to make
the playoffs, and the Flames, Oilers and Habs all fell by the wayside after
round one, the Canucks completed round one by winning all four games, albeit a
tough one in the fourth. They are currently fighting furiously with the fourth
seed Chicago Blackhawks to determine who will advance to round three.
The first game of this series was a triumphant win for Vancouver as they beat
Chicago 5 to 3 after losing a 3 to 0 lead. The Blackhawks rallied for game two
on Saturday and reversed the tables, making a huge comeback after two early
goals by the Canucks. This was of great import to my friend Senator MacDonald.
I encourage all senators to stand behind our beloved Canucks tonight for game
three as they take on the Blackhawks in Chicago. While they will be missing Sami
Salo and Pavol Demitra, I am sure their teammates will make every effort to
ensure their absence will not turn into success in Chicago's favour.
I would also like honourable senators to know that I was the most popular
senator at the Liberal convention in Vancouver, even if I was the only one who
had tickets to the game.
Hon. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Honourable senators, today I would like
to talk about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's treatment of Acadia.
On Tuesday, April 28, the Société nationale de l'Acadie released a study
conducted by Marie-Linda Lord, who holds the Chair in Acadian Studies at the
Université de Moncton. The report focused on how much air time news and views
from the Atlantic provinces get on Radio-Canada's evening Téléjournal and
its English-language equivalent, The National, on CBC.
The study compared English and French television news programs broadcast from
January 18 to February 14, 2009. Professor Lord and her assistant, Dominique
Martel, analyzed the presence of the Atlantic provinces with respect to both the
number and origin of reports aired, texts read, interviews conducted and experts
consulted on both the Téléjournal and The National.
Honourable senators, the people of the Atlantic provinces represent 7 per
cent of Canada's population, so they should be entitled to about that much
coverage on our national broadcaster's evening news programs. But that does not
happen in either English or French.
Anglophones in the Atlantic provinces do get better treatment: 4 per cent of
the CBC's total news coverage and 6 per cent of its interviewees hail from
Atlantic provinces. In contrast, Radio-Canada allocates just 1.4 per cent of its
total news time and 0.7 per cent of its interview time to the Atlantic
provinces. Furthermore, Radio-Canada pays a lot of attention to Quebec,
especially to Montreal, in its Téléjournal, while the CBC does a better
job of fulfilling its mandate as a national broadcaster by reflecting our
country's regional diversity.
Honourable senators, I cannot think of a better summary of the study than its
title: One Nation, Two National News Broadcasts: Quebec in French, Canada in
English. This is a sad thing for francophones in minority language
communities. Nothing has changed since the SNA conducted a similar study two
years ago on how much air time RDI news broadcasts spent talking about Acadia.
There is every reason to believe that Radio-Canada plans to pay less and less
attention to Acadia now that it has announced the elimination of Téléjournal
midi Acadie and two radio programs, 3-60 and Tam-Tam Acadie.
I know that, to some extent, the recent budget cuts are the result of
Radio-Canada's revenue shortfall. However, those cuts also reflect
Radio-Canada's chronic indifference towards the regions outside Quebec. Our
national broadcaster must address that indifference once and for all, in order
to respect its mandate and continue to earn our esteem.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your
attention to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Ricardo Alarcón de
Quesada, President of the National Assembly of People's Power of the Republic of
On behalf of all honourable senators, welcome, Mr. President, to the Senate
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, today it is a great
honour for us all to welcome to the Senate the President of the National
Assembly of People's Power of the Republic of Cuba, Dr. Ricardo Alarcón de
Not only does Dr. Alarcón hold one of the most important positions in the
Republic of Cuba, but he is also one of the most famous figures in the history
of Cuba in recent decades. This political figure and professor of philosophy has
been President of the National Assembly since 1993. As early as 1954, while
still a young student at the University of Havana, he dedicated himself, heart
and soul, to the fight against the Batista regime.
He soon joined the 26th of July Movement led by Fidel Castro and after the
victory of the Cuban revolution in 1959, he became vice-president of the
federation of university students. Interestingly, at the same time, I was
president of the law students at the Université de Montréal.
Then began a dazzling career in foreign policy during which he headed the
Americas division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and served as Permanent
Representative of Cuba to the United Nations, Vice-President of the General
Assembly of the UN, President of the Governing Council of the UN Development
Programme and Vice-President of the UN Committee on the Exercise of the
Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. In 1978 he was promoted to first
vice-minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and in 1992 he became Minister
of Foreign Affairs. The following year, he was elected as a member of the
National Assembly. He left behind his ministerial duties and became President of
the National Assembly of People's Power. He was re-elected in 1998, 2003 and
2008. Mr. Alarcón is also a member of Cuba's Politburo and holds a chair in
philosophy at the University of Havana.
Mr. Alarcón's presence here comes at a very opportune time, because just a
few days ago, on the occasion of the visit by the Cuban Minister of Trade, Raul
de la Nuez, the Government of Canada again expressed its commitment to
strengthening the economic ties between our two countries.
Mr. Nuez, whose remarks were well received by the Minister of International
Trade, Stockwell Day, and the Minister of Agriculture, Gerry Ritz, indicated
that he hoped to increase the volume of trade between our two countries, not in
the medium or long term, but in the coming months.
More specifically, Minister Day and Minister Nuez discussed making Canada
Cuba's third-largest trading partner and increasing the number of Canadian
tourists to the island, initiatives that I applaud.
Señor Alarcón, benvenido a Canada and larga vida a la amistad
Canada-Cuba, and long live Commandante Fidel Castro and President Raul
Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, I am honoured to rise
today to pay tribute to one of the 20th century's most compelling and
outstanding leaders. On April 27, 1994, South Africans of all colours went to
the polls and elected their first Black president, Nelson Mandela. May 10 will
mark Nelson Mandela's fifteenth anniversary since becoming president of post-apartheid South Africa.
The election was a historic event that not only changed the course of history
in South Africa but also marked a turning point in world history. Mr. Mandela's
victory put an end to more than three centuries of White rule in the country.
On February 11, 1990, nearly 20 years ago, "Prisoner No. 46664" was
released from the Victor Verster Prison. After spending 27 years in prison,
Nelson Mandela had become the embodiment of hope.
Elected President of the African National Congress in 1991, Nelson Mandela
won 252 of the 400 seats in the first democratic, multiracial election in South
Africa's history. More than 12 million South Africans voted for the ANC, giving
the party a strong mandate with 62.6 per cent of the votes.
I was in South Africa during the 1994 election as an observer with the United
Nations. I will forever remember watching tens of thousands of Blacks lined up
for miles walking to the polls to cast their vote for the first time ever.
I recall an incident in the North West Province, where I was stationed, where
an elderly gentleman in his late 80s stood for several minutes in the polling
booth with his ballot. He did not know what to do. He was unable to read or
write. Finally, the polling officer asked him repeatedly if he would like some
help. He stood there and finally, in a soft voice, he nodded yes; and he said
one word, "Mandela." A broad smile of personal satisfaction covered the man's
face as he deposited his ballot in the box.
This was democracy in action. It was grassroots politics; it was a graphic
demonstration of the healing power of the vote. Black people spoke through their
ballots. They spoke to end a regime that was found to be intolerable by most
civilized countries and they were successful.
In his inaugural address as president, Mandela said:
Let freedom reign. The sun shall never set on so glorious a human
His victory brought social change around the world, and his legacy lives on
through his many foundations.
Honourable senators, the 1994 South African election was a remarkable event
in history where what is good and right in our world won over everything else.
It was a great example of the triumph of the human spirit and the yearning for
Nelson Mandela never wavered in his devotion to democracy, equality and
learning. Despite terrible provocation, he has never answered racism with
racism. His life has been an inspiration to all who are oppressed and
deprived, and to those who are opposed to oppression and deprivation.
Please join me, honourable senators, in paying tribute to Nelson Mandela's
historic 1994 victory and to his endless battle for human rights, diversity and
Hon. Joan Cook: Honourable senators, May 4 to 10 is Mental Health Week
in Canada. This national awareness week, spearheaded by the Canadian Mental
Health Association, provides citizens across the country with opportunities to
learn more about the importance of mental health and how to achieve and maintain
it in our daily lives. This year's theme focuses on mental health and the
economy, with the slogan, "Now more than ever. . .Invest in yourself."
In a recently published study done by Desjardins Financial Security entitled
Health Is Cool!, it was found that 44 per cent of Canadians are stressed
about their finances. The current state of the economy and declining employment
opportunities are increasing Canadians' concern and anxiety over their jobs,
housing income and the cost of living. Through community events and activities,
advertising campaigns and online information, Mental Health Awareness Week will
offer Canadians tips on creating supportive relationships; reaching out to
neighbours, friends, co-workers and family; staying fit and healthy through
exercise and a proper diet; and seeking expert advice if faced with financial
In my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Canadian Mental Health
Association will host numerous events this week. On Monday, May 4, the week was
kicked off with a symposium hosted by Geoff Chaulk, Executive Director of the
Canadian Mental Health Association, Newfoundland Branch; and Colleen Simms,
Regional Director of Mental Health and Addictions, Eastern Health. The symposium
discussed my province's economy and how it affects us, as well as how
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should continue to invest in our mental health
during these stressful economic times.
Honourable senators, I am proud to be a member of the board of a drop-in
centre that was created for mental health consumers in the St. John's area
called The Pottle Centre. The Pottle Centre will host an open house and
information session this Thursday to help the community deal with the stresses
of uncertain economic times.
In closing, I will leave honourable senators with this thought: Statistics
show that one in five Canadians will experience some form of mental health
problem at some point in their lives. Despite the fact that most of us know
someone who has been or will be affected by mental illness, very few of us know
much about it. I urge honourable senators to take some time this week to learn a
bit more about mental health and the impact of difficult economic times.
Together, we can create a mentally healthy Canada.
Hon. Nancy Greene Raine: Honourable senators, I wish to comment on the
issue of women not being allowed to ski jump in the 2010 Olympics. First, I want
to make it clear that the exclusion of women jumpers is a decision made by the
International Olympic Committee. As required by the bidding process, the
Vancouver Olympic Committee agreed that the IOC has the exclusive right to
decide which events are included in the Olympics. The IOC is based in Geneva,
Switzerland, and may not be required to abide by Canada's gender equity laws.
Like many others, I recently wrote to the President of the IOC urging
reconsideration of their decision. He replied that the decision was made
"strictly on a technical basis, without regard to gender." I cannot imagine
what the "technical basis" for this exclusion can be. The women currently jump
similar distances to the men off the normal jump — the smaller of the two jump
hills used in Olympic competition. In fact, the men's and women's hill records
on the normal jump at Whistler are almost equal.
I must explain, though, that for each competition a technical delegate
adjusts the starting point on the inrun to prevent athletes from over-jumping
the hill. The women start higher up the inrun to fly as far as the men.
I have also heard the IOC state that women's jumping is not ready for the
Olympics. During the past season there were 150 active registered women ski
jumpers representing 17 countries on the international Continental Cup elite
level tour. This number represents far more international competitors than in at
least three other sports recently accepted into the Olympics.
The International Ski Federation, the governing body for ski jumping,
resisted the lobby for women's ski jumping for many years. As recently as 2005,
federation president, Gian Franco Kasper, was quoted as saying that ski jumping
"seems not to be appropriate for ladies from a medical point of view."
However, the federation allows women to compete in Olympic downhill, aerials and
ski-cross events, which are arguably far more dangerous than ski jumping.
Unfortunately, it appears that even though the ski federation voted 114 to 1
for women's jumping to be added to the Olympic program, their leadership did not
lobby effectively, and the IOC seems to have dug in their heels. They do not see
what a great opportunity they have to use the wonderful facilities at Whistler
to introduce women's ski jumping to the world.
The fact that over 9,000 people from 6 continents have signed a petition
supporting women's ski jumping at the Olympics shows they already have a growing
audience. There is no doubt women's ski jumping will be included in the 2014
games in Sochi, Russia, but why not in Canada in 2010?
I know that VANOC will do everything possible to include the women if the IOC
gives its blessing, and I know it is not too late.
No matter what the Supreme Court of British Columbia rules, it will be up to the
IOC. Let us hope they change their minds.
Hon. Gerry St. Germain, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples, presented the following report:
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples has the honour to
Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian
Oil and Gas Act, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday,
April 23, 2009, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without
GERRY ST. GERMAIN Chair
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when will this bill be read
a third time?
(On motion of Senator St. Germain, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for
third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)
Hon. Bill Rompkey: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform
the Senate that pursuant to the order of reference adopted on March 12, 2009,
and to the order adopted by the Senate on April 29, 2009, the Standing Senate
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans deposited with the Clerk of the Senate, on May
4, 2009, its second report, entitled: Rising to the Arctic Challenge: Report
on the Canadian Coast Guard, and I move that the report be placed on the
Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting.
(On motion of Senator Rompkey, report placed on the Orders of the Day for
consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)
Hon. Joan Fraser:
I have the honour to table the fifth report of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs, its final report on the provision and
operation of An Act to amend the National Defence Act (court martial), entitled
Equal Justice: Reforming Canada's System of Courts Martial.
(On motion of Senator Fraser, report placed
on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, a message had been received
from the House of Commons with Bill C-4, An Act respecting not-for-profit
corporations and certain other corporations, to which they desire the
concurrence of the Senate.
(Bill read first time.)
The Hon. the Speaker: 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.)
Hon. Mac Harb: Honourable senators, I give notice that, two days
I will call the attention of the Senate to the fact that the European Union
has passed a resolution effectively banning the importation of commercial seal
hunt products, that the Canadian government should therefore take immediate
steps to assist those Inuit communities and Atlantic fishers affected by the
ban and that the Canadian government should drop any threats of a taxpayer
funded WTO challenge against our second largest trading partner, the European
Leave having been given to revert to Notices of Inquiry:
Hon. Claudette Tardif (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, I give notice that, pursuant to Rule 57(2), two days hence:
I will call the attention of the Senate for the purposes of paying tribute
to the Honourable Yoine Goldstein, in recognition of his outstanding career as
a member of the Senate of Canada and for his many contributions and service to
Hon. Mac Harb: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present a
petition signed by Alberta residents from Calgary and Edmonton. Those
petitioners request that the Government of Canada amend the Fisheries Act to
stop the seal hunt.
Hon. Yoine Goldstein: Honourable senators, I have the honour to
present a petition from the residents of Ottawa and, more precisely, 241 medical
students from the University of Ottawa, concerning Bill S-232, An Act to amend
the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a
consequential amendment to another Act, to ensure that those most in need
receive essential medicines.
Hon. Art Eggleton: Honourable senators, the evidence keeps mounting,
and it is not coming from the opposition; it is coming from the science
According to The Globe and Mail yesterday, one of Canada's top
researchers from the University of Montreal, Dr. Rafik-Pierre Sékaly, is moving
to the United States and taking 25 scientists with him because of federal
funding cuts to basic science research.
Right now, the funding is not there. They are going to fund you . . . at
levels that will not allow you to be highly competitive. If you are not highly
competitive, you are done.
When will this government increase the funding to Canada's three science
funding agencies to ensure that Canadian scientists stay competitive,
particularly in light of the $10 billion investment by President Obama in the
United States? How do we remain competitive in light of that investment?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government and Minister of State
(Seniors)): Honourable senators, I was hopeful that the newly crowned leader
of the Liberal Party would establish his research office within the confines of
the Liberal Party and not the front pages of The Globe and Mail.
With regard to the case that the honourable senator raises about the
scientist who appeared on the front page of The Globe and Mail saying he
was moving to Florida, no funding to the researcher in question has been cut by
the Canadian Institutes of Health Research under this government. Since 2006,
our government has provided him with over $2.3 million in research funding, and
the only cut to AIDS research funding was made under the Liberals in 2005. That
cut was made to the Canadian Network for Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics,
With respect to HIV and AIDS, as this area is where Dr. Sékaly has expertise,
in 2009-10, we will invest more than $94 million towards HIV and AIDS research
and initiatives. Let us not forget the unprecedented leadership shown through
our investment of $111 million over five years in partnership with The Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation.
Senator Eggleton: Senator LeBreton is missing the point. The point is
that we are not remaining competitive. Dr. Sékaly obviously is not receiving
enough money to conduct the kind of high-quality research that will keep him in
Canada, and he is not the only scientist saying that; many others are as well.
Our own Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology,
in a report issued in the last Parliament, expressed many of the concerns we
have expressed about government policy.
The report also said that the government needs to give further attention to
the Scientific Research and Experimental Development, SR&ED, program, its tax
credit limits and its regulations. The government needs to pay attention to
providing incentives to increase access for Canadian firms to venture capital
funds and to standardize intellectual property policies with the province and
academic institutions. All these things, by the way, were adopted unanimously by
both sides of this house.
The point I am making in this competition is that our standard of living is
at stake. When will the government address these shortcomings so that Canada can
take a leading role in the 21st century knowledge economy?
Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, as I said in answer to previous
questions, it is easy to pick up on the comments of individuals who make certain
personal choices. In the case of this gentleman, there were no funding cuts.
Our government has invested $137 million in CIHR since 2006, and the total
budget for CIHR now stands at close to $1 billion. That is a significant amount
of money. It is the most that has ever been spent in our nation's history.
These investments will support the federal initiative to address AIDS
research and the Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative. We have provided funding to
many organizations, including universities and research chairs. This government
has a very good record of supporting science and technology and research.
Concerning the funds that the Obama administration is putting into science
and technology, I recently read a report saying that the U.S. uses a completely
different benchmark. The U.S. includes in their calculations money spent in the
schools. Comparatively, we are fully supporting our scientific and research
community. If the honourable senator so requests, I will be happy to provide
many examples of that support.
Hon. Jean-Claude Rivest: Honourable senators, the point just raised by
the honourable senator is extremely regrettable. These 25 young researchers were
trained in Quebec and in Canada, and our society has spent a lot of money on
I am asking the minister if, when such an announcement is made, the Canadian
government does something to examine the causes.
Since minister does not seem to know the facts, Dr. Sékaly clearly stated
that he was leaving partly because of the insufficient funds put at his
disposal. Does the Government of Canada get involved when brilliant researchers
leave Canada, or does it let them go without doing anything except talk about
the money invested generally in research? Is direct action being taken to
prevent this brain drain?
Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, the government cannot comment
on every person who appears on the front page of The Globe and Mail. I
thought I was clear in my answer to Senator Eggleton when I said that there were
no cuts to this gentleman's research funding other than in 2005. Since 2006,
when we came into government, this gentleman has been funded with $2.3 million.
The only cuts made to HIV and AIDS research were made by the previous
government. At the time, people may have been quoted on the front page of any
newspaper bemoaning that fact. Someone could have risen in the Senate or the
House of Commons and asked a question pointing out this person's unhappiness and
I understand that this particular gentleman made some comments today in the
Quebec media that were somewhat toned down compared to what he is purported to
have said yesterday in The Globe and Mail. I always give the benefit of
the doubt to someone who appears in The Globe and Mail.
The fact is that the government has spent consistently in every budget since
Budget 2006. I have a long list of government funding for the various research
councils, universities and university chairs. I have that information and I
would be happy to provide it to the honourable senator.
Hon. James S. Cowan (Leader of the Opposition): On the same general
topic, if I may, the leader and I have had several exchanges over the past weeks
on this issue of support for science and technology. The leader has quite
rightly pointed out the amount of money the government has committed,
particularly, with respect to infrastructure.
I have tried to make the point that in many cases there are two sides to
these matters. There is the infrastructure and capital side, and there is the
operating side. In this case, there is a question of maintaining the proper
balance. I have suggested to Senator LeBreton that the criticism she referred to
in the press is directed to that lack of balance.
I came across an example the other day which makes the point. I want to bring
that to her attention and ask for her comment. There is a centre called the
Churchill Northern Studies Centre in Churchill, Manitoba. That centre received
$11 million in infrastructure funding from the government. They were, obviously,
very happy when they received that, but in the middle of celebrating this $11
million in infrastructure funding, their $80,000 operating grant from the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council was cut. The $80,000 goes
toward the operating funds of the technical staff and the day-to-day operations
of the centre.
Here is the government handing money out to make welcome infrastructure
improvements while taking away the money required to operate the facility. It
seems to me that there is an inherent conflict. It is inconceivable that the
government cannot understand that it is not enough to fund one side of the
ledger without providing proper support to the other.
I would ask the minister to draw this particular small example to the
attention of her colleagues because it clearly indicates the wider problem that
all of us have been talking about for so many weeks.
Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I will certainly seek some
further information on that specific project, but it is important to look at
this issue in an overall government context and the amount of work this
government has done in all of our budgets.
For example, because Genome Canada was not specifically mentioned in our
Economic Action Plan, somehow or other that meant we were not funding Genome
Canada when, in fact, Genome Canada had been given long-term stable funding.
As a government, we understand the importance of developing science and
technology in Canada, where we have a population and a workforce that is
favourable to this kind of initiative. That is why the Prime Minister launched
our science and technology strategy in May 2007 and that is why we created the
Canada Excellence Research Chairs program, a prestigious new research funding
program that awards up to $10 million over seven years to 20 of the world's
leading university researchers to support their research activities in Canada.
It is one of the world's most valuable research funding programs. That is why,
in the last three years, the government has invested $205 million in the
granting councils, providing them and the researchers with stable, long-term
funding. That is why we are supporting Canada's research chairs, the Vanier
scholarships and Genome Canada with multi-year support. That is why our
Economic Action Plan makes $5.1 billion in new investments, such as $2 billion
in the Knowledge Infrastructure Program and $750 million for the Canada
Foundation for Innovation.
Honourable senators, you would never know it from listening to the questions
in this place, but Canada is number one in the G7 and number two among OECD
nations supporting basic discovery-oriented research at our universities and
colleges. That is not us speaking; that is the G7 and the OECD.
Our science and technology strategy supports basic research, but we also need
to ensure that researchers have the equipment and facilities that they need to
do their jobs. This was the primary request of Canadian universities and
colleges as the government, the Minister of Finance and officials went around in
the budget consultation process, and we delivered.
Senator Cowan: Let me try this once again, honourable senators. I am
not arguing that the money being spent on infrastructure is not a good
investment. I am asking the leader to consider the following: It passes my
understanding as to how it makes sense from the government's point of view to
invest $11 million to improve infrastructure and withdraw with the other hand
the money required to operate that infrastructure. That makes no sense to me. I
do not understand.
Senator LeBreton: As I said in my answer to the honourable senator's
last question, I will seek further clarification on that one particular project.
Senator Cowan: That is but one example.
Senator LeBreton: There are many examples, including the Canada
Excellence Research Chairs that I just mentioned. These are all the new and
innovative programs of this government.
As I pointed out to Senator Eggleton, we did not cut research for the
gentleman who precipitated this discussion today. In fact, we gave him
significant funds. His budget was cut in 2005. Since 2006, we have made sure
that he has had proper funding.
Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, following the same line of
questioning, last week it was reported that an award-winning technology
investment program will be cancelled at the end of this fiscal year. This
program is called TEAM, Technology Early Action Measures. It supports projects
demonstrating technologies that mitigate greenhouse gas emissions both in Canada
and internationally. The international projects supported by this program will
be devastated by this cancellation.
Honourable senators, the Speech from the Throne, if I may quote the Governor
Our Government is committed to seeking out new opportunities for Canadians
and to promoting global prosperity . . . .
However, in this instance we are cancelling the funding for projects that
display Canadian ingenuity in Canada and around the world, projects that tackle
issues related to climate change. How can this government justify such a
Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I do not have the specifics on
that particular program. We have established many new endeavours in the field of
science and technology. I am not sure where it was, but questions have been
asked about the report of the Science, Technology and Innovation Council. That
report will be very helpful to the government. However, people failed to point
out that the Science, Technology and Innovation Council was established by this
We have a different approach to the question of scientific research in this
country. For every person that the honourable senator can stand up and quote or
program that she can mention, I can rise to quote from another person and put
forward another program. We then get into a see-saw battle.
In the last budget, we put $5.1 billion into science and technology. That is
a considerable sum of money. Several weeks ago in this very place, Senator Keon
delivered a speech during which he put on the record some of the great work the
government is doing.
We can debate a phased out program, but we never hear about the new programs.
It is a mug's game at best.
The government stands by its commitment to science and technology. We have
committed significant funds across the spectrum and we have received
considerable support from the science and research community.
Senator Milne: I thank the honourable senator for the answer, but I
was not quoting this or that person. I was quoting the government in this place.
I was asking about TEAM.
As the Cuban ambassador was here today take, for example, the Refrigerant
Services Inc. project. Researchers in Cuba developed an alternative to using
CFCs in refrigerators but did not have the capacity to replace or convert CFCs
in all these appliances. Refrigerant Services Inc. developed a separation
technology capable of producing this alternative chemical and increased
production by 500 per cent. A scant four years later, 1,600 mechanics and
technicians have been trained on retrofitting refrigerators to the cleaner
alternative. This company is now positioned to distribute its technology
throughout the developing world. This project demonstrates that developing
countries can and will adhere to climate change initiatives given the
None of this would have happened without the Canadian TEAM program. The total
cost to help Cuba develop this technology through the TEAM approach was
$152,000. This is a minimal cost, yet it is such a superb idea.
Why are we turning our back on the international community at a time when
investing in climate change is so important?
Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, we are not turning our back on
the international community or our international responsibilities, as was shown
by Minister Oda yesterday when she visited Sri Lanka, although on other matters.
On this particular program, I will take the honourable senator's question as
notice and ask the department to provide a written response.
Hon. Grant Mitchell: Honourable senators, in the absence of an
adequate or any answer to Senator Cowan's questions, I wish to return to the
subject of the Churchill Northern Studies Centre.
Just to clarify for perhaps the third or fourth time, the Churchill Northern
Studies Centre received $11 million in capital infrastructure grants.
Unfortunately, the centre will not be able to keep the heat and lights on
because it lost $80,000 in federal operating grants.
Does anybody in that government actually believe that these researchers will
be able to do their research while they are freezing in the dark?
Senator Comeau: That is an Alberta phrase.
Senator LeBreton: As Senator Mitchell sits on the side of the
opposition; I will take the question as notice.
Senator Mitchell: There is a similar problem with the northern
research chair at the University of Alberta, who has received funds for
infrastructure capital spending on laboratories but, interestingly enough, has
had cuts to operating grants so that he now cannot fly to the North to his field
Who is the policy genius who decided that this researcher could somehow do
his research in the North if he cannot even get there?
Senator LeBreton: Every time Senator Mitchell asks a question, I take
it with a grain of salt and do not accept it as fact. Therefore, I will take the
question as notice.
Senator Mitchell: Regarding the Churchill research centre, they are
receiving $11 million in infrastructure funding and they only need $80,000 in
operating funds. Could the government not figure out that it could give them
$10,920,000 in infrastructure and save up the other $80,000 so they could do
their research with light and heat and not have to stand around a Bunsen burner
while they try to stay warm?
Senator LeBreton: At least the honourable senator is acknowledging
that we are providing infrastructure money. A couple weeks ago, honourable
senators on the other side were saying that we were not doing anything for
Regarding the comment about standing around a Bunsen burner to keep warm —
Senator Comeau: He is a stand-up comic.
Senator LeBreton: When I was in science class, I would not have gone
near a Bunsen burner to keep warm. In any event, I will take the question as
Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, my question is for
the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Today, the European Parliament voted
for a complete boycott of seal products, with one small exception in the case of
products from traditional hunting and not-for-profit purposes.
Canada is facing a very powerful vegetarian lobby whose stated objective is
to force our society to adopt a way of life that totally excludes the
consumption of animal products. Because they did not have a credible political
alternative, and because they are in the middle of an election campaign, our
colleagues in the European Parliament had no option but to yield to the
pressures of this lobby. This lobby has just won its first victory and others
could follow if we do not appreciate the danger that is threatening us.
Indeed, the PETA organization is resorting to the same techniques as those
now successfully used by the seal lobby to launch an anti-fishing campaign in
the United States. Meanwhile, in Europe, some groups are beginning to protest
the consumption of eggs.
Could the Leader of the Government tell us if the government is going to take
those measures that have been lacking so much over the past three years
regarding the seal hunt, in order to fight the vegetarian lobby and its new
campaigns, which are already threatening other areas of our economy?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government and Minister of State
(Seniors)): Honourable senators, of course Canada condemns the European
Union ban on Canadian seal products. Thousands of coastal Canadian families and
our northern citizens have been dealt a serious blow to their livelihood. All
parliamentarians need to be united against this ban. Our
government's position remains that any ban on humanely conducted hunts, such as
Canada's, is completely without merit.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: The Government of Canada is currently
negotiating an economic free trade agreement with the Europeans and was aware of
a possible ban of seal products. Canada's Minister of International Trade, the
honourable Stockwell Day, said the following on April 28, and I quote:
Negotiations on a free trade deal between Canada and the European Union
will not be affected by the EU's plan to ban imports of seal products, Trade
Minister Stockwell Day said on Tuesday.
"It's two separate tracks. The EU discussions will continue," Day said in
an interview with Reuters financial television.
Could the Leader of the Government tell us whether, during his visit to
Prague, in the Czech Republic — a country whose Prime Minister is currently the
President of the European Parliament — the Prime Minister will challenge the
European decision and ask the minister of the European Union not to vote in
favor of the boycott?
Senator LeBreton: I will not comment on the Prime Minister's meetings
in Prague. However, I know that if there is no exemption for Canada, a country
that has strict guidelines in place for humane and sustainable sealing
practices, we will challenge the ban at the World Trade Organization.
Hon. Terry M. Mercer: Honourable senators, a recent announcement by
governments to convene a joint committee on forestry issues for over 250,000
employees of 300 forest-dependent communities who are struggling to stay alive
is simply not enough.
One of the biggest threats to the forestry industry is "black liquor"
subsidies. The U.S. government is providing billions of dollars to the pulp
industry for a renewable fuel that they produce and use in their mills called
black liquor, as opposed to black rum and Diet Coke.
It seems they are hiding the subsidy under the guise of a renewable fuel to
prevent being caught in violation of the softwood lumber agreement that this
government negotiated. Black liquor subsidies technically fall outside the
softwood lumber agreement because the Americans sell the pulp domestically.
What is being done to stop these subsidies? How much more money will be left
on the table, since the government has already left billions of dollars in the
hands of the Americans?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government and Minister of State
(Seniors)): Honourable senators, in all honesty, I have never heard the
term, "black liquor." I expect I will now, so I will seek clarification from
my colleagues regarding the honourable senator's questions.
Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable
senators, I have the honour to table three answers to oral questions: the first
was raised by Senator Rompkey on March 26, 2009, concerning life expectancy in
Nunavik; the second by Senator Jaffer, on April 9, 2009, concerning Foreign
Affairs, the status of women in Afghanistan; and the third by Senator Cordy, on
April 29, 2009, concerning Human Resources and Skills Development, Employment
Insurance benefits for Sadie and Maurice Ricketts.
(Response to question raised by Hon. Bill Rompkey on March 26, 2009)
Cost of Living
Canada has introduced a number of measures to reduce the cost of living for
all Canadians, including Nunavimiut.
Starting in 2008, we increased the tax credit for residents of remote areas
In addition, Budget 2009, Canada's Economic Action Plan, includes $20
billion in personal income tax relief over 2008-09 and the next five fiscal
years. Tax relief initiatives include:
Increasing the basic personal tax amount by 7.5 per cent over its 2008
level to $10,320.
Providing an estimated $1.5 billion in additional support through
enhancements to the Canada Child Tax Benefit and the National Child Benefit
Increasing the Age Credit amount by $1,000 to provide tax savings to
about 2.2 million seniors. This is in addition to a $1,000 increase in the
amount as part of the 2006 Tax Fairness Plan.
The Government of Canada is aware that housing and over-crowding statistics
in Nunavik are consistently one of the worst in Canada. Nunavik has the
highest rate of overcrowding among Inuit regions (49% in 2006) and is the only
Inuit region where the rate has increased from 2001.
Since 2000, through the Housing Agreement (relating to implementation of
the James Bay and Northern Quebec
Agreement), Canada and Quebec have contributed significant funding toward social
housing in Nunavik.
At the March 2009 Katimajiit Round Table meeting (Canada / Quebec /
Nunavik) there was a commitment to hold a Housing Forum (likely in late June
2009) which would aim to "substantially improve the housing situation by
Food Mail Program
Canada recognizes that access to healthy food at affordable prices is a
significant factor in reducing the cost of living and improving the quality
of life, nutrition and health in Nunavik communities.
In 2008-2009, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada provided approximately
$56 million to Canada Post to reduce the cost of shipping nutritious
perishable food and other essential items by air to isolated northern
communities under the Food Mail Program.
The Government of Canada is fully aware that the Food Mail Program is of
critical importance to the residents of Nunavik. As the Honourable Senator
may be aware, a comprehensive review of the program is underway to try to
find ways of making it more effective and efficient. The review is based in
part on the results of pilot projects in three communities, including one in
Nunavik, where the cost of shipping certain key perishable foods has been
Both Makivik Corporation and Kativik Regional Government have been
part of the review process via meetings with the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development's special representative, Mr. Dargo.
Mr. Dargo recently completed his work and officials are currently
reviewing the report and recommendations.
Community-based programs administered through Health Canada, such as the
Canada Prenatal Nutrition Program, Aboriginal Head Start and the Aboriginal
Diabetes Initiative, promote nutrition and access to traditional food and
healthy store-bought food. For example, these programs include activities
such as the provision of food supplements and/or vouchers for food,
community kitchens, community freezers, healthy snacks, and cooking classes.
As food security is a complex issue that requires multiple
agencies/sectors working together, the Government of Canada is working with
various partners to help address this issue and improve access to
traditional food and healthy store-bought food. For example, Health Canada
has partnered with key retailers who operate in Nunavik to improve the store
environment by promoting the availability and quality of store-bought food;
these retailers have agreed to increase the supply of nutritious foods that
are relatively affordable.
Funding and Support for Northern Medical Workers
In 2004, the Government of Canada introduced a five-year $100 million
Aboriginal Health Human Resources Initiative (AHHRI) that aims to develop
and implement Aboriginal health human resources to increase the number of
Aboriginal health care providers, improve supports to Aboriginal health
career students, and increase the level of cultural competency of health
care providers working in Aboriginal communities.
To date, AHHRI has allocated over $4.75 million to Inuit-specific
projects, with projects currently underway in the NWT, Nunavut, Quebec and
The total amount to date for Nunavik is $513,284. It is in the project
proposal phase for this fiscal year.
(Response to question raised by Hon. Mobina S.B. Jaffer on April 1, 2009)
Upon learning of the Shia Personal Status Law, Canada raised its deep
concern on this issue immediately and forcefully with the highest levels of
the Afghan government. The Minister of Foreign Affairs raised the Law with
Afghan Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta and Afghan Interior Minister
Hanif Atmar at the Afghanistan Conference in The Hague. The Prime Minister
publicly underlined Canada's deep concern at the G20 meeting. Canadian
officials intervened with the President's office in Kabul and with Afghan
Ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad, in Ottawa. At every opportunity, we have
pressed and we continue to press the Afghan government to meet its
international obligations, including respect for the equality of women before
the law. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has since publicly committed to
revising articles of the law that are inconsistent with the Afghan
Constitution. When the Minister of Foreign Affairs again raised the Law with
his Afghan counterpart Minister Spanta, by telephone on April 5th, the Afghan
Foreign Minister confirmed that Afghanistan would halt implementation of the
Law and undertake a review to ensure its consistency with the Afghan
constitution and International Law.
The Afghan government has committed to reviewing the law to ensuring its
consistency with the Afghan constitution and International Law. Canada will
continue to work with Afghan and international partners, including Afghan
civil society, to help address concerns with certain provisions of the law.
Canada's Ambassador to Afghanistan, Ron Hoffmann, most recently met with
President Karzai on April 16th and Speaker of Afghanistan's Lower House on
April 19th to express Canada's concerns and urge the government to ensure its
review process is comprehensive and consistent with Afghan and International
Law. In preceding days, Canadian officials also met with the Second Vice
President, the Minister of Justice, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
the Attorney General and other government officials and prominent politicians.
Canada is already supporting a range of programs that advance this
objective. For instance, CIDA funds a three-year $5 million Rights &
Democracy family law project.
DFAIT funds a legislative drafting expert, through the Canadian Governance
Support Office, to provide the legislative drafting unit of the Afghan Ministry
of Justice with technical advice. As part of Canada's six priorities in
Afghanistan, we will continue to support a full range of projects that aim to
improve women's legal and democratic rights, increase their access to education
and healthcare and improve their social and economic livelihoods.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before calling Orders of
the Day, I want to deal with a point of order.
At the beginning of Orders of the Day on April 23, Senator Mercer rose on a
point of order relating to the conduct of Question Period held earlier that day
and the application of rule 24(1)(a). This provides that an oral question may be
(a) The Leader of the Government in the Senate, if it is a question
relating to public affairs
As has been noted in a number of rulings, there is considerable latitude
during Question Period in terms of what constitutes "public affairs." In the
present case, the matter referred to the commission of inquiry being conducted
by Mr. Justice Oliphant. The general practice in Parliament has been to avoid
discussing matters or proceedings currently before the courts or quasi-judicial
inquiries. This is referred to as the sub judice convention.
While the convention has not been codified, procedural literature indicates
that, although not binding, parliamentarians should be cautious about making
reference to the proceedings, evidence, or findings of a commission before it
Applied to Question Period, parliamentarians should exercise due restraint in
terms of the questions they ask and the answers they provide.
Hon. John D. Wallace moved second reading of Bill C-14, An Act to
amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system
He said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to speak today about Bill C-14, An
Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system
The bill was passed by the House of Commons with no amendments. It was
studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights,
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, which heard from the Minister of
Justice, officials from the Department of Justice, and Statistics Canada's
Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, as well as a range of stakeholders,
including representatives of law enforcement, prosecutors and the Canadian
Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers.
Organized crime, street gangs and guns are serious problems in Canada.
Gang-related homicides are on the rise in Canada. In 2007, there were 594
homicides in this country, and 117 were gang related. As reported in the media,
Canada has experienced recently a wave of organized crime activity, including
I am pleased that there has been unanimous agreement from all parties that
immediate action is needed. With this bill, we propose firm but appropriate
responses to some of the growing problems of organized crime and their threats
to public safety, particularly threats posed by violent street gangs.
According to the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, CISC, there are in the
order of 900 identifiable organized crime groups operating across Canada. Many
of these criminal organizations are street gangs. Organized crime groups can be
loosely organized, as is the case with most street gangs, or they can be
hierarchical, with a highly organized structure, as in the case with most outlaw
motorcycle gangs. Criminal organizations rely upon networking and collaboration
with other criminal groups to conduct their illegal activities.
Regardless of their level of sophistication, their activities harm Canadian
communities. Gang violence goes hand-in-hand with their illicit activities, with
consequences that go far beyond the criminal subculture. Recently, there have
been numerous incidents in which innocent Canadians have been killed as a result
of gang activity.
These incidents reveal an increased level of risk to Canadians, and we take
this risk seriously. The role of government is to take the necessary steps to
better protect the safety and security of all Canadians.
Canadians want the government to take action against organized crime. In a
2007 survey on this issue, Canadians indicated that they believe organized crime
is as serious a threat to Canada as terrorism. Nearly half of those surveyed
indicated that they felt they were personally affected by organized crime.
Approximately 89 per cent of those surveyed know that
organized crime is linked to drug trafficking, and just over half are of the
view that new legislation was required to address organized crime more
This government believes it is time to strengthen the criminal justice system
and to give law enforcement and judges better tools to hold offenders to account
for the harm they cause to society.
To this send, Bill C-14 proposes amendments in four areas. First, the bill
makes all murders connected to criminal organizations automatically first-degree
murder, regardless of whether they are planned and deliberate. Second, it
creates a new offence to target drive-by and other reckless shootings involving
intentional disregard for the life or safety of another person. Third, the bill
creates two new offences to respond to assaults against peace officers that
cause bodily harm, involve the use of a weapon, or that constitute aggravated
assault of a peace officer. Fourth, the bill amends the gang recognizance
provision to clarify that a judge can impose any reasonable conditions, as well
as to lengthen the possible period of the order to 24 months where an offender
has been convicted previously of a criminal organization or terrorism offence,
or the intimidation of justice system's participants offence.
When the bill was studied by the Justice Committee, most of the witnesses who
appeared gave their support to the bill. For example, the proposed amendments to
make automatically first-degree all murders committed in close connection with
organized crime were well received by law enforcement and prosecution
As honourable senators know, those convicted of murder receive a life
sentence, but those convicted of first-degree murder are ineligible for parole
for 25 years. In the case of second-degree murder, it is 10 years.
Let me take a moment to review with honourable senators the ways in which
Bill C-14 will provide powerful new tools for law enforcement to respond to
organized crime. With respect to the first area of reform — murders that can be
linked to organized crime — the government, as noted, proposes amendments that
automatically treat all these cases as first-degree murder, regardless of
whether they are planned and deliberate.
These amendments are extremely important, honourable senators. The Justice
Committee heard from representatives from the Canadian Centre for Justice
Statistics, who testified that gang-related homicides are on the rise in Canada,
comprising 20 per cent of all murders. In British Columbia, I am told the number
is 40 per cent. This increase is to be contrasted with the fact that homicide
rates, more generally, are decreasing across Canada. The committee also heard
evidence from a prosecutor who supported this amendment as a tool to address the
growing problem of gang homicides.
Our proposed amendments would provide two separate tests to address murders
that are connected to organized crime. First, if it can be established that the
murder was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association
with a criminal organization, it will be classified as first-degree murder.
Second, if it can be established that the murder occurred while the person
was committing or attempting to commit another indictable offence for the
benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization,
it will be classified as first-degree murder.
The person would have to be guilty of murder in the circumstances. This would
not create some form of "constructive murder" or raise manslaughter to murder
in those circumstances. Rather, the effect of the provision would be to make any
murder committed in the course of another criminal organization offence first
degree rather than second degree.
The second reform proposed in the bill is that a new offence should be added
to the Criminal Code that would target drive-by and other intentional shootings
involving reckless disregard for the life or safety of others. Currently, the
offences available to prosecute these kinds of cases range from section 86,
which is careless use of a firearm, to section 244, which is the discharge of a
firearm at a person with intent to cause bodily harm.
The negligence-based offences do not, however, appropriately capture the
severity of a drive-by scenario, which involves consciously reckless conduct.
Section 244, on the other hand, requires proof that the firearm was discharged
at a particular person with a specific intent to cause bodily harm. While
clearly the more appropriate offence if it can be shown that the shooter did
have a particular target, it can sometimes be difficult to prove in a drive-by
shooting scenario where the intent is to intimidate a rival gang, and in many
cases, the shooters may be firing wildly, in any event, without a particular
The proposed offence will thus fill a gap in the Criminal Code and provide a
tailored response to this behaviour. This new offence would require proof that
the accused had specifically turned their mind to the fact that discharging
their firearm could jeopardize the life or safety of another person and
consciously ran this risk.
The proposed penalty system would mirror that of similarly serious offences
involving the use of firearms, such as section 244. This offence would be
punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty of four years imprisonment and a
maximum of fourteen years.
The mandatory minimum would increase to five years if the offence was
committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a
criminal organization; or if it involved the use of a prohibited or restricted
firearm, such as a handgun or automatic firearm. In addition, repeat offenders
in these circumstances would be subject to a higher mandatory minimum penalty of
seven years in prison.
As is already the case in the Criminal Code, any one of the listed class of
serious offences involving the use of firearms would qualify as a previous
offence for the purpose of the increased mandatory minimum for repeat offenders
linked to organized crime or using prohibited or restricted firearms.
When the bill was reviewed by the Justice Committee, a motion by the Bloc
Québécois was introduced to remove the mandatory minimum penalties. This motion
did not carry.
Let me take a moment to explain why mandatory minimum penalties were included
in the proposed drive-by shooting offence. The proposed penalty scheme of this
offence would be part of the overall penalty scheme for offences involving the
use of firearms in the Criminal Code. There are already a number of such
offences where these mandatory minimum penalties apply, such as attempted murder
and assault with a weapon. One of these is section 244, which is the existing
offence of "discharging a firearm with intent." The proposed new offence is
closely related to section 244. It would thus have created an inconsistency in
the Criminal Code to have removed the mandatory minimum penalties from the
proposed offence to address drive-by shootings.
Honourable senators, legislation targeted at the deadly combination of guns
and gangs must be supported. In 2007, nearly 69 per cent of gang-related
homicides were committed with a firearm. In non-gang-related homicides, only 20
per cent involved firearms.
The third area of reform relates to assaults committed against peace and
public officers, such as police — those who are entrusted with maintaining law
and order and preserving the public peace.
The Criminal Code currently treats some acts of violence committed against
peace officers separately from the same acts committed against the general
public. For example, section 270 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to
assault a peace officer engaged in the execution of their duties. At the other
end of the spectrum, section 231 of the Criminal Code classifies the murder of a
peace officer acting in the course of their duties automatically first-degree
murder, regardless of whether it was planned and deliberate.
There are, however, no offences covering the more serious levels of assault.
Bill C-14 contains a proposal to fill this gap in the Criminal Code's treatment
of violent acts committed against peace officers by creating two new offences.
The first offence would prohibit the assault of a peace officer involving a
weapon or which causes bodily harm. This would be a hybrid offence punishable by
a maximum of 10 years imprisonment.
The second offence would prohibit the aggravated assault of a peace officer.
This would be a straight indictable offence punishable by a maximum of 14 years
imprisonment. Taken together, these two offences, along with the existing
offences, would create a complete and separate scheme within the Criminal Code
to respond to violence committed against peace officers carrying out their
These amendments will address assaults not only on police officers, but also
on prison guards, wardens, border and Coast Guard personnel who have law
enforcement duties, as well as fishery officers, to name just a few.
These amendments will send a strong message that assaults committed against
law enforcement officers will not be tolerated. These attacks not only put the
lives or safety of the individual officers at risk, they also attack and
undermine the justice system more broadly.
In order to ensure these offences are adequately punished, the government has
proposed amendments that would require that a judge, when sentencing an offender
for any of the specific offences targeting assaults against peace officers, give
primary consideration to the principles of denunciation and deterrence. The same
principle would apply to cases involving intimidation of justice system
participants, including judges, prosecutors, jurors and many others who play a
role in the criminal justice system. This conduct is expressly designed to
undermine the rule of law, and the justice system more broadly, and must be
strongly denounced and punished.
The fourth issue addressed in this bill relates to the use of the
recognizance order, or peace bond, which is specifically aimed at preventing the
commission of an organized crime or terrorism offence or the intimidation of
justice system participant offence.
Section 810.01 was first added to the Criminal Code in 1998, and its purpose,
as with other recognizance orders, is the prevention of future harm. Ten years
later, in 2008, our government's Tackling Violent Crime Act was passed. Among
other things, that legislation made changes to strengthen the recognizance
provisions that address serious personal injury offences and certain sexual
offences against children.
The government, in Bill C-14, is now proposing further amendments to do the
same thing to the "gang peace bond" provisions. Specifically, we are making
changes to clarify that when imposing conditions as part of the order, a judge
has a very broad discretion to order any reasonable conditions that are
desirable in order to secure the good conduct of the person before the court. It
is hoped that this will result in more effective conditions being ordered. Any
breach of the conditions imposed will make the person subject to prosecution for
The second significant change in this area relates to the potential length of
the peace bond. Like the Tackling Violent Crime Act, the duration of the peace
bond would be for up to two years when it is established that the defendant has
been convicted of an organized crime, terrorism, or intimidation of justice
system participants. In the case of repeat offenders, 12 months was often not
enough time and necessitated a prosecutor going back to court to seek a new
order. This change will provide more effective controls on the persons made
subject to these orders and will ease some of the burdens faced by those
responsible for the administration of justice.
This government has made the safety and security of Canadians a priority. I
am confident that Bill C-14 is a strong and measured response to the threat
posed to Canadians by gangs, guns and organized crime. I urge honourable
senators to support the passage of Bill C-14 into law as quickly as possible.
Canadians deserve nothing less.
Hon. Colin Kenny: Honourable senators, will Senator Wallace accept a
Senator Wallace: Yes.
Senator Kenny: The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and
Defence heard testimony by the Commissioner of the RCMP that the RCMP is aware
of a significant number of active organized criminal groups in Canada but have
the resources to deal with only 30 per cent of them. Is there anything in Bill
C-14 to assist the RCMP in their need for resources to address the other 70 per
Senator Wallace: I thank the honourable senator for the question. As
with any such matters, there are implications from statistics and there are cost
issues, which we all understand. The important point in these proposed changes
to the Criminal Code is to give law enforcement officers the tools they need,
the creation of a deterrent, so that we do not put at risk the lives of police
officers and innocent people walking down the street who become victims of these
seemingly random shootings. It is important that society and law enforcement
officers have the necessary tools, and creating a deterrent is one important
tool. Yes, there are always cost issues, but we cannot take a back seat and
refuse to move ahead and do the right thing based on a cost consideration. We
will have to deal with those issues, but the safety and security of Canadians
has to come first.
Senator Kenny: When the Commissioner testified before the Defence
Committee, he did not mention any of the matters that the honourable senator
mentioned about Bill C-14. Rather, he addressed the fact that he was short of
people and that if he had more, he thought that he could move forward. It would
seem strange that he did not volunteer that such proposed legislation would be
most useful. He simply volunteered to the committee that he was short of people.
Senator Wallace: In particular in large urban centres, I doubt that a
police force exists that does not consider itself understaffed to deal with the
issues of crime. Thank heavens for the protection of all of us and our families
that they do that. Those issues cannot stop us from moving in the right
direction to put the necessary laws in place in an effort to prevent the
occurrence of acts of violence. It is true that the issue of resources will
surround just about everything that comes before the House or the Senate, but we
have to do the right thing, and that is protect our society.
Hon. Tommy Banks: Would the honourable senator take another question?
Senator Wallace: Yes.
Senator Banks: I am not a lawyer but you are a lawyer so I hope you
will forgive the naïveté of my question and answer in terms that a layman might
The honourable senator said that a murder will be considered committed in the
first-degree in certain described cases, such as terrorism and criminal
activity, and that such a murder would be considered committed in the
first-degree even though it might not have been deliberate. I question the use
of the word "deliberate." My understanding of the term "murder" is that it
requires what lawyers refer to as mens rea — intent. If there is not
intent, then the offence is considered something other than murder. Does the
word "deliberate" supplant the word "intent?"
Senator Wallace: There is no question that the issue of mens rea
is at the root of the Criminal Code, and that would have to be present for any
conviction. The bill proposes looking at activity originating in organized crime
and activity that results in the death of others in circumstances that would
meet the test of murder, as defined in the Criminal Code.
Whether the act is deliberate or aimed at a particular individual, as opposed
to a gang-related activity that might have involved someone other than the
person intended; it is in the circumstance of an activity arising from organized
crime that it could constitute first-degree murder. To that extent, the
deliberateness of the event might be a by-product of what actually occurred but,
if it meets the test of murder, as stated in the Criminal Code, then the fact
that it originates from organized crime would be at the heart of the offence.
Senator Banks: Forgive my naïveté, but do I understand correctly that
a murder could be committed that was intentional but not deliberate?
Senator Wallace: The issue of mens rea is engrained in the
criminal law of this country and would still be present. I will leave my comment
at that for now.
Hon. Lorna Milne: Would Senator Wallace accept another question?
Senator Wallace: Yes.
Senator Milne: When the bill is referred to committee, will the
government present evidence that mandatory minimums work?
Senator Wallace: I have not gone through the complete review of what
will be presented to the committee but certainly I am not surprised to hear the
honourable senator ask that question. I am sure it will be anticipated by anyone
who testifies before the committee.
Hon. Michael L. MacDonald moved second reading of Bill S-6, An Act to
amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to political loans).
He said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to have this opportunity to begin
the debate on this bill, which is designed to bring consistency, accountability
and transparency to the rules governing political loans.
The bill addresses gaps in our law with respect to loans. Although
parliamentarians have continuously strengthened the political financing measures
in the Canada Elections Act over the past 35 years, the provisions governing
political loans have not been kept up-to-date to meet the high expectations that
Canadians have for their politicians.
For example, the reporting requirements for loans in the Canada Elections Act
are not sufficiently transparent to enable Canadians to know who is lending how
much money to which party or candidate and under what terms and conditions.
Similarly, the lack of rules governing the source and limit of loans mean there
is a risk that loans could be used to circumvent the contribution limits under
the Federal Accountability Act. This can create a perception that politicians
could become beholden to wealthy interests.
Since the 2006 election, our government has worked to enhance Canadians'
confidence in the political process. We did this by passing the Federal
Accountability Act, our first bill introduced in Parliament. Through the bill
before us today, our government is seeking to build on this progress by making
the provisions governing political loans consistent with the Federal
I hope today to contribute to the debate by explaining some of the practical
benefits of the measures proposed in this bill.
As I have noted, the bill has its origins with the Federal Accountability
Act. That act significantly reduced the influence of wealthy interests in the
political process by reducing the amount individuals can contribute to political
entities to $1,100, by completely banning contributions by corporations, unions
and associations and by ensuring complete transparency in political
However, during study of the act in the House of Commons, concerns were
raised that the lack of equivalent rules governing loans could create a loophole
and undermine the effects of the Federal Accountability Act. As a result, the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs asked the Chief Electoral
Officer to prepare a report on political financing issues with recommendations
respecting the use of loans.
The Chief Electoral Officer's report in January 2007 stated:
While Parliament has imposed an extensive regime to control the source and
extent of contributions, it has not done so with respect to the other source
of funding constituted by loans.
His report went on:
The loans granted by lenders— who are not in the business of lending, who
lend money at non-commercial rates, with terms that are not available to
others, or in cases where there is little prospect of reimbursement— may be
perceived as a means to influence the political entity to which the funds are
The Chief Electoral Officer therefore made the following recommendations to
the House of Commons: That political entities may borrow money in excess of the
contribution limits only from financial institutions; that all loans by
financial institutions be at commercial rates; that the limits on loans made by
individuals should be their contribution limit; that a separate regime for the
treatment and reporting of loans be established in the act.
Our government acted on the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations by
introducing Bill C-54 on May 8, 2007. Bill C-54 was at report stage when
Parliament was prorogued and was reinstated as Bill C-29 in the subsequent
session of Parliament. Bill C-29 was passed by the House of Commons on June 17,
2008; however, the Senate did not have time to complete the debate on this
important bill before Parliament was dissolved.
Allow me to recap the important and welcomed changes proposed in this bill.
The bill would create a uniform and transparent reporting regime for all loans
to political entities, including the mandatory disclosure of terms and the
identity of all lenders and loan guarantors.
The $1,100 annual contribution limit for individuals established in the
Federal Accountability Act would now extend to the amounts of loans and loan
guarantees. There would be a prohibition on loans by unions and corporations
other than financial institutions. These same bodies are prohibited from making
donations under the Federal Accountability Act. Financial institutions could
still make loans, but those would have to be made at fair market rates of
interest and be subject to full disclosure.
Finally, riding associations or parties will be held responsible for unpaid
loans taken out by their candidates as a measure of accountability for the
actions of their candidates.
One of the most important benefits of these changes would be the enhanced
transparency requirements for loans to all political entities; that is, parties,
candidates, electoral district associations and contestants in leadership and
nomination races. In addition to the full reporting requirements, all loans will
have to be made in writing; a backroom handshake will not suffice.
I note as well that the reporting requirements would apply when the party or
candidate files their next statutory report with Elections Canada, a practical
and reasonable measure. This change will bring the greatest increase in
transparency in the case of candidates and nomination contestants who currently
have only limited disclosure requirements. It will impose on these persons the
same obligation of full disclosure that has applied to other political entities
At the moment, candidates and nomination contestants need only disclose loans
and the identity of the lender if the loan is over $200 and they do not report
terms and conditions of the loan. In the case of unpaid loans, they do not
report on the loans separately from any other unpaid claim in their campaign
Increased transparency for every loan means Canadians will be able to see for
themselves who is borrowing from whom, when, how much and on what terms. It will
ensure that loans are subject to the same transparency as contributions. This
will be a welcomed change, especially at the grassroots level in our
communities, but also at the national level. Uniformity and transparency will
make compliance easier for those subject to the rules and also make enforcement
The second major change is to include loans made by individuals in the
individual contribution limit. Now there will be a limit to how much you can
lend, and that will preclude anyone from using loans to bypass the contribution
limits for individuals. This can happen when a large loan is made and then
written off, allowing the borrower to avoid repayment. Such loans are
essentially a contribution in disguise.
The third change requires that only financial institutions can make loans to
political entities beyond the $1,100 limit and at fair market rates of interest.
Loans from unions and corporations will be prohibited outright.
The effect of this change is to prevent unions and corporations from doing
indirectly through loans what they are now prohibited from doing through
contributions. This is neither an unreasonable nor onerous restriction, given
that the class of eligible lenders is broad, including domestic and foreign
banks, trust and loan companies, credit unions, caisse populaires and insurers.
By preserving the role of the small lenders in our communities, including
cooperatives, and in financing grassroots political campaigns, the bill does not
unnecessarily concentrate lending in the hands of just a few banks, and the
disclosure requirements will ensure transparency.
Requiring a fair market rate of interest further levels the playing field for
all borrowers and lenders. There will no longer be
situations that raise questions of whether favourable terms were offered to
political entities in exchange for special consideration.
The most welcomed effect of this change will be to close off one of the last
remaining opportunities for unions and corporations to exert financial influence
in the political process by extending loans to political entities. It means that
politicians will have to seek contributions from voters, not corporate entities
or special interest groups. That change will focus accountability where it
belongs, between citizens and their elected representatives.
Once again, it will protect MPs, riding associations and parties from any
misperception that they might be beholden to a corporate entity with its hands
in our purse strings.
The final set of changes is about responsibility for loans taken out by
candidates at the grassroots level, closest to the citizen.
It will surprise many Canadians to learn that under the current rules, a
riding association is not accountable for money borrowed by its candidate to
finance an election campaign. That is right; if a local candidate borrows money
and does not pay it back, the riding association is not held responsible for
repayment. This change will be an important means of ensuring that candidates
and riding associations are held accountable for money they borrow in that
Honourable senators, these are simple, straightforward rules for loans. They
are not radical or revolutionary, as similar rules exist in many provinces. In
fact, provincial governments have taken the lead in this area.
For example, in Ontario, loans can be made only by financial institutions,
and riding associations are liable for the unpaid loans of their candidates. In
Quebec, loans can be made only by an elector or a financial institution. In
Manitoba, only financial institutions can make loans for an amount of more than
$3,000. In Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador, loans can be made only by
The fact that many provinces already have similar rules in place should
answer any concerns that the bill may have unforeseen consequences.
Honourable senators, the bill before us today is substantially the same as
the bill passed by the House of Commons in the last Parliament. Minor
adjustments have been made on the advice of legislative counsel and Elections
Canada officials to ensure the bill is consistent with the existing provisions
of the Canada Elections Act.
One change I want to highlight is one proposed by the Liberal Party to change
the contribution limit for a leadership contest to an annual limit rather than a
This bill received a fair amount of scrutiny by the other place, leading to
amendments in committee and at the report stage.
In the interests of fairness, a government amendment at committee excluded
from the annual contribution limit any portion of a loan that is repaid to the
lender and any unused loan guarantees. The effect of this change is to allow a
lender whose loan has been repaid, or whose guarantees have been unused, still
to contribute up to the annual contribution limit.
Opposition amendments at committee require the Chief Electoral Officer to
hear representations from affected interests before making a determination about
a deemed contribution. Opposition amendments also extended the period that loans
must be repaid or become deemed contributions from 18 months to three years. The
government accepted these amendments.
As is evident, the government worked with the opposition parties in the House
of Commons to ensure that the bill would have broad, multi-party support.
I look forward to working with honourable senators when this bill is referred
to committee. I know the committee will provide a thorough review of the
Before concluding, I want to stress that loans are a legitimate source of
financing. However, the provisions governing political loans have not kept pace
with other reforms to political financing, and are now significantly out of
In recent years, party finance has changed dramatically in Canada. Less than
a generation ago, political financing was essentially unregulated and wealthy
interests could exert control through large donations. The situation was open to
abuse. Canadians were losing trust in the political process and confidence in
their democratic institutions.
Now the playing field is much more level. Political financing is controlled,
transparent and subject to rigorous standards of accountability. It is therefore
doubly important to ensure that loopholes are closed quickly and decisively lest
the influence of the wealthy regain a toehold.
Stronger accountability and transparency have made politics fairer in Canada,
and have improved accountability to citizens. They help preserve public trust
and public confidence in Canada's democratic institutions.
With these changes, loans will have caught up with the rest of the political
financing regime as updated through the Federal Accountability Act. More
important, loans will have been brought up to date with the higher expectations
of Canadians for accountability and transparency. That bill is a good thing for
everyone and for all concerned.
Hon. Jane Cordy: Will the honourable senator from Dartmouth accept a
Senator MacDonald: I will try to answer a question, yes.
Senator Cordy: In the spirit of fairness, openness, accountability and
transparency, will Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper disclose the list of their
campaign contributors when they ran to be the leader of their respective
Senator MacDonald: Honourable senators, I am a student of history and
a student of politics. If we went back in the past to all the different
political campaigns over the years, I am sure we could cherry-pick a lot of
people who reported or did not report under an old set of rules. This bill is
about us going forward with a new set of rules for Canadians. We are not here to
fight the battles of the past. We are here to set some standards for the future.
We responded to the Liberal Party in the House of Commons committee. The
Liberal Party was supportive of the changes. I encourage all senators to support
Hon. Joseph A. Day: Will the honourable senator accept another
question, from someone who has recently had an opportunity to start focusing on
this bill? I obviously will study it more, but I want some background.
Senator MacDonald: Certainly.
Senator Day: My concern is the portion that the senator indicated with
respect to local riding associations being responsible for loans that a
candidate may take out and the candidate does not pay back. What type of check
will there be to protect the local riding associations? I can see this provision
as a serious concern for a number of individuals who are prepared to help in the
political process but may not want to become caught up in the sometimes
unrealistic enthusiasm of a candidate who borrows an unreasonable amount of
money and then the local riding association is left to handle it.
Have checks on this situation been considered?
Senator MacDonald: I am not fully aware of all the discussions that
have been held in the other place about this issue. As someone who has been
involved — and I am sure we all have — in local electoral district associations
for a long time, I think it encourages local EDAs to pay that much more
attention to the people they nominate as candidates and how those candidates
conduct themselves when it comes to financing campaigns.
All this bill does is to increase transparency. It forces the EDAs to be more
aware of the conduct of their candidates and the negotiations they enter into to
finance their campaigns. Even though I have some sympathy for the honourable
senator's concern, I also believe that transparency of this nature will work to
the benefit of both the candidate and the respective EDA.
Senator Day: Will the honourable senator determine from the government
if the government is prepared to entertain an amendment providing that the local
riding association or a representative, to be responsible for the debt of a
candidate, will be required to sign off on the loan documentation?
Senator MacDonald: I am more than willing to bring the suggestion back
to the house and to the government. The government has made it clear that they
are prepared to work with the opposition to pass this bill.
Senator Day: Thank you.
(On motion of Senator Hervieux-Payette, debate adjourned.)
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wallace, seconded
by the Honourable Senator St. Germain, P.C., for the second reading of Bill
S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related
Hon. George Baker: I will be brief. I have been asked to say a few
words about the bill. Senator Wallace has outlined adequately what is in the
bill. In principle, we agree with the bill and we should refer it to the
committee to examine it in detail.
Honourable senators might recall that this bill was in the House of Commons
last year prior to the election, and the chair of the Justice Committee refused
to hold a meeting. This situation went on for months. I think it was about the
Cadman affair at that time.
The government gave up trying to pass it through the House of Commons and
they have reintroduced it here in the Senate.
Identity theft is a serious subject today and it must be addressed. However,
we will point out in the committee examination things that perhaps the
government can do itself to cut down on identity theft.
The main components of the bill, as Senator Wallace has pointed out, are
interesting: unlawfully possessing government-issued identification documents
that contain information of another person, and then the accompanying Criminal
Code amendments creating a new offence of fraudulently redirecting or causing
redirection of a person's mail; and, secondly, creating a new offence of
possessing a counterfeit Canada Post mail key — and on it goes.
When I read the bill in detail, I thought about the time years ago when items
were sent by registered mail. There was little incidence of identity theft in
those days. I thought about it, looked at the amendments and wondered why there
is such a problem now with identity theft of government-issued documents sent
through the mail. I discovered that much of it has to do with the fact that
government documents are sent to an individual so that they can access the
Internet, and therein, as the evidence shows, a great many of the problems
When someone becomes 60 years of age — oh, to be 60 again — normally they
receive communication from the federal government saying that they qualify or do
not qualify for a Canada pension. Then, at 65, they receive notification that
they qualify for Old Age Security. A person is sent this notice through the
mail, not registered mail, just in a brown envelope. It states the following:
As a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and/or Old Age Security (OAS) beneficiary,
Service Canada would like to find out about our Online Services by providing
you with your own Personal Access Code (PAC).
It says that you will need this code to register and access your account. You
will need to create your account. The first step in the registration process is
that you will be required to validate your identity, since you are given your
code in the mail, not registered, with your social insurance number, your date
of birth, your province/territory of residence, as well as your personal access
code in order to activate your account. Everyone's personal access code, it
says, is issued for five years. Each person who has a personal access code will
have a new one sent to them in five years' time, at which time your code will be
automatically cancelled and you can use a new one.
Please keep your Personal Access Code confidential. Do not provide this
code to anyone, even when contacting us in writing or by phone.
In writing? They just wrote you a letter, not registered, and they gave you
the code. The safeguard, of course, as mentioned in this letter, is that your
social insurance number and your date of birth are needed in order to activate
your account. Well, those are pretty good safeguards, are they not?
Last year, the Senate dealt with a bill that would have released everyone's
date of birth to the entire world, supported by every political party in the
House of Commons.
Senator Nolin: Who amended the bill?
Senator Baker: The Senate amended the bill, and of course the House of
Commons admitted they were in error and approved the amendment.
The safeguard is that they will need the social insurance number and the date
They receive a second letter in the mail on the same day, in a brown
envelope, not registered, again from the Government of Canada. What does this
one say? You open up the letter that is addressed to the person, and it gives
notice of entitlement, a monthly amount — and this one is $166.96 — and the
effective month. Then it gives your date of birth. My goodness. What is under
that? The social insurance number.
Senator Banks: No!
Senator Baker: Yes!
Senator Nolin wonders if the social insurance number is right. To ensure it
is right, the next day you receive in the mail another brown envelope addressed
to you saying that enclosed is your personalized Old Age Security card with your
identification number on it. When you look down at the identification number, lo
and behold, it is your social insurance number!
That is the third letter you have received in the mail, not registered, with
all of the information you require in order to access your account, change your
account, change your address, change your method of payment, directly into a
bank account or not, via the Internet. We should be examining that process when
the committee meets.
I have been here for a long time. I sat on the Justice Committee off and on
for many years. I have watched changes to the Criminal Code over 35 years now,
and I thought we passed a law saying that you cannot use your social insurance
number as an identification number. I went back to look, and lo and behold, we
did. In 2001, we passed the PIPEDA Act, which stands for the Personal
Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. A judgment was given the
following year, stating that the act came into effect on January 1, 2001. It
applies to every federal government department, federal work undertaking or
business. In this case, it applies to a bank. The Privacy Commissioner ordered
that the bank had no valid basis for inferring consent to the use of a social
insurance number as the identifier. I do not want to name the bank because it
could be my bank.
Senator Comeau: Oh, go ahead.
Senator Baker: This is a published document. I am not sure which bank
it is here. It is called "the bank." From this judgment, the bank had to stop
using the social insurance number as an identifier; yet, when you turn 60 years
of age today, that does not apply to the Government of Canada.
The Government of Canada maintains the social insurance number that they send
to everyone. You can imagine someone 65 years of age in some apartment building
in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver picking up the mail and the first letter they
read is, "to help you on your online services on the Internet."
Do you know what that person would normally do? They would throw it in the
garbage. However, that envelope contains the access code to their account, which
they or anyone who picks it up can change.
That is what we will say to the Government of Canada: It is fine to pass
laws, but why does the government not follow the law in this particular case and
do its part to clear up identity theft.
The Hon. the Speaker: Are honourable senators ready for the question?
Hon. Senators: Question.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Goldstein, seconded
by the Honourable Senator Zimmer, for the second reading of Bill S-219, An Act
to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (student loans).
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, on April 1, when the order
was called for resuming debate on the second reading of Bill S-219, An Act to
amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (student loans), the Deputy Leader of
the Government, Senator Comeau, rose on a point of order. He argued that the
bill requires a Royal Recommendation, and therefore cannot continue before the
Senate. Senator Comeau referred to the Constitution Act, 1867, Senate
rule 81, and authorities such as Bourinot and Erskine May in explaining how, in
his view, the bill violates the financial initiative of the Crown.
Senator Comeau's concern was that the amendments to the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act proposed in Bill S-219 could possibly increase the government's
liabilities under the Canada Student Loans Act. Fundamentally, Bill S-219 seeks
to implement two changes. First, a person declaring bankruptcy could seek relief
from student loan debts at the end of five years, instead of waiting seven, as
is now the case. Second, the bill would allow any former student to apply for
changes to the terms of repayment, without having to wait five years as they
Since the government is the guarantor for loans made under the Canada
Student Loans Act, it is liable to the lender if former students are
discharged from debts or obligations with respect to such loans. The changes
that Bill S-219 proposes would thus have the effect of increasing the contingent
liabilities of the government, possibly resulting in additional charges on the
Consolidated Revenue Fund.
The sponsor of the bill, Senator Goldstein, challenged the idea that the bill
requires a Royal Recommendation. He noted it does not specifically appropriate
public money, from which he concluded that rule 81 does not apply. He also
mentioned that the bill had been before the Senate in previous sessions, and had
been referred to committee, without this issue being raised.
At the outset, it should be noted that a point of order on such issues can be
raised at any time while a bill is before the Senate. A point of order in a new
session is certainly acceptable, and has occurred on a number of recent
The question of the relationship between the Crown's liabilities and the
Royal Recommendation does not arise often in the Senate. There have, however,
been some cases of relevance. On October 23, 1991, Bill S-5 was ruled out of
order, since it would have imposed new liabilities on the Crown. In that case
reference was made to the 20th edition of Erskine May, which states that both
liabilities and contingent liabilities require the Royal Recommendation.
Earlier, on February 20, 1990, the same text had been cited, among others, when
some amendments proposed to a bill in a committee report were ruled out of
From the most recent edition of Erskine May, the 23rd edition, it
is evident that a Royal Recommendation is still required for proposals that
would incur a liability or a contingent liability. Page 884 specifically
indicates that this includes charges that "might arise from a Treasury
guarantee." While page 888 does state that the Royal Recommendation may not be
required if the "liability arises as an incidental consequence of a proposal to
apply or modify the general law," this does not save Bill S-219, since the
changes proposed to the student loans regime are not merely incidental to the
bill, but its primary purpose.
While there is a general preference in the Senate to favour debate in
uncertain situations, this must be balanced against the need for a scrupulous
respect for the financial initiative of the Crown, a basic principle of our
parliamentary system. The passage of Bill S-219 would expand the range of
conditions under which the government would have to make good its guarantee of
loans under the Canada Student Loans Act. This would change the existing
scheme, since payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund might increase due to
the change in possible obligations. As such, the bill should have a Royal
Recommendation, and would have to originate in the other place.
The ruling is, therefore, that this bill is out of order. Debate at second
reading cannot continue, and the bill shall be withdrawn from the Order Paper.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Grafstein, seconded
by the Honourable Senator Pépin, for the second reading of Bill S-230, An Act
to amend the Bank of Canada Act (credit rating agency).
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, on March 31, after Senator
Grafstein had spoken to his motion for the second reading of Bill S-230, An Act
to amend the Bank of Canada Act (credit rating agency), Senator Nolin rose on a
point of order. He noted that, under clause 2, the bill cannot be brought into
force before funds have been appropriated, based on a Royal Recommendation, for
the purpose of the bill. On this basis, he was of the view that the Senate
cannot proceed with the study of the bill.
The effect of the type of clause challenged by Senator Nolin was addressed in
some detail in a ruling given on May 27, 2008, concerning Bill S-234, introduced
by our retired colleague Senator Gill. That bill contained a virtually identical
provision. The ruling is published at pages 1086 to 1088 of the Journals of
the Senate and is directly applicable to the current point of order. The
final paragraph, which summarized the effect of this type of clause, applies
equally to Bill S-230. It suggests that the bill has no real effect without a
separate appropriation of the necessary funds. As stated in the ruling of May
[T]here is no obligation to appropriate new money imposed upon Her Majesty.
Nothing can happen if funds are not properly appropriated following a Royal
Recommendation. Preferring to err on the side of allowing Senators the largest
opportunity possible to consider proposals, debate on this item can proceed.
The ruling on Bill S-230 is the same. The bill does not require a Royal
Recommendation, since nothing can happen following its adoption until and unless
funds have been appropriated. Debate can therefore continue.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Grafstein, seconded
by the Honourable Senator Hubley, for the second reading of Bill S-217, An Act
respecting a National Philanthropy Day.
Hon. Andrée Champagne: Some honourable senators may recall that the
last time we debated Bill S-217, I was unable to support its proposal that the
government declare November 15 of each year to be a special day to officially
highlight the significant contribution of philanthropy in Canada. Over time,
however, I have changed my mind.
I hope that honourable senators do not think I was unaware of the important
role that charitable organizations play in the lives of Canadians. The sector
helps people who cannot participate fully in our society and helps them overcome
difficulties. It assists people who have been afflicted by disaster, disease,
death of a family member or loss of income.
Charitable organizations also play a leading role in promoting artistic
creation, supporting education, setting up places of worship, and promoting new
Honourable senators, a very reliable study has shown that, in 2004 alone,
over 22 million Canadians donated money and did over 2 billion hours of
volunteer work. Yes, Canada is lucky to have such energetic and dynamic
It is no surprise that, every year in Canada, groups other than the
government set aside special days or periods to express their appreciation to
those who participate in our philanthropic tradition.
For instance, Volunteer Canada celebrates National Volunteer Week. This
special time serves to pay tribute to those who dedicate their time and energy
to bring about change in our communities.
National Volunteer Week was created in 1943 by Women's Voluntary Services in
Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. At that time, special events were
organized to raise public awareness about the vital contributions made by women
to the war effort on the home front.
In the late 1960s, the idea of a week dedicated to volunteers was re-introduced, but this time, it incorporated all volunteers involved in community
activities. During the ensuing decades, this special week became increasingly
important until, in 1990, the third week of April was designated National
Volunteer Week in all communities across Canada. Although no legislation exists
to compel Canadians to observe it, it remains, without a doubt, one of the most
celebrated weeks in the country.
Honourable senators, I am sure you understand why and how I came to support
the principle and objective underlying Bill S-217. However, I am sure it will
also come as no surprise to hear me add that, in my humble opinion, the
honourable senators must examine all the ins and outs of this bill more
carefully in committee. We would all like to ensure that, if November 15 is
retained as the date and will henceforth be celebrated as National Philanthropy
Day, that date will receive all the attention it deserves.
There are various ways to call attention to these special days. For instance,
Aboriginal groups, multiculturalism and the expulsion of the Acadians are all
commemorated by special days established by Royal Proclamation by the Governor
General in the name of Her Majesty under the Great Seal of Canada.
Other special days have been designated through legislation, for instance,
Canada Day, Remembrance Day and Victoria Day. There are special days that pay
tribute to Sir John A. MacDonald, Canada's first Prime Minister and a Father of
Confederation, as well as Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Canada's first francophone Prime
Let us return once again to Bill S-217. Honourable senators, for all the
reasons already mentioned, I recommend that we join together and pass this bill
at second reading, so that National Philanthropy Day may be considered the most
appropriate way of highlighting the generosity of Canadians. It is a way of
thanking all those who give of their time, talents and resources to improve the
lot of their fellow human beings. We would also like the bill to extend a true
invitation to celebrate the day without infringing on other observances.
Bill S-217 will surely benefit from in-depth study in committee. I therefore
move that we approve the bill at second reading so that it may be promptly
examined by a committee.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C.,
seconded by the Honourable Senator Banks, for the second reading of Bill
S-221, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (borrowing of money).
Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable
senators, this bill is about to be struck from the Orders of the Day. I would
like some more time to prepare my notes. I want to give a big speech about this
bill, but I have not
had time to complete my notes, so I will move adjournment of this item for the
balance of my time.
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the third report of the Standing
Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples (budget—study on matters generally
relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada—power to hire staff and travel)
presented in the Senate on April 28, 2009.
Hon. Gerry St. Germain: I move the adoption of the report standing in
the name of Senator Hubley.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Grafstein, seconded
by the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C.:
That the Senate endorse the following Resolution, adopted by the OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly at its 17th Annual Session, held at Astana, Kazakhstan,
from June 29 to July 3, 2008:
RESOLUTION ON EXPANDING TRADE BETWEEN NORTH AMERICA AND EUROPE
1. Reaffirming the importance of trade for economic growth,
political stability and international peace,
2. Recalling the fundamental importance of the economic and
environmental dimension in the OSCE's comprehensive approach to security,
3. Considering that expanded free trade between North American and
European markets will benefit all OSCE participating States politically as
well as economically,
4. Recalling the commitments made by the participating States at the
Maastricht Ministerial Council in December 2003 regarding the liberalization
of trade and the elimination of barriers limiting market access,
5. Recalling the recommendations of the 2006 OSCE Best Practice
Guide for a Positive Business and Investment Climate, published by the
Office of the Co-ordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities,
which advocate stronger international trade policies and conditions favourable
to the circulation of international capital,
6. Concurring with the conclusions of the Co-ordinator of OSCE
Economic and Environmental Activities that free trade agreements and the
reduction of tariffs are vital to a strong trade policy,
7. Recalling the importance that the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
accords to the development of international trade as underlined by the
Assembly's Fifth Economic Conference on the theme of "Strengthening Stability
and Co-operation through International Trade" held in Andorra in May 2007,
8. Recalling the deep historical and cultural ties between the
peoples and states of North America and Europe which shaped their common
values, on which the OSCE is based, and which are reinforced by the strength
of their economic links,
9. Recognizing the considerable impact that the economies of North
America and Europe have on international trade,
10. Considering the increasingly interdependent nature of the
economic links between North America and Europe,
11. Noting the scope and depth of trade between North America and
Europe which benefits public accounts and the private sector in addition to
generating opportunities for employment,
12. Welcoming recently signed agreements that promote greater and
freer trade between a limited number of markets in North America and Europe,
such as the January 2008 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the European
Free Trade Association,
13. Acknowledging the appeal of the emerging markets in Asia and
South America, whose growth will generate new levels of competition and
economic efficiencies for trade between North America and Europe,
14. Concerned with the persistence of trade barriers in the economic
relations between North America and Europe which limit opportunities for
greater economic growth and human development,
15. Concerned with the state of the Doha Round of negotiations at
the World Trade Organization which is affecting inter-regional trade
negotiations such as the Canada-European Union Trade and Investment
Enhancement Agreement suspended since 2006,
The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly:
16. Resolves that seminars and conferences to raise awareness of the
opportunities and shared benefits of trade liberalization should be
17. Calls on the parliaments of the OSCE participating States to
vigorously support and accelerate all multilateral, inter-institutional and
bilateral initiatives that promote the liberalization of trade between North
America and Europe, including the harmonization of standards and the
elimination of regulatory barriers;
18. Calls on the parliaments of the OSCE participating States to
sustain the political will of their governments as members of existing
economic agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, the
European Union, the European Free Trade Association and the Central European
Free Trade Agreement, to develop transatlantic partnership agreements that
expand and liberalise trade between and among them;
19. Recommends that current and future initiatives that target
expanded trade between the economies of North America and Europe consider
greater involvement where appropriate of regional and subregional governments
20. Recommends that current and future initiatives that target
expanded trade between the economies of North America and Europe reflect the
principles and standards of the OSCE, particularly human rights, environmental
protection, sustainable development and economic and social rights, including
workers' rights, as agreed to in the 1990 Document of the Bonn Conference on
Economic Co-operation in Europe, the 1990 Document of the Copenhagen
Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE and the
1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?
Hon. Maria Chaput rose pursuant to notice of March 31, 2009:
That she will call the attention of the Senate to the discontinuance of the
Interdepartmental Partnership with the Official-Language Communities (IPOLC)
and its damaging consequences for official bilingualism in this country.
She said: Honourable senators, I have initiated this inquiry to call your
attention to the discontinuance by the Government of Canada of the
Interdepartmental Partnership with the Official-Language Communities, or IPOLC.
The elimination of IPOLC happened very quietly, without notice and without
consultation. This fund, created in June 2000 to strengthen cooperation between
official language minority communities and federal organizations, was abolished
on March 31, 2009. No new government fund, program or initiative has been
proposed by the current government to fill the void.
The Conservative government's decision to terminate IPOLC without notice or
consultation goes against the will of Parliament, as expressed in sections 41
and 42 of the Official Languages Act.
I remind you that, under section 41:
. . . the Government of Canada is committed to (a) enhancing the
vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada
and supporting and assisting their development; and (b) fostering the
full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.
Under section 42, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, in consultation with
other ministers of the Crown, shall encourage and promote a coordinated approach
to the implementation by federal institutions of the commitments set out in
Also, since 2005, section 41 of the act provides that every federal
institution, and I quote:
. . . has the duty to ensure that positive measures are taken to implement
Positive measures mean active measures. Regardless of the definition that,
some day, will be given to the legal notion of "positive measures", it is
clear that this expression imposes on the government an obligation to act.
This obligation to act imposed upon the federal government falls within a
very specific legal context. Indeed, the Supreme Court reminds us that the
Official Languages Act, and I quote:
. . . belongs to that privileged category of quasi-constitutional
legislation which reflects certain basic goals of our society.
The Official Languages Act is therefore not an ordinary act.
Thus, the obligations imposed on the federal government under that act cannot
be brushed aside. Not only is the obligation to take positive steps imperative,
but it also falls within a quasi-constitutional framework.
In other words, the federal government must take action in order to ensure
the vitality of official language minority communities. That is its duty.
IPOLC, as it existed before being summarily eliminated by the Conservative
government, was a positive step aimed at encouraging federal departments and
agencies to promote the implementation of section 41 in their respective
programs. It provided funding to complement the contributions made by
participating federal institutions toward the fulfillment of their
responsibilities under the Official Languages Act.
Ironically, although the IPOLC was established in 2000, before the
legislation even obligated the federal government to take positive measures, it
was abolished by the government under the new legislative regime, with no
consultation and without any new positive measures being introduced. Instead of
acting, the federal government chose to stop acting.
Inaction seems to be the order of the day for the current government, despite
an obligatory, clear and precise statutory requirement that requires the
contrary. So, what was this IPOLC?
The IPOLC was a Canadian Heritage initiative, with an annual budget of $5.5
million, that aimed to enhance the vitality and development of official language
minority communities. The money was intended to create partnerships, especially
According to the IPOLC's general guidelines, Canadian Heritage:
. . . seeks to promote activities that can have a multiplier effect by
establishing best practices and models to inspire other initiatives in other
regions of the country and engage other Canadian target groups. Within this
mandate, the department has created the Interdepartmental Partnership with the
Between 2000-01 and 2005-06, about 20 memoranda of understanding were signed
by the Department of Canadian Heritage and various federal institutions thanks
to IPOLC. Although a variety of organizations have participated, including
Health Canada and Western Economic Diversification Canada, IPOLC has been
particularly useful to the cultural community.
Under IPOLC, the Canada Council — one of the main recipients of funding — was
able to award grants to individual artists as well as to arts organizations in
order to encourage artistic creation in official language communities.
These grants were awarded in the media arts, visual arts, dance, writing and
publishing, music and theatre.
According to a recent study by the Office of the Commissioner of Official
Languages, "It is nevertheless clear that the IPOLC has contributed to an
increase in the number of projects being funded and the amounts of funding" for
artists and artistic organizations in a minority situation.
However, the study points out that this increase was very modest, generally
less than 1 per cent.
While Canada Council financial assistance for the francophone minority has
been declining since 2002-03, IPOLC was able to compensate for this reduction.
Year after year, according to the Commissioner's study, the francophone minority
receives only 2 per cent of all Canada Council funding. Within the Canada
Council, IPOLC was the only support that exclusively targeted official language
According to the study by the Commissioner of Official Languages, the IPLOC
was "a targeted funding initiative that has enabled OLMC artists to make
That said, although the IPLOC was designed as a temporary measure to build
new, stable, sustainable initiatives, there is some skepticism regarding the
effectiveness of this partnership. The IPLOC, as an incentive, did not increase
funding for official language minority communities to the degree its designers
hoped it would.
The IPLOC targeted short-term projects and was unfortunately not structured
"to provide the stable, long-term support required" to build the sustainable
initiatives that had been hoped for.
While some of the findings are less than stellar, others are more positive.
For example, let us look at the impact the IPLOC had on the anglophone community
in Quebec, a minority official language community we too often forget.
In English Quebec, the IPLOC helped fund several new initiatives such as the
National Film Board's Doc Shop and Voices from the Hood, Quebec
Scene, the National Arts Centre's Programme de développement du théâtre
en region and the development of English-language feature films and
television dramas by Telefilm Canada.
IPLOC contributions to the Canada Council for the Arts led to a gradual
increase in funding for anglophone artists and arts organizations in Quebec
starting in 2000.
An independent study produced for the Canada Council for the Arts concluded
that the IPLOC fund was extremely important to the anglophone community in
Quebec, and I quote:
Anglophone artists in Quebec increasingly see themselves as a community
rather than as an assemblage of individuals, and they are actively seeking to
identify their artistic community needs. Interdepartmental Partnership with
Official Language Communities funding allowed the community to clearly
articulate these needs, and provided funds for artistic community building
What will become of all the progress made by the anglophone community in
Quebec now that the IPOLC no longer exists?
The IPOLC also had an important economic impact. Some $75 million was
invested between 2000-01 and 2005-06. Of that amount, $26 million came from
Canadian Heritage, while the other $49 million came from federal institutions
and other sources.
According to the Fédération culturelle canadienne française:
Statistics show that the IPOLC made it possible for additional investments
of nearly $6.4 million to be injected into the cultural sector in francophone
minority communities from 2001 to 2005-06, in addition to corresponding
investments by the recipient organizations and other partners, for a grand
total of more than $16.5 million.
Thus, we believe that the losses caused by the elimination of the IPOLC will
be much greater than the few million dollars that the program itself put into
official language minority communities, since, without that program's
contribution certain federal institutions will be less inclined to invest in
projects that benefit those communities.
Despite uneven results, the IPOLC made a significant contribution to the
vitality and development of official language minority communities. For example,
in 2006-07, the IPOLC
backed the production of two short, French-language dramas in partnership with
Telefilm Canada, Radio-Canada and the National Film Board of Canada. Carole
Ducharme, from Vancouver, was given the opportunity to present the black comedy
she wrote and directed, Ben voyons, Camille!, while Pamela Gallant, from
Cap-Pelé, New Brunswick, was able to present La voisine, which she wrote
and directed, thanks to the IPOLC.
Those dramas, along with Rébus, Un bon gars, Embargo and
Louez un mari were all produced as the result of a contest that was launched
by the IPOLC. Other examples of the IPOLC's positive contribution in terms of
televised material include Un monde passion and Carmen à la campagne
by Productions Rivard, a film and video production company in Winnipeg,
Manitoba, that was created in order to ensure a greater western francophone
presence in Canada's film industry.
The current government made no attempt to enhance IPOLC by making specific
changes to the way the fund worked. No concrete alternatives were proposed. No
consultations were held with official language minority communities before the
government eliminated IPOLC.
The Guide for Federal Institutions, published by Canadian Heritage in
2007, offers a series of key questions to help federal institutions make
decisions when implementing section 41 of the Official Languages Act. These key
questions include the following important questions:
What actions could be taken to consult official language minority
communities and the organizations that represent them or other key
stakeholders involved in the promotion of official languages? Who should be
consulted, and how?
It seems that the government did not ask these questions before deciding to
get rid of IPOLC. So my question is: why? Why did Canadian Heritage, the
department responsible for protecting official languages, not follow its own
official languages guide? How could it gauge IPOLC's effectiveness without
talking to the target population?
The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne deplores the fact
that the decision to eliminate IPOLC was made without consulting the
communities. The FCFA speaks on behalf of French-language minority communities
in Canada at the national and international levels. It submitted a complaint to
the Commissioner of Official Languages about the decision.
According to the FCFA, federal initiatives like IPOLC will always be
necessary. It said:
. . . there is nothing to suggest that anything has changed or that support
from Canadian Heritage is no longer needed to facilitate contact between
departments and communities. Rather, interdepartmental collaboration and
Canadian Heritage's role in this matter are still of great importance to
Canadian Heritage's most recent report on official languages, the 2006-07
report, describes IPOLC as:
. . . [bridging] the gap between OLMCs and federal departments and
agencies, thereby raising the latter's awareness of their existence and needs.
Why does the Conservative government want to get rid of an initiative that it
has called a bridge between communities and federal institutions?
We have received precious few answers to these questions so far. I would
therefore urge the federal government to give the matter some more thought, this
time together with the official language minority communities.
The federal government must take action to protect the vitality of official
language minority communities. It is required by law to do so. It has a moral
duty to do so. And it is in our national interest to do so.
Hon. Grant Mitchell rose pursuant to notice of April 28, 2009:
That he will call the attention of the Senate to the high environmental and
financial costs of providing bottled water within the parliamentary precinct
and federal government buildings.
He said: Honourable senators, I rise to draw the attention of honourable
senators to an environmental initiative that would be relatively easy to
implement and would save the federal government a significant amount of money,
thereby saving taxpayers a significant amount of money.
While not having immense impact environmentally, although it will have
significant impact environmentally, it will allow the federal government, in
addition to capturing that environmental impact, to provide leadership to
Canadians by demonstrating that there are many things that each of us can do
that do not substantially and significantly change our lifestyles, as it is said
all too often. In fact, we can encourage Canadians to take lesser steps that can
accumulate to significant impacts in total on environmental, and particularly
climate change, policy and problems in our country.
The government has not demonstrated profound leadership on the environmental
issue. In fact, the government has demonstrated that its seem without focus. It
seems without drive. It is as though ideas and objectives are announced only to
spin some kind of sense amongst Canadians that this government does care and is
prepared to do something. The government has had had three ministers of the
environment in three years. That turnover clearly would break up any kind of
direct, sustained leadership that any one of them might have been able to
provide but clearly has been unable to provide. The government has had at least
three, and it now looks like four, different stages, if I can put it that way,
of environmental announcements. I want to say environmental policy, but that
truly has not been the case, although they did cancel all the former Liberal
climate change initiatives, which probably is their only concrete policy.
The government did bring to Parliament a clean air act, but it was inadequate
in its establishment of targets for 2050, targets that were in no way based upon
the real science that drives real conclusions about what needs to be done with
respect to reducing carbon emissions in Canada and in the world. The government
then tried to establish a greater presence in the climate change policy area by
announcing its "turning a corner", but over the year since that was announced,
the government seems to have done absolutely nothing except establish, although
not clearly or rigorously, targets for 2020. Those targets are based on
reductions of 2006 levels of emissions, targets which, once again, bear no
relationship to the science and to the demands of science for determining what
reductions and emissions are necessary under that scientific regime.
Most recently, the government has announced a cap-and-trade initiative for
establishing caps on coal-fired electrical plants in Canada. It seems odd that
the government would announce only for one particular industry when many
industries need to be brought under this umbrella. Given the government's track
record, I think most Canadians have little confidence that anything concrete
will be done and that this cap-and-trade announcement is only another
announcement in an effort to dispel this idea or conclusion that the
Conservative federal government wants not at all to do something about climate
The initiative I raise in my inquiry concerns water in plastic bottles. This
environmental initiative may seem relatively small. I want to see water in
plastic bottles no longer used anywhere in Canada except in some places where
clearly there is not potable water. I will exclude, for the purposes of this
discussion, military operations around the world, particularly, for example, in
Afghanistan, where bottled water is left everywhere for military personnel so
that the problem of dehydration can be less significant.
The general usage of bottled water creates significant, and some might say
profound, environmental problems. Let me give honourable senators statistics on
the environmental impact of plastic bottles that hold water for Canadians' use.
One billion bottles of water are consumed by Canadians every year. It takes
three litres of water for the production of a single plastic bottle, which
contains an average of one litre of water.
The life cycle of the energy involved in creating these bottles is startling.
The energy required, the amount of oil to create every bottle is equal to one
third of the volume of that bottle. This energy use is exacerbated by the fact
that the water is not delivered by pipes that are already in the ground and do
not require a great deal of energy to deliver but water delivered by trucks,
which exacerbate the amount of carbon emissions.
When we add it all up, the production of the one billion plastic bottles from
which the water is consumed by Canadians requires 1.5 million barrels of oil per
year. That amount is about the production from the oil sands of one day — one
three hundred and sixty-fifth of the production of Canada's oil sands. If we
look at it another way, 1.5 million barrels of oil is the equivalent of one-half
of one day of all the oil used in that single day in all of Canada. The annual
usage of energy to produce bottles is equal to one half of the oil that is used
in a single day in Canada. The energy use is not insignificant.
It is compelling that when we look at our Kyoto objective of reducing
Canadian carbon footprint emissions by 250 million tonnes of carbon a year, the
production of plastic bottles amounts to 5 per cent of that Kyoto objective.
Finding 20 other initiatives like this one would have allowed us to achieve our
Kyoto objectives. Think about that, honourable senators. Naysayers think that
achieving significant climate change objectives such as Kyoto is impossible and
will ruin an economy. No, it is not. The challenge is to lead Canadians to the
kinds of creativity, commitment and drive with which they have accomplished so
much in the past and with which they can accomplish easily, readily, and far
more quickly than people imagine, significant climate change carbon reductions.
There are those who will say that recycling mitigates a good deal of the
impact on energy and on the environment of these plastic bottles. It is not so.
Between 40 per cent and 80 per cent — and it is difficult to specify — of the
bottles produced and used are not recycled. That percentage amounts to about 800
million of these bottles a year — because people consume the water from a
billion of them — going to landfills. I do not know too many places in Canada
that have enough landfill room, and it would not be wise for us to want more
landfill. In particular, use of plastic water bottles underlines again the waste
Even if we could recycle all these bottles, the production of bottles is
2,000 times more energy intensive than tap water. Tap water in Canada is some of
the best and healthiest water on the face of the earth. There is absolutely no
reason to replace tap water with bottled water from any number of parameters,
including environmental, oil, energy, recycling and health.
On the issue of health, people somehow think that bottled water is healthier.
It is not commonly known that municipal water can be tested hundreds of times per day. There is a continual testing of municipal water.
On the other hand, bottled water is often not tested frequently at all and
companies are required only to follow voluntary testing regimes. Since 2008,
only 6 per cent of all bottled water plants have been inspected by federal
If we want safe water, we should be drinking tap water to be absolutely
assured of safety. Clearly, there are exceptions, such as the case of Walkerton.
Generally speaking, the water in Canada is exceptionally safe and is not
diminished in its comparison to bottled water. In fact, if we want certainty, we
should not be drinking bottled water.
Honourable senators, action is being taken by some enlightened governments in
this country. Forty municipalities across Canada have implemented restrictions
on bottled water already. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities passed a
resolution urging their 1,775 members to phase out the sale and purchase of
Interestingly, the University of Winnipeg — and we have colleagues here from
Manitoba — became the first Canadian university to ban the sale and provision of
bottled water on their campus.
The first significant advantage of doing away with bottled water is energy
and environmental consequence. Second, we have leadership from important
institutions in our country that are already moving to eliminate bottled water.
After one considers the environmental advantage, what does that mean for
federal government expenditure advantage? That is an interesting question. The
same federal government that wants to take $80,000 of operating grants away from
the Churchill Northern Studies Centre has spent $15 million over the last five
years in federal government departments. Approximately $2.6 million of that
money has been spent by the Department of National Defence. The figures do not
distinguish whether that money was spent on bottled water for the military in
Afghanistan. I recognize that bottled water must be used in Afghanistan. Given
that it is not that much money compared to the amount of water I saw people
drinking, I expect it is probably in addition. However, even if that bottled
water for Afghanistan is included in the $15 million, if it is subtracted, we
still have this hard-nosed, "cut, cut, cut" government spending $12.4 million
over five years on absolutely unnecessary bottled water.
One might think there would be some sensitivity within the Department of the
Environment about using bottled water given its impact on the environment. It is
interesting to note the irony that over the last five years they have spent
between $110,000 and $150,000 annually on bottled water. The total is getting
near $600,000 to $650,000.
Think how many research stations at $80,000 per year that would fund? Do the
math. If we had to set priorities, would we rather have research or bottled
water that simply is not necessary?
I point out that the Prime Minister's own department, the Privy Council
Office, spends over $30,000 annually on bottled water contracts.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I regret to inform the
honourable senator that his 15 minutes have expired. Does he wish to request
Senator Mitchell: Yes, please.
Senator Comeau: No more than five minutes.
Senator Mitchell: I will get right to the point.
Honourable senators might wonder how this money adds up to such a large
figure. It is because a litre of bottled water costs more than a litre of gas.
It is hard to believe.
This inquiry calls upon the federal government to do something for the
environment that is so fundamentally dead-easy that I cannot believe and do not
want to assume that this government would not jump up and do it. This government
could tell taxpayers that it will save them at least $12.4 million over five years and
significantly reduce pollution, the carbon footprint of this country and the
pressures currently on waste disposal sites around the country.
First, we are asking that further examination be given to the federal
government's own recently released figures to determine whether the locations
where bottled water was provided by federal agencies and departments are also
served by potable tap water. I expect that about 99.999 per cent of them will
Second, we would specifically like to see that parliamentary precinct
procurement policies also phase out the provision of bottled water where potable
tap water is available and appropriate. I am not certain that there would be any
place in Parliament where it is not available and appropriate.
Third, we should increase access to tap water and public drinking fountains
wherever there is insufficient access on federal government property.
I urge honourable senators to consider this inquiry.
Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette, pursuant to notice of March 25, 2009,
Whereas the Honourable Senators note the European Union's interest in
addressing the animal welfare aspects of seal hunting and presumably all
Whereas the Honourable Senators recognize the needs and traditional
livelihoods of Inuit and other coastal communities;
Whereas the Honourable Senators recognize the positive conservation role
that seal harvesters and other hunters play in the sustainable management of
both prey and predator populations; and
Whereas the Honourable Senators re-affirm our shared moral obligation to
treat all wild species humanely and with respect, and our shared commitment to
the conservation principles of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the
IUCN's (International Union for Conservation of Nature) "wise use"
The Senate of Canada call on the European Union not to proceed with its
proposal to ban seal imports, as such a trade restriction would be contrary to
international trade rules and would do nothing to encourage either sustainable
use or humane sealing practices;
The Senate of Canada call on the EU Member States who manage sealing
operations within their national waters, and other Member States who are
responsible for the management of major wildlife harvesting regimes within
their territories, to join with Canada in the development of a Universal
Declaration which will promote sustainable, respectful hunting practices and
professionalism amongst all hunters; and
That a message be sent to the House of Commons requesting that House to
unite with the Senate for the above purpose.
She said: Honourable senators, I move the motion standing in my name in the
Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government): Will the
honourable senator explain her motion to us? She has not yet spoken to her
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, in fact, today is the
day we need to talk about it in greater detail because the European Union has
passed a significant regulation calling for a near-total boycott of seal
products. This is a very sad day for the people of Newfoundland, the Magdalen
Islands and our Aboriginal communities. Even though the regulation provides for
one minor exception, I must say that it reflects a certain paternalism that is
characteristic of older countries. The EU is saying that people here can hunt
and declare their income, but they cannot sell products. I do not know how the
Europeans can reconcile the two. They say it is okay to hunt seals, but they do
not want seals to be shot or killed using the traditional hakapik or other
tools. Presumably seals have to be killed by the Holy Spirit! I have to say that
I find it extremely insulting to Canadians to know that we continue to be the
victims of propaganda spread by animal rights activists who are vegetarians.
These people will not recognize that humans share the same planet and the same
resources, and that Canadians use this resource in a way that is environmentally
friendly and in accordance with accepted hunting practices. I must say that it
is very disappointing that public opinion in Europe was swayed by the extremely
powerful media campaign.
We should tell ourselves that those members do not have many seal hunters in
their ridings. I am told that they could lose the election if they do not pass
this motion. Given the current global economic problems, I do not think that
Europeans are bothered by the seal hunt in Canada.
Still, we should recognize the core of this issue: it is not the seal hunt
but, rather, the fact that human beings eat animals. After targeting the seal
hunt, they will focus on other sectors. Indeed, this same lobby is campaigning
against the consumption of fish. This will surely be of interest to my
colleagues opposite. These people maintain that fish should be left alone to
live in peace, that we should not disturb them and that we should not eat them.
There is also another lobby in Europe that has launched a campaign against
egg consumption. This is rather odd, because vegans, the strictest vegetarians,
do not eat eggs.
When we understand the philosophy behind this measure, we realize that these
people went after the lowest common denominator. They did not target the beef or
poultry sector, because they would have had to deal with powerful industries.
Those who hold these views are not mere amateurs and they are aggressive. They
are mostly American lobbies who campaigned in Europe with audio-visual
techniques that would very often distort the nature of seal hunting. They
For example, they showed a naked woman, lying on the ground, wrapped in a
Canadian flag, with a red liquid dripping onto her body. This illustrates the
degree of reflection on this issue. I am mentioning it, because I find it
insulting for women to see their body and our flag used in such a vile and
grotesque fashion to convey a strong message.
I remind you that this issue has been debated in the European Parliament
since September 2006. This is more or less the apex for this parliament.
However, there is one more step left: the ministers of each parliament must
legislate on these issues. Let us not forget that seal hunting and seal products
were banned in certain countries, including Belgium.
The government maintains it position. We are going to the WTO. We went to the
WTO, following Belgium's decision. Guess what happened? Nothing. Today, we are
still saying that we are going to fight and that we will go to the WTO. In case
you did not hear about the softwood lumber issue, we have surely spent more than
$20 million in legal costs, not to mention the hundreds of millions to help that
The simplistic solution proposed by our opponents is to pay hunters to stay
home, even though this is their legitimate occupation and they make a good
living. This is a supplementary income that allows them to live decently, at the
beginning of the season, before going fishing. Doing this would deprive Canadian
workers of their right to work.
Currently, these workers get two things. First, they get continuous training
from experts, veterinarians and animal pathologists who teach them how to hunt
seals properly. Second, a group of experts, including anthropologists,
oceanographers and members of the industry and of the Aboriginal community,
recently spent over two months drafting a universal declaration on the ethical
harvest of seals. Last week, that declaration was fully endorsed by the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. That government has no problem at all
defending this industry, which is covered by this policy statement.
We hope that all governments participating in this activity, and with which
we have contacts, will endorse the declaration. Last week, we sent all European
parliamentarians and their governments a copy of that document, which is
available at www.sealsonline.org. The universal declaration is in
English, French and Inuktitut. In it, you will see the principles that were
developed. Ultimately, we will be able to file this declaration with the United
Nations, knowing that it is consistent with other international conventions,
such as those on the preservation of biodiversity. In so doing, we will know
that all conservation movements will adopt this kind of ethical approach
regarding a very difficult human activity.
As I mentioned a little earlier, Mr. Harper will be in Prague this week. Even
if we must sit down at the negotiating table and review the whole trade picture
with Europe, it is important, since the president of that country sits in the
European Parliament, to begin a dialogue with the various governments, to assure
them that we are going to respect this declaration and to ask them if they want
to sign on to it. I should add that this declaration could apply to the hunting
of other wild animals.
In conclusion, I invite honourable senators visit the website
www.sealsonline.org to look at the Universal Declaration on the Ethical Harvest
of Seals to ensure that we are working with the highest ethical standard. Our
industry is suffering greatly from this ban. The price of seal skin will be
reduced dramatically, and this group will suffer.
I want to thank my colleagues, both in the House of Commons and here, who are
great supporters of this activity. We have 308 MPs and normally 105 senators,
and of those only one does not support this activity.
Honourable senators, I hope that you will all support the declaration and
that we will all fight for this portion of our population that deserves our
Senator Comeau: I agree with Senator Hervieux-Payette that there is a
much larger issue being dealt with by some of the European fundraisers; this is
their opening salvo. Fairly soon, it will be beef and hogs and who knows what
else. It is an attempt to stop all people from eating meat of any kind. They are
using this issue as a means to arrive at their eventual end. This is one of the
things I have told European parliamentarians.
I want to come back to the issue at hand, which is the motion put forward by
Senator Hervieux-Payette. I have studied the motion and have a few concerns
about minor things that could be readily changed. For example, whereas the
honourable senator noted the European Union, it is not, in fact, the European
Union but rather the European Parliament. Wording such as this could be cleaned
up in a few places in the motion.
One of my major concerns with this motion is in the paragraph that states:
The Senate of Canada call on EU Member States who manage sealing operations
within their national waters, and other Member States who are responsible for
the management of the major wildlife harvesting regimes within their
territories, to join with Canada in the development of a Universal Declaration
which will promote sustainable, respectful hunting practices and
professionalism. . . .
This paragraph basically implies that our current hunting practices are not
sustainable, respectable or professional. It undermines the Canadian position we
have had for a long time where, in fact, our hunting practices in regard to
seals are sustainable, respectful and professional.
Senator Hervieux-Payette is suggesting that we are now going hat-in-hand to
the European Parliament saying, "We will modify to higher standards." We are
saying — and it has been a long-standing practice both when the other side was
in government and since we have been in government — that we are using
sustainable and humane practices.
This wording undermines the Canadian position. I do not think it is
intentional, and possibly by working together we can make improvements. However,
at this point, I do not think it is the time to start saying to the Europeans
that we are not practising sustainable, respectful and professional practices in
our sealing industry.
Honourable senators, a motion in the House of Commons today notes that the
seal hunt is a humane and economic pursuit and that the European Parliament's
recent decision to ban the importation of seal products should be rejected. It
is a simple, straightforward motion, easy to understand. It does not suggest in
any way that our practices here in Canada are not sustainable, professional or
Earlier today, Senator Manning proposed a motion that completely sustained
the Canadian position on the seal hunt. The adjournment was taken on the
honourable senator's side.
I would suggest that until such time as we clean up this motion, we continue
the adjournment and see if we can come up with a motion that this chamber could
adopt, one that would endorse the Canadian position that we are respectful of
In the early stages of the honourable senator's comments, I endorsed
everything she said, up until her comment that this is the way to go. At that
point, I said, no, let us endorse the Canadian position and take it from there.
In the meantime, I do want to continue researching this subject. Therefore, I
will adjourn the debate for the balance of my time.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: May I comment? How does the honourable
senator intend to go about making the amendments? Changing the word "Union"
for "Parliament" would not be a big issue for me.
Regarding the honourable senator's suggestion that Canada knows the right way
to go, I would like to remind him that, yes, the Liberal government had the same
position, but we had the same results. The debate about seal hunting has taken
place for many years.
There are big changes. Now there will be compulsory training, which did not
exist before. Studies have proven that sometimes there were ethical problems.
With this declaration, we would commit ourselves to ensuring that both the
people doing the hunting and the people supervising it would respect the highest
I do not think any scientist would agree that Canada has never committed
wrongs in the past and has done everything perfectly well. Studies were
conducted and statistics prove that mistakes were made. The situation should
improve and the provinces have committed to do so.
My question is: How will we proceed to make the amendments that the
honourable senator suggests?
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I must remind senators
that there is a motion to adjourn further debate.
(On motion of Senator Comeau, debate adjourned.)
(The Senate adjourned until Wednesday, May 6, 2009, at 1:30 p.m.)