Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
1st Session, 41st Parliament,
Volume 150, Issue 46
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker
- SENATORS' STATEMENTS
- QUESTION PERIOD
- ORDERS OF THE DAY
- Study on Accessibility of Post-Secondary Education
- Study on National Security and Defence Policies, Practices, Circumstances and Capabilities
- Study on Issue of Sexual Exploitation of Children
- Study on Current State and Future of Forest Sector
- Mental Health, Illness and Addiction Services in Canada
- Business of the Senate
- Appendix - Senators Lists
THE SENATE
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
The Senate met at 1:30 p.m., the Speaker in the chair.
Prayers.
Visitors in the Gallery
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, just before calling for Senators' Statements, it gives me great pleasure to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, the Honourable Bill Barisoff, M.L.A., who is here on the occasion of the adding to a new Black Rod for the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia a ring from the Senate of Canada.
Joining Speaker Barisoff is the Honourable Dale Graham, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick.
On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you, Mr. Speakers, to the Senate of Canada.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Hon. the Speaker: We are doubly honoured, honourable senators, to also have in our gallery His Excellency Joo-Hong Nam, Ambassador of the Republic of Korea, accompanied by Counsellor Yung-Soo Jung and Secretary Jin-Soo Kim, guests of the Honourable Senator Martin.
On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
North Slave Correctional Facilities
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, I recently had the opportunity to tour the North Slave Correctional Centre and North Slave Young Offenders Facility in Yellowknife. I was able to spend several hours viewing the facilities and talking with staff.
Mr. Blair Van Metre and Ms. Hollis Dimion, the two wardens, were very frank and informative.
These facilities are both less than 10 years old and are constructed to share certain facilities, such as the gymnasium and kitchen. The Young Offenders Facility is designed to hold 25 youth, while the adult centre has a capacity of 148.
At present, both facilities are operating below their maximum numbers. As a result, they are able to provide good supervision and excellent rehabilitative programs. Issues of alcohol and drug abuse are particularly prevalent.
There are also a number of prisoners with cognitive disabilities who are kept in a separate living area or "pod,'' as it is called. The adult centre houses a few medium security federal inmates whose homes are in the North. The vast majority — more than 88 per cent of the inmates — are Aboriginal people.
Staff have close and continuous contact with prisoners and are able to intervene when necessary. From time to time in the past, these facilities, especially the adult facility, have housed far more prisoners than they were designed to handle, peaking one month at over 190 inmates.
The wardens are justifiably proud of the good work they and their staff do. They feel they can handle increased numbers if forced. At the same time, they acknowledge that overcrowding increased tension among the population and made discipline more difficult. It also strained their ability to provide adequate programming. If overcrowding becomes as serious as it is in many provincial institutions, where facilities are operating at twice their capacity, they foresee major difficulties in continuing to provide a safe, productive environment.
A major concern for many jurisdictions is that Bill C-10 will lead to a rapid and substantial increase in inmate populations in provincial and territorial correctional centres. These prisoners, in overcrowded conditions with inadequate programming, will wind up graduating to federal prisons.
Instead of focusing on crime prevention and rehabilitation, Bill C-10 focuses on incarceration, turning correctional centres into punitive warehouses.
I urge honourable senators to visit correctional facilities in their own regions and see firsthand the impact that Bill C-10 will have on inmates and front-line staff, not to mention on provincial and territorial budgets.
(1340)
Visitor in the Gallery
The Hon. the Speaker: Just before calling on the next honourable senator, I would like to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the distinguished president of Mount Saint Vincent University in Halifax, Dr. Ramona Lumpkin.
On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome Dr. Lumpkin to the Senate of Canada.
Hope in the Colour of Orange
Memoirs by Dutch Canadians
Hon. Andrée Champagne: Honourable senators, the holiday season brought home delightful moments to all of us. One that was a marvelous surprise for both my husband Sébastien and I was a book. I am certain it will strike the fancy of all honourable senators, and you will want to share those precious moments. The book is called Hope in the Colour of Orange.
What is it all about? It could have been about that sentiment hidden in the hearts of most Montrealers that someday all the orange cones will have disappeared from our streets and bridges and that, again, traffic will flow on and around our island. That was not it.
Neither had it to do with the surge of the NDP in Quebec during the last election.
As Senator Dallaire would probably know, this colour orange relates to the Dutch civilian memories of war and liberation. His mother could well be a part of those stories.
Marika D'Ailly made this book possible. Marika was born in the Netherlands and moved to our continent in 1959 after completing her studies. She and her husband Jan lived in Minnesota for a while, then his career brought them to Calgary, Alberta, and then to Quebec, where they lived for almost 30 years.
Marika's love and devotion for the arts is what gave me the opportunity to get to know and love her. Their beautiful home atop Mont Saint-Bruno was a haven for young musicians and singers. Many of them gave their first recitals during her Sunday afternoon affairs.
A few years ago, the now-retired couple moved back to Alberta to be closer to their children and grandchildren. After arriving in Okotoks, Marika joined a Monday morning writing group. She met many people who also had been born in the Netherlands and had lived the war years there. They all started to recount and write their memoirs of those days. Marika put it all together, and Hope in the Colour of Orange was born.
The book lives in recognition and awe of all people everywhere who stand for the universal goodness of humanity and all the contributors who shared their heartfelt stories for this book.
Allow me to hope that you will make the effort to go to www.mondaymorningwritersgroup.com to find out how to get hold of this book and read their stories. They will warm your heart, and your interest will express to Marika D'Ailly our well-deserved thanks. It would be a nice way to tell her that we appreciate her love for the Canadians who liberated her country and those with whom she has spent all those years.
Visitors in the Gallery
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Shashwat Koirala and Mr. Rajendra Prasad Koirala.
They are guests of the Honourable Senator Frum.
On behalf of all senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.
Prince Edward Island National Park
Seventy-fifth Anniversary
Hon. Elizabeth Hubley: Honourable senators, 2012 marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of Prince Edward Island National Park. With over 21.5 square kilometres of protected sand dunes, barrier islands, white sand beaches, sandstone cliffs, wetlands and forests, the park provides a diverse habitat for a variety of birds and animals. In particular, the park's protected beaches provide a safe nesting habitat for the endangered Piping Plover, a small, sand-coloured, sparrow-sized shorebird.
The park is also home to cultural treasures such as Green Gables, made famous by L.M. Montgomery in her books about Anne, and Dalvay by the Sea, a national historic site.
The Greenwich adjunct to the Prince Edward Island National Park was added only 11 years ago, yet is an area rich in both beauty and culture as it has a unique parabolic dune system, rare plants and animals, and archaeological findings dating back 10,000 years.
Uniquely Canadian, Prince Edward Island National Park is a delight for Islanders and visitors alike, 365 days a year.
Oil Sands
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Event
Hon. Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie: Honourable senators, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, known as NSERC, aims:
to make Canada a country of discoverers and innovators for the benefit of all Canadians. The agency supports university students in their advanced studies, promotes and supports discovery research and fosters innovation by encouraging Canadian companies to participate and invest in post-secondary research projects. NSERC researchers are on the vanguard of science, building on Canada's long tradition of scientific excellence.
During the last fiscal year NSERC dispensed nearly $1.1 billion in pursuit of these objectives.
One of NSERC's five principal objectives is "Building Prosperity Through Research'' by connecting and applying the strength of the academic research system to addressing the opportunities and challenges of building prosperity for Canada.
The Canadian oil sands represent one of the world's largest reserves of petroleum, the material that powers our world through its energy and provides the source of the carbon for the principal building blocks of our flexible building materials, our clothing, our medicines and most of our consumer products.
During the past months we have listened in this chamber to a wide range of often divergent views on the role the Canadian oil sands should play in the future of our society. This fabulous resource can be properly developed to the advantage of all Canadians only through the application of scientific and engineering knowledge. Canadian scientists and engineers are doing just that: bringing knowledge-based solutions to the challenges of this great resource.
On Monday, February 6, I have the privilege of hosting, along with Dr. Suzanne Fortier, the president of NSERC, a kiosk-style event where all will have an opportunity, in a leisurely manner, to visit and chat with some of Canada's leading researchers. The scientists and engineers who will join us on Monday have conducted research that has found more efficient ways to upgrade bitumen, explored the role bacteria have to play in the sustainable management of the oil sands, and devised green chemistry processes that can mitigate the impact of tailings ponds, to mention only some of the work honourable senators will have the opportunity to explore.
Please come join some of Canada's most brilliant scientists, where parliamentarians will have the opportunity to get to know of the real challenges and their solutions to bringing this great Canadian resource to the benefit of society. On Monday, February 6, I invite all senators to join us in room 256-S — just down the hall — between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m.
The Late Mr. Claude Emery
Hon. Ethel Cochrane: Honourable senators, I rise today in tribute to an exceptional researcher, writer, fisheries expert and gentleman, Claude Emery, a long-time analyst with the Library of Parliament, who passed away suddenly on January 11, 2012, at the young age of 53.
I know many senators have served on the Fisheries and Oceans Committee over the years, and we all greatly respected and admired Claude's knowledge and skill.
I first met Claude in the late 1980s. I was relatively new to the Senate, and one of my first committees was fisheries and oceans, which, at that time, was chaired by the Honourable Jack Marshall. The committee was a strong and hard-working one and proved to be a great learning ground for myself and for Claude.
(1350)
Even then, he was known for his meticulous research, his clear concise writing and his outstanding work ethic. Never one to complain, Claude devoted himself to his work. He was a prolific report writer and would produce virtually flawless reports right on the first draft. You could literally pick up a copy of a report and know that Claude had written it because the words were all so well chosen and the content so clearly explained.
As those of us who have been here a while know all too well, that level of skill is very rare indeed and, in this case, I would say it was unparalleled. Claude could seamlessly weave together research and testimony to produce a report that truly reflected the thoughts, opinions and styles of all committee members. Again, as we know, that is an incredible feat.
He could be called upon at any time and would always welcome questions and requests with seriousness, with respect and with patience. Indeed, most often he would know the answers right off the top of his head, but he would always follow up later, quietly, discreetly, with additional information and sources that went to the heart of the issue.
That is just the way Claude was. He was quiet, humble, never one to draw attention to himself but always going above and beyond his duty.
Joe Gough, a former colleague and friend of Claude's, described him best when he wrote:
. . . Claude displayed a thoughtful, patient, and gentle personality. He never showed off his great knowledge of fisheries and oceans matters, because he had an even deeper knowledge of how to treat people.
. . . the Library of Parliament and the Senate have lost a gentleman of singular dedication and ability.
Honourable senators, I know you join me in offering sincere condolences to Claude's mother, his family and friends and, indeed, his colleagues.
QUESTION PERIOD
Justice
Comments by the Honourable Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu
Hon. James S. Cowan (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate and arises out of a news report that we have just received. The Globe and Mail article is titled "Murderers should be given tools to kill themselves in jail: Tory senator,'' and the quote is from our colleague Senator Boisvenu who has been front and centre as a spokesman for the government's tough-on-crime agenda.
My question arises out of his comment, and I will read into the record what he is reported to have said.
A tough-on-crime Conservative senator . . . said murderers should be provided with the tools to kill themselves in jail . . .
`Each assassin should have the right to a rope in his cell to make a decision about his or her life,' senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu told reporters ahead of a meeting of the Conservative caucus on Wednesday.
Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate advise whether this is the next step in this government's tough-on-crime agenda?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the government has been very clear on the whole issue of capital punishment. The government has made it very clear that this issue will not be brought back before Parliament. I was made aware of Senator Boisvenu's comments. I have also been made aware that Senator Boisvenu has stated he regrets making these comments.
Honourable senators, this was a regrettable statement. It was something Senator Boisvenu said that he regrets. However, having said that, we all live life experiences where perhaps we say things in the heat of the moment that we regret, especially those of us who have had to deal with great tragedies like Senator Boisvenu.
I do not think, honourable senators, that it contributes to the debate to have Liberal senators tweeting equally irresponsible statements.
Senator Cowan: I am not tweeting any statements, responsible or irresponsible. The honourable senator's government chose to put Senator Boisvenu up as the poster boy for the tough-on-crime agenda, so he is not just any ordinary member of the Conservative party, not any ordinary parliamentarian. He is the Conservative spokesperson on these issues and when he makes a statement like that, I think anyone is entitled to know whether that represents present or future government policy.
Senator LeBreton: I think I made that very clear in my answer. I said it was not present or future government policy. I think it behooves all of us to understand the situation and the circumstances that Senator Boisvenu has lived through in the past and lives in today and also to understand that he made a statement that he regrets.
[Translation]
Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire: Honourable senators, Senator Boisvenu was significantly affected by the tragedy his family suffered. He has endured a terrible loss. The Conservatives have asked him to spearhead a huge program. Do you not think it is inappropriate to turn to someone who has been so hurt and so psychologically affected by his experiences, to ask him to try to sell such a difficult program to Canadians, without recognizing the fact that you are going to continue to exploit this man and cause him further suffering? The end result is what we heard recently.
[English]
Senator LeBreton: That question is out of order and does not deserve a proper answer.
Environment
Regulatory Process
Hon. Nick G. Sibbeston: Honourable senators, my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate deals with regulatory reform.
The government has recently announced plans to reform the regulatory process in Canada. As you know, I have often advocated for changes to the regulatory process in the North. Projects are simply taking too much time and have become very costly. Industry needs certainty to succeed.
At the same time, Canadians want the environment to be protected and the integrity of the regulatory process maintained.
Changes can be made to make the system both more efficient and more effective. Efficiency means predictable timelines and no wasted efforts. Effectiveness means that projects with net social and economic benefits can proceed in an environmentally sound manner while dangerous ones are stopped.
The rights of Aboriginal people, whether confirmed by land claims or still under negotiations, as in British Columbia, must also be respected. Recently, various ministers have made provocative statements regarding the regulatory process, especially around the Northern Gateway pipeline. The Minister of the Environment has described his department as a strategic partner of business and talks about improving efficiency of the regulatory process. He does not mention effectiveness.
(1400)
A paper prepared by government officials in international trade described First Nations as adversaries of the government when it comes to development, and more seriously called the National Energy Board an ally. Although those ministers have disavowed the contents of this paper, there is now a public perception that the government has taken sides and is endangering the integrity of the regulatory process.
What steps will the government take to ensure the reform of the regulatory process is transparent, inclusive of all stakeholders and leads to a regulatory system that is both efficient in supporting development and effective in protecting the environment?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I thank the honourable senator for the question. He makes reference to comments by the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment on processes going forward to ensure that applications are dealt with in a timely manner. I do not have specific details, because the ministers have indicated an interest in working and streamlining this area. I will take that portion of the honourable senator's question as notice and ask for a report as to where we stand at the moment.
However, I do wish to point out that all of the processes they are involved in now go through a careful and comprehensive review process. The government does stand behind its position and wants to absolutely ensure that any proposal is safe, economically good for the country and environmentally sound.
Natural Resources
Oil Industry
Hon. Grant Mitchell: Honourable senators, the government has made much of the ethical oil argument in defending Alberta's interests abroad and in trying to bolster the government's anemic effort to enhance our environmental reputation abroad. The argument, of course, is that the U.S. should buy our ethical oil in order to replace the oil that is now bought from places like Iraq, Nigeria and Venezuela. The argument does not work particularly well because it is so transparent that people can see right through it. For example, if it is so important for the U.S. to stop buying unethical oil, what does that say about the kind of oil that Eastern Canada is forced to buy because they are buying it from exactly the same countries?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): The honourable senator would appreciate this most, being from the province of Alberta. Resources are important to our country's short- and long-term economies. Our resources in this country are the foundation for the ability to expand, grow and pay for the social services that we provide for our citizens and a host of other things. Hundreds and thousands of people's lives and jobs depend on our resource industries.
With regard to our oil resources, obviously it is in the interest of all Canadians to see these resources developed for Canada to take its proper place as a leading energy power in the world.
I was somewhat pleased, honourable senators, to see the leader of the Liberal Party of Alberta — which was a position the honourable senator once held — take a position quite the opposite to the one that the honourable senator and his leader in the House of Commons take.
Senator Mitchell: We all know we have to develop those resources for the good of Canada. We all know it is difficult to sell them to the U.S. if we cannot make the case that we know and are doing something about climate change. However, the leader is missing my point. The point is if it is unethical for the U.S. to be buying oil from those countries, what kind of position does that put Eastern Canada in? They are buying oil from the same countries.
There is a second feature of this argument, and that is that the U.S. should buy Alberta oil because it is more secure. If it is important for the U.S. to buy Alberta oil because it is more secure, what does that say about the vulnerability to the international insecurity of oil supply and oil tsunamis that the Eastern Canadian provinces are subjected to, because they too are buying that very same oil? What is the government doing about that?
Senator LeBreton: Obviously, the majority of our oil and gas reserves are in the honourable senator's province, and in Western Canada. There are many pipelines, as we know, coming to Eastern Canada. The issue here is access to markets. The honourable senator is absolutely right. This is what is so curious: some of the oil that the honourable senator speaks of that comes from Eastern Canada or to the United States is shipped by tankers and, environmentally, a pipeline is much safer. I therefore realize, honourable senators, that much of the oil supply to Eastern Canada does come from offshore. As we develop our resources going forward, hopefully situations can be developed that will ensure our oil is available not only around the world and to our Asian customers, but also to Canadians.
Senator Mitchell: Now the leader is starting down the right road.
Asbestos
Hon. Grant Mitchell: Honourable senators, as enamoured as the Conservatives have been with this argument of ethical resources — defending and selling our resources using the moniker ethical oil, ethical resources — it is interesting that we have never heard them refer in that context to ethical asbestos. Is that because even this government, in its heart of hearts, knows there is nothing ethical about selling asbestos, no matter how you cut it?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I have answered questions in this place before about asbestos. There is scientific evidence that the asbestos exported out of Canada is exported in a completely safe way. It is of no danger, provided that it is used as instructed.
Senator Mitchell: We have scientific evidence that your crime agenda is not going to work, so why does the government not stop that, too?
Senator LeBreton: Senator Mitchell, I actually should not answer that. However, the honourable senator should sit down sometime when he has nothing else to do — which I cannot imagine — and go back and read Hansard and have a look at some of the ridiculous things he says.
National Defence
F-35 Aircraft Procurement
Hon. Wilfred P. Moore: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Yesterday, India announced it has chosen the French-made Rafale fighter as their combat aircraft of the future. They decided to purchase 126 aircraft for $11 billion. There are a couple of interesting things about this purchase. For one, the Indian government did something completely novel and held a competition to determine which plane best fit the country's needs. I quote:
The process was started with the issuing of a global tender in 2007 after which all the six contenders were subjected to extensive field evaluation trails by the Indian Air Force at several locations across the globe.
The Indian government held an open, transparent competition and arrived at the best fighter for their needs.
Further, from a government source:
Eighteen fighter aircraft will be delivered in "fly away'' condition within three years and the remaining 108 are to be built by state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. through technology transfers.
That is to say the remaining 108 remaining aircraft will be built in India and technology transfers will occur. This deal goes beyond reasonable benefits and directly provides jobs to Indians in India, unlike the deal that the Government of Canada has been selling, wherein Lockheed Martin does not provide any technology transfers, there is no guarantee of work in Canada, and frankly, the Rafale actually exists, unlike its F-35 counterpart.
(1410)
I ask the Leader of the Government whether she sees the wisdom in what the government of India has done. Will she not urge her cabinet colleagues to take a long look at what India has done, thereby possibly saving Canadians billions of dollars and much grief over this F-35 purchase?
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I appreciate the honourable senator's question, but far be it from me to answer him or provide to him details or comment on details of an aircraft purchased by a sovereign government of which I am not a part, and that is the Government of India.
With regard to the F-35s, this was a process that was begun under the previous government — the honourable senator's government — and it was his government that entered into this process. This is a good aircraft.
Senator Moore is quite incorrect to suggest that this does not assist Canadian workers. Already, Canadian workers are benefiting from many contracts — I have put them on the record here before — from the decision to participate in this global joint strike fighter program. It is creating good-quality jobs in the aero-technology industry. I would invite anyone to suggest to one of the aerospace industries in Montreal that we should not be participating in this program, because right now they are working on contracts directly related to this joint strike fighter program.
Senator Moore: It may be that the Liberal government participated in the funding of the research with respect to the development of an aircraft, but I do not remember anyone in the Liberal Party saying we will not have a competition to determine which plane is the best fit, this one or some other aircraft. It is one thing to say that we may be doing a little bit of work with regard to some parts, but that is not the same as building the whole aircraft in Canada. It is not the same as having all the technology transferred to Canada. It comes nowhere near the monies that are going to be spent. The latest figure on the F-35 is $150 million per copy. The Americans are buying them for themselves and are now wondering where the numbers will end up, because they do not know, and they are the ones building it.
I would like the leader to try to reconcile those facts with what she just said.
Senator LeBreton: First, we dispute the $150-million figure that the honourable senator cited. There are planes that have been manufactured that are actually off the assembly line. They are flying.
As I think the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister of National Defence have stated, we are carefully monitoring the situation in the United States with regard to their economy, but that does not change our position that we believe the F-35 is an aircraft that meets the needs of Canada and of our commitments to NATO. I would suggest to the honourable senator that at this very moment, there are more than just a few odd jobs for Canadians who participate in this program.
[Translation]
Finance
State of Economy
Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Affecting humility, the Prime Minister told the nations of the world that Canada is a model of good management, but now Canadian economists are challenging his model.
Recently, two Bank of Montreal economists observed a contraction in the Canadian economy and suggested that the latest round of budget cuts could harm our faltering economy. Also, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives estimated that 60,000 jobs could be lost because of the cuts, with the hardest-hit sectors being reserve housing, First Nations health care, support for low-income families and unemployed workers, and elder care.
How can the government tell the world that it is a model of good management practices when its actions have resulted in lower federal revenues and higher deficits, jeopardizing both the economy and the most vulnerable Canadians? How can the government call itself a model of good management when it has cut corporate taxes without investing in research and development, and it now plans to cut retirement pensions?
[English]
Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, we are very happy with the claim, however, it is not the government that is making the claim but the IMF and the OECD. It is bond-rating agencies that have made the claim about Canada's superior-performing economy. I read the report this morning.
Senator Hervieux-Payette often gets up and reads into the record some report of some economist. Oftentimes, with the passing of time, these are just opinions of people who comment on any number of things the government does. Tomorrow in the paper perhaps there will be three or four reports of some other point of view.
What we are dealing with is an economy that has been applauded by the IMF and the OECD. This economy has created 610,000 new jobs since the economic global downturn in 2009. There are many positive things about our economy and our country. I leave it to the honourable senator to find two or three people who obviously have something gloomy to say and read it into the record.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I thank the minister for point out that my sources are economics experts. I do not think that Bank of Montreal economists would have released their findings unless they were very well informed about the situation. In his January 2012 report, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Carney, noted an economic slowdown, and this government's proposed measures will exacerbate that trend.
[English]
According to Statistics Canada, Canadians now have a debt-to-income ratio of 153 per cent. I am updating that number because it was 147 per cent before Christmas. The fact of the matter is that Canadians are getting more and more indebted by high-ratio mortgages.
As the leader knows, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney have been warning for months that Canadians have been racking up more debt than they can sustain as a result of a long period of ultra-low interest rates. Of course, the U.S. will maintain those rates until 2014, so we can expect to be there also.
Furthermore, CMHC has recently issued a notice to banks and other lenders that it is nearing the limit on mortgage insurance it can offer them. They are almost at the top of what they can offer.
Will the government commit to tightening mortgage rules to reduce the increasing risk of mortgage defaults and the ease of access to credit that could jeopardize the Canadian financial system and also the economic situation of the Government of Canada?
Senator LeBreton: Absolutely, honourable senators. What the honourable senator stated about the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance is exactly what they have been saying. They have been clearly speaking out about Canadians being overextended. Clearly, the mortgage rates have contributed to this. The honourable senator's friends at the Bank of Montreal announced a couple of weeks ago with regard to mortgage rates. The government and the Minister of Finance have taken action. The minister has strengthened mortgage rules to protect Canadians from buying a home that they are not financially able to sustain.
I agree with the honourable senator that this is a concern. However, as anyone knows who has been watching the Minister of Finance for the last few months, he constantly is expressing his concern and taking actions to mitigate this problem. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has done likewise.
(1420)
We know that the global economy is very fragile. That is why we are still working on job-stimulus programs to keep Canadians working. We readily recognize and acknowledge all of these things. The government monitors them on a daily basis and has taken lots of actions to resolve the problem.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: The government made some modest steps in reducing amortization from 35 to 30 years — I think 25 years would be the standard for OECD countries — and also increasing to 5 per cent the minimum amount that people should put down to buy a house; in Europe it is 10 per cent.
I think we just have to adjust. This will take a little bit of courage on the part of the government, because this is one way of at least slowing down the increase in the indebtedness of Canadians.
Is the leader willing to bring that to the cabinet table and ask them to act on this immediately?
Senator LeBreton: The Minister of Finance did reduce the mortgage life down to 30 years and ensured that people could not refinance more than 85 per cent of the value of the home. These are things that the Minister of Finance does on an ongoing basis.
I will be happy to give the Minister of Finance a copy of the honourable senator's comments here in the Senate, but I will not be giving him anything that he does not already know and is not already looking to take action on.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Study on Accessibility of Post-Secondary Education
Sixth Report of Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee and Request for Government Response—Debate Adjourned
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology entitled Opening the Door: Reducing Barriers to Post-Secondary Education in Canada, deposited with the Clerk on December 22, 2011.
Hon. Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie: Honourable senators, I move:
That the report be adopted and that pursuant to rule 131(2), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development being identified as the minister responsible for responding to the report.
He said: Honourable senators, before I make some comments with regard to the report, I would like to acknowledge some people who have been instrumental in having this report come forward to the Senate. The first in that regard is Senator Callbeck, in whose name this order of reference stands and who brought the order before the Senate and has been with us to see it through to this point.
I would also like to acknowledge Senator Eggleton, the co-chair of the committee, who was the chair for most of the time that this report was under consideration. I want to acknowledge his leadership in bringing this report forward.
I would also again like to acknowledge Senator Seidman and Senator Eggleton for the rather extraordinary efforts they put into helping their colleagues ensure that this report reached a point where the whole committee could, in the end, support the report.
Honourable senators, while much of the debate surrounding access to post-secondary education deals with the issue of the cost of tuition, the reality is that one of the major barriers to accessing post-secondary education is a failure to complete secondary education. Our report deals with these issues, as well as other major issues such as the issue of under-represented groups — there is a whole range of issues in that area — and it also directly addresses the specific issue of the under-representation of males in post-secondary education. The report goes on to deal with a range of financial issues that are important factors in getting into post-secondary education and at the PSE level itself.
Honourable senators, I know some of my colleagues will speak specifically to the report as a whole, but before we go there, I would like to give you an indication of some of the areas that the report covers and where recommendations are made.
The issue of dropout rates is a major factor dealing with not getting through secondary education, of course. We looked at that and we have made recommendations.
The socio-economic issues are so important in the K-to-12 series of issues facing students, which include the family environment. We have the nature of the K-to-12 system itself and the issue of information on the value of post-secondary education. We heard repeatedly that there is not sufficient awareness of the value to young people of pursuing post-secondary education, and therefore dedicating themselves to getting through the secondary level.
We also had the issue of information in a number of areas, including support programs for students. We had the issue of encouraging small- and medium-sized enterprises to support continuing education and training for their employees. Obviously, we dealt with a major issue that deals with Aboriginal issues, the Metis and non-status First Nations.
We have a number of recommendations regarding harmonization of assistance program information and regular reviews of programs. At the post-secondary level, we recognized the importance of research in stimulating students to be motivated at the post-secondary level and to continue their efforts at that level.
We have issues dealing with access to government support programs for low- and middle-income students at all levels, including graduate students; research grants to community colleges; and review of mechanisms for grants to small universities. We dealt with the issue of a national strategy for post-secondary education to remove funding for post-secondary education from the Canada Social Transfer program.
We looked at the idea of a national strategy for the transfer of credits at the post-secondary level and recognizing the issues of prior learning skills, as well as the concept of a national support for online learning, an underutilized area in many areas of low accessibility to secondary and post-secondary education.
We also identified the need for more research and ongoing collection of good data to help deal with the factors that influence post-secondary education participation and ultimate completion.
We identified the need for a budget for pilot projects, with a promise for improving access and participation of under-represented groups. Indeed, we recognized and recommended on the issue that we have had in Canada for a long time, the devaluation of technical and college training versus the idea of university training. We have recommendations in those areas.
Honourable senators, in the end, our committee believes this is a very useful report and, after you have heard further comments from my colleagues, I hope you will support this motion.
(On motion of Senator Callbeck, debate adjourned.)
Study on National Security and Defence Policies, Practices, Circumstances and Capabilities
Fourth Report of National Security and Defence Committee—Debate Continued
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the consideration of the fourth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, entitled Answering the Call: The Future role of Canada's Primary Reserve, tabled in the Senate on December 15, 2011.
Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, as chair of the Standing Senate Committee of National Security and Defence, I had the honour of presenting to this chamber on December 15 the latest report from the committee, Answering the Call. It is about the future role of the reserves, those men and women who are truly citizen soldiers. They hold down jobs or attend school, but, when their country calls, they always answer "yes.'' We could not have mounted the missions in Afghanistan or Haiti, or responded to floods, ice storms or wildfires without them. They are indispensable to military missions at home and abroad.
(1430)
After hearing 19 formal witnesses, we recommended, among other things, that the size and strength of the reserves be protected and enhanced in the transformation process; that training be increased; that the pay system be simplified and have a protected funding line; and that we use their specialized civilian skills to better effect in areas such as health care or cyberdefence.
I had intended to speak about this report in detail, to shine a light on the contributions of the reservists to communities across this country, and to praise their citizenship and leadership and their commitment to country. Instead, I must take time today to correct the many gratuitous, inaccurate and mean-spirited misrepresentations read into the record by the committee's deputy chair.
He stated that the committee operates in a partisan manner. To be clear, the senator signed off on the report. Many concessions were made to accommodate him and his point of view. We worked together, we compromised, and time was not our friend. As a committee, we wanted to contribute to the debate now under way on the future of our military, and it was important that the testimony we heard and the recommendations we agreed upon would be part of the government's considerations. We knew the time frame was short, as much of the debate would be taking place during the parliamentary break. That is why senators, our staffs and Senate staff worked diligently — some of them literally through the night — to complete the report and overcome some real problems with the quality of translation. We asked members on both sides, such as Senator Nolin, to try to edit and improve the translation and to read drafts in French and English to try to reconcile the problems.
Senator Dallaire agreed in private and then changed his mind when his colleagues were present. He had proposed long lists of witnesses whom he wanted to hear from, people who shared his views, and he even suggested we study other studies. Well, all I can say is that my members can read, so I do not know why we would study studies that are complete and available. That is a partisan decision in his mind. In mine, it was using our limited time effectively and wisely.
The deputy chair may not have been satisfied with this report, but others were. Interestingly, the report has been praised publicly by the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, and the Reserves 2000 group strongly supports our conclusions. I have personally received dozens of calls, emails and letters saying the report "had got it right.'' Others noted our report was very helpful in shaping the decisions now under way about the role of the reserves.
That is our mandate, namely, to contribute to the policy and decision-making debate, to be constructive and realistic. It is easy just to stand on the sidelines and criticize or attack; it takes work to do it right.
The work of this chamber is for grown-ups, and I challenge committee members to do their homework, to come with ideas, an open mind and a willingness to work so we can all play a constructive role in helping to shape a new military and security system that works for this country, its citizens and for those who serve it so selflessly and at great risk.
Some members opposite are finding it difficult to understand that the reports of this committee, under my leadership, will be based on testimony and not on the opinions or biases of members. We will not first decide the conclusions and then write a report to fit some personal point of view.
The deputy chair also stated that the committee is run in an ad hoc manner, that our order of reference, which is, in fact, the standard language for an order of reference, was unfocused. The list of eight topics, which he decried as just an array of ideas and not a plan, is, in fact, what I spelled out for the Internal Economy Committee while seeking budget approval. More puzzling still, while criticizing my list of eight, he then sent me a list of seventeen topics that he wanted studied. That is quite an array of ideas and twice as long a list.
At the time of the deputy chair's remarks, I was angry that he would choose the path of personal attack. Upon reflection, however, it is sadder still that, when faced with a choice, he chose partisan politics over the interests of the men and women he purports to care about.
Defence and security matters in the post-9/11 world are complicated and many, and we need to be more nimble and aware if we are to make timely contributions. Since I took over chairmanship of this committee, we have prepared and presented an influential report on Afghanistan. We presented an interim report on the Arctic that set the stage for debate on many key issues, including search and rescue, sovereignty and equipment needs. We also looked at reinstating the traditional names for the services and advised change, and we have now seen the return to the royal designations for the air force and navy that have been embraced by our veterans and current serving members alike.
We have reacted quickly to the issues of the day. An assassination attempt in Washington, alleged to have been the work of a faction of the Iranian government, prompted us to look at Iran and what tools are at the government's disposal to send messages to try to promote change in bad behaviour. Tools such as sanctions and trade restrictions send powerful signals. Just yesterday it became clear that our government had listened to the testimony as it moved to toughen and broaden sanctions.
Honourable senators, reports, hearings and testimony do influence governments to act if one is timely in one's advice.
At our committee, we were among the first to question the new RCMP Commissioner to determine his priorities and vision and to serve notice that we would hold him accountable.
One former member opposite actually suggested that the committee could grab more headlines and attention — clearly what he thought was most important — if we set up a sort of kangaroo court to try the RCMP, an approach often favoured by earlier incarnations of this committee.
Let me be clear: we will not besmirch the reputations of the many, declaring them guilty by association, with the alleged sins of the few. We will hold leadership accountable, but we will not engage in gratuitous attacks — not on my watch.
Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh.
Senator Wallin: Again, at our first upcoming meeting this year, we will have Lieutenant General Charlie Bouchard, who led the NATO operation in Libya, reporting on lessons learned in Libya, our role in NATO and what it means for future missions. We will hear from him. He is a Canadian war hero.
We will have high-level reporting on the mission in Kandahar and the wind-up operation that would make any corporation blush at the efficiency and expertise invented and employed by the Canadian Forces. We will assess the training operation now under way in Kabul.
I was in Afghanistan in November, and I think both this chamber and the Canadian public would be impressed with more direct knowledge of our heroic and internationally praised efforts from those on the ground. I had the benefit of watching the training mission firsthand; it is well worth greater understanding. The rest of our allies think we are leaders in the world in these efforts. We will use technology to hear reports from the field.
Through all of this, we will be looking at the transformation of our forces through the eyes of the men at the helm of our three forces — the RCAF, the Royal Canadian Navy and the army — and, of course, we will hear from the Chief of the Defence Staff. What could be more relevant to ensure that we are in a state of readiness? That is, after all, the core purpose of a national military.
As we watch our allies engage in the same process, it is important that we understand each other's intent going forward, because, on battlefields or in the skies, we need to have each other's backs. Defence and security approaches must be coordinated and complementary. Policies must match the needs and expectations of our publics and our partners. All of our defence and security issues must be looked at specifically in the context of the special Canada-U.S. relationship, as allies and signatories to shared defence arrangements like NORAD and to shared border accords such as the one signed by the Prime Minister and the President.
These are all issues on the nation's defence and security front burner, and these are the files on which we, as a Senate committee, will render some informed judgment and, in the process, advise government and inform the public. It is a more complicated world. It is changing in real time and issues are interconnected. I am truly sorry that that some members opposite think this is ad hockery. I think it is a responsive, relevant, responsible and timely approach.
(1440)
We intend to be constructive and critical when necessary, but not as our only intent or motivation. That approach may generate heat but will seldom cast light, just aspersions. It may get you airtime or a headline, but it seldom leads to actual improvements in how our defence and security forces actually function or are funded.
As I have had time to consider the senator's remarks, I have come to believe that he was truly not motivated by either a concern for form or content. I really think this is about loss of control. The members opposite want to run the committees the way they used to and to study the issues that are of personal interest to them or that are in the interests of their beleaguered colleagues in the other place. They lost that right when they lost the confidence of the people. Theirs is a legitimate view of the world, but it has been rejected. Others now have a chance to do it differently and the voters too will pass judgment in due course.
As chair, I do not believe that in committee we should simply point a finger of blame and that somehow that will absolve us of personal responsibility as parliamentarians to solve problems and be realistic about what government can and should do. I was puzzled that Senator Dallaire tried to suggest that he both supports the report and yet feels it is inadequate. Which is it?
Let us focus on the work at hand, which is substantial: transformation in the era of the post-combat mission in Afghanistan and our relationship with the U.S. are as core as our relationship with NATO and its future. We must examine how cuts in defence spending by our key allies will impact us and our operations under way. We need to look at our own state of readiness, as that is the raison d'être of a military.
We will examine proposed legislation that the house sends to us. We will look at how we deal with so many foreign policy challenges and security threats that we face as a nation. As the Prime Minister said:
If you're going to put young Canadians in harm's way, the most we can do is the least we should do:
We Conservatives will give the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces the equipment they need, and the respect they deserve!
He also said that Canada is "a courageous warrior, a compassionate neighbour, a confident partner . . .'' whose ". . . purpose is no longer just to go along and get along with everyone else's agenda.''
I ask honourable senators — I implore honourable senators — to step up, to put the politics of bitterness aside, and to do what is right for your country —
Senator Mercer: I cannot believe she said that!
Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh!
Senator Wallin: — and for those who put their lives on the line to defend it.
You have had your say, and now I have had mine. Let us put our differences aside and adopt this report as a show of respect and support for those men and women of the reserves who risk their lives so that we might indulge ourselves in this free and open debate.
Honourable senators, I ask that the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, entitled: Answering the Call: The Future Role of Canada's Primary Reserve, be adopted at this time.
The Hon. the Speaker: On debate, honourable senators.
(On motion of Senator Mitchell, debate adjourned.)
[Translation]
Study on Issue of Sexual Exploitation of Children
Third Report of Human Rights Committee Adopted
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Jaffer, seconded by the Honourable Senator Chaput, that the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, entitled The Sexual Exploitation of Children in Canada: the Need for National Action, tabled in the Senate on November 23, 2011, be adopted and that, pursuant to Rule 131(2), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report.
Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, we move to adopt the motion.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to and report adopted.)
Study on Current State and Future of Forest Sector
Second Report of Agriculture and Forestry Committee Adopted
On the Order:
Resuming debate on motion of the Honourable Senator Mockler, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wallace, for the adoption of the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, entitled: The Canadian Forest Sector: A Future Based on Innovation, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on July 5, 2011;
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Mahovlich, that the motion to adopt the report be amended by adding the following:
"and that, pursuant to rule 131(2), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Natural Resources being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report''.
Hon. Fernand Robichaud: Honourable senators, I move the adoption of the report.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to and report adopted as amended.)
[English]
Mental Health, Illness and Addiction Services in Canada
Inquiry—Debate Continued
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Hubley, calling 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.
Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, it is difficult for me to believe that it has been five years since the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology tabled its report, entitled: Out of the Shadows at Last: Transforming Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction Services in Canada. As a member of that committee, I still have vivid memories of the testimony of many individuals from across the country recounting their heart-wrenching stories. So much of the report can be attributed to those brave Canadians who shared their stories with the committee. They are true champions and leaders in the field of mental health, mental illness and addictions.
We can hear from organizations and health care professionals here in Ottawa, but it is the very personal stories and experiences that bring home the seriousness that poor mental health can have on Canadians who have a mental illness and on their families.
Honourable senators, the fact is that one in five Canadians will suffer from some form of poor mental health in their lives. This is an issue that affects every Canadian: a loved one, a family member, a co-worker. Everyone, even those in this chamber, probably has someone in their lives who will experience poor mental health at some time in their lives.
When the committee concluded its study on health care, it was unanimously decided that the committee's next study was to be on mental health in Canada. Senator Kirby, who was the Chair of the Social Affairs Committee at that time, went around the table and asked senators what area of health care we should focus on next. Every senator around the table said "mental health.'' Each senator on the committee at the time had had a close friend or family member who suffered from poor mental health at some time. Not only was the decision unanimous, but every member of the committee felt passionately about the issue.
(1450)
Honourable senators, it was quickly evident from our study of Canada's health care system, and as we began our study on mental health and addiction issues, that mental health initiatives, treatment and mental health understanding in Canada was drastically underfunded and under-serviced. As Senator Hubley so eloquently addressed during this inquiry, this was particularly the state of mental health and addiction services in Canada's First Nations and Inuit communities.
As the study on Canada's mental health and addictions system and services progressed, several discouraging themes became apparent: A lack of a national policy or strategy; a real lack of understanding of mental health issues among the public, leading to the devastating stigma and discrimination of those experiencing mental health problems; and a lack of initiatives and understanding from the private sector.
In order to ensure that programs and research initiatives would operate most effectively and efficiently, the committee recognized that there was a need for a national mental health strategy and a need for coordination among mental health care stakeholders. We felt this would best be accomplished through the establishment of a national mental health commission.
As outlined in Chapter 16 of our report, the commission's mission would be to act as a facilitator, an enabler and supporter of a national approach to mental health issues; to be a catalyst for reform of mental health policies and improvements in service delivery; to provide a national focal point for objective, evidence-based information on all aspects of mental health and mental illness; to be a source of information to government, stakeholders and the public on mental health and mental illness; to educate all Canadians about mental health and increase mental health literacy in Canada, particularly among those in leadership roles, such as employers, members of the health profession, teachers, et cetera; and to diminish the stigma and discrimination faced by Canadians living with a mental illness and their families.
In 2007 this government established the Mental Health Commission of Canada — the first tangible change initiated by our report. The mental health commission is headed by our former committee chair, the Honourable Michael Kirby. As of now, the commission has not published its national strategy but it is expected to do so later this year.
According to some statistics, poor mental health and addiction issues are costing the Canadian economy upwards of $51 billion each year, a fact governments and, more importantly, corporate Canada are acknowledging. A healthy workforce, both physically and mentally, is a productive workforce.
A great example of corporate Canada recognizing the need to address mental health issues is Bell Canada's Let's Talk campaign in support of Canadian mental health, to help fight the stigma associated with mental health issues. Too many Canadians will avoid treatment for mental health issues because of the continuing stigma around the disease. Despite the high numbers — one in five Canadians — there is continuing stigma and discrimination against those who have poor mental health or addictions.
I will never forget, as a member of the committee, listening to the young woman who attended at our hearings in St. John's. She was probably in her late 20s. She was married, university educated and bilingual. She had been working for the federal government in Ottawa and then she became clinically depressed. She was on leave from her job and had moved back to Newfoundland and Labrador for financial reasons and to be closer to her family. She started to cry in front of the committee and said she wished she had breast cancer because then at least she would not have lost her family and her friends. I am not sure if senators are supposed to cry at public hearings, but I found myself dabbing at my eyes because it should not be this way for those with poor mental health.
Bell Canada's Let's Talk campaign's national spokesperson is Canadian Olympian Clara Hughes. Ms. Hughes also suffered from depression for many years. On February 8, Bell Canada is having its second annual Let's Talk campaign, where they will donate five cents for every text and long-distance call made by Bell customers to help fund hospitals, grassroots organizations and workplace initiatives across corporate Canada that will support mental health research. The campaign is national in scope and has been well advertised across all media outlets in Canada, including promotion, even at this past weekend's NHL All-Star Game in Ottawa.
The Social Affairs Committee report may not be directly responsible for Bell Canada's initiative, but I like to think that our report is playing an integral part in helping to bring mental health issues into the open and into the mainstream media and national conscience. Breaking down misconceptions and discrimination will be an important part of effective treatment for Canadians who have poor mental health. There is still a long way to go before mental health and addiction issues receive the same status as physical health care, but even in the five years since the report was tabled we are beginning to make some progress.
As a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, this report is a source of great pride for its members and should be a source of great pride for the Senate as a whole. Out of the Shadows at Last: Transforming Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction Services in Canada continues to be an illustrative example of what the Senate does best when we work together.
(On motion of Senator Seidman, debate adjourned.)
[Translation]
Business of the Senate
Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I wish to inform you that Senator Dickson has been hospitalized and is going through a difficult time. I ask that honourable senators keep him in their thoughts and prayers.
I move that the Senate be adjourned.
(The Senate adjourned until Thursday, February 2, 2012, at 1:30 p.m.)