Previous Sittings

Order Paper and Notice Paper

Previous Sittings

Journals of the Senate

Previous Sittings

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Download as PDF

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

3rd Session, 40th Parliament,
Volume 147, Issue 28

Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker

SENATORS' STATEMENTS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
QUESTION PERIOD
ORDERS OF THE DAY

THE SENATE

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

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

Prayers.

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Canadian Paraplegic Association

Hon. Jim Munson: Honourable senators, I am having a very interesting day. I am rather sore. I was allowed to walk in, but you may have seen a wheelchair outside. Senator Kochhar and I have been in wheelchairs since 7 o'clock this morning in an effort to raise awareness on behalf of the Canadian Paraplegic Association. I can tell you that I am more tired than I have ever been playing hockey. I am spending the day in a wheelchair to gain an understanding of what daily life is like for the more than 41,000 Canadians who live with spinal cord injuries. I have gained a new perspective. I have found out how much more time you need to get from one place to another. I know what it is like not to see eye to eye, and so does Senator Kochhar, but I discovered muscles in my upper body that I never thought existed.

I also discovered sad facts about spinal cord injuries. Every year, 1,200 new spinal cord injuries occur in this country, and 84 per cent of those happen to young people under 34 years of age. Three out of four spinal cord injuries happen to men. That is frightening for a father like me who has two sons in that range.

It is also frightening to learn that we do not have a cure for spinal cord injuries, that the unemployment rate for people with spinal cord injuries is 62 per cent and that the average cost for each injured person over the course of his or her lifetime is between $1.25 million and $25 million, depending on the injury.

There is much we need to do to find a cure for spinal cord injuries and to ensure that those who have a spinal cord injury participate fully in society. I will certainly reflect on that as I wheel my way through the rest of the day and also on what we need to do in this chamber to be more inclusive.

In the other place, modifications have been made to accommodate people in wheelchairs, such as Minister Fletcher, who was our leader today on the Hill with 35 MPs and two senators. Here in this chamber, Rick Wardell is one of the individuals who participates in the Friends of the Senate program. Rick works with our pages and is limited by what he does because this chamber cannot accommodate him in his chair. I think Rick deserves better. I think a person like Rick should be allowed to come into this chamber and deliver a message along the floor of this chamber. It is simple: Open the doors a bit wider, and of course the red carpet will not be damaged at all. I believe Rick deserves better, as do all people with spinal cord injuries.

No matter which government has been in power over the last 15 years, whether Liberal or Conservative, the funding for the Canadian Paraplegic Association has decreased from $2 million a year to $200,000. All of us — Liberals, Conservatives and independents — who know our way around the Hill know it is not about politics; it is about helping others and being made aware. For example, Minister Flaherty has been good to me with funding when it comes to the Special Olympics. That shows that Liberals and Conservatives can work together.

I will end with the thought that we can do better.

National Nursing Week

Hon. Carolyn Stewart Olsen: Honourable senators, I rise to recognize our nurses during this year's National Nursing Week.

May 12 marks the birthday of Florence Nightingale, who set the standard for professional nurses. In her honour, we celebrate today as International Nurses Day and take a moment to consider the role of her successors, our selfless, dedicated and devoted nurses, who often go unthanked and unappreciated.

Ms. Nightingale fought public opinion of the day and went to the Crimean War. She and a team of nurses travelled to military hospitals in Turkey, where they found appalling conditions. Their interventions saved many lives and, more importantly, awakened the public to the idea of nursing as a life-saving profession.

Daily, nurses go beyond the call of duty, being there for those at their most vulnerable. In birth and in death nurses stand fast; they ease and guide us through these painful transitions.

[Translation]

From our birth until our death, nurses offer support, guide us and help us with transitions through difficult times.

[English]

Today, the selfless hard work of nurses tends to go unnoticed. Nurses are dedicated and compassionate individuals who choose a demanding profession of long hours and unforgiving schedules, yet they approach their work with an enthusiasm unmatched by any profession.

When Canadians are ill, often the first person they see is a nurse. Nurses watch over their patients during the long, lonely hours of the night, offering support through recovery, sometimes for months and years. They are there when you are born, and they are there when you

die. Nurses are with our military on the front lines, and families are comforted to know that a nurse was with a loved one as he or she faced injury or death so far from home.

Our nurses serve in isolated communities where there are no hospitals or doctors. They are responsible for improving health care outcomes, reducing costs, advocating for patient safety, promoting knowledge and driving innovation and research. This year's slogan says it best: "Nursing, you can't live without it!"

We have 270,000 registered nurses in Canada, and every day they touch the lives of Canadians.

Please join me in celebrating this week and in celebrating the contributions of those devoted hardworking men and women.

[Translation]

I invite all senators to join me in highlighting this special week and in celebrating the unparalleled commitment of these dedicated men and women.

(1340)

[English]

Aboriginal Gathering on Diabetes

Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck: Honourable senators, on Thursday, May 6, 2010, I had the honour and privilege of attending the seventh annual Aboriginal Gathering on Diabetes in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan and to give the keynote address.

These annual Aboriginal gatherings allow us to carefully examine the issue of diabetes in Aboriginal communities today: our struggles and our successes.

Diabetes affects the Aboriginal population in higher numbers than the non-Aboriginal population. The picture is staggering. Aboriginal Canadians are three to five times more likely to develop diabetes than non-Aboriginal Canadians. Aboriginal Canadians are developing diabetes at younger ages and Aboriginal women are four times more likely to develop diabetes than non-Aboriginal women. Diabetes is a very real health concern, and the numbers are growing. With current rates of diabetes among Aboriginals, the future projections of this epidemic are unacceptable. We must make serious efforts to combat this rate of diabetes in our Aboriginal communities.

I was pleased to announce the agreement between Cameco and the Canadian Diabetes Association, North Saskatchewan Region, to further expand the Travelling Diabetes Resource Program at the Aboriginal gathering. Cameco has graciously agreed to provide the Canadian Diabetes Association, North Saskatchewan Region, with a van for the region's Travelling Diabetes Resource Program. The addition of this van will allow the program to serve not only Prince Albert but also many Aboriginal Canadians in most regions of Saskatchewan in an effort to provide a healthier future for Canada's Aboriginal populations.

National Aboriginal Hockey Championship

Hon. Donald Neil Plett: Honourable senators, last week, I had the pleasure of having as my guests in the gallery a group of young ladies from Manitoba. These young women, aged 13 to 18 years, are all First Nations, Metis or Inuit. They were competing in Kanata in the ninth annual National Aboriginal Hockey Championship.

The Aboriginal Sport Circle, ASC, was established in 1995 to promote personal excellence through sport and to support the holistic development of Aboriginal athletes and coaches. The ASC established the National Aboriginal Hockey Championship in 2001 to reflect those priorities, while serving as the premier competition for minor level Aboriginal hockey in Canada.

The National Aboriginal Hockey Championship provides a forum for elite and bantam aged Aboriginal hockey players and attracts participation from First Nations peoples, Inuit and Metis across all 13 provinces and territories. The NAHC's long-term vision is to establish a competitive structure that will serve as the impetus for grassroots and regional Aboriginal hockey development. This annual event helps foster cultural unity and pride to celebrate the athletic abilities of Aboriginal athletes from across the country.

One of the truly amazing stories about this group is that they paid their own way to come to Ottawa, as I imagine all the other teams in the tournament did. In recent days and weeks we have heard many complaints about funding cuts to different groups, some of which have received funding for the last 36 years. These young hockey players needed to raise $1,650 each. One family from my home riding of Provencher included two girls plus the assistant coach on the team. The father of the two hockey players who is also the husband of the assistant coach had recently lost his job, yet the family still managed to raise nearly $5,000 to come out and play. They were thrilled to be here and compete. These young people must be congratulated for their efforts and initiative.

As for the outcome of the tournament, I am proud to say that this fine group of young women hockey players from Manitoba, six of whom were from the riding of Provencher, went through the round robin tournament undefeated. They then took on Saskatchewan in the semi-finals, thrashing them by a score of 7 to 1. This pitted them next against a strong Northern Ontario opponent in the championship game. Manitoba came out the winners with a score of 2 to 1, thus defending their championship from last year.

On the men's side, Manitoba ended up playing Saskatchewan in the final game. Saskatchewan squeaked out a winner, giving them the gold and Manitoba the silver.

Honourable senators, please join me in congratulating all of the participants in this year's championships.

The Stanley Cup

Hon. Francis William Mahovlich: Honourable senators, I rise today to talk about an issue that is close to my heart and that of many Canadians. It is one about which many people across the country, especially Montrealers, are very excited. I am, of course, referring to the Stanley Cup.

This magnificent trophy has been idolized and, I dare say, worshipped by hockey fans for well over 100 years. The decorative silver bowl was donated by then Governor General, Lord Stanley of Preston, who himself became a great fan of the game when he was introduced to it at the 1889 Winter Carnival in Montreal. He thought there should be a trophy awarded to the top amateur hockey team in Canada which would symbolize Canadian amateur hockey supremacy. Over the years, a number of leagues competed to obtain the cup, but it was only in 1927 that the NHL took over and made the Stanley Cup its championship trophy.

With such magnificent and quintessential Canadian history, it is important to recognize the significance of the cup and to share it with the millions of visitors who come to our nation's capital every year.

[Translation]

That is why I support the idea of a monument to commemorate this symbolic gift from Lord Stanley.

[English]

First proposed by Ottawa historian Paul Kitchen, the project has now received the support of Hockey Canada, the NHL, the National Capital Commission in Ottawa, and countless enthusiastic hockey fans. Various sites around Ottawa have been suggested for the home of the monument, which organizers have suggested would be colossal in size, inspiring and historically significant. They want the statue to depict Lord Stanley as well as the original punch bowl he donated. If all goes according to plan, they hope to have the monument in place by the fall of 2012.

Having had the great fortune of hoisting the cup several times, I believe that it is tremendously important to honour the man who gave all hockey fans across this great country a reason to come together annually to celebrate the spirit of Canada and our mutual love of Canada's game.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Study on Federal Government's Responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis Peoples

Third Report of Aboriginal Peoples Committee Tabled

Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the third report, interim, of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, entitled: First Nations Elections: The Choice is Inherently Theirs.

(On motion of Senator St. Germain, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

(1350)

Canada-Russia Friendship Day Bill

First Reading

Hon. Peter A. Stollery presented Bill S-218, An Act respecting Canada-Russia Friendship Day.

(Bill read first time.)

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

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

[Translation]

Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association

Strategic Concept Seminar, October 16, 2009—Report Tabled

Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, regarding the first Strategic Concept Seminar: NATO's Fundamental Security Tasks, held on October 16, 2009, in Luxembourg.

[English]

Meeting of Sub-Committee on Future Security and Defence Capabilities, October 12, 2009 and Rose-Roth Seminar, October 13-15, 2009—Report Tabled

Hon. Joseph A. Day: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Meeting of the Sub- Committee on Future Security and Defence Capabilities, held in Kyiv, Ukraine on October 12, 2009, and the seventy-second Rose- Roth Seminar, held in Lviv, Ukraine, from October 13 to 15, 2009.

Visit to Rome, Milan and La Spezia, Italy, October 19-23, 2009—Report Tabled

Hon. Joseph A. Day: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association to the Visit to Rome, Milan and La Spezia, Italy, by the Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Economic Relations and the Sub-Committee on Energy and Environmental Security, from October 19 to 23, 2009.

[Translation]

QUESTION PERIOD

Finance

National Securities Regulation

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As she surely knows, the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec and some large Quebec companies, including Cascades, Quebecor, Jean Coutu, Industriel Alliance and many more, oppose centralizing the securities commissions. There is no evidence to suggest that centralization would be either relevant or effective when it comes to preventing the moral and financial crisis we are experiencing.

I want to emphasize that the OECD has ranked Canada second in the world with respect to securities regulation.

And, as I am sure honourable senators know, neither the single American securities commission nor the single British securities commission managed to protect investors; both failed to see the crisis coming.

Despite these facts, the Prime Minister is stubbornly going ahead with his plan to create a single commission even though it is neither sensible nor in the interests of the provinces, including Quebec, which want nothing to do with it. In light of growing opposition on the part of Quebec business leaders, can the minister tell us when her government, specifically her Prime Minister, will reconsider this proposal, which is neither desired nor desirable, thereby saving the $250 million already set aside for that purpose in the budget?

[English]

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, Canada is the only industrialized country without a national securities regulator. Canada will be participating in G8 and G20 meetings. There has been and will continue to be a call for more financial regulations and international coordination. With these international pressures on us, we continue to be questioned about our fragmented system at home when we are dealing with our international partners.

As the honourable senator is aware, and as has been stated many times, this is a voluntary initiative. A clear majority of the provinces and territories are committed to or are open to working towards a single securities regulator. This is a voluntary initiative, and I am aware of some of the objections to it in the Province of Quebec. However, some industries and some people in Quebec are able to see the virtue of a single securities regulator.

This is a voluntary effort. If the Province of Quebec decides that it does not want to participate, that should not impede the desires of other provinces that wish to have a single securities regulator.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, the leader is arguing that we are the only country without a national organization. I must remind her that the Prime Minister is travelling around the world now telling people we have a different law, that is why we are different and they are all having problems. Either we go along with the rest and go down the drain, or we have our own rules. Our system has prevailed.

When will the leader's government table a study that will demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that we need that regulator and it is not for political purposes?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, while travelling around the world representing us so very well, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have discussed the notion of the global bank tax. Both have said that they do not believe Canada should be punished with this tax. The Prime Minister pointed out that Canada has handled its finances very well and did not have any bank failures, nor did the Canadian government become involved in any bailouts. The Prime Minister stated that Canada should not be punished for all of its good work. Honourable senators, with regard to when our government will table its intentions, the honourable senator knows that the government is seeking an opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada to provide legal certainty on Parliament's authority to establish such a common securities regulator. Once that process is complete, we will table the plan.

Senator Fraser: What a good idea.

Senator Comeau: What is your position on it?

[Translation]

Industry

Amendment to Copyright Act

Hon. Francis Fox: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. At a meeting organized last week by the Canadian Private Copying Collective, parliamentarians of all political stripes learned that more than 1.3 billion songs are copied every year in Canada, more than 70 per cent of copies are made on an MP3 medium but only 9 per cent are made legally and, finally, artists are no longer being compensated, as in the past, for more than two thirds of the songs copied.

Because of this, the royalties collected for distribution to Canadian copyright holders, songwriters and performers have dropped by 60 per cent in the past three years, from $27.6 million in 2008 to $19.8 million in 2009 and $10.6 million in 2010. It is clear that this trend could seriously hurt performing rights societies and songwriters.

Is the minister prepared to recommend to her colleagues that the Copyright Act be amended immediately and specifically to ensure that the Copyright Board can set royalties for private copies made using audio recording devices, to address the needs related to new technologies?

We are aware of the contrary Federal Court of Appeal decisions in 2008 stating that the Copyright Board had no jurisdiction under the current act.

(1400)

[English]

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, copyrights are a complicated and complex issue. If the issue were easily solved, the previous government, which wrestled with it for many years without success, would have found a way to solve it.

The honourable senator will have to await the decision and comments of the minister. I cannot and will not comment further.

[Translation]

Senator Fox: If I understood the minister correctly — and I did not have the chance to listen to the translation as I would have liked — I think she is referring to the bill the Minister of Industry is supposed to introduce in the house. Having looked at the statistics, I would say to the minister that this country's artists, composers and performers are in real danger. Experience shows that it can take years before a new copyright act is passed.

Given that this situation is hurting the most creative people in this country's communities, be they francophone, anglophone or multicultural, would the government consider amending the act immediately to provide fair compensation for this country's artists, which is what the act was originally intended to do?

[English]

Senator LeBreton: Again, honourable senators, copyright law is a complicated area, and it has become more complicated with the advance of technology. Honourable senators have seen comments by the minister reported in the media about attempts to address this issue. We will have to await the minister's response. I am not in a position to go further at this time.

[Translation]

Health

Medical User Fees

Hon. Lucie Pépin: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Government of Quebec has decided to introduce a $25 user fee for every doctor's appointment. Most Quebecers oppose this and are waiting for the Government of Canada to take a clear and firm position.

Can the minister tell us whether the Government of Canada believes that Quebec's decision to impose user fees complies with the provisions of the Canada Health Act?

[English]

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the Liberal Party leader seemed to support these fees initially, but that position was overturned, I am told, as a result of the reaction by his own caucus.

Senator Mercer: That is done. What is the government's position?

Senator LeBreton: The five principles of the Canada Health Act were recommended by the Hall Royal Commission on Health Services established by the Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker. These principles are the law of the land. The government expects provinces and territories to abide by the act. We have increased transfers to the provinces and territories by 6 per cent per year so they can continue to meet the health care needs of their residents. The government supports the five principles of the Canada Health Act.

[Translation]

Senator Pépin: I thank the honourable leader for her statement, but the question is this: Do user fees comply with the provisions of the Canada Health Act, yes or no?

[English]

Senator LeBreton: I will simply say again, honourable senators, that the Canada Health Act is the law of the land. We expect the provinces and territories to respect the law. The honourable senator will not draw me into a culture war with the Province of Quebec on the issue of the health care system.

[Translation]

Senator Pépin: Honourable senators, the provinces are responsible for providing health care. However, the federal government has responsibilities regarding health care that stem primarily from the federal spending power. Under the Canada Health Act, the federal government is also responsible for guaranteeing reasonable access to health care without financial or other barriers.

Some 62 per cent of Quebecers believe that Ottawa should use its powers to veto this $25 user fee. Does the Government of Canada plan to heed the calls of Quebecers and intervene more actively in this matter?

[English]

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, the government has responded by not doing what the previous government did, which was to make major cuts to health care transfer payments to provinces. This government went one better. We increased transfers to the provinces and territories by 6 per cent per year to enable them to meet their health care needs.

Senator Ringuette: That was signed by Paul Martin.

Senator LeBreton: Again, the government believes the law should be followed, and I will not be drawn into a culture war between the Liberal government of Quebec and the Liberal opposition in Ottawa.

Senator Comeau: And their CBC friends.

Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, let me try this in the other official language.

The Government of Quebec is considering imposing a deterrent fee. The Canada Health Act says Canadians should have access to medical services without paying fees.

Senator Mercer: Exactly.

Senator Fraser: Does the Government of Canada believe that deterrent fees are legal under the Canada Health Act? If not, what will the government do about that?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I am glad that the Honourable Senator Fraser is supporting the Official Languages Act in that she felt it was necessary to ask me the same question in our other official language. I appreciate the support of the Official Languages Act, which was the argument that my colleague Senator Carignan made yesterday on Bill C-232 regarding the Supreme Court of Canada.

Senator Comeau: Great speech.

Senator Fox: Except he was wrong; he should check his sources.

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, there is a law in the land called the Canada Health Act. As a Conservative, I am proud of the act but not because of the revisionist history of the Liberal Party. The act came about because of the efforts of the Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker from Saskatchewan when he was Prime Minister. Mr. Diefenbaker commissioned Supreme Court Justice Emmett Hall, who would not have qualified to sit on the Supreme Court of Canada under Bill C-232.

Senator Fraser: Yes or no?

Senator LeBreton: In any event, the Canada Health Act is the law of the land. We expect the provinces and territories to abide by the act. I suggest to the honourable senator that she communicate to her Liberal colleagues in the province of Quebec that we all expect each province and territory to abide by the law.

Senator Fraser: Honourable senators, we will do that when we are back in government. In the meantime, the Conservatives are the government.

Senator Comeau: Speak to your friends.

[Translation]

Foreign Affairs

United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo

Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire: Honourable senators, two weeks ago, Mr. Paul Dewar and I, both members of the All- Party Parliamentary Group for the Prevention of Genocide and other Crimes Against Humanity, wrote an article that was published in the papers. I know that Madam Leader does not give credence to newspapers. In this article, we stated that it is vital that Canada revisit its policy on the United Nations mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, known as MONUC, and that it consider the United Nations' request to strengthen the mission and allow it to carry out its mandate.

The next morning, there was an article in the papers about the Conservative government's decision not to provide additional reinforcements to MONUC. Since I believe the newspapers, can the minister confirm that the Conservative government has decided not to provide additional resources to MONUC?

[English]

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, contrary to the honourable senator's opening remarks, I do believe in newspapers. However, I believe in factual newspaper reporting. I have always believed in newspapers and I read several each day.

I read the honourable senator's effort, together with Mr. Paul Dewar, with regard to the Democratic Republic of Congo. Canada has observers in the Democratic Republic of Congo but we will not send troops into the country. I believe this is overwhelmingly supported by the Canadian population. Canada is still involved, and will be for another year, in an important mission in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is where our focus lies.

(1410)

Senator Dallaire: Honourable senators, the leader said she is reading newspapers that provide her with facts. I think it would be important to ensure what her facts are with regard to what the Canadian people think about sending reinforcements, or a commander, finally, to that mission. I contend that there are many people who thought we should have been there instead of somewhere else and who still hold that position.

General Leslie, for example, was told by the UN and by all the contributing nations of troops that he would be the best commander to take over that mission in the difficult times as it transitions — hopefully, over the next three to four years — to pulling out, and that he would make that mission more effective. Is the leader saying that he is not, and we are not, going to do anything else in that place where millions of people have been killed and there is still considerable conflict going on?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, regarding General Leslie, I can only comment that it was speculation about potential future missions for him. As the honourable senator knows, General Leslie has now been given new responsibilities by DND.

With regard to the view of the Canadian public, I think it is clear that the Canadian public supports our soldiers and their mission in Afghanistan. It is an important mission. As a result of a parliamentary motion, of course, we will be withdrawing from Afghanistan in 2011.

I should have clarified that I do believe the Canadian public supports the position of the government, but I exclude The Globe and Mail, with their new editors, Geldof and Bono.

Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh!

Senator Dallaire: Was the government told specifically in the military advice it received that it would not be in any way, shape or form capable of continuing the mission until, as Parliament has said, it should end in Afghanistan? Also, was it told we should be providing some staff officers and possibly even a commander to enhance that mission and make it more effective, if we so believed in the UN, and that we should be seeking to sit at that table where such decisions will be taken in the future?

Senator LeBreton: It should come as no surprise to the honourable senator that I am not at the strategic table of negotiations between DND and Foreign Affairs. The advice is given to DND within the military structure. Of course, as the honourable senator is probably well aware, much of that information and many of the discussions are not available for security reasons. Therefore, I cannot answer the honourable senator's question specifically.

I am simply saying that, as of now, we have an important mission in Afghanistan. We are committed to it. Many of our soldiers, men and women, have given their lives or been seriously injured fighting for democracy in Afghanistan. I believe that is what the Canadian people want us to focus on.

Obviously, I cannot give the honourable senator information that I do not have nor would I be privy to, about considerations made by the strategic planners at National Defence as to how they will handle their next military assignment.

Senator Dallaire: We are engaged in Afghanistan, but we still were able to go to Haiti. When we seek flexibility, we can find it.

Honourable senators, the specific question I have for the leader is this: Was the decision for us not to commit to the mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo taken by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or was it the Minister of National Defence who said we did not have the capability to do it?

Senator LeBreton: First, the honourable senator is quite right. Thanks to the equipment that we bought for the Armed Forces, we were able to deploy to Haiti quickly. Our forces went to Haiti and did an outstanding job, and now they have withdrawn.

Again, I will not get into a debate with the honourable senator on the inner strategic planning of the Department of National Defence. I am not privy to that information, nor would I want to be. I can simply say that the comments of both the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the subject of the Democratic Republic of Congo are public and well known.

[Translation]

Treasury Board

Strategic Review

Hon. Maria Chaput: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. On Monday, May 3, 2010, the Honourable Stockwell Day, President of the Treasury Board, announced that he would conduct strategic reviews of 13 government organizations, which would yield $1.3 billion in savings.

However, I was reading in the Ottawa Citizen that the Auditor General has expressed concerns about these reviews.

[English]

Auditor General Sheila Fraser said:

. . . departments have been put through so many reviews over the years that there is little room for significant cuts unless they start eliminating programs or invest in technology . . . . "I personally don't think there are a lot of easy wins," she said. "They would have been identified by now."

[Translation]

Of these 13 federal organizations that will come under scrutiny, three are regional agencies that work with communities and small businesses: the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Western Economic Diversification Canada.

Could we be advised of the criteria for this strategic review? Will there be a consultation process? What form will it take and who will be consulted?

Will there be an analysis of the impact on these francophone and anglophone communities and small businesses before certain programs are curtailed, cancelled or replaced? Could the leader obtain the answers from the minister responsible?

[English]

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): First, I answered the question with regard to regional development agencies the other day when asked a question by my colleague, Senator Manning, in terms of the funding of regional economic development.

With regard to the Auditor General, the honourable senator's information is somewhat stale. The President of the Treasury Board met with the Auditor General and they discussed several concerns. The Auditor General reported that she was well satisfied with the explanation from the Treasury Board Secretariat with respect to providing information to her office.

As honourable senators know, this is a program where we study the departments — and this has been going on since we formed the government. We have been going through a strategic review and have saved a considerable amount of money for the taxpayer. The strategic review is an ongoing effort.

As we ramp up our deficit reduction plan, departments under strategic review are asked to look for savings and efficiencies from within. In not one case has there been any allegation, other than from the opposition, that we are eliminating regional economic development agencies.

[Translation]

Delayed Answers to Oral Questions

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government): I have the honour to present, in both official languages, delayed answers to oral questions raised by the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool on March 30, 2010, concerning international cooperation, the Interim Haitian Recovery Commission and the role of women, and by the Honourable Senator Jaffer on April 20, 2010, concerning health, malaria.

International Cooperation

Interim Haitian Recovery Commission—Role of Women

(Response to question raised by Hon. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool on March 30, 2010)

On March 31, 2010 at the International Donors' Conference in New York, Canada announced a commitment of $400 million over two years for humanitarian and reconstruction programs in Haiti. This is in addition to Canada's five-year commitment to Haiti of $555 million made in 2006, a commitment that we will meet. Hence, for the past five years, Canada has contributed approximately $100 million a year to reconstruction and long term development efforts in Haiti. The Haitian Government's Action Plan for Recovery and Development lists Canada as one of the "main donors". Given this, as well as our past and present commitments, Canada will have a representative on the Board of the Haiti Interim Commission for Reconstruction. This will give Canada the opportunity to ensure effective co-ordination and use of resources as well as uphold a high level of accountability and transparency.

It is important to recognize the enormous generosity of individual Canadians who donated a total of $220 million to eligible Canadian charities working so tirelessly in Haiti. The Government of Canada promised to match its generosity. Half of the government's matching fund will go towards its pledge made in New York. The other half will go to Canadian and international organizations working on the recovery and reconstruction of Haiti.

As the Government of Canada's lead agency for the provision of international assistance, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is hard at work to ensure a rapid and effective response to the January earthquake. CIDA's gender equality policy requires that all CIDA programming address women's specific needs. Gender-based analysis is conducted as part of the planning process for CIDA-funded projects. CIDA programming aims to improve women's access to and control over resources and services, including during reconstruction efforts. CIDA's Haiti Program has included equality between women and men as a crosscutting theme of all its programming including in such sectors as in health, education, food security and micro-finance.

CIDA also provides assistance for female parliamentarians through a variety of initiatives in order to enhance the political participation of women and help build good relations between the government's executive and legislative branches as well as between the Parliament and the Haitian population.

Health

Malaria

(Response to question raised by Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer on April 20, 2010)

Since 2003, CIDA's support for the prevention of malaria has resulted in the distribution of over 7.9 million bednets in Africa to children under five and pregnant women through partnerships with the Red Cross, UNICEF and World Vision Canada. It is conservatively estimated that these nets will save approximately 121,000 lives.

The second element in CIDA's fight against malaria is expanding access to treatment for the poor. CIDA is providing $60 million to increase access to treatment at the community level for malaria and pneumonia, two of the leading killers of children worldwide. It is conservatively estimated these programs will save over 135,000 lives.

In 2008, Canada pledged an additional $450M over three years to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, bringing Canada's total commitment to $978.4M. Approximately one-quarter of these funds are channelled towards malaria.

Concrete examples

CIDA is providing $20M for Population Services International (PSI) to provide free malaria treatment (artemisinin-based combination therapies, ACTs) to the poor at the community level across four African countries. In addition to treatment for malaria, this Program will also include a component to treat pneumonia and diarrheal dehydration in children under five. PSI will be training community health workers to be able to recognize and treat these diseases within communities having limited access to a health facility. It is estimated this program will save over 50,000 lives.

CIDA is funding two programs of $20M each for Malaria Consortium and Save the Children to provide free ACTs and antibiotics at the community level across multiple African countries. These two programs will treat malaria and pneumonia, two of the leading killers of children worldwide. The Save the Children program will train health workers to identify these diseases based on established clinical symptoms and treat presumptively for malaria or pneumonia without the use of diagnostic tools. The Malaria Consortium program will emphasize a diagnostic approach by training existing health workers to use simple diagnostic tools that can be used outside of a health facility, such as the Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT) for malaria. This program will also provide treatment for diarrheal dehydration in children under five at the community level. It is estimated that combined, these programs will save over 85,000 lives.

Answer to Order Paper Question Tabled

Privy Council—Change to Act of Settlement

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government) tabled the answer to Question No. 8 on the Order Paper—by Senator Downe.

(1420)

[English]

Point of Order

Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, when the Leader of the Government in the Senate answered my question a moment ago, she said a couple of things that might cause a reader of the Debates of the Senate to be surprised that I support the Official Languages Act. I simply want the record to show that I have been an ardent and vocal supporter of the Official Languages Act since it was passed in 1969. I want the record to show that I have been an equally ardent and vocal supporter of language rights for both official language minority communities in Canada, including, but not only, the rights expressed in section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867. I would be very upset should anyone conclude the contrary.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Suspended

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wallace, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mockler, for the second reading of Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Hon. George Baker: Honourable senators, this is the first opportunity I have had to welcome Senator Marshall to this place. Senator Marshall has had a distinguished career in the provincial legislature and prior to that as the auditor general for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. She truly brings great experience to this place, and I welcome her here. I also note that she is only the second person from Newfoundland and Labrador to be appointed to the Senate who was born in Canada.

An Hon. Senator: That means she is young!

Senator Baker: The rest of us were born in a foreign nation called Newfoundland. The first person appointed to the Senate is Senator Fabian Manning. I reminded him the other day that three of us have sat in the Newfoundland House of Assembly. Back in 1965, I was the law clerk and then the chief clerk. In that capacity, I wrote the rules of procedure for the Newfoundland's House of Assembly. His response to me was: "I wondered what caused all the chaos."

Honourable senators, I want to recognize the great contribution made by two senators in the chamber today, to the subject matter currently under debate. They are the two recognized people in the Parliament of Canada who, perhaps, know more about this subject than anyone else knows. One senator sits on the side opposite and one senator sits on this side. The first person I recognize is the Honourable Senator Nolin.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Baker: Senator Nolin chaired a Senate committee mandated to study the use of illegal drugs in Canada. The committee produced a report in 2001 that has been referenced many times in court proceedings in Canada. Today, Senator Nolin is a recognized expert on the subject. Within the past year, I noticed that he was recognized as an expert witness in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, where he was called upon to testify on the subject of controlled drugs.

The second person I recognize sits on the Liberal side. He is considered an expert in the subject; is known throughout the country because of a television series; was the chief coroner in British Columbia for a brief time; and recently has written a magnificent book on the subject of the use of illegal drugs entitled, A Thousand Dreams. The author is the Honourable Senator Larry Campbell.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

An Hon. Senator: Bravo!

Senator Meighen: It was all hearsay.

Senator Baker: When I was reading case law one day, I noticed that Senator Campbell's name had been used by the judge in reference to the fact that as the chief coroner, he had subpoenaed an academic who had authored a report. The case revolved around the discovery of a body in the ocean, I believe. There was a difference of opinion and a great deal of discussion as to whether the chief coroner had done the right thing. A couple of months ago, that academic author appeared as a witness before the Senate Legal Committee. Senator Campbell sat across the table at committee, prepared to cross-examine the witness. To my surprise, they got along well. It was like old home week. They were happy to see one another. I suggested to Senator Campbell after the meeting that the two of them had resolved their differences. He asked me what I meant. I reminded him of the court case those many years ago when he subpoenaed the academic author who had objected to his actions as chief coroner. Senator Campbell asked me if I had not read his recent book. I said that I had not read it and he replied that I should buy it and read it because the other person I was talking about had co- authored the book. I recommend this reading to anyone. It would be a particularly good Christmas present.

Honourable senators, I will make a brief reference to a point in Bill S-10 that is worthy of visiting. The mover at second reading on the government side talked about mandatory minimum sentences.

(1430)

Honourable senators, mandatory minimum sentences, as we know them, are really not mandatory in most cases. I am saying that because there is a sort of fail-safe in this legislation to the mandatory minimum sentence that is taking away the discretion from the judge. There is also a discretion that is given to the Crown prosecutor. It is taking away the discretion from the judge and then transferring it to the Crown prosecutor, and it is in the law.

For example, how many times does one read in the newspaper that someone was convicted of impaired driving for the twentieth time in the last ten years? It is common, is it not? One wonders, as a legislator, "How could that be possible? We have mandatory minimum sentences for impaired driving."

I was on every committee that dealt with that, and I know that subject inside out. I know that if one is found to be impaired, on their first conviction there is a mandatory minimum. One pays a thousand dollar fine, and loses their licence for a mandatory minimum of one year.

If one is picked up a second time, there is a mandatory minimum 30 days in jail and a mandatory loss of licence for two years minimum. If one is picked up a third time, as per section 255.(1)(a), there is mandatory minimum of 120 days in jail and one loses their licence for three years.

Beyond that, our mandatory minimum regime in the Criminal Code under impairment says it is an extra 120 days each time and an extra three years for which one loses their license. Honourable senators can figure it out: If a fellow has been caught 10 times — not 20 times — he has lost his license for 30 years.

(Debate suspended.)

Visitor in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations.

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wallace, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mockler, for the second reading of Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Hon. George Baker: Honourable senators, I was at the point where one had lost their licence for 30 years. I am talking about MMs — not the candy M&M's, but the mandatory minimums, as they are called. One would have lost their licence for 30 years and been in jail for five and a half years in that 10-year period. Therefore, how could one be out driving in order to have another 10 convictions?

Of course, the answer to the question is found in the clause that is contained in this bill. Unfortunately, in my opinion — and in a great many other people's opinion — the provision should not be present as far as impaired driving convictions are concerned, but it is.

Let me read the sentence so that there will be no doubt about it. It is also in this provision, clause 8 of the bill. It says this:

The court is not required to impose a minimum punishment unless it is satisfied that the offender, before entering a plea, was notified of the possible imposition of a minimum punishment for the offence in question and of the Attorney General's intention to prove any factors in relation to the offence that would lead to the imposition of a minimum punishment.

That is the Attorney General and the Crown prosecutor for the province. In the bill we are dealing with, it is a Crown prosecutor for the federal government. It is a federal Crown. In most cases, one will find a federal Crown and a provincial Crown if there is a mixture of charges. The point is that there is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion, which is built into every single act that we have, in one way or another, regarding mandatory minimum sentences.

The first thing we have to realize is that in the case of mandatory minimums, in certain circumstances they differ from province to province. There is a prosecutor's manual in every single province. It is not the same in every province.

For example, in Ontario, what is considered to be a dated offence — that is, out of date — is beyond five years. If one has a conviction, say, for impaired driving more than five years old, the prosecutor has discretion as to whether or not to enter it under their rules. That is not present in Newfoundland. In Newfoundland, if one had a prior conviction 20 years ago, that is a prior conviction. There is no such thing as a dated impaired driving conviction.

Having made that point concerning the main point of the government as far as mandatory minimums are concerned, my chief problem with this bill, honourable senators, is a provision that has nothing to do with mandatory minimums. I will tell you what it is. It is a scary provision. I realize that the Liberals in the other place have supported this legislation. Let us not forget this. The Liberals in the other place support this legislation, as do the Conservatives. However, this is sober second thought in this chamber. That is what we are known for.

I will tell you about the scary provision that I find in this legislation, honourable senators. It will take me just a second to do it, and I will illustrate it with a couple of cases within the past year concerning university students.

The first one was in December 2009, Carswell B.C., 644. I quote:

[1] The accused is charged with one count of trafficking in ecstasy. . . .

[2] . . . he gave one ecstasy pill to an undercover officer, Cst. Haines, at a Rave event at the Pacific Coliseum.

[5] . . . Cst. Haines, pretending to be a party-goer, dressed up for the event.

Then it goes on to describe how she was dressed — this is an undercover police officer — which I will not read. She did have a mini skirt on, cowboy boots and so on. She had to do that, of course, because she was on an undercover job at this dance. It happens in every city in Canada, these undercover operations take place.

(1440)

Here is the third sentence, paragraph 9 and 10:

Cst: Do you have some stuff for me?

Acc: No, let's dance. I'll get it for you later.

Cst: Uh No. I need it now. I want to be happy now.

Acc: Ok wait here, don't move.

Cst: Ok I'll be here.

This is the judge speaking:

The accused left and walked back towards the main stage area, disappearing into the crowd. He re-appeared some 3 minutes later and placed a rolled up paper into the constable's hand. There was an ecstasy pill inside the paper. There was a brief conversation.

Cst: Oh wow, thanks. How much?

Acc: Oh nothing, for you free.

Cst: Oh wow, really? You're a sweetie. Thanks.

The constable then gave the accused a hug. She signalled the arrest team to indicate that a transaction had occurred.

Then it says:

The accused was taken into custody.

He was handcuffed, searched and then brought to jail.

The second case, which I will just read two sentences from, is 2009 Carswell B.C. 3405. This is testimony from a police officer. How often does this happen?

Paragraph 7:

Prior to this Rave, Constable Kinney had acted as an undercover buy-officer at three prior Raves. It was her experience and opinion that drugs, in particular ecstasy and Raves were closely associated.

Paragraph 12:

Prior to Project Twilliger, Detective Kazuta had been involved with "Project Temporal" deployed to a Coliseum Rave on December 31, 2004, which resulted in ten arrests for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking. In 2005, he was involved with "Project Thirst" deployed to a Rave at the Coliseum, which resulted in 13 arrests for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking. Finally, "Project Tirana", which was deployed to a Rave at the Coliseum on December 31, 2007, and resulted in 11 trafficking arrests and six arrests for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Honourable senators, all of those cases involved the exchange of a pill or two pills. In half the cases, no money was exchanged. You might say that is only the Pacific Coliseum. There is case law and there is a big arena in Calgary, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, and the cases go on.

Why am I so concerned about this possibility? Obviously, you are not supposed to have illegal drugs. You are not supposed to be using illegal drugs.

Honourable senators, just listen to the summary of this bill. Herein lies the key. Do not forget that over the years, as Senator Nolin would attest, we have been careful to structure the schedules to the Narcotics Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act so that cocaine and heroin are Schedule I drugs. Marijuana derivatives, et cetera, are Schedule II drugs. In Schedule III are what are considered to be the less serious drugs. This bill eliminates Schedule III and brings everything in Schedule III up to life imprisonment in Schedule I.

This is an interesting question, and one that I am sure will be debated in the committee. What is wrong with that? I will tell you what is wrong with it. Without a massive advertising campaign, here is what will happen. I am not too concerned about someone who is charged under a provision that now says that if you give one ecstasy pill to someone, it is life imprisonment; you are in that category. It is not being in the category of risk of life imprisonment; it is not that.

However, what is concerning in the law regarding controlled drugs, as Senator Nolin would tell you, is that when you are convicted of an offence for which life imprisonment is a possibility, other parts of the Criminal Code come into play. For example, conditions of release carry with them 10-year prohibitions. Anyone convicted of this offence after the passage of the bill would have a 10-year prohibition, for example, on the ownership or use of a firearm. Let us use that as an example. Suppose you were convicted and that after you served your sentence, you came out and had to serve a 10-year conditional sentence. Suppose you wanted to get a pardon.

Senator Stewart Olsen: No pardons.

Senator Baker: There is legislation coming in to that effect. You would normally wait five to six years — this is the law — before you can apply for a pardon. You have someone, just on one condition, waiting 15 years. Suppose it is a university student, waiting 15 years before he or she can even receive consideration for a pardon, all for exchanging an ecstasy pill with someone. This is a young university student in that situation at a rave dance.

My point is that I would say the bill will pass. The bill will pass because the Liberals agree with it and the PCs agree with it in the other place. The bill will pass. However, honourable senators, surely we can do something to say that we need an advertising campaign. We need to alert these young people that what they did last year is no longer acceptable because they could end up facing a charge of life imprisonment, have their life ruined, never be able to get a job, never be able to go to the United States or any foreign nation, because that is the condition of their conviction.

That is the main point I wanted to make, and it is a very important point; it is one of the main subjects of the bill. The summary of this bill says:

This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide for minimum penalties for serious drug offences, to increase the maximum penalty for cannabis (marijuana) production and to reschedule certain substances from Schedule III to that Act to Schedule I.

When you look at the substances, you would never know it is something called ecstasy. It consists of about 50 letters and it starts with "N-Phenyl," something, something, something. Believe me, I have read enough case law to know that that is the drug I just referred to, which is ecstasy. Others of those drugs that are in Schedule III are there for a specific purpose, and at the time the schedules were invented and added on to, they were not considered to be Schedule I drugs.

Honourable senators, that is the main point that I want to make. I wish to make just one observation concerning mandatory minimum sentences. I served in the House of Commons for many years. The House of Commons did a thorough study on mandatory minimum sentences, the only study ever done. It is the only complete study on the record.

(1450)

The conclusion at page 70 says the committee does not generally support the introduction of further minimum sentences beyond murder, high treason and also the repeat of sexual offences. It was a conclusion of a House of Commons committee in 1988. I remember it well; I had been in the house 15 years at that time.

An Hon. Senator: Who was on the committee?

Senator Baker: Honourable senators, I will not say that Senator Nolin knows the answer, but the chair of the committee was David Daubney and the report is referred to as the Daubney report. Mr. Daubney is a great lawyer and has a great legal mind. I know him well; he is a good friend of mine. Where does he work now? He works with the Department of Justice, I believe in the minister's office, but I wonder who was the vice-chair of the committee? The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C. Thank you very much.

(On motion of Senator Nolin, debate adjourned.)

Motor Vehicle Safety Act Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

Bill to Amend—Second Reading

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator MacDonald, seconded by the Honourable Senator Duffy, for the second reading of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Hon. Terry M. Mercer: Honourable senators, I am afraid I will not be as entertaining as Senator Baker, but of course not many of us are.

Honourable senators, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to second reading of Bill S-5, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. As Senator MacDonald has aptly and in detail given you much information surrounding this bill, I will not speak for long on this subject.

Honourable senators, the basic premise of the bill concerns the importation of used vehicles into Canada from Mexico. We are told the reason for this bill is so that Canada can bring itself into line with its obligations under NAFTA. As a result, certain provisions must be changed in the two acts previously mentioned in order that these vehicles meet our stringent rules on the environment and safety.

I think all honourable senators can agree that we want to continue to protect the environment and the safety of all Canadians.

We have gone through this process before as we had to bring ourselves in line with similar provisions with the United States. Now it is Mexico's turn.

In the current Motor Vehicle Safety Act, there are provisions that allow for the importation of used vehicles that do not live up to Canadian standards from the United States on the condition that the buyer declares at registration that the vehicle has been improved to meet our standards. The buyer must prove this when he or she attempts to register the vehicle for use. Bill S-5 contains similar provisions for vehicles from Mexico.

The changes contained in Bill S-5 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act acts in the same way. Both amendments contained in Bill S-5 provide for the creation of the regulations required to meet both safety and environmental standards. It is important to note that we are not talking about the importation of new vehicles or even parts. We are talking about older vehicles.

Honourable senators, how many vehicles can we expect to come into Canada as a result of this bill? I am told minimal to none. Thus, my first thought was why are we acting so quickly? Several other questions have evolved from my discussions with officials. What are the levels of environmental standards for those types of cars in Canada as compared to those in the United States and Mexico? What differences, if any, exist? What are the similarities and differences in safety standards?

I have other questions regarding other countries and the number of used vehicles we import from them. I have questions concerning the rules surrounding such imports. One group pushing for these changes is the Imported Vehicle Owners Association of Canada. I can only hope that they will be contacted and asked to appear before our committee. I would also like to hear how the changes to these acts will affect the provincial regulations as the provinces are responsible for the registration of all vehicles. We are told that they have no problems with the changes, but it would still be interesting to hear what they would have to do.

Honourable senators, I am optimistic as to the answers to these various questions I have concerning this bill. For that reason, I support passing the bill for second reading in order that it can be studied by the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Translation]

Referred to Committee

Hon. Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis (The Hon. the Acting Speaker): Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Comeau, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.)

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tardif, for the second reading of Bill S-214, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and other Acts (unfunded pension plan liabilities).

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I see that this bill is on the Order Paper for the thirteenth day and we do not want it to die there.

I move the adjournment of the debate for the remainder of my time, but I would like to reserve the 45 minutes for the critic of the bill.

(On motion of Senator Comeau, debate adjourned.)

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Tardif, for the second reading of Bill S-216, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act in order to protect beneficiaries of long term disability benefits plans.

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I see that this bill is on the Order Paper for the thirteenth day, and I move the adjournment of the debate for the remainder of my time, but I would like to reserve the 45 minutes for the critic of the bill.

(On motion of Senator Comeau, debate adjourned.)

(1500)

Supreme Court Act

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Tardif, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rivest, for the second reading of Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages).

Hon. Grant Mitchell: Honourable senators, I am pleased to speak at second reading of Bill C-232, which has to do with the linguistic qualifications of Supreme Court judges.

I very much appreciated Senator Tardif's clear and inspirational speech on equal rights in Canada. I also found Senator Carignan's speech very interesting.

When Senator Carignan spoke yesterday, I imagined him as a lawyer, pleading a case in French before the Supreme Court. Ironically, he might not be understood at the Supreme Court, because some judges do not speak French.

This issue is interesting on two levels. The first is regarding the administration of justice and the distressing number of candidates who will have the legal and linguistic qualifications. The second is the issue of the fundamental principles of an officially bilingual Canada.

These are two solid arguments, and they are important and valid. It is clearly essential for Supreme Court judges to have very high qualifications. Our fear is that there will not be enough candidates who have these qualifications. In Western Canada, specifically, there is a feeling that there will not be enough lawyers who understand French.

However, the idea of judges who understand both official languages is tied to the — perhaps less practical, but more important — principle of Canadian values.

We have made progress since 1969, when we declared Canada to be a bilingual country. We can be proud of our progress. But we still have work to do. We have to keep looking for ways to improve bilingualism. The Supreme Court is an institution that is essential to our nation. Not promoting bilingualism would be a serious mistake.

We need to do what leaders must always do: make a list of priority issues, figure out which one is the most important and work on solving the problems. I think we should give bilingualism precedence over qualifications. I believe that fear of bilingualism will disappear once it is clear that expectations have changed.

Yes, I realize that some lawyers and many law students will have to learn a second language, and I know that is hard to do, as those listening to me now can tell.

However Canadians are often called upon to defend and promote this country's principles and values. I do not think it is too much to ask if we want to achieve our greatest hopes for this country and its judges. This is a question of fairness and justice for all Canadian citizens.

I should continue in French, perhaps, but I can express myself more clearly if I switch to English.

[English]

It is a question of competing priorities. There are two legitimate sides to this debate. You cannot always say that is the case. However, in this case, I believe that we should prioritize the broader principle, the principle that addresses the very nature, character and heart of Canada and Canadians, and that is our bilingual and bicultural nation. That is an essential quality of what we are as Canadians. It makes us different in the world.

Of course, we must attend to the administration of justice and ensure that we have the benefit of the best possible jurists that we can find for the Supreme Court of Canada. Some have raised a possible problem in that we may not have enough lawyers who have full bilingual comprehension and understanding. I am not convinced. That problem is within our power and their power to fix. It is the same old argument. I think of 22 years ago when courts were being restructured. The Supreme Court could not be restructured because we would never be able to find the people. It is the same argument that was made 40 years ago when this all started. We would never be able to find the qualified people. You know what? We have and we do.

It is certainly possible for jurists of the quality and level of intelligence of candidates for the Supreme Court to learn a second language and to learn it very well. That is the ultimate solution. If we continue as we do, we get the worst of both possible worlds. The ultimate solution is to adhere to the value, character and principle of bilingualism, promote it and have lawyers learn how to speak French. They will. They want to do it. Law faculties that want to become the best in the country will begin to teach their students French so that they, one day, can have people aspire to being jurists in the top court in the land. I think the problem will quite readily and quickly begin to take care of itself.

Why is it that we cannot think on the grander scale about this issue? Why can we not think about how much Canada is and how much more Canada can be? If we begin to take for granted principles like bilingualism, which is at the heart of who we are, those principles can slip away. We should always be trying to find occasions, cases and ways to promote them. This proposal is a perfect way to promote that important principle. It is symbolic, yes, because it says to all Canadians that bilingualism matters deeply to us. It is also important because it will assist us ultimately in delivering justice even more effectively because we will have people who can speak both languages. I do not think that is too much to ask from Canadians. We ask all kinds of things of Canadians. I think of the sacrifices, effort, work and commitment that have gone into building this country to the state and level that it is today. We can certainly ask lawyers in this country to learn French or English so that they can work in the highest court in the land in both official languages. I do not think it is too much to ask at all. It is an easy vote, and I am voting yes for this bill.

I am from Alberta, from the West. I love Alberta deeply. I love the West. I have felt there have been times when it needed to be listened to and understood better. I also know that Quebec and francophones outside of Quebec have made this country special. They are one of the reasons this country is special. There are many reasons, but they are a particularly important one. They have made us different than the United States. That has been very important for what we are as a country and how we define ourselves as different from the United States.

(1510)

Francophones have made us multicultural and, because we value that culture so much, we have had to pay recognition to other cultures. When people from around the world view Canada, do you know what they see? They see a multicultural, bilingual nation they aspire to emulate. People all around this world do so because of our tolerance, understanding, acceptance and the way we live together.

This bill can be one more powerful step in ascending that staircase to what can be the best, most perfect country in the world.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear! Hear!

(On motion of Senator Nolin, debate adjourned.)

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Budget and Authorization to Engage Services—Study on Current Social Issues of Large Cities—Second Report of Committee Adopted

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, (budget—study on current social issues pertaining to Canada's largest cities—power to hire staff), presented in the Senate on May 6, 2010.