Download as PDF
Text size:

1st Session, 41st Parliament,
Volume 150, Issue 26

Wednesday, November 2, 2011
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker


Wednesday, November 2, 2011

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



iSisters Technology Mentoring

Hon. Grant Mitchell: Honourable senators, I rise today to commend the work of iSisters Technology Mentoring, a charitable organization that connects women in need with technology through mentoring. Founded in 2001, iSisters has built eight learning and technology centres in Ottawa and has graduated over 1,400 women from its programs. These remarkable achievements will be celebrated this month as iSisters marks its tenth anniversary.

iSisters increases the economic earning potential and independence for women in poverty in Ottawa who are unemployed, have limited education and depend on government services for basic needs. On-site classes are offered free of charge, delivered by talented mentors to help women gain technology and employability skills that offer a critical stepping stone to opportunity and improved quality of life.

iSisters' award-winning programs are built through strategic alliances with non-profit community partners. Currently, iSisters has learning and technology centres at Ottawa Community Immigration Services Organization, Cornerstone Women's Shelter and St. Joe's Women's Centre. iSisters also has a mobile lab at Operation Come Home and Tewegan Transition House. The mobile lab is designed to take iSisters' technology training workshops to young women who are homeless or at risk of being homeless.

Learners in these programs typically have little or no experience using technology. Most of the learners have limited education and are often intimidated being in an academic classroom setting. iSisters works with partners to recruit, maintain and graduate learners from its programs. These efforts are highly successful as the participation completion rate is over 95 per cent.

I encourage Canadians to visit to learn first-hand the personal stories of women who have benefited so much from the iSisters programs. Congratulations to the board, staff, volunteers and supporters on the tenth anniversary of iSisters Technology Mentoring. You are leading the way in technology learning development. You are truly empowering women in our communities, offering them hope, compassion and opportunity.

Long-Gun Registry

Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, December 5, 1995, was a sad day in the lives of recreational long-gun owners across Canada, as the Chrétien government passed into law Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms. As a result, the federal government spent billions of tax dollars to establish a national gun registry, forcing responsible gun owners to register their long guns traditionally used for target practice and hunting. This ill-conceived and misguided legislation was a bureaucratic response to the very real and serious problem of gun crime. Canadians who refuse to register their hunting rifles or personal collections face jail time under the law, and it does not stop there.

An Hon. Senator: Oh, oh.

Senator St. Germain: Even more unsettling are the provisions for search and seizure contained in the act. With or without notice, police have the power to search and seize personal property on a whim should they so much as suspect the possible misuse of a firearm.

Senator Mercer: They have been doing that a lot!

Senator St. Germain: Go and talk to the people of Nova Scotia, not here!

Honourable senators, this provision alone is perhaps the worst attack by the government on the liberty of the person since personal property rights were left out of the Constitution Act of 1982. The Firearms Act is a classic example of the government's heavy hand, raised in a fist against law-abiding citizens. Thankfully this law will not be on the books much longer. Acting on a long-standing promise of the Conservative government last week in the other place, the Minister of Public Safety tabled Bill C-19, ending the Long-gun Registry Act. Hunters in the Rockies of Western Canada, farmers protecting their crops on the Prairies, and Aboriginal people sustaining their traditional way of life across the country will soon feel the heavy hand of government lifted from the breeches of their rifles.

An Hon. Senator: Oh, oh.

Senator St. Germain: No longer will the federal government be confusing gun control for crime control. As everyone knows, the gun registry failed to achieve either. The government must continue to re-prioritize our crime-fighting resources, to make them more effective and focused on the root of the problem.

Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh!

Senator St. Germain: And you are the root of the problem!

As a former police officer — and one who was shot at in service — I know that combating and deterring violent crime does not happen in government buildings in Ottawa. It happens on the streets.

Honourable senators, let us continue to concentrate our efforts on the real issues to achieve real results for Canadians. Thank you!

The Honourable Céline Hervieux-Payette, P.C.

Congratulations on Receiving the World of Difference Award

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore: Honourable senators, I rise today to pay tribute to our colleague Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette, on the occasion of her being recognized by The International Alliance for Women for her contributions to the advancement of women.

This recognition came in the form of the TIAW's World of Difference Award, which was presented to Senator Hervieux-Payette last Thursday in Washington, D.C.

In this chamber we all know of our colleague's great dedication to the advancement of women in Canada and abroad, and it is truly gratifying to see her efforts recognized in such a manner, by such an organization.


Let me quote from The International Alliance for Women's citation regarding Senator Hervieux-Payette's worthiness as a recipient:

When it comes to women's economic advancement, there could be few champions stronger or more dedicated than Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette of Canada. Leading by example in her own career, she has blazed a trail for many to follow.

Senator Hervieux-Payette is a true model to young Canadian women, having achieved success in business and success in politics, being elected as a member of the other place in 1979, re-elected in 1980, sworn to the Privy Council in 1983, and in this chamber since 1995, where she became the first woman to hold the title of Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. She is a dedicated contributor as Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, and is highly regarded for her volunteer work with the Financial Women of Quebec and Women at the Top.

Senator Hervieux-Payette, in a world where women still fight for equality at the best of times — and in some places for so much less than that — let me leave you with a call to arms from Clare Boothe Luce, an American politician and writer:

Because I am a woman, I must make unusual efforts to succeed. If I fail, no one will say, "She doesn't have what it takes.'' They will say, "Women don't have what it takes.''

I know, sénatrice, that you will continue to prove women do have what it takes, no matter what it takes.

Féliciations, chère collègue!

Veterans' Week

Hon. Yonah Martin: Honourable senators, as we mark Veterans' Week, we honour the brave Canadians who helped defend the values of peace, freedom and justice around the world, including in Korea. We remember how selflessly Canada answered a country's call for help. We remember their valour. We remember the 516 brave Canadians who made the ultimate sacrifice in service during the war.


We also remember the fallen Canadian soldiers who lie at rest in row after row, far from home, in the United Nations Memorial Cemetery in Busan, South Korea. They were forgotten for 50 years, until a monument was designed and built in their memory.


In fact, there are two monuments to Canadians fallen during the Korean War: the one in Busan, Korea, and the exact, slightly larger one here in Ottawa in Confederation Park. It was set in position by the National Capital Commission so that the two standing figures — a little Korean boy standing next to a Canadian soldier holding a little girl of four or five — look along a plot line to the exact GPS coordinates where the Korean monument is located in the UN cemetery more than 6,000 miles across the Pacific Ocean.


A Canadian delegation of distinguished veterans will soon head to Busan to attend a remembrance ceremony called Turn Toward Busan, which will be held on November 11. In Ottawa, a similar ceremony will be held on November 10 to coincide with the ceremony in Korea. The delegation includes two Korean War veterans who will pay tribute at the tombs of their brothers for the first time in nearly 60 years.


A Korean War veteran by the name of Vince Courtenay will also be with them. He is the initiator of the "Turn toward Busan'' program and the key person responsible for the monument's existence. In his own words, here is why:

When I first returned to Korea and got up the nerve to visit my friends' graves . . . I was spiritually crushed by the utter starkness and loneliness and nothingness of the place as I found it then . . .

I nearly crumpled to the ground. There, in memory of each of them, was a small bronze plaque, flat to the ground. It bore their surname with only initials for their given names, as well as their service number and rank, their unit, their age and the date of their death.

I knew that nobody from Canada flew out there like I had done to visit these fallen friends, these comrades. They had been there then for 50 years, alone, and it broke my heart. There was nobody else in the cemetery. . . . Yes, one sheds tears. . . .

I decided at once that I would try to put a face on these young Canadians. I wanted to show they were kindly men, good men, family men, young boys who might better have been in high school or in college readying for the professions, or anywhere else but in that lonely ground in Korea.

Thanks to Vince and many who supported the effort, we will remember them.


We will remember them.


Lest we forget.



Congratulations on Seventy-fifth Anniversary

Hon. Marie-P. Poulin: Honourable senators, today, Canada is celebrating the 75th anniversary of the creation of one of our largest and most noble institutions: CBC/Radio-Canada.

On November 2, 1936, the federal government created the Crown corporation from the former Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, which had been established a few years earlier by Prime Minister Richard Bennett.

That was the beginning of one of the greatest adventures in creativity, radio and broadcasting in the modern world. Like you, honourable senators, I am very proud of it.

CBC/Radio-Canada has always been, and still is, the ideal way to unite all Canadians, whether they are francophone, anglophone or Aboriginal.

CBC/Radio-Canada is the very soul of Canada. From its inception, 75 years ago, it has offered a platform not only for our great singers and songwriters, but also for our authors and actors.

In an effort to be present everywhere in Canada as quickly as possible, CBC/Radio-Canada worked with Canadian National and used its antennas to broadcast to the entire country.

In September 1952, CBC/Radio-Canada moved with the times and began television broadcasting. I am proud to remind you, honourable senators, that CBC/Radio-Canada's very first privately owned affiliate television station was CKSO in Sudbury, which launched in October 1953.

French and English CBC television quickly became the number one source for public information throughout the country and the largest producer of children's shows and television series.

Today, CBC/Radio-Canada has taken root in all areas of the country. Regional stations are vital links in a chain through programs produced and broadcast in the regions and through programs produced in the regions and broadcast on the national networks. These regional stations, with the national networks, have a key responsibility in the country to ensure that all Canadians are aware of their region.

When I had the privilege of establishing CBON, northern Ontario's regional station, in Sudbury in 1978, I understood the essential service that our public broadcaster provides in Canada.

Honourable senators, in 1991, the Government of Canada wisely stated that CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate must involve contributing to shared national consciousness and identity.

CBC/Radio-Canada has become the public arena in which Canadians of various cultures get to know each other and speak to one another. Whether it be via the Internet, social media or international satellite transmission, CBC/Radio-Canada is now, more than ever, the virtual meeting place of all Canadians.

Without CBC/Radio-Canada, we would be less Canadian. Without CBC/Radio-Canada, we would not be who we are.

Happy birthday, CBC/Radio-Canada.


Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of Sam Gargan, Grand Chief of the Deh Cho Tribal Council in the Northwest Territories, and Pat Scott.

They are guests of the Honourable Senator Sibbeston.

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




Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association

Annual Interparliamentary Meeting with the European Parliament's Delegation for Relations with Canada and the Parliamentary Mission to Denmark, September 10 to 17, 2011—Report Tabled

Hon. Michel Rivard: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canada-7Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the 34th Annual Interparliamentary Meeting with the European Parliament's Delegation for relations with Canada and the Parliamentary Mission to Denmark, the next country to hold the rotating Presidency of the Council of the European Union, held in Strasbourg, France, and Copenhagen, Denmark, from September 10 to 17, 2011.


Human Rights

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Refer Documents from Study on Bill S-4 during Third Session of Fortieth Parliament and Study on Division of On-Reserve Matrimonial Real Property during the First Session of the Thirty-eighth Parliament and the Second Session of the Thirty-seventh Parliament to Current Study on Bill S-2

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the papers and evidence received and taken and work accomplished by the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights during its study of Bill S-4, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, during the Third Session of the Fortieth Parliament and its special study on the division of on-reserve matrimonial real property, during the First Session of the Thirty-eighth Parliament and the Second Session of the Thirty-seventh Parliament, be referred to the committee for the purposes of its study on Bill S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves.


Canadian Access to Information System

Notice of Inquiry

Hon. Francis Fox: Honourable senators, I give notice that, two days hence:

I will bring to the attention of the Senate the importance of our Canadian Access to Information system and recent developments that imperil its effectiveness.



Human Resources and Skills Development

Poverty Levels

Hon. Art Eggleton: Honourable senators, Food Banks Canada released its annual hunger count yesterday. They reported that food bank usage is 26 per cent higher than it was in 2008. It is the second highest level for food bank use on record. This sends the unfortunate message that the effects of the recession are still being felt across the country by average Canadians. Each month, 851,000 people use a food bank, with 322,000 of those being children; that is 38 per cent. FBC reports that even people with jobs are having difficulty and that one-in-five families who use a food bank are also working people.

Will the government commit to working with the provinces to establish a pan-Canadian poverty reduction strategy, such as that recommended in the report In From the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness, which was adopted unanimously by the Senate?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I thank the honourable senator for the question. The government is well aware of the report from the Senate. Obviously, the situation with regard to the increased use of food banks is troubling for all of us. The honourable senator is quite right: the global economic situation, which has impacted Canada, although not as severely, is no comfort to those who are living on fixed incomes or working families who struggle to make ends meet. I noticed the other day that because of the drought in the southern United States, a food staple like peanut butter is increasingly a more costly item.

Honourable senators, I will not comment on the government's intentions in terms of the work it may do with the provinces. The government has acted to help low-income families become more independent and contribute to the economy and their communities. Of course, we still have some way to go. Canada's economy has created in the range of 650,000 jobs since July 2009. As Senator Segal often says, the best social policy is a job. The more we work to inject confidence in our economy, support our manufacturers, support our communities, and the more jobs we create, the more it will have an effect on providing income for people.

With regard to children, we enhanced the National Child Benefit and the Canada Child Tax Benefit. The Working Income Tax Benefit helps low-income Canadians to get over the welfare wall. Created over four years ago, WITB helped 900,000 Canadians in its first year. Our tax cuts mean that over one million low-income Canadians no longer pay income taxes. All of this is helpful, although not the complete solution. We have also made record investments in low-income housing.

Senator Eggleton: Honourable senators, I agree with much of the leader's answer and, yes, the government's WITB is a good program. However, when one in five working families is using a food bank, it is obvious that the program is not sufficient to bring such families above the poverty line. More needs to be done; this is key to a pan-Canadian strategy.

I hope that the leader will at least take up this issue with her colleagues in cabinet. The recession is still hurting many people, unfortunately, and I think the leader recognizes that in some of what she said.

Allow me to mention another group: seniors. The report notes that 37,000 people using food banks are seniors. We take a great deal of pride in what we have done in support of seniors with the Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement programs. Even with the changes that were made in the most recent budget, there are still single seniors, many of them women, especially in urban areas, who are much more likely than couples are to have incomes below the poverty line. This problem stems from the fact that the maximum OAS and GIS benefits for single seniors do not fully take into account the costs of a person living alone relative to a couple in a similar situation, particularly in some of our larger urban areas. Will the government review this and change this level of support as necessary so that all seniors can live in dignity?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I totally agree with the honourable senator. The seniors who are impacted most severely by this are usually single women who worked hard all their lives in the home and did not have an opportunity to make specific plans for retirement, unlike women today.

As the honourable senator points out, we increased the GIS — the largest increase in 25 years — which impacts 680,000 seniors. Obviously, some people are still having difficulty making ends meet. Certainly, I can assure honourable senators that this group of people and people struggling at or below the poverty line have a lot of attention from our government. I will be happy to pass on the honourable senator's suggestions.

Public Safety

Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women and Girls

Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck: My questions are for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. My first question may be seen as complimentary.


I was reading a news article that stated that the government is planning to commission stained glass to go over the main entrance to the House of Commons honouring missing and murdered Aboriginal women. Is that true? How does the government intend to involve the families of the missing and murdered women?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am not aware of that news report. I will certainly take the question as notice and reply by written response.

Senator Dyck: Honourable senators, my second question is along the same lines and has to do with the missing and murdered Aboriginal women issue. As we all know, it was the Sisters In Spirit initiative that provided the first information that opened the eyes of this country to this important national issue. Instead of funding the Sisters In Spirit, the government has chosen to divert the money into the RCMP to set up their own missing persons database, one that may not even collect information that identifies victims as Aboriginal.

Instead of calling for a national inquiry as requested by the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada, Amnesty International, KAIROS and hundreds of Aboriginal Canadians, this government seems to have turned a blind eye to the issue in a substantive way.

Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate indicate why the government has not listened to the families of the missing and murdered Aboriginal women, and why they have not called and fully funded a national inquiry into the missing and murdered Aboriginal girls and women? It is not an issue only in British Columbia; it is an issue across Canada and particularly in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is a national issue. People are begging for it to be looked at in a national inquiry. Can the leader tell us why the government has not done that?

Senator LeBreton: I thank the senator for the question.

I think it is unfair and incorrect to state that we do not take this issue seriously. The senator is quite right; in 2010 we did announce a $10 million investment, over two years, to address the high number of missing and murdered Aboriginal women. A few examples of these concrete measures include a national support centre for missing persons, a national tip website for missing persons, new community safety plans to enhance the safety of women in Aboriginal communities, and federal funding for culturally appropriate victim services through the provinces and territories.

The Native Women's Association of Canada is receiving substantial funding of $1.8 million in support of their Evidence to Action II project. Honourable senators know full well that the government takes the whole issue of violence against Aboriginal women very seriously. Through Status of Women Canada, over the last two years, $4.5 million has been committed for projects working to eliminate violence against Aboriginal women. As an example of one of these projects, Status of Women Canada is funding a 24-month project with the Girls Action Foundation to prepare young Aboriginal women from urban, rural and remote locations to lead efforts to eliminate violence against women and girls.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and is on this specific issue. As the leader knows, there is an inquiry in B.C. concerning missing women. Aboriginal groups have not been funded. Unfortunately, they have withdrawn. Can the leader explain why our government is not supporting these women in this inquiry?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I am well aware of the inquiry. It is obviously something that all of us who have followed this horrific story are familiar with. As to the various participants, I will have to take that question as notice.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

Water Supply on Reserves

Hon. Rod A. A. Zimmer: Honourable senators, I have two questions. Currently, more than 40 per cent of the 1,800 First Nations homes in Northern Manitoba still do not have an in-home water supply. The cut-off line for funding and equipment to fix this issue is fast approaching. Aboriginals fear that the water supply on reserves will not be fixed until 2013 unless the deadline is met. This has become a health care issue, creating unsanitary conditions for Aboriginals. Will the government be able to meet the deadline?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): As honourable senators know, through the current minister and also previous ministers in our government, we are strongly committed to working with First Nations to address this very serious challenge, as we have done since we came into government. The government has made significant investments in First Nations water and wastewater systems in every budget since we came into government. We are working with First Nations to improve and expand operator and manager training and compliance. I am informed that we will reintroduce legislation to create enforceable standards and to guide investments.

In terms of the specific question about meeting the deadline, we have worked on this serious problem for many years. It is hard to say, specifically, what the deadline is or may be, but I can assure honourable senators that we are doing everything possible. We have made significant improvements over the last five years in the drinking water and wastewater conditions on our reserves.

Senator Zimmer: Honourable senators, The Globe and Mail reported this week that the actual work to connect the communities to the water supplies has not begun and that the plumbing material and equipment has not been ordered yet. I understand that we need to get the funding and equipment by December 31, 2011.

Honourable senators, this is an urgent issue. Every person in Canada should have running water. Will the federal government be able to meet this deadline?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I will have to take the question as notice and refer it to my colleague, the Honourable John Duncan, who probably has more accurate, detailed and up-to-date information. I will be very happy to provide it to the senator by written answer.

Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck: With regard to this issue, honourable senators, could the leader tell us whether or not the government actually knows what bits and pieces need to be ordered and what needs to be sent to those northern communities? It is all well and good to say the bill will fix it. The bill will not fix it. They actually need the physical structure to create safe drinking water.

Senator LeBreton: I would dare say, since we are working with First Nations and with various people responsible for the reserves, that they would certainly let us know. In the deliberations, I am certain that what is required to fix the systems would be well known on both sides of the table. I cannot imagine anyone going into a situation to improve the water and wastewater systems and not knowing what tools and equipment they may need to do so.

Canadian HeritagePublic Works and Government Services

Support of Edmonton's Bid to Host World Fair—Royal Alberta Museum

Hon. Tommy Banks: Honourable senators, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I know that she knows that Albertans are resilient people. I guess Edmontonians are the most resilient of all, but there is a limit.

The government put out for tender the construction and operation of the National Portrait Gallery and issued a very specific set of criteria. Several cities applied. Only two applications met all of the criteria, both from the City of Edmonton. The government then decided it would not do that after all, despite Edmonton having spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars in making those applications.


Then the government encouraged the application of Edmonton and made Edmonton the Canadian bid for the world's fair and, having encouraged that application, decided at the last minute not to support it. That put an end to it. Now we have the federal government saying that they have withdrawn their support for the construction of the Royal Alberta Museum. That is three hard slaps in a row.

There are arguments and questions about the nature of that commitment, but Mr. Laurie Hawn, the MP for Edmonton Centre, the jurisdiction in which that museum was going to be built, two years ago in his newsletter to his constituents, in a list called "Stand Up for Edmonton,'' said that he stands up for having got "$85 million for the construction of the Royal Alberta Museum.''

A normal person reading that from the Honourable Mr. Hawn would assume that that indicated a commitment, and hundreds of other people thought there were commitments coming from lots of other places too. Now the federal government has said, well, no, they did not actually make that commitment.

Honourable senators, I am sorry I did not give notice for this, but will the Leader of the Government in the Senate undertake to do a little due diligence on this question? It is a muddy piece of water. Would she come back and tell us here, so that we can report to our constituents, what the nature was of the commitment or discussions or non-commitment of the Government of Canada to the construction of the Royal Alberta Museum?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I thank the senator for the question. Honourable senators, I think the results of the election show that the decision with regard to the Edmonton bid was proven out because it did not have the support of the people of Edmonton.

With regard to the Royal Alberta Museum, our government supports and continues to support the Royal Alberta Museum, a project identified as a priority by the Alberta government. The government committed $30 million towards this project. That commitment stands and we have not withdrawn funding from this project.

Senator Banks: Honourable senators, I am not sure what the leader means when she said that the idea of the world's fair did not have the support of the city of Edmonton. It had the support of the Corporation of the City of Edmonton. I do not know how clearer support for a project can be made than that.

The leader pointed out from time to time that she was elected on the basis of certain undertakings. The council of the City of Edmonton was elected on an undertaking to have a world's fair and was led along the garden path and encouraged by the leader's government to make that application, and then at the last minute it was withdrawn.

With respect to the Royal Alberta Museum and the disparity between, on the one hand, the claims now that the commitment was $30 million and the claims on the other hand by Mr. Hawn that he had obtained federal funding of $85 million, can we believe anyone anymore about anything that this government says?

Senator LeBreton: I would have to see the newsletter, but obviously this was a commitment made in which several levels of government participated. I am not a mathematician, but I can imagine if we are doing one third, one third, one third, our $30 million commitment obviously was for a project that looked like it was around $85 million to $90 million.

The fact is we made a commitment on the public record. It is very clear. We still support this museum. Our commitment stands and we have not withdrawn the funding or our commitment.

Hon. Grant Mitchell: Honourable senators, the government has reneged on a $92 million commitment to help Alberta build the Royal Alberta Museum. Consider for a moment that $92 million could be used to build that museum or it could be used to build 278 prison cells and put 278 people in them for two years. Think about that: on the one hand, an Alberta museum that enhances Edmonton's downtown, that enhances people's appreciation of Alberta heritage, that gives families and children educational opportunities, and on the other hand 278 people in jail for two years.

Whatever possessed this government to make that kind of choice, placing 270 people in jail, who do not even need to be there, over those kinds of opportunities for a place like Edmonton?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, the leap of logic sometimes boggles the mind.

The fact is, honourable senators, we made a $30 million commitment to the Royal Alberta Museum. That commitment stands. We support the Royal Alberta Museum. We have not withdrawn our commitment. It was clearly understood by the Government of Alberta that that was our commitment. If other people are withdrawing their commitment, perhaps that question should be addressed elsewhere.

Senator Mitchell: Honourable senators, my colleague Senator Banks made the point that Edmonton has been betrayed three critical times by this government: the portrait gallery, when we were frontrunners, nixed; the world's fair, when we were frontrunners, nixed; and this museum, when the decision was made, now nixed.

That is three betrayals, which is more times than this Prime Minister has visited Edmonton since he took office. Perhaps if he visited Edmonton a little more often he would understand that he represents us too.

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I think it is more than three times, because I have been with the Prime Minister three times to Edmonton. I know I am not with him on all his trips.

The fact is, honourable senators, the plan was not nixed. We committed $30 million to the Royal Alberta Museum. That commitment stands. We did not withdraw the $30 million. That is there. I think the good citizens of Edmonton, Alberta, joined in with the good citizens around the rest of the country when they decided to support a strong, stable, national majority Conservative government, and they are to be commended for that.

Senator Mitchell: There are people in Edmonton who are now wondering whether if they applied for a gazebo or a fake lake they might get money. Is that possible?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, a canoe museum and a host of other things were all unearthed by the Auditor General about the honourable senator's government.

Senator Mitchell: In the redistribution of seats, could the leader somehow get Tony Clement to run in Edmonton? He absolutely has power in that cabinet. He can certainly get money when his constituents need it.

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I take offence at Senator Mitchell's comments about my cabinet colleague. He has served the government extremely well. He is an outstanding President of the Treasury Board. I am sure that this afternoon, when he appears before a committee in the other place, it will be very clear that he is an outstanding public servant and member of our cabinet.

Hon. Claudette Tardif (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, when the mayor of Edmonton heard the news that federal funding was being withdrawn, he made the following comment:

I'm so disappointed that something that was so important to the city can be snatched away without any consultation.

It is an absolutely unconscionable act. It's not even about the money so much. It's about the disrespect this shows to the city and the people of Edmonton.

Will the government commit to discussing ways to move this project forward? This is an important legacy project; it cannot be withdrawn. We need to move this forward. Will the government commit to finding ways to move this forward?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I must be speaking in pig Latin or something, because the funding has not been withdrawn. Funding of $30 million was committed to this project. It was indicated by the Alberta government that this project was a priority. We committed $30 million. The $30 million is still on the table. The fact is that we have not withdrawn anything. It is still there, and there is nothing more I can say. We made a commitment, it is still there, and we have not withdrawn it.



Public Safety

Long-Gun Registry

Hon. Francis Fox: Honourable senators, I would like to change course somewhat. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate is fully aware, according to statements from the National Assembly, the Government of Quebec wants to create its own firearms registration system, in order to ensure the safety of the people of that province. This is supported by dozens, if not hundreds of social and family advocacy groups in Quebec.

Can the minister tell us why her government is against the idea of a province creating such a system within the limits of its jurisdiction?


Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, we have been pretty clear. The government made a commitment to get rid of the long-gun registry. We will live up to that commitment, and we will not support any other jurisdiction participating in such a registry by handing information through the back door.


Senator Fox: Thank you. Madam leader, the answer at least is clear, but by refusing to provide access to the data collected over the years by previous governments with public money, the government is seriously hindering the efforts of a province to act within its jurisdiction.

If I have understood correctly, her government has always wanted, at least according to what it says, to encourage the provinces to act within their jurisdictions. However, by its actions, the government is indirectly preventing a province from moving forward, despite the fact that the data were paid for by Canadian taxpayers, including Quebec taxpayers, who overwhelmingly support the registry.

Why does this government want to prevent the Government of Quebec from going ahead and using the data collected with public money, a fair portion of which came from Quebec taxpayers?


Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, it is very curious that we have an opposition that keeps insisting that the government treats farmers, hunters and gun collectors as criminals, and yet by the same token they are upset when we are actually trying to crack down on real criminals. As a matter of fact, a Leger poll in the province of Quebec shows overwhelmingly that the people of Quebec want to get tough on crime.

With regard to the long-gun registry, I repeat that our legislation will eliminate the records which are inaccurate, unreliable and becoming increasingly so. We will not support the creation of another registry through the back door.


Delayed Answers to Oral Questions

Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answer to an oral question raised by the Honourable Nick Sibbeston on October 5, 2011, concerning Aboriginal Affairs, regulatory reform, and the answer to an oral question raised by the Honourable Maria Chaput on October 18, 2011, concerning Canadian Heritage, official languages, promoting linguistic duality.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

Regulatory Reform

(Response to question raised by Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston on October 5, 2011)

As part of the social and economic development pillar of the Northern Strategy, in 2010 the Government of Canada committed over $18 million to support the Action Plan to Improve Northern Regulatory Regimes.

The Action Plan will streamline the regulatory process by removing barriers to private investment, enhancing environmental stewardship, and investing in programs to support economic growth and provide greater economic certainty to industry, Northerners and all Canadians.

The Government of Canada has already moved forward on this work and is investing $1.5 million in funding for monitoring the impacts of development in the Northwest Territories this year.

We are also making progress on various legislative and regulatory initiatives to improve the predictability and certainty of the regimes, as well as administrative improvements to various other regulations.

As part of this process, we are consulting with Aboriginal organizations, the Territorial governments, and stakeholders. Chief Federal Negotiator John Pollard has been tasked with negotiating a restructured, streamlined land and water board for the Northwest Territories and has held over 50 meetings with Aboriginal organizations and stakeholders to determine the best, most inclusive and consultative way forward. The Minister appreciates the interest of the Honourable Senator and looks forward to his support as the Government takes action to improve Northern Regulatory Regimes.

Official Languages

Promoting Linguistic Duality

(Response to question raised by Hon. Maria Chaput on October 18, 2011)

This Government has always indicated that our commitment to enhance the vitality of Official Language Minority Communities and promote the full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society, as stated in Part VII of the Official Languages Act (the Act), binds every federal institution and that each one is fully responsible for its implementation.

Over the years, the Government has set out the terms for fulfilling this commitment and has regularly reminded all institutions of their responsibilities, particularly since the strengthening of Part VII of the Act in 2005.

The Department of Canadian Heritage (the Department) has provided, since 1994, significant support and guidance to the thirty institutions whose activities have the greatest impact on the development of official-language minorities and the enhancement of English and French in Canadian society. These organizations report annually to the Department on the implementation of part VII of the Act.

Moreover, the Department gives all institutions access to various tools and advice (such as the Guide for Federal Institutions / Part VII of the Act, a Good Practices Compendium and the Bulletin 41-42) to help them in developing internal implementation mechanisms. Among other things, these tools and advice remind institutions of the importance of maintaining a continuing dialogue with official-language minority communities in order to know their needs.

The Department is now expanding its coordination activity to all federal institutions through a harmonized guidance and reporting mechanism. This will increase the number of federal institutions that report on Part VII of the Act from 33 (see Annex A below) to 171 (see Annex B). The objectives of this chosen approach are to have all institutions better understand their obligations, identify more effectively the measures to be taken and report on them easily. The new approach will allow the Government:

  • to fully profit from the potential of each federal institution to enhance the vitality of Official Language Minority Communities and promote the full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society;
  • to obtain a full picture of the federal action in this area;
  • to ensure a more coherent implementation of the Act, through better coordination with Treasury Board Secretariat's reporting activities in official languages.

(For Annex A and B, see Appendix.)



Railway Safety Act Canada Transportation Act

Bill to Amend—Second Reading

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Eaton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen, for the second reading of Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

Hon. Terry M. Mercer: Honourable senators, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, or, in short, the Safer Railways Bill.

I would like to thank my honourable colleague Senator Eaton for her remarks on the bill and for her reference to one of the greatest songs in Canadian history, by Gordon Lightfoot, "Canadian Railroad Trilogy.'' She forgot to mention — it is interesting that I am speaking on this day — that this song was commissioned by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as part of Canada's centennial celebration in 1967. I am sure that the people at the CBC will be pleased to know the support they have from Senator Eaton in terms of this project. The song does help us realize how important the railway was in helping to create Canada, through the hard work and dedication of thousands of workers.

Honourable senators, the railway is very close to my heart. My grandfather and three uncles worked for Canadian National Railway all their working lives. I am reminded of the song that Senator Eaton referenced:

And when the young man's fancy was turning to the spring The railroad men grew restless to hear the hammers ring Their minds were overflowing with the visions of their day And many a fortune lost and won and many a debt to pay

Honourable senators, I had hoped that Senator Banks would accompany me on the piano, but we could not arrange that.

Honourable senators, while this is the first time we have seen this bill in the Senate, it is not the first time this bill has been before Parliament. It is virtually identical to Bill C-33, which was introduced in the other place in June 2010. That bill was reported back to the other place with amendments after committee hearings but died on the Order Paper with the call of the election.

We have seen throughout the history of the railway several accidents that have claimed the lives of many people.

On June 29, 1864, near the present-day town of Mont-Saint-Hilaire, Quebec, a train carrying many German and Polish immigrants fell through an open swing bridge into the Richelieu River, claiming the lives of about 100 people. This is the worst railway accident in Canadian history.

On September 1, 1947, in Dugald, Manitoba, there was an accident that claimed the lives of 31 people.

On February 8, 1986, 23 people were killed in a collision near Hinton, Alberta, between a Canadian National Railway freight train and a VIA Rail passenger train.

As you can see, we are no strangers to dangerous accidents. However, whether it is through mechanical failure, unsafe employee practices or bad management, we have a duty to ensure that safety rules and regulations exist in order to prevent such tragedies.

Honourable senators, that is why the Railway Safety Act was first implemented in 1989, with amendments in 1999. Bill S-4 seeks to further amend the act as a result of recommendations by an advisory panel in March 2008 that indicated that the act was working but that more needs to be done. The final report included 56 recommendations for improving rail safety, some of which require legislative changes to the Railway Safety Act.

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the other place also studied rail safety and issued a report in May 2008, which included 14 additional recommendations.

This all resulted in Bill C-33, which, as previously stated, died on the Order Paper.

Honourable senators, I believe my colleague has already presented the merits of the industry and of the bill quite well, but I would like to touch on some aspects of the bill that I feel are important to highlight.

The bill, among other things, requires companies to obtain a safety-based railway operating certificate indicating compliance with regulatory requirements. The bill introduces administrative monetary penalties and increases judicial fines and summary convictions. The bill enhances the role of safety management systems by including a provision for a railway executive who would be accountable for safety and a non-punitive reporting system for employees.

Honourable senators, in order to operate, a company must obtain an operating certificate. In order to obtain that certificate, they must adhere to strict regulations when it comes to safety, including the health and welfare of employees. It is interesting to note, honourable senators, that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the other place added a definition of "fatigue science'' to the bill, which I believe is important when it comes to safety.

Fatigue science is defined as:

. . . a scientifically based, data-driven and systematic method used to measure and manage human fatigue...

One can only conclude that including such a definition in the proposed legislation would improve upon the safety of a railway being operated by persons who are physically and mentally capable of doing so.

The bill also strengthens the transportation department's powers by introducing administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs, and increasing judicial penalties.


The maximum administrative monetary penalty is $50,000 for individuals and $250,000 for corporations. I also believe that these are per day and until compliance is reached.

The maximum judicial fines are $1 million for corporations, which is up from $200,000, and $50,000 for individuals, which is up from $10,000. For summary convictions, fines are increased to a maximum of $500,000 for corporations, up from $100,000, and $25,000 for individuals, again up from $5,000.

I believe this will not only ensure more compliance, but act as a deterrent to possible deficiencies in company safety procedures, let alone adherence to them.

Railway companies are no more above the law than any other company when it comes to safety.

Honourable senators, under this bill, each company must have an executive who is responsible for the safety management system of the company. These provisions also include the ability to make regulations to protect whistle-blowers. This is very important in the reporting of contraventions of safety systems and thus better ensures safer companies and a safer public.

Many stakeholders support this bill, including the unions. It is good to see that they were part of the review that led to the introduction of Bill C-33 and now Bill S-4. I applaud the Department of Transport for its efforts to ensure that labour organizations, whose members are on the front lines of railways, are represented and continue to be represented.

While there are many other aspects to this bill, it is clear that safety is of the utmost importance to the industry. We have similar safety systems in place in the air and marine sectors, so it seems only natural that rail should be brought in line with those industries.

I have many questions on several aspects of the bill, so I look forward to having this bill before the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications so that we may hear first-hand the process that got us to this point and also from the various groups that this bill seeks to protect.

In conclusion, honourable senators, I would like to thank the departmental officials and the Library of Parliament for their excellent briefings on this bill. I look forward to reviewing this bill further in committee.

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 Eaton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stewart Olsen, that Bill S-4, an Act to amend the Railway Safety Act, be read the second time.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time).

Referred to Committee

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

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

Medical Devices Registry Bill

Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Harb, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy, for the second reading of Bill S-202, An Act to establish and maintain a national registry of medical devices.

Hon. Judith Seidman: Honourable senators, legislators are obliged to weigh and consider both the costs and benefits to society of any piece of legislation before them. Bill S-202 reminds us, once again, how critical and often challenging a task this really is.

Bill S-202 is designed to establish a national and voluntary registry of medical devices that would contain the names and addresses of people who use implantable or prescribed home-use medical devices.

Honourable senators, this bill has been considered, reviewed and debated in this chamber, as well as in the other place, since its first introduction in 2003. It has had six different titles over these years and was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on two separate occasions. Each time this bill has come before the Senate, the very same concerns have been raised: Does this bill exceed federal jurisdiction? How will it function without the support of provincial and territorial governments? What impact will it have on the privacy of Canadians?

Over the years, there have been many requests to establish patient registries for medical devices. In every case, Health Canada has carefully reviewed the issues of establishing and maintaining such national registries, looking in particular at the potential benefits and associated costs.

Honourable senators, we can all agree that issues of health and safety are of the utmost importance for Canadians. Let us begin by examining the Canadian medical devices regime currently in place. Since coming into force in 1998, the goal of the Medical Devices Regulations, administered by Health Canada, has been to provide Canadians access to medical devices that are safe, effective and of high quality. The fundamental principle of the regulations is that safety and effectiveness of a device can best be assured through a balance of quality management system requirements, pre-market scrutiny, and post-market surveillance.

In fact, today, the Medical Devices Regulations under the Food and Drugs Act provides Health Canada with the authority to regulate both the safety of medical devices, as well as the manufacturers. The mechanisms currently in place do not compromise the privacy of the patient, the role of the physician, nor the jurisdiction of provinces and territories to regulate the practice of medicine. This is in stark contrast to the proposed bill.

Perhaps it is best noted here that the term "medical device'' covers a wide range of products used in the treatment, mitigation, diagnosis and prevention of diseases. Health Canada organizes these products into risk classes. Class I medical devices include such simple household items as toothbrushes and bandages, while Class IV, the highest risk category, includes such high-tech devices as pacemakers and implantable drug pumps. Health Canada maintains electronic databases of all licensed Class II through IV medical devices.

In addition to overseeing quality assurance in the pre-market, the current provisions and mechanisms comprise both necessary aspects of post-market surveillance, and those most relevant to this bill: implant registration for specific implantable medical devices and requirements for mandatory problem reporting. Together, these support the timely communication of risks to all Canadian hospitals, physicians and the general public. Moreover, manufacturers, importers and distributors are required to keep distribution records, to have written procedures in place to handle complaints, to investigate these complaints and to recall defective devices from the market. Manufacturers and importers must also report serious problems post-sale to Health Canada.

The Health Products and Food Branch Inspectorate is responsible for compliance and enforcement activities related to medical devices. Its risk-based classification system permits the monitoring of company recalls in real time. Although the manufacturer issuing the recall is legally responsible to report the details, Health Canada will often provide an additional press release.

Honourable senators, let us focus on these two necessary aspects of post-market surveillance: registration and reporting.

As for registration, the current regulations set out requirements to help track high-risk implantable devices. Devices subject to the requirements are listed in Schedule 2 of the regulations. The information collected includes a unique hospital identifier number. The hospital can link this unique identifier to personal information provided for a patient at the time of surgery. The patient also receives an implant registration card clearly identifying the manufacturer and device that he or she received during surgery. Patients also provide consent to participate in a process that provides their personal information to the manufacturer. The current system ensures that individual privacy is protected.


When a medical device is reported to be a problem, the manufacturer must provide a very detailed account including the name of the recalled device, the reason for the recall, the number of affected devices in Canada, and the device distribution lists. This regulated record-keeping facilitates the retracement of devices to the original purchasers — generally the hospitals. The hospitals are responsible for informing the patients and surgeons involved. This reporting system works well for a number of reasons. The patient generally will receive information from a familiar health professional who can begin to remedy the situation with all the critical knowledge of the patient's medical history and current condition. Also, the patient will receive the information about the recall within the confidentiality of the patient-physician relationship.

As for more general warnings and communications with the public, Health Canada has made enormous strides towards entering the digital age. The Health Canada website offers Canadians a wealth of information. The "MedEffect'' section provides consumers and health professionals with complete lists of advisories, warnings and recalls. The "Summary Basis of Decision'' documents that contain the original scientific reasoning and risk-benefit analysis performed by Health Canada in the device authorization phase are also available.

Canadians can also subscribe to public health and safety updates via RSS feeds, Twitter and email. These alerts provide instant information about drug advisories and device recalls. This system is an efficient tool for risk communication. It provides fast and timely alerts without violating the privacy of the individual. These measures demonstrate how Health Canada is adapting their services to meet the needs of Canadians in an increasingly technological society.

Health Canada also invites individuals to report adverse health events associated with their medical devices. Consumers can access this service through the Canada Vigilance program or through a hotline maintained by the department. In addition to the Canada Vigilance program, the Canadian Adverse Reaction Newsletter is a valuable source of information for consumers and health practitioners. It is clear that Health Canada continues to take the necessary steps to gather the appropriate information and communicate that information to the public.

Honourable senators, establishing a national implant registry raises a number of issues that must be considered. These include federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions and funding, the benefits of a registry versus its costs, the need to ensure privacy and informed consent, and the potential legal liability issues for the federal government as the registrar of such a system.

Under the current act and regulations respecting federal constitutional jurisdiction, the federal government is responsible for regulating the sale and importation for sale of medical devices. As laid out in the Food and Drugs Act and the Medical Devices Regulations, responsibility for the safety, effectiveness and quality of medical devices sold in Canada falls on the medical devices' manufacturers. The proposed bill has the potential to weaken the existing "duty of care'' responsibilities on the part of manufacturers.

The provinces and territories are responsible for the delivery of health care services, including the regulation of the practice of medicine through provincial and territorial licensing bodies. Requirements for physicians and other health care professionals to provide information to a registry must be supported by the provinces and territories.

Registries have been consistently problematic from the vantage of personal privacy rights under the Privacy Act. Neither Health Canada nor the manufacturers have direct access to the patient's identity under the current Medical Devices Regulations. To build a national database, a registry that would have real value, demands the collection of linked pieces of personally identifiable information, rarely permitted under any circumstances within our constitutional framework.

The implementation of a patient registry system at the national level would come with significant financial costs. Such a system would have to meet the needs of physicians, patients and researchers. It would require staffing and resources sufficient to monitor, detect and respond to safety flags immediately. Today, there are registries established by organizations intended to gather information in a post-market setting or to provide a service to an individual for a fee, such as MedicAlert and the Canadian Joint Replacement Registry, operated by the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

I would be remiss if I did not make some reference here to a certain degree of confusion that exists over the research value of registries, especially voluntary ones. They may provide a mechanism for contacting patients who have chosen to enrol and maintain their personal data on file. However, such registries are certainly not a replacement for randomized clinical trials or other carefully designed studies. They cannot lead to accurate estimates of incidence or adverse outcome rates, nor can they be used to compare different treatment options. A voluntary registry, such as the one proposed in this bill, will never provide an unbiased set of data as it will not contain the information for any whole or complete population of device users; nor will it contain an entire subset of patients with particular problem devices or failed devices.

Honourable senators, the high costs and serious challenges associated with the implementation of a voluntary national registry are not justified by the projected benefits. The current mandatory provisions for the reporting of device-related problems to Health Canada under the Medical Devices Regulations promote an appropriate balance between individual privacy rights and the mitigation of risks to health. Our government does not support Bill S-202.

Hon. Terry M. Mercer: Honourable senators, in politics you should always declare your conflicts as you begin to speak. As I speak on this particular bill, I have to say that I do have a conflict of interest. I have been the recipient of three implants through different knee replacements that I have had, so I do declare that. I would also say that gives me a bit of expertise in the field. I understand a little more about it perhaps than a normal Canadian citizen might who has not had the experiences I have had — both good and bad.

I have had, as I said, three knee replacements. Obviously one of them did not work. One of them brought me to 28 days in the hospital, with 14 days in intensive care in a coma because of infection that came a month or two after the surgery for my second knee replacement. People ask me whether I would do it again. I say "in a minute'' because today my knee replacements work extremely well. I am pain-free in my knees.

Honourable senators, I have listened carefully to what my colleague has said. I have had discussions with my orthopaedic surgeon and other orthopaedic surgeons whom I have encountered in my travels through the medical system dealing with my knees. By the way, I am not just an expert on my own. My sister has two artificial knees, my brother has two artificial knees and my oldest brother told me earlier this week, when I spoke to him in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, that he is now scheduled for surgery. It is not just because I am fat and old; it is because all of the Mercers must have weak knees. I am not sure where that came from. We have a family of experts, if you will.

In discussing with orthopaedic surgeons the issue of Senator Harb's bill in the past, my orthopaedic surgeon at the Queensway Carleton Hospital in Ottawa has told me that this would be a very beneficial thing to them. Therefore, I hope we will get this bill to committee so that we can have people like my surgeon and other orthopaedic surgeons come in and talk to us about this.

Several years ago, when I was on a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association trip to New Zealand, as we are allowed to meet with certain officials in the various countries we visit, I asked to meet with the registry people there, because New Zealand does have a registry for medical devices. I spent an afternoon with them, and Senator Harb and I talked after that. I am not sure that their registry is exactly the same as what Senator Harb has proposed — I did not think so — but this is a very worthwhile discussion to have. If we get this bill before committee, and we call the right witnesses, I think we will find out that the voluntary stuff is not doing the job that is necessary.


I would like to know that if something were to go wrong with the two artificial knees that I have, it is traceable. A lot of things worried me when I finally woke up from a coma. However, one of the things that worried me was if the problem was in manufacturing as opposed to handling it in the hospital. How many other knees were manufactured on that day? How many of those knees are being implanted today in some other innocent patient somewhere in Canada or elsewhere in the world? My surgeon told me there is no way of knowing where exactly those knees are because there is no registry.

There was a registry in Ontario at one time. It was paid for by the Province of Ontario, but in those sessions of budget cuts that governments go through in the cyclical fashion that governments fund things it was cut. The money was not there.

I hope when this bill goes to committee we will have an opportunity to review all of that data. I encourage all honourable senators to please support sending this bill to committee so that we can have a more detailed study of this very important issue.

The Hon. the Speaker: Are honourable senators ready for the question?

An Hon. Senator: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Harb, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy, that Bill S-202, An Act to establish and maintain a national registry of medical devices, be read the second time. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

The Hon. the Speaker: Adopted, on division.

(Motion agreed to, on division, and bill read second time.)

Referred to Committee

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

(On motion of Senator Harb, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.)


Agriculture and Forestry

Budget and Authorization to Engage Services and Travel—Study on Research and Innovation Efforts in Agriculture Sector—Third Report of Committee Adopted

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (budget—study on Canada's agricultural sector—power to hire staff and power to travel), presented in the Senate on November 1, 2011.

Hon. Percy Mockler moved the adoption of the report.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and report adopted.)


Human Rights

Budget and Authorization to Engage Services and Travel—Study on Issues Related to International and National Human Rights Obligations—Second Report of Committee Adopted

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, (budget—study on human rights obligations—power to hire staff and power to travel) presented in the Senate on November 1, 2011.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer moved the adoption of the report.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and report adopted.)


National Finance

Budget and Authorization to Engage Services and Travel—Study on Potential Reasons for Price Discrepancies of Certain Goods between Canada and the United States—Fourth Report of Committee Adopted

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance (budget—study on cross border shopping—power to hire staff and power to travel), presented in the Senate on November 1, 2011.

Hon. Joseph A. Day moved the adoption of the report.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and report adopted.)


Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Budget and Authorization to Engage Services and Travel—Study on Political and Economic Developments in Brazil—Second Report of Committee Adopted

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, (budget—study on the political and economic developments in Brazil—power to hire staff and power to travel) presented in the Senate on October 27, 2011.

Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk moved the adoption of the report.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and report adopted.)

Fisheries and Oceans

Budget and Authorization to Engage Services and Travel—Study on Issues Relating to Federal Government's Current and Evolving Policy Framework for Managing Fisheries and Oceans—Fourth Report of Committee Adopted

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, (budget—study on the evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans—power to hire staff and power to travel) presented in the Senate on October 27, 2011.

Hon. Elizabeth Hubley moved the adoption of the report.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and report adopted.)

Mental Health, Illness and Addiction Services in Canada

Inquiry—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Elizabeth Hubley rose pursuant to notice of June 23, 2011:

That she will call the attention of the Senate to the 5th anniversary of the tabling of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology's report: Out of the Shadows at Last: Transforming Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction Services in Canada.

She said: Honourable senators, I am asking for a little extra time as I make my preparations for this inquiry. I would ask that the clock now be restarted.

Some Hon. Senators: Yes. Restart the clock.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the rules will allow us to have a senator commence his or her debate. The rules call for an item to fall off the Order Paper at 15 days if the item is not spoken to. Are we understood that Senator Hubley has begun her speech and has therefore asked for the adjournment for the remainder of her time?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(On motion of Senator Hubley, debate adjourned.)

Canada's Innate National Modesty

Inquiry—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Tommy Banks rose pursuant to notice of October 27, 2011:

That he will call the attention of the Senate to the importance of Canada's innate national modesty.

He said: Honourable senators, I am sure that everyone here and probably everywhere has seen an article written in a British newspaper a long time ago that is laudatory of our forces' efforts in Afghanistan and in other previous conflicts as well. It makes the point that those contributions and sacrifices often go unnoticed by the rest of the world. In that article the author refers to Canada as a brave and modest nation.

The members of our forces are certainly brave, as all of us know, and Canada is widely known in the world as a modest nation. Sometimes we are even self-effacing, but we are almost always modest. We enjoy that reputation as individuals and as a nation. We do not ordinarily go in for self-aggrandizement. We do not often trumpet ourselves, except to ourselves. We are not known to seek or accept the idolization of our most widely achieved citizens. This modesty has, in the past, served us well in international affairs, particularly in the good old days when we used it along with our other attributes in our role as honest broker, as the seeker and often the proposer of modest and reasonable directions. One of the good effects of our unobtrusiveness was that when we did speak loudly or forcibly, great attention was paid simply because such things were rare.

This is a modesty that has in the past — so far as I have been able to find in an assiduous search — been observed by our political leaders of all stripes, none of whom seem to have sought or permitted personal glorification while in office. They were governing all of us, regardless of how we might have voted, regardless of whether they were lefties or righties. They always thought it proper in the headings of announcements to refer to the government of which they were the leader as the Government of Canada. They all seem to have been quite scrupulous in this regard when it came to announcing this or that grant program or meeting or proposal or policy. I think most Canadians have the impression that we are being governed by the Government of Canada.

This nicety is not a matter merely of etiquette or of courtesy. It is a matter of principle and propriety. It is one of those things about which we might in the short run say, "It does not really make much difference,'' but which in the long run concerning our political culture writ large will make a very large difference indeed.

In the present regime, the cult of leader worship seems to have got a toehold. Whether it is the Prime Minister himself who has decided to shift things in this direction or whether he merely decided not to oppose some sycophants, we now have leader worship finding its way into the headings of announcements by what most Canadians, I hope, think of as the Government of Canada.


It is in fact the Government of Canada, the government of all Canadians, that is making these announcements, but that is not what the headings on the announcements coming from government offices say. For the first time in our history, the Government of Canada is sending out press releases and the like saying that it is not the Government of Canada at all; it is the Harper government.

That is not something to be proud of. I am talking about these announcements.

Here is a collection of 45 such announcements, honourable senators. These announcements from the Government of Canada are about things that the Government of Canada is going to do, but they say things like the "Harper Government Invests in the Beaches International Jazz Festival,'' and "Harper Government Supports Weigl Educational Publishers,'' and "Harper Government Invests in Quebec Culture.''

An Hon. Senator: Why not?

Senator Banks: Why not? It is because it is improper and it has never been done before. That is why not.

Here I thought all along that it was the Government of Canada that was investing in Quebec culture and supporting the Beaches International Jazz Festival and supporting Weigl Educational Publishers — and these are not exceptions, honourable senators; they are now the rule. I certainly do not have them all here, but 45 is a pretty good representative sample.

You may think my complaint about this is picky; and it must be said that the Prime Minister has a great deal about which he is entitled to be immodest. He has united disparate interests into a cohesive political party, albeit with an iron hand, and he has succeeded in fashioning a majority government, as is well known, after a spate of minority ones by both parties. These are no mean achievements that the Prime Minister has accomplished.

I heard Mr. Harper make a speech at a Canadian military cemetery in Holland, the eloquence and elegance of which harked back to an older time in which we expected elegance and eloquence from our political leaders. He made me proud on that occasion, and he was modest.

Now, it is perfectly okay for the news media and interest groups, as they always have, to refer to the "Harper Government,'' as they have in the past referred to the "Martin Government,'' the "Mulroney Government,'' the "Trudeau Government'' and even the "Macdonald Government,'' in fact; but in my perhaps curmudgeonly view, our national government ought to recognize, at least in the headings of its own press releases, our natural reserve by calling itself by its proper name, which is the Government of Canada, rather than by the name of the interesting person who might from time to time be leading it.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Further debate?

(On motion of Senator Carignan, debate adjourned.)

The Senate

Motion to Urge Government to Officially Apologize to the South Asian Community and to the Individuals Impacted in the Komagata Maru Incident—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer, pursuant to notice of June 21, 2011, moved:

That the Government of Canada officially apologize in Parliament to the South Asian community and to the individuals impacted in the 1914 Komagata Maru incident.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to my motion urging the Government of Canada to officially apologize to the South Asian community and to the individuals impacted by the 1914 Komagata Maru incident.

May 23, 1914, was a sad day in Canadian history. May 23, 1914, was the day that the Komagata Maru, a ship carrying 376 people of South Asian descent, sailed from Japan to the shores of British Columbia. Unfortunately, after spending over one month at sea, the 12 Hindus, 24 Muslims and 340 Sikhs, all of whom were eager to start a new life in a country full of opportunity, were denied entry into Canada.

Honourable senators, the Komagata Maru incident occurred during a time in Canadian history when there was a deep-seated prejudice against minorities and immigrants, particularly those who were of South Asian descent. Unfortunately, these prejudices were supported by law.

In 1908, the Canadian government enacted the Continuous Passage Act, which required all immigrants to arrive on an uninterrupted journey from their point of origin to Canada. This created a significant barrier to immigration from Asia, as trips from most Asian countries involved stops at ports. For South Asians specifically, this act made it impossible for them to enter Canada as immigrants, since they needed to enter the country without stopping at any point and no steamship line provided this service.

In addition to the Continuous Passage Act, legislation was also adopted stating that immigrants coming into Canada from Asia were required to have $200 in hand upon their arrival. This was a large hurdle, as most people from South Asia who were looking to immigrate to Canada were often not in a position to bring such a substantial amount of money forward.

In 1914, a South Asian man by the name of Gurdit Singh, who was well aware that many South Asians were desperate to start a new life in Canada, took matters into his own hands. While on a business trip in Hong Kong, Mr. Singh chartered a ship, which was called the Komagata Maru, and decided to have it sail to Canada.

This ship sailed from Hong Kong to Vancouver with 12 Hindus, 24 Muslims and 340 Sikhs on board. The ship sailed from Japan to Canada without stopping, which was in compliance with the Continuous Passage Act. On May 23, 1914, when the ship finally arrived on the shores of Vancouver, none of the passengers was allowed to disembark.

There was a large movement of people, which included local community groups, politicians and government bodies, who came together to ensure that all of those on board the Komagata Maru did not step on to Canadian soil. As a result of these efforts, for two long months all 376 passengers were forced to stay on board the ship.

Not only was it made clear that their presence in our country was unwelcome, but also Canadian officials denied these South Asian passengers very basic necessities, such as food and water. For 63 long days, all those on board the Komagata Maru lived in extremely confined spaces, fighting hunger and dehydration.

Fortunately, members of the local South Asian community worked together and established what was called a "shore committee.'' The shore committee came together and advocated on behalf of all those who were on board. They found ways to bring food, water and other very basic necessities on board the ship. The shore committee also raised funds and engaged in legal battles and negotiations as they were determined to fight for the rights of the 376 passengers and help them start a new life in Canada.

All of those aboard the Komagata Maru waited patiently despite the fact that they were being forced to fight hunger and disease. All 376 passengers found strength in their hope that perhaps they would be granted entrance into Canada. They believed in Canada.

Unfortunately, on July 23, 1914, after spending over two months on Canadian waters, the Komagata Maru and almost all of those on board were forced to depart and return to Asia. The hopes and dreams of all those on board were crushed as their desire to start a new life in a country full of opportunity would not become a reality.

On September 27, 1914, when the Komagata Maru arrived in Calcutta, all the passengers on board were held as prisoners by British officials. Twenty passengers were killed; nine were wounded; and the others who had just spent six months in confinement on the ship were arrested and once again faced with confinement, this time in a prison cell.

Honourable senators, I am pleased to inform you that on August 3, 2008, Prime Minister Harper apologized to the South Asian community in Surrey, British Columbia, about the Komagata Maru incident. This apology was to the people of Surrey. However, the fact that this apology was not delivered in the House of Commons is not acceptable to many in the South Asian community.

Historically, the government has extended official apologies in Parliament to acknowledge injustice and wrongdoing. For example, in June of 2010, Prime Minister Harper delivered an official apology to those Aboriginal people who were victims of the Canadian residential school system. Similarly, in 2006 Prime Minister Harper delivered an official apology to Chinese Canadians who were unfairly taxed when immigrating to Canada.


Both of these apologies recognized the pain, suffering and injustice inflicted upon these communities. Both of these apologies were delivered in a respectful manner in Parliament. The 376 passengers on board the Komagata Maru, as well as all those people who were negatively affected by the racist and discriminatory immigration policies that existed at the time, deserve no different. They, too, should be given the respect that has been extended to other groups and receive an official apology in Parliament.

Honourable senators, I, along with many parliamentarians from all parties, had the pleasure of attending the fifteenth annual Mela Gadri Babian Da festival in Vancouver, which brought together over 10,000 members of the South Asian community. At the meeting, many people said that the time had arrived for them to receive an official apology in Parliament. I promised these people that I would introduce this motion on their behalf in the Senate. To the members of the South Asian community, the Komagata Maru incident serves as a constant reminder of all the struggles and difficulties they have been confronted with.

Honourable senators, all of those who were affected by the Komagata Maru incident deserve an apology in Parliament. The Canada I know is a country that embraces multiculturalism and welcomes people from all walks of life. The Canada I know prides itself on treating all people from all races, religions and creeds with fairness, respect, dignity. Although the Komagata Maru incident happened almost a century ago, it represents a very sad time in our country's history. I have heard from over 10,000 of my constituents in British Columbia, who have all expressed to me that they would like to be given the same respect that has been extended to other groups and receive an apology in Parliament.

Honourable senators, I stand before you and request that you give these people their dignity and that you support me in this effort to right our past wrongs. I present this motion on behalf of all members of the South Asian community as they have requested that I be their voice in Parliament. All we are asking is that the very same apology that Prime Minister Harper delivered with such sincerity in Surrey be delivered in Parliament.

(On motion of Senator Carignan, debate adjourned.)

Human Rights

Committee Authorized to Request a Government Response to a Report on the Study Of On-Reserve Matrimonial Real Property on Breakdown of Marriage or Common-Law Relationship

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer, pursuant to notice of June 23, 2011, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be authorized to invite the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to appear with his officials before the committee for the purpose of updating the members of the committee on actions taken concerning the recommendations contained in the committee's report entitled A Hard Bed to lie in: Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve, tabled in the Senate November 4, 2003; and

That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than June 30, 2012.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Committee Authorized to Monitor the Implementation of Recommendations Contained in a Report on the Study of International Obligations Regarding Children's Rights and Freedoms

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer, pursuant to notice of June 23, 2011, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be authorized to monitor the implementation of recommendations contained in the committee's report entitled Children: The Silenced Citizens: Effective Implementation of Canada's International Obligations with Respect to the Rights of Children, tabled in the Senate on April 25, 2007; and

That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than June 30, 2012.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)


Official Languages

Committee Authorized to Study Air Canada's Obligations under the Official Languages Act and to Refer Papers and Evidence since Beginning of Second Session of Thirty-ninth Parliament

Hon. Maria Chaput, pursuant to notice of November 1, 2011, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to examine and report on Air Canada's obligations under the Official Languages Act;

That the documents received, evidence heard and business accomplished on this subject by the committee since the beginning of the Second Session of the Thirty-Ninth Parliament be referred to the committee; and

That the committee report from time to time to the Senate but no later than March 31, 2012, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until June 30, 2012.

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 Thursday, November 3, 2011, at 1:30 p.m.)


Annex A

The 33 designated institutions are:

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Business Development Bank of Canada

Canada Council for the Arts

Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions

Canada Post Corporation

Canada School of Public Service

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Canadian Heritage

Canadian International Development Agency

Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Canadian Tourism Commission

Citizenship and Immigration Canada

Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada

Health Canada

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada

Industry Canada

International Development Research Centre

Justice Canada

National Arts Centre

National Capital Commission

National Film Board of Canada

Parks Canada

Public Health Agency of Canada

Public Works and Government Services Canada

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Statistics Canada

Status of Women Canada

Telefilm Canada

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

Western Economic Diversification Canada

Annex B

Institution Name

Nom de l'institution

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Agence de promotion économique du Canada atlantique
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Énergie atomique du Canada Limitée
Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Ministère de l'Agriculture et de l'Agroalimentaire
Public Health Agency of Canada Agence de la santé publique du Canada
Air Canada Air Canada
Montreal Port Authority Administration portuaire de Montréal
Canadian Artists and Producers Professional
Relations Tribunal
Tribunal canadien des relations professionnelles
Canadian Transportation Agency Office des transports du Canada
Office of the Auditor General of Canada Bureau du vérificateur général du Canada
Library and Archives of Canada Bibliothèque et Archives du Canada
Canadian International Trade Tribunal Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur
Belledune Port Authority Administration portuaire de Belledune
Bank of Canada Banque du Canada
Canada Border Services Agency Agence des services frontaliers du Canada
Blue Water Bridge Authority Administration du pont Blue Water
Courts Administration Service Service administratif des tribunaux judiciaires
Parks Canada Agency Agence Parcs Canada
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Société Radio-Canada
The Jacques-Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated La Société des ponts Jacques-Cartier et Champlain
Canadian Commercial Corporation Corporation commerciale canadienne
Canada Council for the Arts Conseil des Arts du Canada
Old Port of Montreal Corporation Inc.
(Canada Lands Company)
Le Vieux-Port de Montréal Limitée
(Société immobilière du Canada)
Canadian Dairy Commission Commission canadienne du lait
Office of the Chief Electoral Officer Bureau du Directeur général des élections
Canada School of Public Service École de la fonction publique du Canada
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis
Centre of Canada
Centre d'analyse des opérations et déclarations
financières du Canada
Canadian Grain Commission Commission canadienne des grains
Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat Secrétariat des conférences intergouvernementales canadiennes
Canada Lands Company Limited Société immobilière du Canada Limitée
Canada Industrial Relations Board Conseil canadien des relations industrielles
Canadian Museum of Civilization Musée canadien des civilisations
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Société canadienne d'hypothèques et de logement
Canadian National Railway Company Compagnie des chemins de fer nationaux du Canada
Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages Commissariat aux langues officielles
Copyright Board Commission du droit d'auteur
Military Police Complaints Commission Commission d'examen des plaintes concernant la police militaire
Canada Post Corporation Société canadienne des postes
Canadian Institutes of Health Research Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada
Canadian Space Agency Agence spatiale canadienne
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Centre canadien de lutte contre l'alcoolisme et les toxicomanies
Department of Human Resources
and Skills Development Canada
Ministère des Ressources humaines et
du Développement social
Communications Security Establishment Centre de la sécurité des télécommunications
Canadian Security Intelligence Service Service canadien du renseignement de sécurité
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire
NAFTA Secretariat - Canadian Section Secrétariat de l'ALÉNA - Section canadienne
Office of the Co-ordinator of Status of Women Canada Bureau de la coordonnatrice de la situation de la femme
Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Administration canadienne de la sûreté du transport aérien
Canadian Wheat Board Commission canadienne du blé
Defence Construction Canada Construction de Défense Canada
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Ministère des Pêches et Océans
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Société d'assurance-dépôts du Canada
Department of National Defence Ministère de la Défense nationale
Environment Canada Environnement Canada
Industry Canada Industrie Canada
Department of Veterans Affairs Canada Ministère des Anciens Combattants Canada
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Agence canadienne de l'évaluation environnementale
Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation Société d'expansion du Cap-Breton
Export Development Canada Exportation et développement Canada
National Energy Board Office national de l'énergie
Federal Economic Development Agency
for Southern Ontario
Agence fédérale de développement économique pour
le Sud de l'Ontario
Energy Supplies Allocation Board Office de répartition des approvisionnements d'énergie
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Affaires étrangères et Commerce international
Business Development Bank of Canada Banque de développement du Canada
Federal Bridge Corporation Ltd. Société des ponts fédéraux Limitée
Farm Credit Canada Financement agricole Canada
Canadian Forces Grievance Board Comité des griefs des Forces canadiennes
Telefilm Canada Téléfilm Canada
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation Office de commercialisation du poisson d'eau douce
Department of Finance Canada Ministère des Finances Canada
Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Bureau du Commissaire à la magistrature fédérale
Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Agence de la consommation en matière financière du Canada
First Nations Statistical Institute Institut de la statistique des Premières nations
Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency Agence de soutien du personnel des forces canadiennes
National Farm Products Council Conseil national des produits agricoles
Economic Development Agency of Canada
for Quebec Regions
Agence de développement économique du Canada
pour les régions du Québec
Office of the Governor General's Secretary Bureau du Secrétaire du Gouverneur général
Hamilton Port Authority Administration portuaire d'Hamilton
Canadian Human Rights Commission Commission canadienne des droits de la personne
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Affaires autochtones et développement du Nord Canada
Canadian Food Inspection Agency Agence canadienne d'inspection des aliments
Canadian International Development Agency Agence canadienne de développement international
International Development Research Centre Centre de recherches pour le développement international
International Centre for Human Rights and
Democratic Development
Centre international des droits de la personne et
du développement démocratique
Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada Ministère de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration
Office of Infrastructure of Canada Bureau de l'infrastructure du Canada
Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner Commissariat à l'intégrité du secteur public
Indian Oil and Gas Canada Pétrole et gaz des Indiens du Canada
Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners Commissariats à l'information et à la protection de la vie privée
Immigration and Refugee Board Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié
Department of Justice Canada Ministère de la Justice Canada
Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists Bureau du directeur des lobbyistes
Marine Atlantic Inc. Marine Atlantique Inc.
Hazardous Materials Information
Review Commission
Conseil de contrôle des renseignements relatifs
aux matières dangereuses
Canadian Museum of Nature Musée canadien de la nature
Royal Canadian Mint Monnaie royale canadienne
Transport Canada Transports Canada
National Arts Centre Corporation Société du Centre national des Arts
Canada Revenue Agency Agence du revenu du Canada
National Battlefields Commission Commission des champs de bataille nationaux
National Capital Commission Commission de la Capitale nationale
Canadian Northern Economic
Development Agency
Agence canadienne de développement économique
du Nord (CanNor)
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Table ronde nationale sur l'environnement et l'économie
National Film Board Office national du film
North Fraser Port Authority Administration portuaire de North-Fraser
National Gallery of Canada Musée des beaux-arts du Canada
Health Canada Santé Canada
Nanaimo Port Authority Administration portuaire de Nanaïmo
Northern Pipeline Agency Administration du pipe-line du Nord
National Parole Board Commission nationale des libérations conditionnelles
National Research Council of Canada Conseil national de recherches du Canada
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Conseil de recherches en sciences naturelles et en génie
National Museum of Science and Technology Musée national des sciences et de la technologie
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Centre canadien d'hygiène et de sécurité au travail
Office of the Correctional Investigator Bureau de l'Enquêteur correctionnel
Organizing Committee for International Summits Comité organisateur pour les sommets internationaux
Atlantic Pilotage Authority Administration de pilotage de l'Atlantique
Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Administration de pilotage des Grands Lacs
Laurentian Pilotage Authority Administration de pilotage des Laurentides
Pacific Pilotage Authority Administration de pilotage du Pacifique
Department of Canadian Heritage Ministère du Patrimoine canadien
Public Appointments Commission Secrétariat de la Commission des nominations publiques
Privy Council Office Bureau du Conseil privé
Parc Downsview Park Inc. Parc Downsview Park Inc.
Correctional Service of Canada Service correctionnel du Canada
Halifax Port Authority Administration portuaire de Halifax
Prince Rupert Port Authority Administration portuaire de Prince-Rupert
Canadian Polar Commission Commission canadienne des affaires polaires
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Bureau du directeur des poursuites pénales
Passport Canada Passeport Canada
Public Service Commission Commission de la fonction publique
Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Ministère de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile
Port Alberni Port Authority Administration portuaire de Port-Alberni
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne
Patented Medicine Prices Review Board Conseil d'examen du prix des médicaments brevetés
Quebec Port Authority Administration portuaire de Québec
Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada Agence canadienne de contrôle de la procréation assistée
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Civilian Staff) Gendarmerie royale du Canada (Personnel civil)
Registry of the Competition Tribunal Greffe du Tribunal de la concurrence
Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee Comité externe d'examen de la Gendarmerie royale du Canada
Ridley Terminals Inc. Ridley Terminals Inc.
Public Service Labour Relations Board Commission des relations de travail dans la fonction publique
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public
Complaints Commission
Commission des plaintes du public contre
la Gendarmerie royale du Canada
Canadian Race Relations Foundation Fondation canadienne des relations raciales
Department of Natural Resources Ministère des Ressources naturelles
Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications
Saguenay Port Authority Administration portuaire du Saguenay
Seaway International Bridge Corporation Limited Société du pont international de la voie maritime Limitée
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Bureau du Surintendant des institutions financières
Security Intelligence Review Committee Comité de surveillance des activités de renseignements de sécurité
Saint John Port Authority Administration portuaire de Saint-Jean
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Administration de la voie maritime du Saint-Laurent
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines
Statistics Canada Statistique Canada
Standards Council of Canada Conseil canadien des normes
Sept-Îles Port Authority Administration portuaire de Sept-Îles
St. John's Port Authority Administration portuaire de St. John's
Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada Bureau du Registraire de la Cour suprême du Canada
Department of Public Works and Government Services Ministère des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux
Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Tribunal d'appel des transports du Canada
Treasury Board (Secretariat) Conseil du Trésor (Secrétariat)
Thunder Bay Port Authority Administration portuaire de Thunder Bay
Toronto Port Authority Administration portuaire de Toronto
Canadian Tourism Commission Commission canadienne du tourisme
Trois-Rivières Port Authority Administration portuaire de Trois-Rivières
Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation
and Safety Board
Bureau canadien d'enquête sur les accidents
de transport et de la sécurité des transports
Public Service Staffing Tribunal Tribunal de la dotation de la fonction publique
VIA Rail Canada Inc. VIA Rail Canada Inc.
Vancouver Port Authority Administration portuaire de Vancouver
Department of Western Economic Diversification Ministère de la Diversification de l'économie de l'Ouest
Windsor Port Authority Administration portuaire de Windsor