The history of Canada has been profoundly influenced
by the habits of an animal which very fittingly occupies a prominent place
on her coat of arms. The beaver . . .
So begins Harold Innis's book The Fur Trade in Canada,
completed 81 years ago this month.
The Fur Trade in Canada: a title does not get more
ambitious than that, and would certainly not be found on a typical best sellers
list. At first glance, Innis's work appears to be a prosaic study of a
long-forgotten and unimportant form of trade.
However as we dig deeper, we find that he reveals the
truth about the founding of our country.
In his landmark work of Canadian scholarship, Innis
contends that trade in beaver pelts largely determined Canada's early physical
and political development. Explorers, adventurers and traders used the vast,
intricate system of lakes and interconnecting rivers along the edge of the
Canadian Shield to tap into the rich fur lands of the continent's interior. Over
time, merchants of the two great fur trading companies created a constellation
of forts, trading posts, portage points, and eventually small communities from
the St. Lawrence up to the Mackenzie River and then onward to the Columbia River
and the shores of the Pacific Ocean.
The border these traders carved into the land roughly
coincides with the current boundaries of Canada. In laying out this thesis,
Innis turns conventional historical wisdom on its head. The country's natural
trading patterns did not run north to south but east to west. As a result, the
country we have today emerged not in spite of its geography, but because of it.
"The lords of the lakes and forest may have passed away,"
Innis writes, "but their work endures in the boundaries of the Dominion of
Canada and in Canadian institutional life."
Innis's book laid the foundation for what we have come to
know as the "staples theory" of Canadian development.
According to this school of thought, the relationship
between Canada and Great Britain grew stronger primarily because our country
continued to export basic commodities to an increasingly industrialized mother
Furs were replaced by fish, which were replaced by wood,
which was replaced by pulp and paper, wheat and minerals like gold and nickel.
Today, the economic ties we had with Great Britain have
dissolved, but Canada's natural resources remain an engine of political, social
and economic development.
For proof, we need only look at the rapidly expanding gold
mines in the north. However, Innis was wrong about one thing: the lords of the
lakes and forests have not passed away; they are still with us.
Hon. Maria Chaput: Honourable senators, I rise
today to draw attention to the thirtieth anniversary of the Franco-Manitoban
Allow me to tell the story behind our flag, which was
designed in 1980 by Cyril Parent of Manitoba. The Franco-Manitoban flag features
red and yellow bands representing the Red River and Manitoba's wheat, and green
stems symbolizing deep roots which become living leaves that form an "F" for
A group of 29 Manitoba cyclists travelled 2,200 kilometres
from Winnipeg to Ottawa to celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the
Franco-Manitoban flag and raise its profile across Canada. The event was called
"À vélo pour mon drapeau!"
Before getting under way, they gathered around the
gravesite of Louis Riel, a founding father of Manitoba and staunch defender of
francophones' rights. The group set off from the Saint-Boniface cathedral on
Friday, May 14, at 7 a.m. The trek that began on May 14 in Winnipeg ended in
Ottawa on May 30. On Monday, May 31, the cyclists and their support team were
welcomed to Ottawa by the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage
and Official Languages, and by Shelly Glover, the member for Saint-Boniface.
It was my great pleasure to be at the reception. The
president of the Franco-Manitoban society, Ibrahima Diallo, gave a very touching
I would like to close with some of Mr. Diallo's words:
The word "tenacity" is often used to describe the
history of Manitoba's Francophonie and the people who choose to be a part of
it. How else can one explain the fact that Manitoba has always had a modern
and dynamic Francophonie that brings together people of Franco- Manitoban
origin, the Métis, immigrants, bilingual people and francophiles? People
love being part of our francophone community, which encourages them to be
the best they can be. People say that a symbol represents an evocative,
magical or mystical object or image. For the past 30 years, the
Franco-Manitoban flag has been our symbol, the symbol of a modern and
Honourable senators, now more than ever before, this flag
will inspire a deep feeling of pride and belonging in us and for us.
Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, the
Italian peninsula has had a long and storied past, including centuries as the
centre of the Roman Empire. Its peoples became a nation in 1861, when Garibaldi,
with his "1,000" — these were men that he had under his leadership — united them
under one flag, ruled by the monarchy of King Vittorio Emanuele II.
In 1946, after the brutal and devastating experience of
World War II, Italians held a referendum to approve the creation of a modern
republic. Today, June 2, 2010, marks the sixty-fourth anniversary of La
Once the new republic had taken hold, Italy played an
important role in creating a new world order.
Italy was a founding member of both the European Union and
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is an important member of the G8 and
G20 organizations, and sits on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, the World Trade Organization, the OSCE and the Council of Europe,
just to name a few.
Well over one million Canadians claim Italian heritage,
creating a strong bond between Canada and Italy.
As a proud Canadian and proud son of Italy, I would like
to offer all Italians my sincere congratulations in celebration of their
national holiday, as well my best wishes for continued success in all of their
Hon. Joyce Fairbairn: Honourable senators, it is
with sadness but fond memories that I listened last week as Senator Lowell
Murray paid tribute to an old friend, the late Honourable Martha Bielish.
Senator Bielish entered this chamber in 1979 as the first female member of the
Senate representing my beloved province of Alberta. She was also proud to be the
first woman of Ukrainian heritage to serve as a senator.
Martha Bielish was an inspired choice of then Prime
Minister Joe Clark. She followed the legacy of the Famous Five — Albertan women
who fought with great vigour in 1929 to open the doors of this chamber so that
women could have the same opportunity as men. Equality has grown in the
footsteps of Martha.
During Martha's years in this place, she enthusiastically
brought to our attention concerns on agricultural issues and the needs of
transportation and communication for those far away from the centre of Canada.
Senator Martha Bielish led the way in creating opportunities for women at the
forefront of communication in this country.
As we both came from rural, agricultural areas based in
communities in Alberta, when I entered this place almost 26 years ago, as the
second woman senator from Alberta, Martha held out her hand to me. She served as
my mentor and friend and urged me to speak up, to give a fair chance to rural
people who needed to be supported, then and now.
Martha was a hard worker with a great sense of kindness
and good spirit. She will always be fondly remembered and respected by those of
us who knew her here, by her family and friends, and the women who have followed
in her footsteps.
Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire: Honourable senators,
my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Could she give us
a report or a response on the implementation of Bill C-293 that was passed two
years ago on May 28, 2008? The bill created an act respecting the provision of
official development assistance abroad.
Can the leader confirm that this bill has been put into
operation by this government?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government):
Honourable senators, I will take the honourable senator's question as notice and
ascertain the facts.
Senator Dallaire: If I may, I have a supplementary
question. I raise the question at this time because section 5(1) indicates:
The Minister or a competent minister shall cause to be
submitted to each House of Parliament, within six months after the
termination of each fiscal year or, if that House is not then sitting, on
any of the first five days next thereafter that the House is next sitting, a
A slew of sub-elements follows.
I fear I have seen nothing of that nature put before this
house. Unless the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade has seen something, it seems to me that nothing has been
Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I will
request a written response to the stipulations in the bill and ask the minister
to address each of them.
Senator Dallaire: I thank the leader for her
response. So much has evolved and so many decisions have been taken at CIDA over
the last while on a variety of subjects with regard to our international
development funds. It seems to me that there may not be a strategic purpose with
regard to the focus of this act, which is poverty reduction. As there has been
so much action, there is a sense of urgency to the response with regard to
whether this bill has been applied by the government.
Senator LeBreton: As the honourable senator knows,
CIDA expends a considerable amount of money on various development projects
around the world. Many of these projects are presently under review to ensure
that the money is sent where it is intended in the area of development aid. All
of this is to say that CIDA is at the centre of much activity at the moment, and
I will seek clarification on the status of this legislation.
Hon. Robert W. Peterson: Honourable senators, my
question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
On April 20 of this year, I raised the question of Canada
Post office closures. On May 13, I received a written answer as follows:
On September 12, 2009, the Government of Canada
announced the establishment of the Canadian Postal Service Charter expecting
that Canada Post will continue to provide postal services Canadians can
count on, maintain rural service, and protect Canadians' mail. The provision
of postal services to rural regions of the country is an integral part of
Canada Post's universal service. The Service Charter stipulates that Canada
Post will maintain service in rural Canada and upholds the moratorium on the
closure of rural post offices.
As a result the moratorium on the closure of rural
post offices has been maintained. Canada Post believes its rural post
offices are an essential part of the company's network — a network that has
greater reach than any other retailer in Canada and greater depth and
breadth than that of any other logistics or delivery company.
Unfortunately, the answer is not substantiated by reality.
On May 31, two weeks after receiving confirmation of the
moratorium on post office closures, the post office in the resort village of
Elbow, Saskatchewan, was closed. The terms of the Canadian Postal Service
Charter were ignored.
Can the leader advise this chamber how many additional
rural post offices in Saskatchewan are targeted for closure this year?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government):
As the honourable senator correctly stated in his preamble, the Canadian Postal
Service Charter announced last fall reflects the government's commitment to
universal, effective and economically viable postal services for all Canadians,
both rural and urban. Part of that initiative was protecting rural mail delivery
by imposing a ban on the closure of rural post offices.
The honourable senator has cited an example where the
initiative was not respected by Canada Post. I will have to refer the question
to the department and the minister responsible to find out exactly what happened
in this instance.
I would hope this is not the case in other places in
Saskatchewan. The government has made it clear to Canada Post many times that
they must maintain rural delivery. Therefore, I will have to check into the
facts with regard to the post office box in Elbow, Saskatchewan.
I had some questions from Senator Chaput about a post
office in St. Boniface. When we checked into the matter, the post office was not
being closed but might move a few blocks down the street. As I did with Senator
Chaput, I will ascertain exactly what the situation is with regard to the post
office in Elbow, Saskatchewan.
Hon. Maria Chaput: Honourable senators, my question
is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. According to Graham Fraser,
the Commissioner of Official Languages, francophone and anglophone soldiers
still do not have equal access to training in their own language. It is crucial
that the minister responsible for the Canadian Armed Forces show some leadership
and commitment in order to address this discrepancy.
Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate suggest to
the minister responsible for the Armed Forces that he act on all 20
recommendations made by Mr. Fraser?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I
thank the honourable senator for her question. The Canadian Forces recognize the
importance of supporting both official languages and ensuring that French and
English have equal status. It is not only the right thing to do, it also makes
I will seek an update on the status of this program, but I
will say the government is fully committed to it.
Hon. Claudette Tardif (Deputy Leader of the
Opposition): Honourable senators, some time ago, I also asked some very
similar questions regarding courses offered in French for Canadian Forces
members. Here we are a few years later and the situation has not changed.
Shortcomings in strategic and operational planning make it difficult for the
Canadian Forces to effectively evaluate how many courses are needed in each
official language; waiting times are far too long; there is a significant
shortage of instructors who can give courses; and lastly, official languages are
not considered to be an essential component of the individual training and
education management framework.
Can the minister tell us when we can expect to see these
Senator LeBreton: I thank the honourable senator
for her question. Shortly after we formed the government in 2006, the Department
of National Defence set out to transform its official languages model. Since
then, it has made measurable progress. National Defence has enhanced policy
development, strengthened the network of language coordinators, increased
awareness activities and created a performance measurement system.
With respect to Camp Borden, in particular, the Canadian
Forces have taken a number of specific immediate actions to support both
official languages. I am only using CFB Borden as an example because I was asked
about that base here before. For example, the orientation program for new
students now includes information on linguistic rights and responsibilities,
which has increased language rights awareness from under 20 per cent in 2007 to
over 90 per cent in 2008. Based on the experience at CFB Borden and the positive
results we have had there, National Defence is adopting similar measures in
Gagetown and Saint-Jean to improve the provision of training, education and
services in both official languages.
If there is more updated information than what I have
already provided, I will be happy to provide it.
Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Honourable senators, my
question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and is with regard to
the cancellation of the prison farm program. Recently, the Committee on Public
Safety and National Security in the other place heard from witnesses who spoke
in favour of keeping these farms open. Only the government officials supported
the closures, and they did not provide any information that would justify the
What evidence did the government use to shut down this
program? If there is any evidence, would the leader present it to the Senate,
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I
thank Senator Callbeck for her question. Honourable senators, I understand
aspects of the prison farm issue are still getting some attention in the other
place. With regard to the overall success of the prison farm program, less than
1 per cent of prisoners released into the community have actually gone and
worked in the agricultural sector in the last five years. That is a significant
Senator Callbeck: The leader says those people have
gone to work in the agricultural sector, but what about the inmates who took
part in the prison farm program and have gone on to other sectors? The
government testified that they had no idea as to what that number might be. They
had no evidence as to whether the farms are more successful than other programs.
Working on the farm gives inmates skills they need to
succeed when they get out: a strong work ethic, responsibility, compassion, how
to be a team player, and how to resolve conflicts.
The committee's report that I spoke about in my first
question called on the Minister of Public Safety to refrain from taking any
steps to sell, dismantle or reduce operations of any of Canada's prison farms in
any way until independent experts have an opportunity to fully review the
situation, value the farm program and report in writing.
What steps has the government taken to carry out this
recommendation of parliamentarians, or has the government completely ignored the
Senator LeBreton: The decision regarding prison
farms was made following an extensive review of the program and after hearing
The honourable senator mentioned the prisoners receiving
valuable training on prison farms. Initially, the primary function of prison
farms was to train people in the agricultural sector. I pointed out that less
than 1 per cent of the prisoners who participate in this program actually go
into the agricultural sector.
The honourable senator mentioned they go into other
sectors. However, in our corrections facilities and the prison system, many
other trades and programs are available to these individuals. The fact that they
might have been on a prison farm and developed some skills that later served
them well in the general Canadian population does not automatically mean they
would not have gotten that training in any event in a prison facility.
This issue is the result of a committee in the other
place. With regard to the recommendations, I will take the honourable senator's
question as notice as to what the minister will be doing in order to respond to
Senator Callbeck: I had trouble hearing the first
part of the leader's answer, but I believe she said the government received
expert advice. If that was what the leader said, would she table that expert
Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I will do no
such thing. The advice was provided to the Minister of Public Safety. The issue
is still current. Activity is ongoing in the other place with regard to prison
farms and what the future holds for them in many parts of the country.
Prison farms were found mainly at minimum security
institutions. Their initial intent was to train and prepare prisoners to work in
the agricultural sector once they left the institution.
The original intention of the prison farm program was not
met when less than 1 per cent of prisoners end up working in the agricultural
sector. That is not to say the minister is not listening or has not responded to
what might happen at these facilities in the future. It is that part of the
honourable senator's question that I take as notice.
Senator Callbeck: Honourable senators, the leader
said the prison farms train people for the agricultural field, but the farms
also produce milk, eggs, meat and vegetables for the institutions. I am told
that the cost to replace the milk from the farms will be $1 million in Ontario
alone. The cost of operating all these prison farms is $4 million. It is likely
that the cost of outsourcing all of the food produced on these farms will exceed
the cost of running the program.
Did the government conduct an assessment to determine the
full cost of replacing the food that will no longer be produced by the prison
farm program? If so, will the leader table that assessment in the Senate?
Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, if such an
assessment is available to the public, I will be happy to table it.
Hon. Art Eggleton: Honourable senators, my question
is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Canadian children are integral to the future prosperity of
Canada. However, many Canadian children continue to face severe hardships across
the country. Approximately 800,000 children live in poverty. Thousands of
children are without high- quality early learning and care. We see an increasing
number of children with mental health problems and learning disabilities.
The United Kingdom has commissioners for children, and
they provide independent analysis and advice on children's issues. Continuing
with the post created in 2003, the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat
government recently appointed a minister of state for children and families.
Will the government create similar portfolios in Canada to ensure the issues
that Canadian children face are being addressed?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government):
Honourable senators, the government and taxpayers of Canada want us to help
children and families. I do not believe that creating another bureaucracy in
Ottawa will help to resolve the problem.
Hon. Art Eggleton: Honourable senators, my question
for the leader of the government arises from the report adopted by the Senate a
few weeks ago, entitled: In From the margins: A Call to Action on Poverty,
Housing and Homelessness. Particularly hard hit are urban Aboriginal
children, who are over-represented in poverty, face discrimination and live in
Will the government commit to the establishment and
funding of Aboriginal working groups in all communities to identify priorities
for urban Aboriginal peoples to address poverty, housing and homelessness issues
in their communities?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government):
Honourable senators, our government acknowledges and recognizes the growing
needs of urban Aboriginals. That is why we have 80 programs with spending of
over $500 million annually to address issues of specific concern to urban
Aboriginals. We have a long-term urban Aboriginal strategy to focus our
government-wide efforts. We are working to reduce the number of families,
particularly women and children, living in poverty. We also have programs
targeted at youth. We promote job training, retraining and entrepreneurship
programs to take advantage of the strong and recovering Canadian economy.
Hon. Grant Mitchell: Honourable senators, a poll
today indicates that Canadians place twice as much emphasis and priority on
climate change as an issue of discussion for the G8 conference as they do on the
maternal health initiative on which the government has spent so much time.
That is not to say the government should not continue with
its maternal health initiative, particularly in an effort to simply get it
right. It does say that if the government is spending time on maternal health
because it seems to be the right thing to do, there is also good reason to spend
at least as much initiative, emphasis and focus on climate change in the context
of the G8 summit and its agenda.
Can the leader tell us whether the Prime Minister is
developing policy commensurate with the level and significance of the maternal
health initiative on climate change as he approaches the G8 conference?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government):
Honourable senators, the millions of women and children who die each year, and
the 24,000 children that die each and every day should not be considered an
either/or situation. I do not think the honourable senator suggested that.
I have not seen the poll that Senator Mitchell referenced.
However, the government is fully committed to our climate change agenda. This is
Environment Week, which was started by Conservative Prime Minister John George
The government is engaged in a number of initiatives with
regard to climate change and the environment, which is acknowledged by the Prime
Minister. At some point in the G8 and G20 discussions, I believe reports and
updates will be provided on how each country is progressing in terms of the
Copenhagen Accord. The Copenhagen Accord was the first time that all major
emitters signed such a document. This is the umbrella under which the government
Senator Mitchell: Honourable senators, I appreciate
the leader acknowledging that I did not say "either/or" in regard to maternal
health and the environment. I was saying this government could do both, that it
could actually walk and chew gum at the same time. That is a major concession.
I am further interested in the fact that the answer seems
to be vague. Maybe the Prime Minister will talk with other G8 summit leaders,
such as China, on this particular initiative.
Could the leader tell honourable senators if there is a
specific agenda item prompting the leaders to talk about climate change because
the Prime Minister of Canada has initiated the subject and provided
international leadership on this important issue for a few moments?
Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, we are proud
that we are hosting two major world meetings, the G8 and the G20 summits, and
that we have been fully participating with our partners in the ongoing, primary
issue of restoring the world to economic health and prosperity.
The Prime Minister announced yesterday that in addition to
hosting the G8 and the G20 summits and the thousands of delegates who will be
attending, he will be holding individual meetings with the leaders of China and
Honourable senators, I have been waiting for this
opportunity to go through the list of items the government has done on the
As I mentioned, this is Environment Week. This initiative
was first championed by a former boss of mine, the Right Honourable John George
Diefenbaker, in 1970, so it is a good time to reflect on what we have
accomplished since 2006, starting with the Copenhagen accord, which for the
first time included all the world's major emitters. We harmonized our emission
targets with the United States and introduced tailpipe emission standards for
passenger cars, light trucks and heavy-duty trucks. We established biofuel
content regulations for diesel and gasoline. We introduced historic national
wastewater standards for sewage, and have a comprehensive action plan for clean
water, which includes investment in clean water for Aboriginal communities.
Canada's national parks have been expanded by 30 per cent,
including a massive expansion of Nahanni National Park Reserve. In February, we
announced a new national park reserve for the Mealy Mountains area of Labrador,
which will be the largest in eastern Canada. We have also made significant
investments in protected areas such as the Great Bear Rainforest in British
Columbia, Vancouver's Stanley Park and Halifax's Point Pleasant Park.
In addition, as Senator Mitchell is aware, President
Calderón pointed out in his speech to the joint session of Parliament last
Thursday that Mexico looks to Canada as a leader on the environmental front.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable
Senator Brown, seconded by the Honourable Senator Runciman, for the second
reading of Bill S-8, An Act respecting the selection of senators.
Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, as
indicated in the summary, Bill S-8 invites us to establish a framework to
provide guidance to provinces and territories for the text of legislation
governing senatorial elections. The bill, if adopted, formally establishes that,
henceforth, persons recommended to Privy Council as Senate nominees shall be
selected by a democratic election by the people.
Before commenting on the bill, I would like to point out
that the Prime Minister is well aware of my opinion of the bill. The
conversation I had with him predates —
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, Senator
Nolin is speaking. I would ask the honourable senators who wish to have
discussions to do so outside this chamber in the area provided for that purpose.
I take this opportunity to remind senators that, since
this is a government bill, it is customary to provide 45 minutes for the speech.
Senator Nolin: I do not intend to speak for 45
minutes. I will try to not to exceed 15 minutes.
The Prime Minister is well aware of my views. In fact, we
had that conversation several years ago. I have informed the members of my
caucus of the remarks I will be making.
I think it is inappropriate to require the Prime Minister
— because this would actually be an obligation on him as senior advisor to the
Governor General — to consider, in recommending Senate nominees to the Governor
General, individuals selected through such an election. That would be an
An election identifies the people's choice. It is the
culmination of a competition that produces the most popular candidate. This
house should be made up, if possible, of popular people, but more importantly,
of competent people. That is why the Fathers of Confederation devised a system
in which the Prime Minister retains full responsibility for recommending to the
Governor General the nominees best qualified to serve as senators.
Under the guise of bowing to popular democracy, Bill S-8
is contrary to what the Fathers of Confederation had in mind.
The popularity shown by an election is certainly something
appropriate, but it should not be viewed as a fundamental consideration for
determining whether or not an individual Canadian should be nominated to this
In recent history, this chamber has seen its work
influenced by a number of senators. Senator Keon retired just a little while
ago; a few years ago, it was Senator Beaudoin. I will name only these two, given
the time I am allotted. I know Senator Beaudoin very well and I got to know
Senator Keon. Senator Keon told us that he would never have run in an election
because he did not feel the need to be popular in order to be efficient. He
would have opposed the passage of Bill S-8.
We have here several French-speaking senators from outside
Quebec, including Senator Mockler from New Brunswick. Do you think that the
people of New Brunswick, most of whom are English-speaking, would have voted for
Senator Mockler, an Acadian?
Senator Segal: Undoubtedly.
Some Hon. Senators: And overwhelmingly.
Senator Nolin: Do you think that the people of
Alberta would have voted for Senator Tardif?
Senator Angus: Same answer.
Senator Nolin: My second point is this: How many
Aboriginal senators are there in this chamber?
Senator Segal: Not enough.
Senator Nolin: Exactly, not enough. Why are there
more Aboriginal senators than Aboriginal members of the other place? Because
they are in the minority. All across Canada, except in the territories,
Aboriginal Canadians from various reserves and of various origins are in the
minority. Do you think that, in a popularity contest, people would be willing to
put the names of Aboriginal candidates and then vote for them? The answer is no.
Should we have Aboriginal senators in this chamber? Yes!
The third point I want to make concerns women. More than
one third of senators are women. I think we should thank the prime ministers who
made a point of ensuring that women would be represented in this chamber. Today,
the fact that one third of all senators are women — it should be a half — does
credit to those prime ministers and is in the best interests of Canadians.
Let us draw a comparison with the other place. What is the
proportion of women in the other place?
Senator Segal: Not enough.
Senator Nolin: Not enough, exactly, Senator Segal.
Eighteen per cent. The women who ran for office were not popular enough. Were
they competent? I think so, but they were not popular, so they did not win. What
is as true for women is also true for francophones in the other provinces and
minority Aboriginal people. They have a place in this chamber because we have a
system that gives a prime minister the chance to fill vacancies with competent
Finally, the proponents of Senate reform — our colleague
Senator Brown is one of the best-known advocates — have talked for a long time
about a Triple-E Senate. What Bill S-8 proposes is one of those "Es": elected.
Personally, I feel that what counts is the third "E": effective. That is the
I do not agree with giving up the "E" for effective for
the sake of the "E" for elected. That is not what we are here for. We are not
here to replace the House of Commons, but to complement it, to add effective
second thought to the legislative process initiated in the other place. We are
not here to replace the work of the members of Parliament, but to complete it.
Honourable senators, this much-sought-after effectiveness
takes aim at the so-called legitimacy that being elected could provide us,
because electing senators does not guarantee effectiveness. The only thing "E"
for elected will get us is popularity. Popularity is what they have in the House
of Commons. We are not the House of Commons. The Senate of Canada offers
Canadians effective work.
This effectiveness results from our individual and
collective expression of the independence that the current process allows us.
Any honourable senator may act in good conscience in the interest of Canadians,
independently of pressure exerted by the House of Commons and of his or her
political affiliations. Any independence resulting from electing candidates to
the Senate is certainly not going to make the Senate more effective.
Honourable senators, it is up to us to exercise this
independence and use it carefully, sparingly, and in the interest of Canadians.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Hon. Bert Brown: Will Senator Nolin take a
Senator Nolin: Yes.
Senator Brown: Does the honourable senator know why
the Canadian media unanimously have called this place illegitimate for over 100
Some Hon. Senators: No, no.
Senator Nolin: Senator Brown, we do not have much
time so I will be brief.
First, I do not agree that all media and the entire
population have said that. Recently, I saw numbers to indicate that the split is
50/50 between those who want an elected Senate and those who do not. The key
question is not about legitimacy coming from an election. At the end of day,
senators will be judged on their effectiveness, and not in terms of whether or
not the media like the Senate. Effectiveness is the key word. Can senators be
effective only when they are elected? I doubt it. Elected senators can be
effective, but being elected should not be a prerequisite. Independence from the
other place is the tool that provides efficiency and effectiveness to senators.
What the media thinks, I do not really care.
Senator Brown: Honourable senators, I have a second
question for Senator Nolin. Is the honourable senator saying that people in the
House of Commons are not as good as the people who are appointed? I do not
understand that line of thinking. Why would this chamber not be at least as well
respected if we were elected, as the members of the House of Commons are?
Currently, this chamber is divided into two parties and the respective party
whips ensure that senators vote with the side that appointed them to this place.
Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh.
Senator Brown: I fail to see how that makes us
independent. Most of the votes I have seen in this chamber during the last three
years have been for one party or the other.
Senator Nolin: The honourable senator raises a good
question. When former Prime Minister Mulroney phoned me to say that he was
recommending me to the Governor General, I asked him about that issue. He said
that I did not have to follow him and that he was recommending me for
appointment to the Senate so that I could defend Canadians.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Nolin: May I have five more minutes?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Nolin: The honourable senator raised the
important question of whether elections in the other place ensure effectiveness.
The other place is the house of the representatives of the population. That is
how it was formed. It was created for that reason.
Honourable senators, look at British history. There was a
civil war and a king lost his head because he decided to go against the will of
the population. It is in the other house that confidence matters are raised,
because the members in that house represent the population, which is the
fundamental characteristic of their existence.
We are here to complement that work. You have heard the
word "redundancy" when we talk about electronics, intellectual property and the
use of computers. The same question is asked a different way, and if the result
is the same, that is the answer — redundancy. We are here to ensure that the
final legislative product is good for Canadians.
The members of the other house are popular because they
must receive a mandate from their constituents. We do not have to be popular; we
have to be effective and efficient.
Hon. Hugh Segal: I wish to ask a question of
Senator Nolin: With pleasure.
Senator Segal: Honourable senators, I am fascinated
by Senator Nolin's citation of the original intent of the Fathers of
Confederation. I want to get a sense from the honourable senator of how far that
original intent should constrain our ability in this chamber to try to improve
the legislative framework which, at the present time, has one third of our
national legislators unelected, Senator Brown notwithstanding.
The very same Fathers of Confederation did not anticipate
women sitting in this chamber. In fact, it took the Supreme Court and the Privy
Council in Great Britain to make that happen. The Fathers of Confederation did
not anticipate women having the right to vote, and that changed over time,
thanks to Prime Minister Meighen. The Fathers of Confederation did not
anticipate the vote being extended to our brothers and sisters in the First
Nations, and that change was made.
We all relish Senator Nolin's ability to cite original
sources and do remarkable research before he speaks in this place on a wide
range of issues. Surely, one of the fundamental principles of the original
British North America Act is our ability in this place to move in a democratic
direction that would preserve the Prime Minister's constitutional authority to
make recommendations to Her Excellency while allowing the population to express
its view, but to do so in a way that protects provincial option.
Does the honourable senator think that the original intent
of the Fathers of Confederation prevents us from trying to make that kind of
progress as an open and democratic society?
Senator Nolin: Honourable senators, my answer will
be brief. I am not saying that this is the last word or that it is the end of
the world. I am only saying that it is there, and I do not think Bill S-8 adds
The intent is sober second thought, as framed by Sir John
A. Macdonald. I do not think being elected will add to the principle of sober
second thought. Quite to the contrary, I think it would create havoc between
this house and the other house because we would try to be more popular and more
That is not what the population in 1867 needed, and it is
not what the population needs now. The population needs a second chamber that
will add to the quality of the work of the first chamber by giving sober second
thought to the work done by the first house, without concern for glamour,
popularity or beauty contests. We have a job to do, and we are free and
independent. We can do it without being pushed by the people in the other place.
Let us use that. We are not using it. We must be independent; then we will be
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
The Hon. the Speaker: Are honourable senators ready
for the question?
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. Andrée Champagne: Honourable senators, when I
read Bill C-232 for the first time, my reaction was completely visceral. "It's
about time!" I thought. Being the proud Quebecer that I am, I cannot imagine
voting against this bill. That is what the sponsor of this bill in the other
place repeatedly said, as often as possible, to anyone who was willing to
Talk about responsibility! I told myself that if I was
able to put forth the effort to understand and express myself more or less
correctly in my country's two official languages, men and women who are
intelligent enough and wise enough to sit on the Supreme Court of Canada should
also be able to master a second language.
After all, if a student in Switzerland cannot graduate
from high school without being able to speak French, German, Italian and
English, our best legal minds should at least be bilingual. If it is obligatory
to know Arabic, French and English in a country like Tunisia, why have we waited
so long to require our lawyers and judges to speak at least two languages? More
and more often we expect it of our politicians, and they have made great
progress. Our Prime Minister himself is one example.
If I could do it, I felt, so could our judges. Yes, I
know, the meaning of many words still escape me and I do have an accent which
becomes more pronounced when I am weeks or months at a time without speaking the
language, but I can understand English, read it and even write it.
However, as the weeks went by I started to ask myself
other important questions: Why is this being studied now? Remember that language
issues always bring difficult moments in Parliament and always find their place
in the media. Now, as our government is still in a minority situation, the
opposition has decided to raise the ante.
As my grandmother used to say, "There's nothing to get
yourself in a lather about."
Then I wondered why do some people who normally favour
bilingualism find themselves against this bill?
Let us take a look. According to our Constitution and our
Official Languages Act, the use of one language or the other is acceptable in
Canadians can always express themselves in the language of
their choice. In the lower courts, it goes without saying that the judge hearing
the case should be able to understand the language being spoken by the parties,
but this is not required of the Supreme Court. Why not?
As Senator McCoy explained, the Supreme Court examines
cases that have already been ruled on by the lower courts, but for which
extremely specific legal aspects are being called into question. The judges will
have read and reread all the related documents before even deciding whether the
case should be heard. If they decide it should, the witnesses who will be heard
by the judges are not ordinary citizens, with their regional expressions and
accents. They are brilliant lawyers pleading each side of the case. During the
hearing, a judge can, if he wishes, use simultaneous interpretation, just as we
do every day.
But the question remains. Will the interpretation be good
enough? I decided to speak to some translators and interpreters.
They brought to my attention the fact that, for example,
some of them spend years learning the special vocabulary of different sciences,
of different subjects. Always finding "le mot juste" is not necessarily an easy
task. Competent ones go the extra mile and specialize in a given field.
We can assume that the interpreters who are assigned to
work at the Supreme Court have the knowledge necessary to do an excellent job.
As Senator Carignan explained very clearly, if ever there
were a major problem, the parties could always appeal.
Yes, the appeal would go to the same Supreme Court, but on
the condition that the original text and its translation be submitted to show
that there was an error, or that the meaning of a sentence was misunderstood.
Therefore, translation and interpretation are essential tools. Why do some
people want to see them disappear?
I thought I would try to assure myself that the best
Canadian jurists would understand our two official languages, and that, as some
supporters of the act contend, bilingualism should be one of their professional
qualifications. However we must not give more weight to linguistic knowledge
than to legal knowledge.
In a speech to the Canadian Bar Association in 2007, our
Commissioner of Official Languages spoke about the difficulties that official
language minority communities have accessing legal services in their language.
He said that a shortage of bilingual court personnel and legal and
administrative resources often compounds the lack of bilingual judges and
Francophone lawyers appearing as witnesses at our Official
Languages Committee complained about the lack of bilingual colleagues and
bilingual judges. They added that this caused long delays in cases being heard.
As honourable senators know, and as the saying goes, justice delayed is justice
denied. They also mentioned the fact that very few lawyers are knowledgeable in
both the common law and the Napoleonic Code.
However, what really bothered me with their testimony is
that a few minutes after expressing all of the serious problems they encounter,
they bluntly and shamelessly stated that they want all Supreme Court judges to
be bilingual. Fine, I said, but in this day and age, if there are so few lawyers
and judges out there who are bilingual and who know both of the law systems in
use in our country, where would our Supreme Court judges come from?
Given that all Canadians have the right to express
themselves in the language of their choice, why would the judges who decide
their fate not have the opportunity to listen to arguments in the language of
their choice, through competent simultaneous interpretation if necessary?
If, in the case of Supreme Court justices, we chose to
interfere with that custom, to eliminate that option, where would that lead us?
What would we be opening the door to?
If we begin by attacking the strong, will we move on to
attacking the weak? We all know that people who live in minority language
communities across Canada are the most vulnerable. In our attempt to protect
them, are we jeopardizing their basic rights?
Of course it would be ideal if all of our lawyers and
judges were bilingual. That would be the best of all possible worlds.
But it does not make sense to me to start at the top and
to insist that the bilingual requirement be implemented overnight. Learning a
second language does not happen overnight, least of all for adults.
The wise approach would be to convince future lawyers,
regardless of where they live or study, that mastering both of our official
languages is essential and to ensure that they have the opportunity to do so.
In a report released last week, the Commissioner of
Official Languages deplored the fact that:
Other students would like to perfect the language
skills they acquired in primary and secondary school by pursuing university
studies in their second language [but] this option is currently not readily
available. In Canada, very few post- secondary institutions give their
students the opportunity to take courses within their field in the official
language of their choice.
That, honourable senators, is where we need to focus our
If we waste time in wishful thinking, our legal system
will suffer in the end.
I am sorely tempted to propose an amendment to Bill C-232
that goes something like this: "That, beginning July 1, 2017, bilingualism
become an essential requirement for appointments to the Supreme Court of
This would give those who aspire to fulfill these
important roles the time to do their homework and learn the other language. It
would also be a marvellous way to celebrate Canada's 150th anniversary.
Will we have solved all of our problems by then? With the
same wry grin and the same wink, I would suggest that we forget all of this for
now and come back to it in seven years. As the old saying goes, good things come
to those who wait.
In any case, this bill and all the attention it is
receiving here in the Senate will have unexpected benefits in the short, medium
and long terms.
First of all, if we reject it, we will avoid all the
aggravation of determining whether it is constitutional, which is one
possibility that Senator Carignan, a legal expert, pointed out.
Lawyers and judges everywhere, including future lawyers
and judges, will all be aware of the importance of understanding, speaking and
writing both of Canada's official languages.
Furthermore, I believe that in the future the Minister of
Justice and the Prime Minister will be even more conscious of bilingualism among
those on whom they confer the enormous responsibility of becoming one of the
nine people who serve on the bench of our highest court.
On the other hand, with Bill C-232, who would be
responsible for confirming and testing the quality of the bilingualism
demonstrated by these individuals?
There is a huge difference between being able to have a
conversation at a social event and knowing, in both languages, all the nuances
and terminology of our two legal systems.
Without this requirement, we have managed to appoint an
impressive number of Supreme Court judges who have become able to communicate in
both official languages, so why should we change the procedure? As they say in
"If it ain't broke . . ."
If speaking either of the two official languages, French
and English, while relying on the help of interpreters is good enough for the 15
judges elected by the UN to sit at the International Tribunal in The Hague, it
should be acceptable for our judges in our superior court. To have all judges
sitting in federal courts and in the Supreme Court be completely bilingual is a
fantastic dream. Together, let us keep it alive, but to demand that the complete
knowledge of both languages become the law of our land today for Supreme Court
judges would not be wise. The chamber of sober second thought cannot support
I do support bilingualism, and I will keep on trying to
improve mine, but I will not support this bill.
Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the
Government): I would like to ask my colleague Senator Champagne a question.
We heard people say that there were problems with the interpretation services.
The Commissioner of Official Languages even stated that certain nuances were
lost and were not reflected in some bills.
If that is so and if a lot of people who support this bill
are basing their support on this statement, should we not consider the following
issue: in this chamber, because we draft and pass legislation in French and
English and we are telling Supreme Court judges that they must be bilingual,
should we hold senators to the same standard?
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear! Why not?
Senator Champagne: Honourable senators, I do not
agree with those who question the quality of the work our interpreters do. I
think they do an outstanding job, and they are always there to help us when we
do not understand the meaning of a sentence.
In fact, deciding who could assess people's bilingualism
would pose a problem. If we want to reach the point where our Supreme Court
judges are bilingual, then we need to proceed gradually.
We could reach the point where we say that Canada has two
official languages, so if someone is not bilingual, too bad. Then those who want
to run for a seat in the other place would have to be bilingual, as would those
who hope to take our places some day, because we will all be leaving some day.
And if we have to be bilingual to take part in designing and drafting
legislation, then all the public servants who help us would have to be as well?
They would, and not just in regions considered bilingual.
This week, we heard that 40 per cent of public servants are bilingual. I think
that being able to speak both official languages would be an asset for them,
just as it would be for Supreme Court judges and all of us who work in this
chamber and the other place.
If we can do it for ourselves, maybe we can ask it of
somebody else, and then ask for our judges, all our lawyers and all our judges
in federal courts to be bilingual as well.
Senator Comeau: You heard the Commissioner of
Official Languages, who said:
The bill extends the requirement that now applies to
justices of the Federal Court, that is, the requirement to conduct a trial
with judges capable of listening to testimony in both official languages
However, I believe that the Commissioner of Official
Languages forgot to add the fact that the Federal Court is presently subject to
the Official Languages Act.
I read Bill C-232 very carefully and I did not see any
mention of the Official Languages Act. Have you considered why the Commissioner
of Official Languages must speak to a bill that makes no mention of the Official
Senator Champagne: You will correct me if I am
mistaken, but I believe that when the Official Languages Act was passed 40 years
ago, it did not apply to the Supreme Court.
The reason given by Mr. Hnatyshyn, our former colleague
and justice minister at the time, was that we were not ready. Earlier I talked
about seven years and I think we have to give it that.
I would like all Canadians to be able to master both
official languages. In the legal world, I would like all our young lawyers to be
able to argue their cases in both official languages. We would then have no
difficulty in recruiting people who are competent in the fields of both law and
Hon. Jean-Claude Rivest: I understand that the
honourable senator's argument deals with safety, to ensure that there is no
misunderstanding on the part of Supreme Court justices. The honourable senator
is opposed to the bill by reason of what we could call "the legal security of
the Supreme Court's good judgment."
In her opinion, are there other areas of activity where,
for reasons of public security or interest, bilingualism in Canada should not be
respected? I think that, as a Quebecer, she is very sensitive to that. Could
this argument that she has developed apply, for example, to airline pilots?
Senator Champagne: I remember that, in Quebec,
there were problems with pilots and the air traffic controllers. We had to make
sure that they fully understood one another.
From what I have seen, I do not think that it is a
question of security for the Supreme Court. It is a question of ensuring that
the judges on that bench are the best in their field of expertise. I also spoke
about the fact that this bill is important because it puts bilingualism back in
the spotlight. I hope that in the near future a larger number of us here will be
bilingual and that the nine judges on the Supreme Court will also be able to
express themselves in either of our official languages.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I
regret to inform the honourable senator that her extended five minutes are up,
and that there were three other senators who had questions.
Is there further debate?
Hon. Tommy Banks: I seek Your Honour's guidance
because I have never done this before.
Honourable senators, I seek leave to speak now on this
bill. The reason I seek leave is that rule 37(1) precludes senators speaking
more than once during debate at any stage of a bill. I have technically spoken
once before, which is why I am asking for leave. I want to tell honourable
senators about it.
On April 20, at page 348 of Hansard, one can see that
after Senator Tardif had spoken on this bill, I rose to state what ought to have
been a question. In fact, on that day I rose and pointed out that Mr. Yvon
Godin, the author of the bill, was here. Then I said the following: ". . . I
will not presume to opine on this bill until I have heard further debate on it."
I should have put it in the form of a question, but I then
went on to comment on the translation, oddly enough, of a particular phrase in
the bill. I did that. Therefore, I have technically spoken on the bill. However,
I seek leave to tell you what I really think about it.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Comeau: From this side, we have no
objection. Senator Banks explained the fact that he was asking a question.
Therefore, we have no problem with the request.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore:
Leave is granted.
Senator Banks: I want to be sure that the deputy
leader understands that I am not sure if it is exactly accurate to say that I
was under the impression that I was asking a question. I was saying that I ought
to have asked a question. I was making an observation. However, I appreciate
As I proceed, I think the Honourable Senator Champagne
will see that she has been reading my mind, in a way. When I was being
introduced a long time ago to the niceties of marketing and advertising, I asked
a wise person in that field what was the most important thing to remember when
you wanted to get a point across. He said, "First, you tell them what you want
to tell them; second, you tell them; and, third, you tell them what you told
them." I will try to do that today.
At its heart, this is a good bill. It is a
well-intentioned bill. I cannot think of a single cogent argument against the
intent of this bill. However, if, in its present form, it appears again here at
third reading, I will not be able to vote in its favour. I will vote for it at
second reading because such a vote at second reading is an indication of support
for the principle of the bill and I support the principle of the bill. I am
hopeful that careful consideration will be given in committee to the question of
when the bill might actually be brought into force.
The bill as it is presently before us does not contain a
coming into force clause. The question of coming into force clauses in acts of
Parliament is one with which I have more than passing familiarity. It is the
very subject of an act of Parliament called the Statutes Repeal Act, of which I
happen to be the author and which was passed into law and received Royal Assent
on June 18, 2008. Despite having received Royal Assent on that day, that act of
Parliament is not yet in force. That is because it contains a clause called
"coming into force," which provides that the act will come into force not on the
day that it received Royal Assent but, rather, on June 18, 2010, a couple of
weeks from now. That is two years after it was studied and passed by all three
parts of Parliament. If Parliament passes into law an act that does not contain
specific provisions for the determination of the date of its coming into force,
then that act of Parliament comes into force on the day on which it receives
The reason for the inclusion of a coming into force
provision in the Statutes Repeal Act is that it would have been imprudent for us
to require that act to come into force immediately upon its passage by
Parliament. It would have placed unreasonable demands upon the government and
upon bureaucracy, which demands would have been extremely difficult if not
impossible to meet. It would not have given sufficient notice to the persons and
the offices of Parliament and to the legal community that will be directly
affected by that act. It would not have provided sufficient notice, warning if
you like, to all the people concerned with it, about what will be contained in
the first cases to which it will apply a significant change to the body of law
To bring such an act into force immediately would have
been unwise. To bring such an act into force immediately would have been unfair
and disruptive. Everyone concerned with that act and with its implications
understood the concept that reasonable and sufficient notice — that is, warning
— had to be given in order for the system to prepare and to properly and
reasonably deal with those implications.
That is why, even though the previous government and the
present government, and all their officials and members of the legal profession,
all agreed with the principle of the Statutes Repeal Act and with the eventual
application and effect of that act, they also understood and agreed that it was
wise and prudent to give warning of its implications. That is exactly my view of
Bill C-232, having to do with the linguistic qualifications of justices of the
Absent provisions to the contrary, Bill C-232, should we
pass it, would become an act of Parliament, and would be in full force and
effect on the day that it receives Royal Assent. That could, at least
theoretically, be tomorrow, or next Thursday. That would not, in my view, be
wise. That is why, if such an amendment is not proposed by the Standing Senate
Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which I presume this bill will
be sent for study, I will introduce an amendment at third reading which would
provide that the act will come into force and effect on a day five years after
the day on which it receives Royal Assent. I will, as a matter of information,
provide a copy of my proposed amendment to the committee clerk of the Standing
Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
A few moments ago, I used the words "linguistic
qualification" as it applies to justices of the Supreme Court. I agree with
those who characterize the thrust of the present bill as being one of
qualification. I agree with those who see functional bilingualism as a
reasonable criterion for appointment to that high office. I disagree with those
who argue that such a criterion would infringe upon the constitutional rights of
judges. The rights of any Canadian to speak in either of the two official
languages of his or her choice in any court in the land cannot be used to argue
against a skill or competence requirement for justices of the Supreme Court. In
the end, it is a matter of the competence of justices, not of the rights of
An argument has been made against the principle of this
bill by saying that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, for example, would
not, at the time of her appointment have been qualified on the basis of this
language requirement. Madam Justice McLachlin only became functionally bilingual
after her appointment. Honourable senators, that is not an argument against the
practicality of bilingual competence in the Supreme Court; it is an argument
demonstrating that practicality. The Chief Justice found it practical.
It is impossible for me, despite my seemingly resolute
unilingualism, to comprehend an argument to the contrary when it is widely known
and understood that advancement to most middle management levels in the federal
public service requires functional bilingualism. Officers of the Canadian Forces
understand perfectly well that their advancement to higher office requires
functional bilingualism. Functional bilingualism is, as I understand it, legally
mandated by a 1988 amendment to the Official Languages Act as a precondition for
appointment to the Federal Court or to the Federal Court of Appeal. If there is
functional bilingualism in those places, it is because of legal and regulatory
requirements and not because it just happened all by itself.
Sometimes, governments must actually lead. In this case we
need to lead. We need a law which does nothing more than to end an exemption for
the Supreme Court from those provisions of the 1988 amendments to the Official
Languages Act requiring that judges and justices in the federal court system be
functionally bilingual, as they are now in those federal courts except for the
Supreme Court. We need notice and we need warning — not notice or warning as was
given 40 years, namely, that this linguistic competence requirement might come
into force some day, but that it will come into force on a specific date and
We need to have time before the actual implementation of
such a law in order that legal practitioners, law teachers, law schools,
provincial bars and benches, and others in those provinces with smaller
francophone populations with less everyday conduct of business in the language
of Moliére, can be governed accordingly.
Honourable senators, hypothetically, through perhaps an
accident of time and geography, if it were to be decided by Parliament that a
thorough and fully conversant understanding of the arcane provisions of marine
law were to be a requirement for appointment to the Supreme Court, we would be
unwise to have that provision come into force and effect next week, because it
might obviate the appointment of otherwise eminently-qualified persons who live
in landlocked provinces. Not all provinces are maritime ones and we are not all
seafarers; some of us are landlubbers, as I am regrettably unilingual.
Canada is not yet a bilingual country. It is a country in
which two languages are spoken, and that is quite a different thing. Someday,
the noble aspiration of national bilingualism will no doubt be reached, and the
present question will no longer be pertinent.
There is no reasonable argument against such an
aspiration. We now look back and say "Can you believe that we actually used to
sit on the edge of our hospital beds and smoke?" Yet, someday we will look back
and say, "Can you believe that we used to actually argue about that silly
question of bilingualism?" I hope that time will come, but we are not there yet.
Within the foreseeable future, appointments will be made
to the Supreme Court. Some of the candidates will, of necessity, come from parts
of our country in which functional bilingualism is not yet a fact of life. We
need to allow for fairness, and selection based on present and known
qualifications for those next immediate appointments. We need to allow for that
time to elapse, for reasonable notice, and we need to be prudent.
For that reason, I will vote in favour of Bill C-232 as it
now stands at second reading, but I would oppose it at third reading if it is
reported back to us in its present form, unchanged. My best hope is for the
amendment of the bill by the addition of a coming into force clause, providing
that the act comes into force on the day five years after it receives Royal
Thank you, honourable senators.
Senator Comeau: Honourable senators, I listened to
Senator Bank's speech and heard him say that there had been an amendment to the
Official Languages Act in 1988. Senator Banks pointed out that the Federal Court
mandated that incumbents to the court would all have to be functionally
Would the honourable senator care to share where he got
that information? My understanding is that the Federal Court, like other appeal
courts, et cetera, of a federal nature, is an institutional bilingual court,
which is far different from the individual incumbents being bilingual. They are
Honourable senators, this bill would impose individual
bilingualism rather than institutional bilingualism, which is what the Federal
Courts are at this time. The honourable senator might wish to expand on this, as
well. This would be the first time in history that individual bilingualism would
be imposed. I have tried to find another law on the books, and I have not been
able to find any instance in the history of Canada whereby individual
bilingualism has been imposed.
I have seen institutional bilingualism, which offers all
the protections and provisions of the Official Languages Act, but this is
completely different. This is referred to as individual bilingualism.
Senator Banks: I thank the honourable senator for
his question. The short answer is that I have done no personal research into
that question and I have relied upon the representations made in this place by
other honourable senators who have said during the course of previous debate on
this subject that amendments made in 1988 to the Official Languages Act required
bilingualism on the part of judges in the Federal Court and in the federal
appeals court. I took that at its face value, and I did not take into account
the distinction you have made between institutional bilingualism and individual
Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire: Although the Armed
Forces are institutionally bilingual, individual officers must be bilingual to
achieve a certain rank. A day finally arrived when the soldiers said they would
not go and fight and die in the language of the officer; the officer is to give
them their orders in their language. Thus ended the unilingual scenario in the
We have had official bilingualism in institutions like the
forces, when you look at the general officer corps, since 1968. That is over 40
years of progress, and we are still fiddling with the level of competency of
I agree entirely that you need time to bring it in because
it was an exception. Is five years from the previous experience long enough to
do it, and is there a criteria used in that?
Senator Banks: To say that I am not experienced or
knowledgeable in the question of the obtaining of second languages is to greatly
understate the case. I will not presume to answer the question other than to say
that the five years I have imposed is entirely arbitrary, and I am sure that
others who are better equipped than I to answer that question in committee will
In all the short 10 years I have been here, I have been on
a committee which has had the honour of frequently dealing with military
officers. From the level of major and up, I have not yet met one who is not
fluently and functionally bilingual.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore:
Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: I have a question.
Senator Banks: I ask for five more minutes.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore:
Will honourable senators grant Senator Banks five more minutes?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Ringuette: Honourable senators, I believe
that many issues need to be clarified. Linguistic professionals will tell you
that interpretation is not equal to translation. That is a major issue here.
They are two different competencies and two different approaches in regard to
linguistic skills and providing professional services.
One of the other items I think we need to keep in mind is
that we are talking about human rights. People in Canada, whether they speak
French or English, have the right to be heard by a court and understood in the
language of their choice. It is a question of rights for citizens, whereas it is
not a right to be a Supreme Court judge.
The Official Languages Act has been in place for 40 years.
For the last 30 years, most of the provinces have been offering second language
training. In 40 years, we have made some progress. Is the honourable senator
saying that we need an additional five years so that nine Canadians can make
that necessary progress?
Senator Banks: No, honourable senators, I am not.
There are places in this country where French and English are the everyday
languages of everyday commerce, and where the necessity and the practicality of
being functionally bilingual is a daily fact of life. However, there are also
places in this country, represented specifically by a number of Supreme Court
judges where that is not the case. I will use as examples British Columbia,
Alberta, Saskatchewan and some of the Maritime provinces, excepting New
Brunswick. In those places, while we are inordinately proud of our French
heritage, English is the predominant language. I can speak for a long time about
how proud I am of the French heritage of my city, which was first settled by
francophones. This heritage is evidenced in the street and district names.
French is a proud and continuing part of the culture of the city.
The fact is that most people who graduate in law from the
University of Alberta and the University of Calgary do not, as a matter of
course, speak French. If, 40 years ago, when Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn said what he
said, it had been made clear that forty or even five years hence French would be
a requirement for those who have aspirations to high judicial office, it would
perhaps be a fact today.
However, the idea of saying that something might come to
pass some day, so perhaps, you should prepare for it, does not contain the
weight of a law that says it will come into force on a particular day. That
clarity would achieve different results. Regulation and law are sometimes needed
to bring about the results that society wants.
Hon. Pierre De Bané: Honourable senators, Senator
Banks talked about our western provinces where there are not sizable
French-speaking communities. Is the honourable senator not struck by the fact
that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was born in Alberta and grew up in
British Columbia, the top civil servant of the land is from Saskatchewan and the
Chief of Defence Staff is also from the West? All of these people are bilingual.
I was here in 1969 when we passed the Official Languages
Act. Many people said we cannot pass such a law; the public service is
unilingual English. How could we put English and French on the same level? In
1928, we put that language equality into the supreme law of the land.
Every time something like this happens, people are rightly
concerned about whether the action takes stock of realities. I suggest to
Senator Banks that those eminent lawyers who want to sit on the Supreme Court
will take example from the five bilingual English-speaking judges. Twenty-six
judges can preside over trials in French in Western Canada.
(On motion of Senator Comeau, for Senator Meighen, debate
Hon. Jean-Claude Rivest moved the second reading of
Bill C- 288, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for new graduates
working in designated regions).
He said: Honourable senators, this bill has a very
important objective: to encourage graduates, through the use of financial
incentives, to stay in the various regions of Canada.
We know that one of the government's priorities is the
overall development of society, which is to say economic, social and cultural
development. All governments share this goal. They more or less fail, depending
on the circumstances, or they more or less succeed, depending on how you look at
it. However, quite often, the overall well-being of the community as a whole
does not mean that citizens who live outside large centres enjoy the benefits of
the public policies.
Governments have always made sure that their general
policies reach people from all walks of life, regardless of their income,
personal characteristics or where they live. It is not a given — and God knows
we are aware of this — that a national or provincial policy can resonate
We have always taken the issue of the regions to heart.
Exceptional initiatives have to be taken to emphasize and ensure that the wealth
and progress created are distributed and accessible to all citizens, wherever
they may live in the country. What is more, we know that the major cities in
Canada and in each province have the energy, creativity and powerful assets that
allow them to be the primary beneficiaries of any measures that are adopted. We
have to make sure that people in the regions have access to these measures.
Regions are smaller and have less of the resources, creative energy,
institutions and population needed to survive and develop at the same rate as
the large cities.
Bill C-288 gambles on the specific issue of new graduates
by offering them tax incentives to stay in the regions. This is a very specific
ad hoc measure that is part of a bigger picture. In Canada, we have a federal
system precisely because we are very aware, given the size of our country, of
the regional realities. Federalism highlights those realities. We see this in
our institutions, whether in the House of Commons, the Senate or any of our
political institutions. There is always this concern for the regions.
What is more, when it comes to economic, social and
cultural policies, specific tools are always given to the regions to allow them
to keep up with changes in society. This is made possible through the regional
economic development agencies.
The measure proposed in Bill C-288 would be in addition to
everything that currently exists to support the regions. It will allow us to
focus on something very exciting for the future of the regions and that is the
new graduates. The exodus of new graduates to major cities truly exists. It is
somewhat ironic because, with modern technology, a new graduate can very well
work, develop and make a contribution while staying in the home region.
There is a little back and forth movement that should
really be encouraged. Bill C-288 proposes a method. It has a very clear purpose;
this approach is one tool among others, which will not yield perfectly effective
results but might have a very significant impact.
Something similar is used in Quebec when there is a need
to attract doctors to the regions. In the health field, tax incentives make this
approach practicable. In Saskatchewan, there is a program in place that is
similar to the one proposed in Bill C-288. The information available to us
indicates that it is clearly and significantly effective.
The bill passed by the House of Commons, which I am
respectfully submitting to honourable senators, simply proposes that we give a
tax credit to every new graduate who settles in a designated region. This tax
credit would be equal to 40 per cent of the individual's salary, or $3,000, or
the amount by which $8,000 exceeds all amounts paid for a preceding taxation
year. There will be an opportunity to assess the merit of these terms and
conditions in future discussions concerning this bill, but they are reasonable
provisions akin to all existing provisions within each Canadian province that
support the development of the regions and the affirmation of their distinct
There is no better way to support regional development
than to enable the regions to retain their people within their own
jurisdictions, especially those regions that have invested in the primary lever
of economic progress, that is the men and women who have access to university
education and to the know-how that comes from knowledge, have benefited from all
the institutions in the community, and can now put that to the service of their
regions. There is nothing constraining in there, only a very attractive
Honourable senators, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has
already estimated the costs. These come to between $200 million and $600 million
per year, depending on the number of students who will become eligible under the
regulations that will be made as the program is implemented. Naturally, cities
with a population of more than 200,000 would be excluded. This means that,
across Canada, many small and middle-sized towns or communities will be able to
take advantage of this kind of program and initiative.
Honourable senators, I truly believe that this bill will
support the regions and encourage development not only across Canada but in each
province and every community. This bill targets young graduates, who, once they
have acquired knowledge, will be able to continue serving their communities for
the greater good of the people they live with, their provinces and the country.
I urge all honourable senators to support this bill to
build our country's future.
(On motion of Senator Ringuette, debate adjourned.)
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the third report
of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (committee
budget—legislation), presented in the Senate on May 27, 2010.
Hon. David Tkachuk moved the adoption of the
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 inquiry of the Honourable
Senator Cowan calling the attention of the Senate to the issues relating to
realistic and effective parliamentary reform.
Hon. Claudette Tardif (Deputy Leader of the
Opposition): Honourable senators, Senator Cowan's inquiry deals with a very
interesting topic. I am pursuing my research into this matter and I would like
more time. I would like to move adjournment of the debate in my name for the
remainder of my time.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable
Senator Segal, seconded by the Honourable Senator Nancy Ruth,
That the Senate:
(a) recognize the danger posed by the
proliferation of nuclear materials and technology to peace and security;
(b) endorse the statement, signed by 500
members, officers and companions of the Order of Canada, underlining the
importance of addressing the challenge of more intense nuclear
proliferation and the progress of and opportunity for nuclear
(c) endorse the 2008 five point plan for
nuclear disarmament of Mr. Ban Ki-moon, Secretary- General of the United
Nations and encourage the Government of Canada to engage in negotiations
for a nuclear weapons convention as proposed by the United Nations
(d) support the recent initiatives for
nuclear disarmament of President Obama of the United States of America;
(e) commend the decision of the Government
of Canada to participate in the landmark Nuclear Security Summit in
Washington, D.C., in April, 2010 and encourage the Government of Canada
to deploy a major world-wide Canadian diplomatic initiative in support
of preventing nuclear proliferation and increasing the rate of nuclear
That a message be sent to the House of Commons
requesting that House to unite with the Senate for the above purpose.—(Honourable
Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire: Honourable senators,
I would like to discuss the motion moved by Senator Segal to recognize the
danger posed by the proliferation of nuclear materials and technology to peace
and security. I will also take this opportunity to draw your attention to a few
Honourable senators, I am encouraged by the great strides
achieved over the past year in the context of the international campaign to
promote nuclear disarmament. The Nuclear Security Summit in Washington and the
ever-increasing co-operation between the United States and Russia seem to
confirm that the nuclear problem is definitely considered a top international
However, there is still a lot of skepticism about whether
these measures are really leading somewhere and whether the intentions are
genuine. I must admit that I understand that skepticism. Years of diplomatic
efforts, although encouraging, have not always yielded the results we might
rightfully have hoped for. The situation seems to have gotten worse in many
Senator Segal's timely and relevant initiative is
necessary to establish Canada's position on security and nuclear disarmament.
Although Canada joined like-minded countries to help create the International
Atomic Energy Agency in 1957, and to help pass the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1970, since then, Canada has been
remarkably silent in recent years. Nevertheless, I think we could do a better
job than simply highlighting the declarations and initiatives made by others.
I understand that it is important to show our support for
the initiatives described in the motion. However, I think it is also time for us
to start thinking seriously about how Canada can help the discussions on the
abolition of nuclear arms move forward.
We need to ask ourselves two questions: Does Canada really
believe in this? If so, how can Canada use its resources to ensure that future
generations will live in a world without nuclear weapons? If we really believe
in abolishing nuclear weapons — and I think we do — then we have to prove it. We
need to know how Canadians can make a credible, constructive contribution to
improving nuclear safety and achieving the goals of nuclear non- proliferation
and, ultimately, nuclear disarmament. Our contribution must be in line with
those of our allies and the international community.
Canada has extensive and unique expertise and experience
that are directly relevant to preventing nuclear proliferation. Should we not
make the most of that expertise and experience and put those skills to use?
I believe that one area in which Canada could make a
significant and invaluable contribution is around verification. Nearly every
initiative outlining the necessary steps moving forward on nuclear disarmament,
including those mentioned in Senator Segal's motion, stress the need for an
effective and, therefore, meaningful system of verification. The key element of
such a system will be unrestricted access by the inspectors.
An agreement on arms control and disarmament without
meaningful rules for verification will no doubt give rise to grave consequences.
It could lead to violations being overlooked or to unfounded accusations of
non-compliance. Either way, the system will have been weakened. If it is unable
to get off the ground in the first place, it will certainly not be able to
maintain the commitment or adherence of its members.
Some institutions have risen to the challenge of devising
a system that could work. As one example, VERTIC, the Verification Research,
Training and Information Centre, in London, has been carrying out research in
international simulations to test new ground in arms control, non- proliferation
and disarmament verification.
Despite this work, there are still aspects of the existing
proposals that fail to respond to the concerns of interested countries. For
instance, how can verification of a treaty be undertaken without relying on the
national technical means of participating countries, without requiring countries
to disclose justifiably classified information and without violating their state
sovereignty? This is only one of the policy and legal challenges in
verification. On technological grounds, the limits of my knowledge of the
science involved prevent me from going much further into the challenges that
have been raised.
However, let me assure honourable senators that although
the road ahead seems long, notwithstanding the knowledge and the experience
gained by the IAEA since it began implementing its first nuclear safeguard
systems in 1967, there is room to advance and to achieve the aim. That there are
complex legal, scientific and engineering challenges in developing a credible
system of treaty verification of nuclear disarmament, is one of the loudest
arguments made by those opposed to disarmament. Opponents can easily point to
the fact that the existing international treaties have not prevented certain
states from developing clandestine nuclear weapons programs. The IAEA's nuclear
safeguard system has been very effective insofar as the nuclear programs
declared by states and those states concerned. However, undeclared clandestine
programs are beyond the vigilance of the agency. Why undertake the process of
disarmament if it cannot be verified? Why commit the political capital and
diplomatic resources if cases of non-compliance cannot be identified?
There is undeniable scope for taking on joint research
among countries and for sharing information on verification research more
broadly. This is valuable not only because it improves the thinking and
available machinery for verification but also because it serves to enhance
confidence between countries as they cooperate in overcoming their common
problems. I think we can see that that area represents a clear need for action
and a great opportunity.
Where is Canada in all of this? Honourable senators might
be aware that Canada has a proud history of leading the field of verification
research for arms control and disarmament. By bringing together the very best
experts in government, the academic community and the private sector, Canada was
able to develop important technological, legal, and institutional tools of
verification. We can rightly claim that these tools constituted a significant
contribution to the international framework upon which the watershed arms
control agreements in Europe in the 1980s were negotiated and implemented.
My point is not to dwell on the past initiatives or past
accolades, though as a side note it is worth noting that the Verification
Research Program operated successfully on an annual budget of only $1 million.
Rather, I want to draw attention to Canada's demonstrated ability to respond to
the needs of the international community in the very practical and meaningful
way, as we have done in the past.
This is the kind of thinking we need now. We need this
country's leadership. We need this country's grey cells to take on this role.
Verification is but one issue central to the disarmament objective. Achievement
of this objective cannot be dismissed as a matter dependent on the political
will among the great powers. Its achievement will require the dedicated effort
of countries like Canada to promote transparency, act as an honest broker and
put all the required multilateral processes into action. We actually initiate,
create and anticipate. Moreover, efforts to strengthen tools of verification
should be combined with sustained efforts to address some of the issues that
lead to proliferation, including poverty, resolution of regional and global
tensions, such as the Middle East and the Far East.
Our Prime Minister should be seen to be solidly supportive
by regularly speaking out on nuclear proliferation and disarmament, not just
when the issues are topical, such as the Washington Summit. This has to be a
consistent message and be made whenever and wherever opportunity presents
itself. Canada should be clearly and strongly associated with the resolution of
these challenges to world peace and prosperity and be universally known as the
non-nuclear weapon world advocate.
I would also like to draw the attention of the Senate to
another issue related to this motion, namely the fact that there is no mention
of the Arctic, and I am talking about the Far North.
The Arctic is opening up more and more, and neighbouring
countries are fighting each other for a share of the Arctic coastline and ocean
floor. We can therefore expect a certain degree of militarization. To date, the
process has been mainly peaceful and co-operative. We can declare that there is
no place for nuclear weapons in the Arctic.
The Canadian Pugwash Group, along with a host of other
international organizations, has spent the past few years looking at the problem
and gathering support for an Arctic nuclear- weapons-free zone. As part of this
campaign, the organizations are calling on Arctic nations that do not have
nuclear weapons, such as Canada, to do the following: first, negotiate a
nuclear- weapons-free zone to be created on their land north of the Arctic
Second, as a preliminary measure, include in these
negotiations any states possessing nuclear weapons, so that these states include
their own Arctic territory in an Arctic nuclear-weapons free zone; third, in
order to actively promote a step-by-step approach, first target land
territories, then, through negotiations, work on air space and marine areas;
fourth, urge NATO to remove all restrictions from its member states that would
impede the creation of an Arctic nuclear-weapons-free zone, for example, a
nuclear arms storage agreement during times of war.
Canada must take this issue very seriously. Creating an
Arctic nuclear-weapons-free zone will be a long process. Now is the time to
launch this initiative, while the Arctic is being shaped, because this
opportunity will not exist for long.
Honourable senators, I urge you to support Senator Segal's
motion. It is a major effort to initiate a debate in our country and draw
attention to an issue that Canada could and should be more actively involved in.
Nuclear weapons, by their very nature, threaten human rights around the globe.
We need to seize the opportunities that are given to us and do everything in our
power to ensure that this world is safer for future generations.
I would like to end with an anecdote regarding a speech I
gave at a high school just south of Winnipeg. After I spoke, a grade 11 student
asked me: "Why are we worried about plastic bags and dirty water, when we have
the ability to completely obliterate and eliminate the whole of the environment,
the whole of the surface of the Earth?" I stood back and I said that, yes, she
was right. We have nuclear weapons that can actually do that.
It is rather surprising that developed countries, over the
last 20 years since the end of the Cold War, have invested nearly $1 trillion in
modernizing these nuclear weapons, for absolutely nothing. We have not invested
$1 trillion in protecting the environment.
We should not be surprised if the youth of this country
think that we send mixed messages and that we are not necessarily consistent in
how we see the future and the future of humanity.
The Hon. the Speaker: Are honourable senators ready
for the question?
Hon. Senators: Question.
The Hon. the Speaker: It was moved by the
Honourable Senator Segal that the — shall I dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure,
honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Gerry St. Germain, pursuant to notice of May
27, 2010, moved:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal
Peoples be authorized to study and report on progress made on commitments
endorsed by Parliamentarians of both Chambers since the Government's apology
to former students of Indian Residential Schools;
That the committee hear from the National Chief of the
Assembly of First Nations, the National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal
Peoples, the President of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and the President of
the Métis National Council on this subject; and
That the Committee report no later than December 2,
He said: The motion standing in my name seeks to study the
progress made on commitments expressed in the government's apology to former
students of Indian residential schools. Further to the named Aboriginal groups
in the motion, I must point out that I erred in omitting the Native Women's
Association of Canada, NWAC. The committee is certainly free to determine
whether other witnesses ought to be called and provide testimony. NWAC would
certainly be invited.
As well, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission may wish
to provide an update on their important work and findings to date, and it may be
that other agencies of the federal government may wish to appear to provide
their evidence as to what measures they have taken to respond to the formal
Honourable senators, the Indian residential school system
was intended to force the assimilation of the Aboriginal peoples in Canada into
a Euro-Canadian society. Children were removed from their families and
communities and placed in those schools, all whose purpose, as described by
many, was, "to kill the Indian in the child."
Honourable senators will recall that on June 10, 2008, our
Prime Minister offered an official apology on behalf of the Government of Canada
and parliamentarians to former students of Indian residential schools. As our
honourable colleague Senator Joyal so eloquently said when he spoke on this
matter last Thursday:
The government recognizes that the treatment of
children in residential schools is a sad chapter in our history and that
such a policy has had lasting and damaging effects on Aboriginal culture,
heritage and language.
Many of those children were victims of violence, both
sexual abuse and physical abuse. In many cases, the trauma of the residential
school experience has left not only those children but also their families and
their communities with debilitating emotional and cultural scars that they must
endure throughout their lives.
The statement of apology committed to ". . . moving
towards healing, reconciliation and resolution of the sad legacy of Indian
Residential Schools . . ." and the ". . . implementation of the Indian
Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. . . ." This agreement provides a new
beginning and an opportunity to move forward together in partnership.
Honourable senators, the motion of Senator Joyal, replaced
by the motion I am now moving, will provide the Senate with a progress report on
the commitments made to heal these injuries that were created so long ago and
whose effects continue to this day.
I thank all honourable senators in advance for the
consideration they have given to this important issue. I personally would like
to thank Senator Joyal for his commitment to this important subject.
Hon. Joseph A. Day: Would the honourable senator
take a question? I understood when the honourable senator introduced this motion
that he indicated that he had omitted a particular women's group. Is the
honourable senator now moving an amendment to this motion in that regard?
Senator St. Germain: I do not think it is
necessary. I think we have that option, as a committee. I just mentioned that we
were going to seek their attendance. If the honourable senator will recall, one
year ago, approximately, in the Committee of the Whole, we had the four
representatives. NWAC was not there at that particular time but, by virtue of
the motion and by virtue of the mandate being given to the committee, we, as a
committee, procedurally have the right to call additional witnesses. I just made
mention of NWAC because they do such a credible job for Aboriginal women and
Aboriginals as a whole.
Senator Day: I thank the honourable senator, but
the way I read the motion, it is pretty clear about who may appear before the
committee in relation to this mandate. The usual wording that we might expect to
see, namely, "and such other witnesses as the committee may decide," does not
appear here. I would think the honourable senator would be acting outside the
parameters that this body is giving to him if he leaves that motion the way it
Senator St. Germain: If the honourable senator
would like to move a motion in modification, I am sure honourable senators would
give their approval at this time.
Hon. Joseph A. Day: Would the honourable senator
consider adding this wording at the end of the second paragraph: "and such other
witnesses as the committee deems appropriate"?
Hon. Gerry St. Germain: I so move.
The Hon. the Speaker: It is moved by Honourable
Senator St. Germain, seconded by the Honourable Senator Day, that the motion be
modified at the end of the second paragraph following the words "the President
of the Métis National Council on this subject," by adding the words:
and such other witnesses as the committee deems
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the
motion, as modified?
(Motion agreed to, as modified.)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it being
4 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on April 15, 2010, I declare
the Senate continued until Thursday, June 3, 2010, at 1:30 p.m., the Senate so
(The Senate adjourned until Thursday, June 3, 2010, at