Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
3rd Session, 40th Parliament,
Volume 147, Issue 48
Thursday, July 8, 2010
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker
- SENATORS' STATEMENTS
- ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
- QUESTION PERIOD
- ORDERS OF THE DAY
THE SENATE
Thursday, July 8, 2010
The Senate met at 1:30 p.m., the Speaker in the chair.
Prayers.
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
The Late Shirley G.E. Carr, O.C.
Hon. Nancy Ruth: Honourable senators, two weeks ago, on June 24, Shirley Carr died at the age of 81 in Niagara Falls, Ontario. As President of the Canadian Labour Congress, Shirley travelled on peace and human rights missions from Ottawa to Whitehall, to the White House and to the Kremlin. With strong beliefs in equality and genuine compassion for her fellow citizens, she fought relentlessly to better the lives of others.
Shirley became active in the labour movement in 1960, when she joined the Canadian Union of Public Employees, CUPE, and served in various capacities at the local, provincial, regional and national levels. In 1974, she was elected Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Labour Congress, CLC, a position she held until 1984 when she was appointed Secretary-Treasurer. She was elected President of the CLC in 1986 and, in doing so, became the first woman in the world ever to be elected as leader of a national labour body.
Alongside her work at the CLC, Shirley was an active participant in the International Labour Organization, ILO. From 1980 to 1985, she was a member of the governing body of the ILO and acted as Chairperson for the Workers' Group for the Committee on Discrimination and the Committee on Apartheid.
She also served as Vice-President of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, Chairperson of the Commonwealth Trade Union Council and Vice-President of the ILO United Nations Agency. This woman dedicated her life to bettering Canada, and we remember her.
The Late Mona Wilson
Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Honourable senators, today I am pleased to rise to pay tribute to a pioneer in the public health field in Canada. Mona Wilson, from Prince Edward Island, was a public health nurse and almost singlehandedly organized the public health system for the province.
Her efforts began in the 1920s and continued into the 1950s. Over that time, she successfully helped generations of Islanders adopt better health practices and standards, and helped lay the foundation for our modern public health system. As well, during the Second World War, she coordinated the activities of the Red Cross in Newfoundland and Labrador, serving the needs of members of the Armed Forces.
It is most fitting, therefore, that Mona Wilson's outstanding contributions have been recognized by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. The board has unveiled a plaque in her honour as a person of national historic significance for her role in the advancement of public health in Prince Edward Island and beyond. I wish to commend the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada for this significant and most appropriate recognition.
The plaque has been erected at a public health care facility in Charlottetown, which the Province of Prince Edward Island has already named in honour of Mona Wilson. It is most fitting that the plaque has been erected at this location as a further reminder of her outstanding contributions to the province and, indeed, to the country.
In the 1920s, Prince Edward Island faced a number of public health care issues, including the need to improve nutritional standards and basic home care health practices. Mona Wilson successfully convinced governments of the day to devote more attention and resources to this critical area of public health care.
It is a further tribute to Mona Wilson that, as a woman, she made her voice heard and made a real difference in the lives of her fellow Islanders. It is with a great sense of pride that I ask honourable senators to join with me in recognizing one of Canada's most exceptional citizens.
Status of Omar Khadr
Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak about recent developments in the Omar Khadr case. Yesterday, out of frustration and lack of hope, Khadr fired his three U.S. defence lawyers, leaving him without counsel for his trial which is scheduled to start next month. Never before has a U.S. court tried a child soldier, but now Khadr may have to resort to self-representation, which further complicates an already complicated case.
Khadr is now 23 years old and has spent one third of his life in prison for a crime he has neither been fully tried for nor convicted of. There have been reports that he has faced torture and mistreatment. He remains today the last Western prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.
All other Western countries have worked tirelessly with the U.S. government to ensure that their citizens were sent home, but Canada has failed to do so. Both the Federal Court and Supreme Court of Canada have made progressive rulings on Khadr's situation, pushing our government to bring him home immediately. However, our government has time and again failed to make this matter a priority.
As I mentioned last Tuesday, Justice Zinn of the Federal Court of Canada gave the government seven days to come up with a list of remedies to fix violations they made on Khadr's constitutional rights. Today is day four.
Honourable senators, the Khadr clock is ticking. I urge our government to bring Omar Khadr home.
Long-Gun Registry
Hon. Daniel Lang: Honourable senators, I rise today to ask for your help during the upcoming summer break to solicit the support of members of Parliament from your region to support Bill C-391 to repeal the long-gun registry. Some honourable senators may not know, but the future of this bill will be determined by a vote in the other place when Parliament reconvenes in September.
All senators know the history and the debacle that the long-gun registry has been. We can recite the $1 billion wasted; we can talk about how ineffective the law has been; we can mention the invasion of privacy to long-gun owners; and we can speak about the present law that is in effect — and yet, time in and time out, illegal handguns are in the possession of the criminal elements of our society.
I know that many honourable senators understand why so many Canadians agree that the long-gun registry does not work and should be revoked.
In conclusion, honourable senators, with the current composition of the other place, only 10 members of Parliament from the opposition parties are needed in order to abolish the registry. I ask you to reach out over the course of the summer to the members of Parliament from your region and ask them to support the private member's bill to abolish the long-gun registry.
2010 IIAF World Junior Championship Games
Hon. Carolyn Stewart Olsen: Honourable senators, I rise today to invite all senators to the upcoming 2010 World Junior Championship Games of the International Association of Athletics Federation, which will be held from July 19 to 25 at the new, world-class Stade Moncton on the Université de Moncton campus.
Our government is a proud supporter of this largest sporting event ever held in Atlantic Canada, one of the largest international events the region has ever hosted. Athletes, officials and coaches from over 170 member organizations will come to Moncton to compete, and 44 medal events will be hosted in the six days of games. The championships will be watched by millions worldwide. Canada, the province of New Brunswick and the city of Moncton will be on display for the world.
These championships are held every two years, and previous cities to have hosted the event include Athens, Seoul, Sydney and Beijing. Over 50,000 people are expected to attend, and over 2,500 volunteers have given of their time to help with this event. These games will touch thousands provincially, nationally and internationally, fostering the future careers of world-class Canadian athletes and bringing significant economic and social benefits to Moncton and New Brunswick.
Honourable senators, New Brunswick will be well represented in this event. Of the seven athletes competing for the Canadian team, four of them are New Brunswickers: Ryan Cassidy of Grande-Digue, Adam Gaudes from Fredericton, Caleb Jones of Saint John and Geneviève Lalonde from Moncton. I know you will join me in wishing the team every success.
(1340)
Honourable senators, this event not only brings together athletes from around the world, from Canada and from New Brunswick, it also unites our communities. Moncton, Dieppe, Riverview, Shediac and Sackville have been involved in this event from the beginning.
Honourable senators, I will be attending the event, along with several of my colleagues, and I hope you will all join me, if not in person, from your home following the events and cheering for our young athletes on the world stage.
We will be watching them —
One race, one jump, one throw at a time.
[English]
The Honourable Hugh Segal, C.M.
Congratulations on being named to Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group
Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, Commonwealth Secretary-General Kamalesh Sharma on July 7 announced the formation of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, and it is with great pride that I inform you that one of our own has been named. Senator Hugh Segal joins the group, along with other very respected and well-known members, including Dr. Graça Machel from Mozambique and the Right Honourable Sir Malcolm Rifkind of the United Kingdom.
This is a moment of pride. Senator Segal was appointed to this chamber in 2005 after four decades of public service, which included Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister of Canada. He was President of the independent Institute for Research on Public Policy, Chair of the Special Senate Committee on Anti-terrorism, and he is the former chair and a present member of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. He headed a NATO parliamentary delegation to Washington and is a former chair of the annual Canada-U.K. Colloquium. He is also a senior fellow at Queen's School of Policy Studies and School of Business. He is a man who has dedicated his life to these issues, and he makes us extremely proud.
I will quote the words of the Secretary-General:
This distinguished Group will set out decisive recommendations on how to strengthen the Commonwealth and fulfill its potential in the 21st century.
When he was making this announcement in London, Mr. Sharma said the group's work
. . . will aim to ensure that the Commonwealth remains relevant to its times and makes the best use of its networks and partnerships to do so.
We are sure that Senator Segal will help to make that happen. Congratulations.
[Translation]
Youth Crime Prevention
Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable senators, yesterday I had the pleasure of standing in for the Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety, to announce a $7.5 million investment in a youth-focused crime prevention program through the Centre jeunesse de Montréal-Institut universitaire. Funding for this project comes from the youth gang prevention fund, which is part of our government's national crime prevention strategy.
Our government is not just committed to getting tough on crime. This $7.5 million investment makes it clear that reducing youth crime depends on a complementary, effective government strategy focused on both prevention and incarceration. It is important to note that 30 per cent of young offenders between the ages of 15 and 25 will, in time, commit 70 per cent of all violent and sexual crimes. Some 10 per cent of those offenders will never be involved in a successful rehabilitation program.
[English]
Our government is resolved to prevent criminal activity and to make our communities safer. The funding announced yesterday will have a direct impact upon the lives of young people in Montreal by helping them to make better life choices, thereby improving their chances to avoid recidivism and to avoid falling back into a life of crime. Our intention is to intervene directly to get young people out of criminal activity before it destroys their lives and costs us more than we can afford.
[Translation]
The Montreal street gang intensive follow-up program, or Programme de suivi intensif de Montréal — Gangs de rue, is aimed at youth aged 15 to 25 who have been convicted of gang- related criminal activity. More than 100 young people will take part in the program. Based on their criminal profile, each youth will receive between 75 and 100 hours of direct professional intervention spread out over three phases for a total of 16 to 18 weeks of periodic follow-up. They will also be subject to intensive supervision and participate in social integration activities. Their families will also have access to the same services.
[English]
The organizations that provide these supervision and social integration programs and activities for youth and young adults whose risk of recidivism is high can be effective in their respective areas of competence. However, they must act together if they want to have any chance of reducing crime by addressing the problem of gang activity.
[Translation]
This program, the only one of its kind in Canada, has been based on a similar experiment undertaken by Philadelphia city authorities. It will bring together all partners involved in tackling crime, including police services, municipal governments, youth centres, delinquency experts, the social environment and families. These partners will work together to create a strong synergy of support for this project.
[English]
Social Networking at G20 Summit in Toronto
Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, one of the untold success stories of the recent G8 and G20 summits is the use of modern-day social networking. For the first time in the history of the G20 summits, all 20 countries, their leadership, government and employees were able to collaborate using a new, secure social networking platform in advance of and during the G20 summit in Toronto.
This new state-of-the-art platform was made in Canada, and the governments of the world continue to collaborate online using this confidential application software created by Open Text Corporation.
Open Text is Canada's largest software company and the pre- eminent provider of Enterprise Content Management software. It brings together leading content experts and helps organizers capture and preserve corporate memory, increase brand equity, automate processes, mitigate risk, manage compliance and improve competitiveness.
Prior to the G20 in Toronto, policy development negotiations and networking between participants was done over the telephone, using email or in person. Those times have changed.
In many ways, Open Text is leading the way in connecting the world with modern, leading-edge technologies. The Minister of Industry, Tony Clement, said:
This social networking platform is a great example of private business stepping up and ensuring Canada's leadership in the digital economy.
Thanks to Open Text and its partnership with DFAIT and the Canadian Digital Media Network, Canada was able to provide the world's most connected, global, multilateral public sector event of its kind. We reminded the world why we are one of the most connected and digitalized countries on the globe.
This is a Canadian success story, honourable senators, of which we all should be very proud.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Jobs and Economic Growth Bill
Sixth Report of National Finance Committee Presented
Hon. Joseph A. Day, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, presented the following report:
Thursday, July 8, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance has the honour to present its
SIXTH REPORT
Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, has, in obedience to its order of reference of Thursday, June 10, 2010, examined the said Bill and now reports the same with the following amendments:
1. Pages 29 to 32: Delete clause 55 and renumber the subsequent clauses and any cross-references thereto.
2. Page 568: Delete clause 1885 and renumber the subsequent clauses and any cross-references thereto.
3. Pages 697 to 703: Delete clauses 2137 to 2148 and renumber the subsequent clauses and any cross-references thereto.
4. Pages 704 to 711: Delete clauses 2152 to 2171 and renumber the subsequent clauses and any cross-references thereto.
Respectfully submitted,
JOSEPH A. DAY
Chair
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?
(On motion of Senator Day report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)
(1350)
Allotment of Time for Debate—Notice of Motion
Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I seek leave of the Senate to give notice of a time allocation motion to be dealt with under the provisions of rule 40, relating to the report stage and third reading of Bill C-9.
Leave is needed in order to suspend the requirement of rule 39(1) that the notice relate to an adjournment item of government business — in this case the report on which debate has not yet begun.
Honourable senators, there has been consultation between the representatives of the parties of the Senate — agreement was not with the non-aligned at that point — however they have failed to agree to allocate a specific number of days or hours for consideration of the report and third reading of Bill C-9.
Therefore, pursuant to rule 39(1), I give notice that I will move:
That, pursuant to rule 39, a single period of a further six hours of debate, in total, be allocated to dispose of both the report and third reading stages of Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures;
That if debate on report stage comes to an end before the expiration of the six hours, the Speaker shall put forthwith and successively every question necessary to dispose of report stage in accordance with rule 39(4);
That if debate on third reading comes to an end before the expiration of the six hours, the Speaker shall put forthwith and successively every question necessary to dispose of third reading in accordance with rule 39(4); and
That at the expiration of the six hours of debate the Speaker shall interrupt, if required, any proceedings then before the Senate and put forthwith and successively all questions necessary to dispose of report stage, if not yet disposed of, and third reading in accordance with rule 39(4).
Honourable senators, just to give a little bit more of an indication, the permission at this point in no way gives an indication that the other side — and I will use their words — has "caved in to this side." The permission which I am seeking will save us from having to come in tomorrow strictly in order for me to move this motion.
It will save us from having to be here tomorrow. Generally speaking, we do take Fridays as a travel day. Therefore, giving permission at this point to this motion — which I normally would be giving notice of tomorrow — will save us from having to come in tomorrow only for that one item.
I urge honourable senators to give permission in order for me to give this notice of time allocation.
The Hon. the Speaker: Agreed, honourable senators?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Hon. Tommy Banks: May I ask a question, Your Honour?
We are being asked to give leave so that notice can be given, and the notice will happen today. The question on the motion will be put at some other time; am I right?
The Hon. the Speaker: Absolutely.
Senator Banks: Thank you.
The Hon. the Speaker: So ordered.
[Translation]
Supreme Court Act
Presentation of Petition
Hon. Claudette Tardif (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table a petition from the francophone community of Saskatoon, prepared by the Fédération des francophones de Saskatoon and supported by the Club de l'âge d'or de Saskatoon, calling on the Senate to vote in favour of Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act, (understanding the official languages).
[English]
QUESTION PERIOD
Justice
Truth in Sentencing Act
Hon. Tommy Banks: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Yesterday, I posited in my question to her that there was a mountain of evidence showing that experts from around the world have presented evidence to the committees of the Senate that, put most simply, longer and harsher prison sentences lead directly, in a cause and effect relationship, to higher rates of recidivism.
I asked, in light of that, whether the government could produce any evidence of any kind from any source anywhere to show otherwise. In the leader's response, she said that her party was clear when they ran in 2005-06 and then again in 2008 about what the government would do — there is no doubt about that. The party was very clear.
Then she said later on that there are people who believe this is a policy that does not work. Then she said:
There are a great many others who believe it will.
That is the nub of the question that I asked yesterday. Can the leader tell us — because it would be informative for us to know — if there is expert opinion anywhere that supports the idea that longer, harsher prison sentences lead to a reduction in crime?
Would the leader please tell us who the great many others are who believe that it will?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I thank the honourable senator for the question. First, I will absolutely take the question as notice.
It is important to point out to honourable senators that we are talking about serious criminals who do serious harm to society, who cost the Canadian public, not only in personal losses and tragedies, but also a great deal of money with regard to the committing of crimes.
At the same time, as Senator Banks knows full well, the government has extensive programs with regard to rehabilitation. It is not all one-sided. We have invested a great deal in rehabilitation, retraining and preparing people to enter society and be valued and worthwhile citizens.
In terms of hardened criminals, we need only turn on the radio or open the newspaper every single day to learn of crimes being committed by people who have literally been turned out on the streets immediately after having been arrested or having served short sentences. I have read about many of them myself.
I would be happy, honourable senators, to provide a written answer. However, I stress that a great deal of money, effort and resources are put into, first, dealing with youth and trying to keep them out of criminal situations. However, once people are arrested for crimes, every effort is made to rehabilitate them so they do not recommit crime.
(1400)
Senator Banks: I look forward to receiving that information.
As the minister referenced, I was not speaking only about hardened criminals who commit heinous crimes. More importantly, I am concerned about a 20-year-old facing charges for possession of six marijuana plants and about the removal of the discretion of judges to deal with criminal matters.
I hope that the minister will consider that aspect in her response.
Senator LeBreton: This debate took place during the previous Parliament, and the proposed legislation before Parliament will be debated fully. On the last go-round, the debate centred on 200 plants. No one can reasonably believe that a person would have 200 marijuana plants for any other purpose than trading in illegal drugs.
I hear the honourable senator's plea.
Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, further to this point, I will return to something I have tried to elicit, both in committee and here, in the past: Parliament has never been told what the government thinks the two-for-one bill will cost. The Parliamentary Budget Officer did his level best to determine that cost, and produced a 119-page report last June. The report laid out in enormous detail the assumptions upon which he based his estimate of the truly extraordinary costs facing this country at the federal and provincial levels. The government did not like that report but has refused systematically to provide its own estimates or methodology for arriving at those estimates. We could not get those numbers in committee, and I have asked the honourable leader for them in the past. I ask again: Will the leader please provide this chamber with information on how the government sees the costs of the two-for-one bill playing out over the next five years, and to back up those estimates with an indication of the methodology and assumptions used to arrive at them?
Senator LeBreton: I thank the honourable senator. The government does not agree with the figures in the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I read into the record yesterday the comments of the Attorney General of Manitoba. The issue of two-for-one sentencing did not pop up on the spur of the moment. This legislation was drafted at the request of the provinces and territories. The provinces can see real benefits in terms of people to be incarcerated awaiting trial. Many people awaiting trial use the two-for-one system because they know if they are remanded to custody to await trial, their sentence will be reduced. There is a considerable cost savings in that respect.
I reported to honourable senators before that Correctional Service Canada has suggested a cost of $2 billion over five years. The government has no reason to dispute those figures or believe them to be inaccurate.
However, I will refer the honourable senator's question to the Minister of Public Safety and ask for information on the cost provided by Correctional Service Canada. I will ask as well if an analysis has been prepared of the cost savings to the provinces.
Senator Fraser: That information will be most helpful. As the leader knows, a number of bills have been passed, or are waiting to be passed, that will have an impact on our prison population.
The leader has suggested that the cost will not be as high as the Parliamentary Budget Officer suggests because people will not be as inclined to hang around in remand hoping for double time off on their eventual sentence. The Parliamentary Budget Officer notes that possibility in his report. However, there are many other possibilities as well. For example, the committee heard striking evidence that one effect of this bill will be to clog the bail courts further because there will be absolutely no incentive to await trial in remand in the hope of a reduced sentence.
People will be much more insistent on trying to seek bail. However, with the bail courts so clogged, people will have to wait a long time in remand because they cannot have their bail hearing, let alone have it concluded. The committee heard evidence from Crown counsel that, in his view, a certain impact of the bill will be to clog up the bail courts, which, in turn, will clog up the remand system all over again.
Honourable senators need to understand fully what all of this will mean. I thank the leader for her assurance that she will seek the information. I urge her to press for that information to be as detailed as possible. If I may say, no one disputes the right of a government to have policies. This government's policies include actions based on the belief that putting people in prison for longer periods of time will be productive. I do not think that is true, but I do not dispute the government's right to believe that it is true. However, it will help to have the actual information on which the assumptions are based.
Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, any change in the justice system and the laws has impact on court time. As courts have done in the past, the courts in the future will adjust to these situations. This system is an ongoing process, no matter what changes in the law may occur.
With regard to criminals serving longer sentences, there is evidence across the country, for example in Senator Boisvenu's experience and in my case, that a longer sentence might have saved lives.
Foreign Affairs
Status of Omar Khadr
Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, my question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
On Monday, Mr. Justice Zinn of the Federal Court of Appeal gave the government one week to come up with a list of remedies for its violation of Omar Khadr's constitutional rights. Today is Thursday, July 8. The deadline is on Monday, July 12. I am not asking the leader to breach any confidences but, with only four days remaining, is the leader able to advise the house what steps are being taken on behalf of Mr. Khadr? I gave the leader notice of this question so I would appreciate her answer.
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): The honourable senator gave me notice, and my answer is the same as it always has been. Omar Khadr is accused of various serious crimes, including the murder of U.S. army medic Sergeant Christopher Speer. Government policy with regard to Mr. Khadr is the same as that of the previous Liberal governments. The government will review the decision of Mr. Justice Zinn of the Federal Court of Appeal. As the honourable senator pointed out, that decision was rendered on Monday, July 5. Currently, the government is reviewing the decision. There is nothing more that I can say.
(1410)
[Translation]
Industry
2011 Census
Hon. Claudette Tardif (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, according to Richard Shearmur, holder of the Canada Research Chair in Spatial Statistics and Public Policy, the government's decision to cut the long-form census questionnaire
. . . will increase our ignorance. . . . As society becomes less informed, it will be easier for the government to manipulate it and to use its authority to circulate specious arguments and ideological positions. [This move] . . . is an assault on democracy in Canada.
Women's groups, marketing experts, stay-at-home mothers, progressive economists, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Association for Business Economics, the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, and researchers and editorialists of all stripes are opposed to this decision. A voluntary survey will result in biased, unreliable data that are not representative of the population, because only those who wish to respond will do so.
Why marginalize the people and groups that are already in the minority and on the fringe once again? These groups have already been ignored in many of the decisions made by the Harper government. Why does this government insist on making them sink into oblivion?
[English]
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, just as for any policy of any government, you will find people who do not agree with the government's decision. There is nothing new with regard to this decision.
The federal census is conducted by Statistics Canada to collect information from Canadians every four years, as we know. This information is important so that we have an accurate demographic picture of Canada. It is also vital for many federal programs, as I believe was mentioned on Tuesday.
For the 2011 census, the eight-question short form will be mandatory for all Canadians. This will collect basic information from individuals and families. Starting in 2011, a voluntary national household survey is being implemented that will replace the long census form, as I pointed out Tuesday. This change was made to reasonably limit what many Canadians felt was an intrusion of their personal privacy.
We fully expect that the new voluntary national household survey will provide data just as reliable as the old mandatory long form provided to Statistics Canada. We have no reason to believe that the data will be any less reliable.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Honourable senators, the data obtained through the long form census allowed Statistics Canada to inform the public about itself, about the number of bilingual Canadians, Canadians with a disability and graduates, and the number of hours spent taking care of children and seniors and doing housework without pay. The decision to drop the long form census, without any consultations or surveys beforehand, will make it difficult to determine the realities of women and other people who manage households.
Why is the leader overlooking the reality of millions of Canadians?
[English]
Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, the census that will be taken has a long form which will be distributed across the country. The only difference between the old census and the new census is that the long form will be voluntary, not mandatory. It is their freedom. Canadians, we believe, can willingly and voluntarily answer the long form, but not with a stick of big government over their head. We also believe the data that will be taken from this long form will be every bit as reliable as the data taken from a mandatory long form.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Industry Minister Clement has indicated that there will be an advertising campaign for next year's census to urge Canadians to fill out the long form, which is becoming a voluntary survey.
Is it not absurd to spend money on changing the census, on announcing that the long form will no longer be mandatory and therefore no longer subject to a penalty, and then spend more money on advertising campaigns urging Canadians to fill out the long form voluntarily?
Can the Leader of the Government tell us what the budget is for this advertising campaign?
[English]
Senator LeBreton: First, I would like to know how much money the government has spent in the past chasing and persecuting people for not filling out the mandatory long form.
The fact of the matter is that we want Canadians to feel that we respect their privacy and their rights to privacy of information. Once they know they are not forced by a Big Brother government to fill out a long census form, and with some explanation, we believe that Canadians will voluntarily fill out the long form and that the data we receive from it will be just as good, maybe even better, than the information we receive from the long form that is currently mandatory.
[Translation]
Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, if only we could believe that the government is concerned about people's rights when it focuses on making sure that people fill in the mandatory form. However, this is a self-professed law and order government, and it seems to me that it is every Canadian's civic duty to provide information that will be treated with the highest degree of confidentiality by an independent organization to enable the government — along with all governments and all Canadian businesses and researchers — to learn the facts about Canadians. However, this sample will not be scientifically valid because there is a difference between the information people volunteer and the information they are required to provide, when such information is collected on a mandatory form.
My question is very simple: either you think that this is a pointless exercise and therefore feel no need to ensure that you get a scientifically sound sample, or you simply do not think it is important to collect data that will enable governments seeking policy direction in a particular area to make decisions later on. Which is it?
[English]
Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, the difference is that on the long form there are still many questions that will provide all of the research and all of the information that various groups who require this information can glean from it. The short form will be mandatory and the only difference with the long form is that Canadians, in respect of their own individual rights and their privacy, are being asked to participate in its completion on a voluntary basis.
We will obviously see the success of this process after the census, but there is no reason to believe that the information gleaned from the voluntary long form will be any different than the information gleaned from the mandatory long form; it may even be better.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I do not believe that Madam Leader has understood the point of my question and comments, namely that a scientific survey cannot be voluntary because of the absolutely rigorous mathematical calculations required for it to be a scientific sample. And to obtain precise data, to plan, we need scientific surveys. Your government does not hesitate to use scientific surveys on a regular basis and I do not believe that they poll only the Conservative Party.
I will go back to my main question: In terms of the science, have you been advised that a voluntary questionnaire would provide the true, fundamental data which all governments — not just your government — need in order to plan future policies, whether in connection with families, seniors or all the social and economic issues?
[English]
Senator LeBreton: That is the difference between the honourable senator's government and our government. We believe Canadian citizens are responsible and they want to be helpful to government. However, we do not believe government has the right to demand that people fill out long forms that invade their privacy.
The honourable senator is suggesting that the mandatory long form is ordered from on high and demands that people fill out the form, even if it is against their own interests of privacy. Obviously, I do not have the details as to how this form will be distributed, but I cannot imagine that it will be much different than the distribution of the former mandatory long form. Unlike the honourable senator, I suggest that those who receive this information and voluntarily fill out the long form probably will be more willing to fill it out than if they are ordered to by the government. However, there is no reason to believe that, first, Canadians will not participate in the voluntary long form; or, second, that the information gleaned from the voluntary long form will be any less valuable than the information gleaned from the mandatory long form.
(1420)
[Translation]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
The Senate
Motion to Extend Friday's Sitting Withdrawn
On Motion No. 19 by Senator Comeau:
That, notwithstanding rule 6(2), when the Senate sits on Friday, July 9, 2010, it continue its proceedings beyond 4 p.m.; and
That, notwithstanding any other rule, when the Senate has completed consideration of every item on the Order Paper and Notice Paper of Friday, July 9, 2010, the sitting be suspended to the call of the Chair, with a fifteen minute bell before the sitting resumes.
(Motion withdrawn.)
Motion to Suspend Thursday's Sitting for the Purpose of Adjournment or to Receive a Report from the National Finance Committee on Bill C-9 Withdrawn
On Motion No. 20 by Senator Comeau:
That on Thursday, July 8, 2010, following the completion of the Orders of the Day, Inquiries and Motions the sitting be suspended to the call of the Chair with a fifteen minute bell; and
That, when the sitting resumes, it be either for the purpose of adjournment or to receive a report from the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance dealing with Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures.
(Motion withdrawn.)
[English]
National Day of Service Bill
Second Reading—Debate Continued
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wallin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Marshall, for the second reading of Bill S-209, An Act respecting a national day of service to honour the courage and sacrifice of Canadians in the face of terrorism, particularly the events of September 11, 2001.
Hon. Tommy Banks: Honourable senators, I want to thank Senator Wallin for devising this bill and for bringing it forward for our consideration. I am sure the bill is well intended. While I am not vehemently opposed to the bill, I have my doubts about it. As Senator Cordy said in her speech, I think it should be sent to committee for further consideration.
My doubts about the bill stem from my aversion to days for this, days for that, and days for the other thing. There are so many "days" that they have ceased to mean much to many people. This idea may seem churlish, but I have long thought it might be a good idea to have a few days in the year that are not for this or for that but are just days.
I understand perfectly the distinction of September 11, of course. However, I am not sure that giving that day a name will have the effect of giving it any more import, if that is the word, than it already has. In fact, September 11 has a cachet on its own that I think transcends any name or intent we might attach to it. Honourable senators, 9/11 means things to people all over the civilized world. It means different things to different people, but I am not sure that giving it another name is a wise thing.
While I am not normally a member of the committee that considers these things, I was a substitute on the day two such bills were being considered for "days." The authors were Senator Munson and Senator Mercer, respectively. They will tell honourable senators that on that occasion I argued with them about the justification for those days. I was convinced in the end that there was specific good that would come from the bills, and so I did not oppose their approval by the committee. However, I have reservations about the present bill. I have misgivings about its name. It is called "An Act respecting a national day of service to honour the courage and sacrifice of Canadians in the face of terrorism, particularly the events of September 11, 2001."
Honourable senators, there is no doubt about the tragedy of that day. There are no words sufficient to the task of describing what happened on that day and of what happened to the 24 Canadians and many more citizens of other countries who lost their lives that day. However, we should be careful in passing laws, including the best-intended of laws, to ensure that they mean what we say and that we say what they mean.
I am not entirely convinced that the words "courage" and "sacrifice" are the right ones with respect to those 24 Canadians. There is no doubting the tragedy. There is no doubt of the horrible loss. However, was it sacrifice? Was it courage? Perhaps there are examples that can be adduced to demonstrate courage and sacrifice from those Canadians. I hope that, if so, those examples will be presented to the committee that will study this bill.
Honourable senators, we know of instances in Canada in which there was courage and sacrifice and for which there is no named day. We do not have a Springhill mine day. There is no Ocean Ranger day. We have no day for the Edmonton tornado or for the Westray mine. We have no ice storm day. In each of these cases, there was courage — heroism, in fact — and sacrifice. In each of these events, more Canadians lost their lives than was the case in New York City on September 11, 2001. However, there is no day for any of them.
Honourable senators, let us by all means have this bill studied further by committee, but let us not be profligate when it comes to naming days, whatever the temptation and however good the intent.
Hon. Grant Mitchell: Honourable senators, I wish to move adjournment of the debate.
Hon. Hugh Segal: Will the honourable senator take a question?
Senator Banks: Yes.
Senator Segal: I think I understand the sincerity of Senator Banks' position on this bill, but there are events in history that are separate from other events for reasons of scale, impact, and reach. This event was different in that, first, it happened in another country. Second, Canadians responded to that event in another country by lining up at blood banks across Canada to be of assistance; and premiers across the country sent everyone, from coroners' staff, to firemen, police officers, aid workers and Red Cross people, to assist, underlining a spirit of common service and commitment that reflects on all those who are in the front-line services on our behalf right across this country and right across the continent. The fact that, in the honourable senator's city and in mine on that day, firemen still line up in front of their fire stations in honour of their fallen brethren who raced into the buildings in New York City to save others, and perished as a result of that courage, sets this event apart.
I am supportive of the notion of the bill moving forward. I think I hear the honourable senator saying the same thing. Senator Banks wants to see it move forward to committee. If I understand the honourable senator's position correctly, he does not oppose the bill being moved to committee at the earliest possible opportunity.
Senator Banks: No, I never oppose the idea of any bill introduced by any senator being sent to committee. I have never heard of a bill proposed by a senator — although there is one exception — that was not, as a matter almost of course, sent to a committee. I think this bill should be sent to committee.
However, the matters to which the honourable senator has referred and the nature of that day make it almost sacred. It seems to me sacrilegious to ascribe some other purpose to that day, in this case a national day of service. I think a national day of memorial and recognition of what happened on that day, of the great pride we all take in the fact that Canadians joined our southern cousins in reacting to the terrorism of that day, would be entirely appropriate. However, that is not the intent of this bill. The intent is to make that day a national day of service on which we all do good things for our community.
(1430)
I think the day has a resonance and is redolent with great iconic importance. It is an historical event, as was our response to it. Recognizing the day and having a memorial day and a commemoration of the events of that day and of the way in which Canadians reacted to that day would be a very good idea, but that is not what this bill does.
This bill talks about a national day of service. We have National Volunteer Week from April 18 to 24 this year; we have Make A Difference Day on October 4; and we have Global Youth Service Day the week before National Volunteer Week. We have Random Acts of Kindness Week, et cetera. If this were a bill to have a day of commemoration, even if it said that we should all stop dead in our tracks at the moment at which the event happened to commemorate the event and to give thanks for those Canadians who responded in the ways they did, including first responders and ordinary people who gave their homes to others who otherwise had no place to go because their planes landed where they did because they had no other place to land, that would be appropriate.
However, that is not what this bill says. This bill is seeking to attach a national day of service to that day, and that seems to me to be nearly sacrilegious.
Hon. Pamela Wallin: I am puzzled by Senator Banks' comments because we have been asked as a group — and his party is aware of this as much as mine — by the families of the victims of 9/11, the families of the victims of the Air India crash, and the families of our soldiers who have fallen in Afghanistan fighting terrorism that we use this language.
Therefore, I would very much like to have this bill moved to committee immediately, if possible, so that we can hear testimony from those people and understand why this language was chosen, specifically at their request, to reflect the way they want to commemorate 9/11.
Senator Banks: I am unaware of any such request and, as far as I know, our party has not received any such request. If our party has received it, I have not been told about it.
As I said in my remarks, I hope that all of these things will be considered when the bill is studied at committee.
(On motion of Senator Mitchell, debate adjourned.)
Aboriginal Peoples
Budget and Authorization to Travel—Study on Federal Government's Responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis Peoples—Sixth Report of Committee Adopted
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples (supplementary budget—study on the examination of federal government's constitutional and legal responsibilities to Aboriginal Peoples—power to travel), presented in the Senate on July 7, 2010.
Hon. Gerry St. Germain moved the adoption of the report.
(Motion agreed to and report adopted.)
[Translation]
World Autism Awareness Day Bill
Sixth Report of Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee Adopted
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ogilvie, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wallace, for the adoption of the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Bill S-211, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day, with amendments), presented in the Senate on June 8, 2010.
Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, I took the adjournment of the debate after Senator Munson's very moving speech about young Canadians with autism.
[English]
Maybe I am a bleeding heart, but that is okay. Those of us who have not experienced the demands and the joys of having a child in the family who suffers from autism are in a grey zone. I have not experienced autism in my immediate family, but I know families who have expended a phenomenal amount of energy and devotion for those children on a daily basis.
Senator Munson has worked with persistence and dedication for this cause, and we should not have amended this bill, which he has put forward not on a political basis but on a humanitarian basis. I was struck by his speech and I adjourned debate. My wish is that this bill be referred back again to the House of Commons due to the amendments that were made to it.
(1440)
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Further debate? Are honourable senators ready for the question?
Some Hon. Senators: Question.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to and report adopted.)
Third Reading
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill, as amended, be read the third time?
Hon. Senators: Now.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion for third reading now?
(Motion agreed to and bill, as amended, read third time and passed.)
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Committee Authorized to Meet during Adjournment of the Senate
Hon. W. David Angus, pursuant to notice of July 6, 2010, moved:
That, pursuant to rule 95(3)(a), the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to sit this summer, on dates to be determined after consultation with the committee members, for the purpose of considering a draft report, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding one week.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It has been moved by the Honourable Senator Angus, seconded by the Honourable Senator Comeau, that Motion No. 64 — shall I dispense?
Hon. Senators: Dispense.
Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have a question for the chair about this motion requesting that the committee be authorized to sit.
The motion reads that the committee be authorized, in consultation with committee members, to meet this summer. If I understand correctly, this motion authorizes the steering committee to consider a draft report that is currently being written. Authority from the committee would be sought once the final I's are dotted and the T's are crossed and the chair would be authorized to present the report. This motion is not seeking authorization for hearings to be held by the whole committee over the summer months. Could the honourable senator elaborate?
Senator Angus: As many honourable senators know, the committee has conducted a series of emergency hearings on the offshore oil and gas exploration and development industry in the wake of the terrible disaster in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20 involving the explosion of the drillship Deepwater Horizon.
The committee completed its hearings this morning, actually. We have had 10 sessions. The hearings were not only triggered by the terrible disaster that continues to unfold before the eyes of Canadians 24/7 on CNN and everywhere else, but also by a poll released May 20 by EKOS Research suggesting that some 52 per cent of Canadians were so worried that we might have a similar disaster here, they called for a moratorium or suspension of all offshore drilling and exploration.
We were well aware that there was no drilling or exploration happening on our West Coast, nor was there any happening in the Arctic. We were also aware that the economies of the Atlantic provinces, to a substantial extent, depend on a thriving offshore oil and gas exploration and development business. We thought it would be a service to the Canadian people to understand the real facts. It was a typical scenario where the Senate could render service to the people of Canada.
We have conducted these hearings, and I am proud to say that we have had an overwhelming reaction. We have had in attendance the oil companies, the wildlife people, departmental officials and the regulatory agencies. As I said, we completed hearings this morning. The drafting of the report is well under way by our staff, but the committee has to meet to approve it. The report will have to be translated as well.
I presented this situation to the committee today. I said that if we want to table this report while it is still relevant, we will need to have a meeting, which we can only do with leave of the Senate. However, the committee said that we do not need to bring the entire committee back, so four of us were delegated to meet and approve the report along various principles that have already been outlined and approved by the committee members.
The committee is seeking leave to have those four members meet as soon as the report is ready, hopefully well before August 20, in order to approve the report.
Hon. Grant Mitchell: Honourable senators, I would like to endorse what Senator Angus has said. This committee works very well and has done what I think is an excellent job on this study. The study is very timely given what is occurring. If we wait until September or October to release it, we will lose some of its impact and punch. My colleagues on the Liberal side of the chamber are very much in support of it.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are honourable senators ready for the question?
Hon. Senators: Question.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to.)
Committee Authorized to Deposit Report with Clerk during Adjournment of the Senate
Hon. W. David Angus, pursuant to notice of July 6, 2010, moved:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate a report on offshore drilling, by August 20, 2010, if the Senate is not then sitting and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Chamber.
He said: Honourable senators, before I move the motion standing in my name, I would ask for leave that the motion be modified. This is a technical amendment arising from a glitch in the passage from one part of the administration to another. There was an omission to include the words "which was authorized by the Senate on March 11, 2010, to examine and report on the current state and future of Canada's energy sector (including alternative energy). . . ." In other words, no mention was made of our original reference.
Motion in Modification
Hon. W. David Angus: Honourable senators, I therefore move that the motion be modified to read:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, which was authorized by the Senate on March 11, 2010, to examine and report on the current state and future of Canada's energy sector (including alternative energy), be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate a report on offshore drilling, by August 20, 2010, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the chamber.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted for the motion in modification, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion, as modified?
(Motion agreed to, as modified.)
(1450)
Study on Provisions and Operation of DNA Identification Act
Motion to Request Government Response to Ninth Report of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Adopted
Hon. Joan Fraser, pursuant to notice of July 6, 2010, moved:
That, pursuant to rule 131(2), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government to the ninth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, tabled in the Senate on Monday June 28, 2010, and adopted by the Senate on Tuesday June 29, 2010, with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Public Safety being identified as the ministers responsible for responding to the report.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
Adjournment
Leave having been given to revert to Government Notices of Motions:
Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(h), I move:
That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until Monday, July 12, 2010, at 2 p.m.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Senate adjourned until Monday, July 12, 2010, at 2 p.m.