Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Honourable senators, today I would like to talk to you about the Canadian Police and Peace Officers' Thirty- sixth Annual Memorial Service, which was held on September 29 on Parliament Hill.

[English]

I wish to pay tribute to the police and peace officers who give their lives responding to the call of duty in our communities.

[Translation]

These men and women were dedicated to protecting the safety and well-being of their fellow citizens. They gave their lives to save others. They demonstrated unparalleled dedication to their community. In performing their duties, they demonstrated their unfailing commitment to the values that guided them daily. Their sense of duty is a great source of inspiration for us all.

Once again, we gathered on Parliament Hill to pay tribute to our fallen comrades and ensure that their sacrifice is never forgotten. It is important to remember that these unsung heroes have left behind families, spouses, children, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters. They died in the line of duty.

[English]

In 1998, the Government of Canada officially proclaimed the last Sunday of September of every year as Police and Peace Officers' National Memorial Day.

[Translation]

On January 17, 2003, the Department of Canadian Heritage declared that every year on the last Sunday of September, the flags on all federal buildings and establishments across Canada, including the Peace Tower, would fly at half-mast in honour of our fallen police and peace officers.

In 2013, the names of 837 members were engraved on the honour roll that runs along the perimeter wall on Parliament Hill, overlooking the Ottawa River and the Supreme Court of Canada. The glass panels pay permanent tribute to our heroes and serve as a permanent reminder of the sacrifices our fallen members made for future generations.

I would like to talk to you about two of my former colleagues who lost their lives under tragic circumstances and whose deaths were commemorated during the ceremony.

[English]

Constable Donovan Lagrange, assigned to the Support Unit, Road Safety, at the Quebec provincial police headquarters in Mascouche, was killed in the line of duty on October 6, 2012.

[Translation]

Donovan Lagrange had pulled over two vehicles at once, and his patrol car was parked in front of one of the vehicles. While pulling over the vehicles, the officer was struck full on by a car moving in the same direction that was unable to avoid him.

My other colleague was Katia Hadouchi, who was just 23 years old. She had been assigned to a Sûreté du Québec post in the RCM of Matawinie, Rawdon, in the Lanaudière region. She was alone in her patrol car, driving fast to meet a colleague and respond to a domestic violence call. Going around a curve, she lost control of her patrol car, which rolled several times and hit a tree, killing her.

[English]

This ceremony is an opportunity to pay them tribute. It is also our way of letting their loved ones know that we will not forget them and that they will always be in our thoughts and prayers.

Remembrance Day

Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire: Honourable senators, November is a month of remembrance. It is a month where we should take the time to remember the military men and women who have lost their lives serving to protect others from conflict. At this time, we need also to remember those men and women in police uniforms that represent our country in peacekeeping missions. Currently, Canada has deployed personnel in 13 UN missions of peacekeeping around the world.

I served as the Force Commander of a mission in Rwanda 20 years ago, where I was first exposed to the use of child soldiers in armed combat. My troops and I were faced with traumatic moral dilemmas that will impact us for the rest of our lives. At that time, we were unprepared for the situation we faced in Rwanda, and today, 20 years later, military men and women are still as unprepared to face the systematic use of children as weapons of war.

One only needs to turn to the news to see that children are still being used as a weapon in Mali, Central African Republic, Sudan, Somalia, the DRC and even Syria.

This November, we must also remember those child soldiers lost in battle. However, children rarely enter the conversation in this manner on Remembrance Day. They are forgotten. The UN estimates that 250,000 children — boys and girls — at any one time are currently being used as child soldiers. We will never know how many really have been killed or lost in battle. This despite the fact that children are not responsible for the creation of wars in which they suffer.

Colleagues, as you go through our military cemeteries in Europe, you can count the hundreds upon hundreds of under-18 Canadians who fought in both world wars and, in so doing, lost their lives.

That brings me to Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae, a Canadian soldier, physician, and poet, best known to Canadians for the world renowned poem In Flanders Fields. His famous words will be recited at remembrance ceremonies across the country this week as we pause to remember those killed in the service of Canada.

His regiment, the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery, will be erecting a monument to this poem and to this gentleman in 2015, at the one hundredth anniversary. Permit me to read the poem:

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row.
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders Fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch;
Be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders Fields.

For a commander who has lost troops under his command, those are true words.

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a delegation for the Canada-Korea Forum: Ku-Hyun Jung, President of the Seoul Forum for International Affairs; Dr. Chung, President of the Seoul Forum; Minister Song Oh, from the Embassy of the Republic of Korea. On behalf of all honourable senators, we welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Veterans' Week

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I'm honoured to rise today in the presence of Ambassador Yim, representative Jung and the delegation from Korea during this Veterans' Week.

[Translation]

Veterans' Week is a time to gather and honour our living heroes. It is also a time to remember their fallen comrades who lie buried in far-off lands. By remembering them, we ensure that their legacy will endure in the hearts and minds of future generations.

(1410)

[English]

On November 4, to launch Veterans' Week, Speaker Kinsella invited us to stand alongside our living heroes in this very chamber, to participate in the sixteenth annual commemorative wreath-laying ceremony. On November 5, Senator Dan Lang and I, along with several Senate colleagues, lay a wreath at the National War Memorial on behalf of the Senate of Canada. Later in the evening, I attended the annual Candlelight Tribute to Veterans, where veterans passed on the "torch of freedom" to hundreds of students during the touching ceremony.

On November 10, there will be an annual "Turn Toward Busan" ceremony in Ottawa and other places across Canada, at the exact time to coincide with November 11, 11 a.m. in Busan, Korea, to turn and remember the 378 Canadians who are buried in the UN Cemetery, as well as Archie Hearsey, whose dying wish to his daughter Debbie was to be reunited with his older brother, Joseph, killed in battle in 1951.

[Translation]

Veterans' Week is even more meaningful to me this year, since 2013 also marks the Year of the Korean War Veteran, as well as the sixtieth anniversary of the signing of the armistice.

[English]

As I have said many times before and in this chamber, had 26,791 Canadians not left the comforts of home and family, the whole Korean Peninsula would perhaps be shrouded in darkness today, my parents would have perished along with millions of others, and I certainly would not be standing here today.

Canada's contributions in the wars, be it at Vimy or Kapyong, are immeasurable. The Korean War is Canada's third bloodiest war, yet for far too long the Korean War has been known as the forgotten war. The designation of 2013 as the Year of the Korean War Veteran and the passage of Bill S-213, the Korean War Veterans Day Act to enact a day of remembrance, July 27, in perpetuity, honours all those who served and sacrificed in the war, as they so rightly deserve. Once again, I especially thank Senator Joseph Day, the co-sponsor, and all honourable senators for ensuring the safe and speedy passage of this historic bill.

Veterans' Week will end with Remembrance Day on November 11. Honourable senators, I encourage all of you to take time this weekend to attend a local Remembrance Day ceremony, as I'm sure you will and I will as well, and pause to remember our veterans, their fallen comrades and the immeasurable sacrifices they made for Canada and the world.

We will remember them.

[Translation]

We will remember them.

[English]

Veterans Affairs

Benefits and Services for Veterans

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, Monday is November 11, Remembrance Day, the day we as Canadians set aside each year to recognize and reflect on the sacrifices made by Canadian men and women defending our country and protecting our freedoms.

From Vimy Ridge, to Dieppe, to Juno Beach, to Korea and Afghanistan, our brave men and women of the Armed Forces continue to deploy at a moment's notice to defend our way of life and secure freedoms for those less fortunate in countries in turmoil around the globe.

Canadians are united in our respect, our gratitude for and our pride in the men and women in uniform who have served and sacrificed so much and continue to serve in Canada's Armed Forces.

That is why it is so disheartening to read the reports of restrictive government policies excluding many of our veterans' families to qualify for funeral financial assistance. Government officials boast of increasing the Last Post Fund's budget, but if the policies don't change, the veterans' families' access to these increased funds is equally elusive. You can increase the budget all you want, but if you don't spend the money, the veterans are not being helped.

It is disheartening to hear of the government practice of involuntarily discharging injured Canadian Afghanistan veterans, including those servicemen and women who suffer from post- traumatic stress disorder, before they can reach 10 years of service, when they can qualify for a military pension. This practice of releasing injured military personnel before they are eligible for a pension is still taking place even after former Defence Minister Peter MacKay promised in June of this year that, "Any Afghan vet injured in combat will not be released as a result of those injuries."

In addition, veterans in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, are being dealt another blow by the Conservative government as their local Veterans Affairs office will be closed. Unfortunately, this office is one of nine Veterans Affairs offices across Canada scheduled to close in the new year.

The Sydney office serves approximately 4,200 military and RCMP veterans and their family members. This is 4,200 people who will now have to make arrangements to travel to Halifax to meet with a Veterans Affairs client service representative in person. Most of our elderly veterans, and in fact most Canadians, prefer to deal with officials face to face — real people, real faces.

Is this too much to ask for those who have served our country? Forcing them to travel to Halifax is a burden many elderly or in fact any Cape Breton veteran should not have to endure and is a burden they should not have to undertake.

The government has made grand announcements regarding improved access to Veterans Affairs services through a toll-free phone number, website and a smartphone app.

Honourable senators, the average age of our World War II and Korean veterans is 88. To take away the access to the Veterans Affairs office and tell them to download the government's Veterans Affairs app to their smartphones for service is unrealistic. To tell our World War II and Korean veterans to use a smartphone app to deal with their Veterans Affairs issues is insulting.

This government is simply out of touch with our Canadian veterans and their needs. These changes are all in the name of government cost-cutting and efficiency, but what it comes down to is that the needs of our veterans are being ignored. That is shameful.

These unnecessary, callous government cuts are made at the expense of the most valuable segment of our population, our veterans.

Honourable senators, we owe our veterans a debt of gratitude and they deserve our respect. They have fought for our freedom and the preservation of peace and security around the world. It is only right that when they return home we provide them with the resources they need for their health, their well-being and their dignity.

Violence Against Bus Drivers

Hon. Bob Runciman: Honourable senators, I'd like to talk about a violent incident that took place in this city earlier this year and, more importantly, the insufficient response by our justice system.

In April, John Karagiannis was driving an OC Transpo bus on Bank Street near Billings Bridge when a passenger got upset because he didn't stop to pick up people between regular stops — something drivers are not allowed to do, by the way — and that's when Mr. Karagiannis was attacked.

He stopped the bus, but his assailant dragged him out to the street and continued to beat him in front of a crowd of witnesses. It was a brutal assault and the driver was left with a broken nose and cracked ribs.

The attacker, Paul Ness, had previous convictions for assault causing bodily harm, obstructing a peace officer and mischief.

An unprovoked, vicious attack on a vulnerable victim by a repeat violent offender surely is the type of case that merits a substantial jail term. Ness had his day in court late last month and walked away with a 12-month suspended sentence and 12 months' probation.

That's right: thanks to a deal between the prosecutor and the defence, not one day in jail for this brutal crime.

The bus driver, meanwhile, has had great difficulty in returning to work, not just because of the physical injuries he suffered but because of the psychological trauma such an attack leaves.

Yet again, the victim suffers the sentence while the perpetrator walks away.

Honourable senators, I'd like to say this attack was an isolated incident, but it was not. Two thousand bus drivers are assaulted every year in Canada.

There is a bill before Parliament, introduced by Ralph Goodale in the other place, to make it an aggravating factor if the victim of an assault is a public transportation worker, and I commend Mr. Goodale on his initiative.

Of course, a new law might deter such assaults in the future, but it won't correct the injustice that we saw played out in the Ottawa courtroom. This is a case that should be reopened.

I urge the bus drivers' union and city council to call on the Attorney General of Ontario to intervene and examine what happened here, why a prosecutor made such a clearly inappropriate deal and why a judge went along with it.

Justice was not done in this case, and we need to know why.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Commissioner of Official Languages

2012-13 Annual Report Tabled

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2012-13 annual report of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

[Translation]

Public Sector Integrity Commissioner

Case Report of Findings in the Matter of an Investigation into a Disclosure of Wrongdoing at the Canada School of Public Service Tabled

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the case report of findings of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner in the matter of an investigation into a disclosure of wrongdoing at the Canada School of Public Service, pursuant to subsection 38(3.3) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

(1420)

[English]

The Estimates, 2013-14

Tabled

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Main Estimates for 2013-14.

Supplementary Estimates (B) Tabled

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Supplementary Estimates (B) 2013-14, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.

Scrutiny of Regulations

First Report of Joint Committee Presented

Hon. Bob Runciman, Joint Chair of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, presented the following report:

Thursday, November 7, 2013

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations has the honour to present its

FIRST REPORT

Your committee reports that in relation to its permanent reference, section 19 of the Statutory Instruments Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-22, the committee was previously empowered "to study the means by which Parliament can better oversee the government regulatory process and in particular to enquire into and report upon:

1. the appropriate principles and practices to be observed

a) in the drafting of powers enabling delegates of Parliament to make subordinate laws;

b) in the enactment of statutory instruments;

c) in the use of executive regulation - including delegated powers and subordinate laws;

and the manner in which Parliamentary control should be effected in respect of the same;

2. the role, functions and powers of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations."

Your committee recommends that the same order of reference, together with the evidence adduced thereon during previous sessions, be again referred to it.

Your committee informs both Houses of Parliament that the criteria it will use for the review and scrutiny of statutory instruments are the following:

Whether any regulation or other statutory instrument within its terms of reference, in the judgment of the committee:

1. is not authorized by the terms of the enabling legislation or has not complied with any condition set forth in the legislation;

2. is not in conformity with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Canadian Bill of Rights;

3. purports to have retroactive effect without express authority having been provided for in the enabling legislation;

4. imposes a charge on the public revenues or requires payment to be made to the Crown or to any other authority, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payment, without express authority having been provided for in the enabling legislation;

5. imposes a fine, imprisonment or other penalty without express authority having been provided for in the enabling legislation;

6. tends directly or indirectly to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts without express authority having been provided for in the enabling legislation;

7. has not complied with the Statutory Instruments Act with respect to transmission, registration or publication;

8. appears for any reason to infringe the rule of law;

9. trespasses unduly on rights and liberties;

10. makes the rights and liberties of the person unduly dependent on administrative discretion or is not consistent with the rules of natural justice;

11. makes some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the enabling legislation;

12. amounts to the exercise of a substantive legislative power properly the subject of direct parliamentary enactment; or

13. is defective in its drafting or for any other reason requires elucidation as to its form or purport.

Your committee recommends that its quorum be fixed at four members, provided that both Houses are represented whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, and that the joint chairs be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof so long as three members are present, provided that both Houses are represented; and, that your committee have power to engage the services of such expert staff, and such stenographic and clerical staff as may be required.

Your committee further recommends to the Senate that it be empowered to sit during sittings and adjournments of the Senate.

Your committee, which was also authorized by the Senate to incur expenses in connection with its permanent reference relating to the review and scrutiny of statutory instruments, reports, pursuant to rule 12-26(2) of the Rules of the Senate, that the expenses of your committee (Senate portion) during the First Session of the Forty-First Parliament are as follows:

2011-2012

General Expenses $ 1,171

Witness expenses 0

SUBTOTAL $ 1,171

2012-2013

General Expenses $ 1,490

Witness expenses 0

SUBTOTAL $ 1,490

2013-2014

General Expenses $ 397

Witness expenses 0

SUBTOTAL $ 397

TOTAL $ 3,058

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 1) is tabled.

Respectfully submitted,

BOB RUNCIMAN
Joint Chair

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

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

[Translation]

Transport and Communications

Report Pursuant to Rule 12-26(2) Tabled

Hon. Dennis Dawson: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 12- 26(2) of the Rules of the Senate, I have the honour to table the first report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, which deals with the expenses incurred by the committee during the First Session of the Forty-first Parliament.

(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, p. 162.)

Library of Parliament

First Report of Joint Committee Presented

Hon. Marie-P. Charette-Poulin: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 12-26(2) of the Rules of the Senate, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, which deals with the committee's authority.

(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, p. 163.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

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

[English]

National Security and Defence

Report Pursuant to Rule 12-26(2) Tabled

Hon. Daniel Lang: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 12- 26(2) of the Rules of the Senate, I have the honour to table the first report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, which deals with the expenses incurred by the committee during the First Session of the Forty-first Parliament.

(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, p. 164.)

Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Report Pursuant to Rule 12-26(2) Tabled

Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 12-26(2) of the Rules of the Senate, I have the honour to table the first report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which deals with the expenses incurred by the committee during the First Session of the Forty- first Parliament.

(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, p. 167.)

[Translation]

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Report Pursuant to Rule 12-26(2) Tabled

Hon. Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 12-26(2) of the Rules of the Senate, I have the honour to table the first report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, which deals with the expenses incurred by the committee during the First Session of the Forty- first Parliament.

(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, p. 169.)

Official Languages

Report Pursuant to Rule 12-26(2) Tabled

Hon. Claudette Tardif: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 12-26(2) of the Rules of the Senate, I have the honour to table the first report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, which deals with the expenses incurred by the committee during the First Session of the Forty-first Parliament.

(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, p. 171.)

[English]

The Estimates, 2013-14

Notice of Motion to Authorize National Finance Committee to Study Main Estimates

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(j), I give notice that later this day, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Notice of Motion to Authorize National Finance Committee to Study Supplementary Estimates (B)

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(j), I give notice that later this day, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Museums Act

Bill to Amend—First Reading

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Bill read first time.)

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

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

Banking, Trade and Commerce

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Present State of Domestic and International Financial System

Hon. Irving Gerstein: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(j), I give notice that later this day, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce be authorized to examine and report upon the present state of the domestic and international financial system; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2015, and that the committee retain until March 31, 2016, all powers necessary to publicize its findings.

Hon. Joan Fraser (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I would like an explanation as to why.

Senator Gerstein: Colleagues, on Wednesday, November 20, we have the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz, appearing before our committee. If we waited to pass this motion until Tuesday, November 19, which is likely the next sitting of this chamber, we would lose the opportunity to publicize his appearance. Passing this motion today allows us the time to properly alert the public regarding the governor's upcoming appearance.

Senator Fraser: Our side is happy to grant leave, Your Honour.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(1430)

Human Rights

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study International and National Human Rights Obligations and Refer Papers and Evidence Received since Beginning of First Session of Thirty-seventh Parliament

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

That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be authorized to examine and monitor issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations;

That the papers and evidence received and taken and work accomplished by the committee on this subject since the beginning of the First Session of the Thirty-seventh Parliament be referred to the committee; and

That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than June 30, 2014.

[Translation]

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Issues of Discrimination in Hiring and Promotion Practices of Federal Public Service and Labour Market Outcomes for Minority Groups in Private Sector and Refer Papers and Evidence Received since Beginning of First Session of Thirty-ninth Parliament

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

That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be authorized to examine issues of discrimination in the hiring and promotion practices of the Federal Public Service, to study the extent to which targets to achieve employment equity are being met, and to examine labour market outcomes for minority groups in the private sector;

That the papers and evidence received and taken and work accomplished by the committee on this subject since the beginning of the First session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament be referred to the committee; and

That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than June 30, 2014.

[English]

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Issues Pertaining to Human Rights of First Nations Band Members Who Reside Off-Reserve and Refer Papers and Evidence Received During First Session of Forty-first Parliament

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

That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be authorized to examine and report on issues pertaining to the human rights of First Nations band members who reside off-reserve, with an emphasis on the current federal policy framework. In particular, the committee will examine:

(a) Rights relating to residency;

(b) Access to rights;

(c) Participation in community-based decision-making processes;

(d) Portability of rights;

(e) Existing Remedies;

That the papers and evidence received and taken and work accomplished by the committee on this subject during the First Session of the Forty-first Parliament be referred to the committee; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2013.

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Issue of Cyberbullying and Refer Papers and Evidence Received During First Session of Forty-first Parliament

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

That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be authorized to examine and report upon the issue of cyberbullying in Canada with regard to Canada's international human rights obligations under Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child;

That, notwithstanding Rule 12-16, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be empowered to hold occasional meetings in camera for the purpose of hearing witnesses and gathering sensitive evidence; and

That the papers and evidence received and taken and work accomplished by the committee on this subject during the First Session of the Forty-first Parliament be referred to the committee; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than June 30, 2014, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

[Translation]

Agriculture and Forestry

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Research and Innovation Efforts in Agricultural Sector and Refer Papers and Evidence Received since Beginning of First Session of Forty-first Parliament

Hon. Percy Mockler: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5 (j), I give notice that, later this day, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry be authorized to examine and report on research and innovation efforts in the agricultural sector. In particular, the Committee shall be authorized to examine research and development efforts in the context of:

(a) developing new markets domestically and internationally;

(b) enhancing agricultural sustainability;

(c) improving food diversity and security; and

That the papers and evidence received and taken and work accomplished by the committee on this subject during the First session of the Forty-first Parliament be referred to the Committee; and

That the Committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than June 30, 2014 and that the Committee retain until September 30, 2014 all powers necessary to publicize its findings.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Joan Fraser (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): It is always the same question, Mr. Speaker. Why is consent being sought to proceed today?

Senator Mockler: As discussed with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Mercer, if we agree to this motion today, we will be able to have the report translated more quickly, which will give stakeholders, participants and the industry faster access to the report, given the delay that the break week will cause.

The Hon. the Speaker: Agreed?

Senator Fraser: Agreed.

[English]

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Prescription Pharmaceuticals and Refer Papers and Evidence Received During of First Session of Forty-first Parliament

Hon. Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to examine and report on prescription pharmaceuticals in Canada, including but not limited to:

(a) the process to approve prescription pharmaceuticals with a particular focus on clinical trials;

(b) the post-approval monitoring of prescription pharmaceuticals;

(c) the off-label use of prescription pharmaceuticals; and

(d) the nature of unintended consequences in the use of prescription pharmaceuticals.

That the papers and evidence received and taken and work accomplished by the committee on this subject during the First Session of the Forty-first Parliament be referred to the committee; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2014, and that the committee retain until March 31, 2015, all powers necessary to publicize its findings.

[Translation]

Official Languages

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Application of Official Languages Act and Relevant Regulations, Directives and Reports and Refer Papers and Evidence Received since Beginning of First Session of Forty-first Parliament

Hon. Claudette Tardif: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to study and to report on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act;

That the committee also be authorized to study the reports and documents published by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board, and the Commissioner of Official Languages, and any other subject concerning official languages;

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

That the committee report from time to time to the Senate but no later than June 30, 2015, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 90 days after the tabling of the final report.

[English]

National Security and Defence

Study on Services and Benefits for Members and Veterans of Armed Forces and Current and Former Members of the RCMP, Commemorative Activities and Charter— Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Request a Government Response to the Ninth Report of the Committee Tabled during the First Session of the Forty-First Parliament

Hon. Daniel Lang: Honourable senators, I give notice that, two days hence, I will move:

That, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the Government to the Ninth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, entitled: A Study of the New Veterans Charter, tabled in the Senate on March 21, 2013, during the First Session of the Forty-first Parliament, and adopted on May 2, 2013, with the Minister of Veterans Affairs being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report.

Study on Harassment in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police—Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Request a Government Response to the Fourteenth Report of the Committee Tabled during the First Session of the Forty-First Parliament

Hon. Daniel Lang: Honourable senators, I give notice that, two days hence, I will move:

That, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the Government to the Fourteenth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, entitled: Conduct Becoming: Why the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Must Transform its Culture, tabled in the Senate on June 18, 2013, during the First Session of the Forty-first Parliament, and adopted the same day, with the Minister of Public Safety being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report.

(1440)

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study National Security and Defence Policies, Practices, Circumstances and Capabilities and Refer Papers and Evidence Received during the Fortieth Parliament and First Session of Forty-first Parliament

Hon. Daniel Lang: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be authorized to examine and report on Canada's national security and defence policies, practices, circumstances and capabilities; and

That the papers and evidence received and taken and the work accomplished by the committee on this subject during the Fortieth Parliament and the First Session of the Forty- first Parliament be referred to the Committee; and

That the Committee report to the Senate no later than December 19, 2014, and that the Committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 90 days after the tabling of the final report.

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Services and Benefits for Members and Veterans of Armed Forces and Current and Former Members of the RCMP, Commemorative Activities and Charter and Refer Papers and Evidence Received during Fortieth Parliament and First Session of Forty-first Parliament

Hon. Daniel Lang: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be authorized to study:

(a) services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces; to veterans who have served honourably in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces in the past; to members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and its antecedents; and all of their families;

(b) commemorative activities undertaken by the Department of Veterans' Affairs Canada, to keep alive for all Canadians the memory of Canadian veterans' achievements and sacrifices; and

(c) continuing implementation of the New Veterans' Charter;

That the papers and evidence received and taken and the work accomplished by the Committee on this subject during the Fortieth Parliament and the First Session of the Forty- first Parliament be referred to the Committee; and

That the Committee report to the Senate no later than December 19, 2014, and that the Committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 90 days after the tabling of the final report.

[Translation]

QUESTION PERIOD

Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs

Champlain Bridge

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Yesterday or in previous days, we heard — and I would particularly like to draw the attention of my Quebec colleagues — about the preliminary engineering work on the Champlain Bridge, which is long overdue. I remember talking about this with my colleagues during the last election campaign, two years ago. A company will work on the number of lanes and their configuration, environmental requirements, architectural quality, toll infrastructure, and maintenance and operational needs; in short, this is a $15 million contract.

Arup is a British company that has had offices in Canada since 2000 and since just recently has had 20 employees on staff in Montreal for a contract totalling $15,218,401.43.

My question for the Leader of the Government is the following: How many jobs will be created in Montreal for $15 million?

First, I do not understand how the government can award this contract, which is worth billions of dollars, without going to tender.

Second, I do not understand how the government can contract for this work without asking bridge engineers and designers, especially those in France and Italy, who have an outstanding reputation in this field, in addition to Canadians of course, about the number of jobs that this work will generate.

Finally, could we at least hire a Canadian firm that has experience with our particular climate, the geography of the St. Lawrence River and the scope of the Champlain Bridge?

Hon. Claude Carignan (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, as Lisa Raitt, Minister of Transport, and Mr. Lebel have repeatedly pointed out, the government's priority regarding the Champlain Bridge is to have the safest possible bridge as quickly as possible. If emergency repairs have to be done to keep the drivers who use this bridge safe — you are probably among those users, as am I, along with our families and friends — this is a priority for our government.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I will wait for your answer on the number of jobs that this $15 million project will create.

For your information and that of my colleagues, since the early 2000s, the firm I mentioned has been responsible for repairs to the Millennium Bridge in London, a bridge in Denmark, and three other bridges in New York City and Australia, thus, five bridges, including one pedestrian-only bridge. This firm has done five bridges in 13 years.

I was with SNC in my past life, and I learned that design is one thing and engineering work is quite another. What criteria were used to select this firm and award it a contract in a country of snow and ice? To my knowledge, Australia, New York City and London do not get a lot of snow. Montreal has some very harsh weather conditions, which in fact are what contributed to the old bridge's premature deterioration.

Under the Government Contracts Regulations, before any contract is entered into, the government, with Public Works, must issue a call for tenders in accordance with section 7, which states:

A contracting authority shall solicit bids by:

(a) giving public notice, in a manner consistent with generally accepted trade practices, of a call for bids respecting a proposed contract; or

(b) inviting bids on a proposed contract from suppliers on the suppliers' list.

Since many Canadian engineering firms do work around the world, I have no problem using the services of a firm from another country, but I think it is important to hold an open competition.

Furthermore, regarding the delays, I would like to point out that the delays were caused by this government. The public interest was not taken into account here. A firm that completed a contract on Highway 30 recently was chosen based on that experience, without any call for tenders.

Leader, I would like to know what urgent information led to this contract being awarded without a call for tenders.

Senator Carignan: Senator, I find your tone somewhat alarmist. You spoke about various criteria that can be taken into consideration when a contract for a bridge or engineering work is awarded. I have personally awarded engineering contracts, and we always verified the company's expertise. You can rest assured that the people who award contracts, whether at Transport Canada or the Federal Bridge Corporation, ensure that the companies they hire are very highly qualified, especially for the work on the Champlain Bridge, considering the nature of the work involved, whether urgent repairs or construction of the new bridge.

You also spoke about delays. In this matter, we have endeavoured to avoid unnecessary delays from the very beginning. We want a safe bridge for the best price, as quickly as possible.

I am sure you have read the studies on the bridge's deterioration. The bridge is over 50 years old and is quickly deteriorating. Several hundreds of millions of dollars have to be invested to maintain it in the medium term. The current situation requires us to act with probity. I would hope that you are not criticizing us for taking action.

(1450)

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I'm sorry, but that was not the question. I see that you are not reading from your notes, so I will forgive you for not knowing the exact number of jobs that will be created in Quebec with the $15 million or who will design the bridge.

I live close to the Victoria Bridge. My mother went to school in Stanstead in 1913 and used the Victoria Bridge. All of that is to say that we can build bridges to last. The Quebec Bridge is still standing. There is no denying that immediate repairs are needed, but the government has been dragging its feet for two years and now it is saying that the work needs to happen quickly and there is no call for tenders. I will ask again: How many jobs will be created and why was there no call for tenders? The public interest has been completely set aside.

Senator Carignan: I hear your concern about the public interest. I know hundreds of people who cross that bridge and I see hundreds of thousands of people crossing that bridge every day, so I am surprised if you feel that this is not a matter of public interest. However, it would not be the first time the opposition has surprised me.

I want to assure you that the firm that was hired has been working with the bridge corporation for months now. This firm is competent and has the expertise needed to carry out the required work. Public safety is our government's priority. We need to act with probity and ensure that the bridge is replaced as quickly as possible and that the work performed to increase the bridge's lifespan is also done effectively.

I hope that you will not hold it against me if I do not read my cards; yesterday some of you held it against me when I did.

[English]

Veterans Affairs

Closure of Prince Edward Island District Office

Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Once again, this Conservative government is eliminating another federal service for Prince Edward Islanders in their own province. This time, they are closing down the Veterans Affairs district office in Charlottetown, the only one we have in the province.

Once this happens, veterans will have to travel out of the province in order to seek the same face-to-face assistance with case workers that they're currently receiving.

Prince Edward Island doesn't have a passport office. The only Employment Insurance processing centre is being closed. Canada Revenue counter service has been closed. The Citizenship and Immigration office has closed. Now the government plans to shut down our only Veterans Affairs district office.

Why is this government leaving Island veterans without their own district office, where they have proper access to the service they deserve?

[Translation]

Hon. Claude Carignan (Leader of the Government): Senator Callbeck, as you know, veterans with service-related injuries do not have to go to the district office. Case managers and nursing personnel meet with them in the comfort and privacy of their own homes. Our government will continue to ensure that the best people are in the best places to help veterans and their families.

[English]

Senator Callbeck: By doing this, you're not giving them the best possible service. It's just the opposite.

The fact is that that district office is staffed by Veterans Affairs employees who are specialists in veterans' programs and benefits. Service Canada employees deal with dozens, maybe hundreds of other government programs. Veterans are not getting the same level of service at all. In fact, the service is really going to deteriorate.

This government spends millions on television advertising while at the same time is shutting down services veterans deserve — not only in Prince Edward Island, but eight other district offices are being closed across this country.

I can tell you there's real concern in my province. Veterans, many of whom are in very poor health at their age, are being forced into an exhausting, expensive and time-consuming trip off- Island to the nearest district office in order to get the service that they need and that they're getting right now.

Our veterans deserve better than that. The government should be doing everything it can to help them live with dignity and respect.

Will the government reverse its decision to close those district offices?

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: You are suggesting that services will not be as good because changes are happening at Service Canada. I do not know what information you are basing that statement on. On what basis are you judging the ability of public servants to provide one service or another, and why do you think services will deteriorate? Your judgment of the quality of Service Canada services is strange indeed.

You mentioned injured veterans. As I said, veterans with service-related injuries do not have to go to a district office. Case managers and nursing personnel meet with them in the comfort and privacy of their homes.

[English]

Senator Callbeck: I want to make it very clear that Service Canada employees certainly provide good service, but they're not specialists in these programs. The office that we have right now is staffed by specialists from the Veterans Affairs office, so it's an entirely different level of service that they're going to receive.

As I say, I think that the people who work in the service centres certainly do good work.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: Service Canada employees, the new people who will be handling these cases, if there are new people, will receive the training they need to provide the service, I presume. As I said, I do not see why anyone would be worried that Service Canada employees, who specialize in providing service, would deliver inferior service.

Benefits and Services for Veterans

Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire: I cannot get over these naive answers sometimes. People working at Service Canada do not receive any specific training on the unique complications requiring special expertise in dealing with veterans' files, and even these employees themselves are often baffled by the regulations.

Before these people are even trained, the government closes the office, transfers everything and tells veterans to figure it out for themselves. They are told to visit different websites. Imagine an 89-year-old who has trouble seeing. There is no training program unless you ask Service Canada and the Minister of Veterans Affairs specifically about the training and learning plan and when it will all be up and running.

I am asking you this because the new charter does nothing for the new veterans who reach the age of 65. It talks only about veterans of the Second World War and the Korean War. We are asking for specific answers. Are you prepared to ask the minister?

Hon. Claude Carignan (Leader of the Government): I have a lot of respect for you, Senator Dallaire. I would ask you to show the same for me when you are asking questions.

(1500)

There is a new partnership with Service Canada that will establish 600 points of service across the country where veterans and their families will be able to get information on programs. As part of this partnership, Service Canada employees will make sure that they have the tools to meet veterans' needs.

Senator Dallaire: I do respect you. However, the nature of the answers sometimes causes us to wonder whether the government really wants to give us answers. I sometimes wonder whether a tape recorder plugged into the sound system would be better than you having to humiliate yourself by telling us these stories day after day.

I asked you a number of specific questions. I did not ask you to give me the answer you have written on your card. Can you set your notes aside and at least promise us that you will get the information from the ministers in question?

Senator Carignan: As I just said, there are new partnerships for 600 points of service within Service Canada. Employees will have the skills required to provide veterans with the information they need about programs. I believe that says it all.

[English]

Hon. Jane Cordy: Let's see. Prime Minister Harper is increasing the PMO budget by 7.4 per cent, but at the same time he feels the need to cut Veterans Affairs' budget and close nine Veterans Affairs offices across Canada.

In Nova Scotia, the Harper government is closing the Sydney Veterans Affairs office.

Reportedly, this will save $6 million a year — $6 million a year compared to $24 million spent on bus ads in Washington, which, from all the reports I've read, are having no effect whatsoever.

There was a 7.4 per cent increase to the Prime Minister's Office budget; $50 million was spent on gazebos in Tony Clement's riding. But we're cutting $6 million for a veterans' office in Sydney, Nova Scotia? This is disgraceful. Our servicemen and women deserve better.

An Hon. Senator: Oh, oh!

Senator Cordy: Oh. Maybe you should give answers now.

The $6 million provides an invaluable service to Cape Breton veterans and their families, but this government deems it wasteful spending. To consider money spent in service to our veterans in need as wasteful is disgraceful.

So this afternoon you're talking in response to questions from Senator Dallaire and Senator Callbeck, and you've said that you will have people who will be travelling around, visiting veterans in their homes, and there will be face-to-face contact with the veterans.

So how many people will Service Canada hire to do this? There are 4,200 veterans in Cape Breton. You also said they would be specialized. How many specialized people will be hired by Service Canada in Cape Breton to service the veterans?

Senator Tardif: Good question.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: I am always surprised when senators make comparisons between changes in services and an increase in another budget. You mentioned an increase in the budget for the Prime Minister's Office. I do not think there was any cause for that comment.

Comparisons like that can always be made. I too will make one just for fun. Had we not lost $42 million as a result of the sponsorship scandal, perhaps we would not have to rationalize services. I do not usually make these types of comparisons, but you are forcing me to do so. I am saying this simply to show that such comparisons are inappropriate.

I was asked not to use my cards, so I am not.

Senator Robichaud: It's time to get out the cards.

Senator Carignan: There are 600 additional service points, and veterans who are injured will receive personalized services in the comfort of their home.

[English]

Senator Cordy: The reason that I talk about the huge budget increase in the Prime Minister's Office, and the millions of dollars that are being spent in Washington on ads that are currently proving to be ineffective, and the $50 million spent in gazebos is because it's all about this government's priorities — gazebos over veterans.

The Conservative government has spent over $25 million in Canada action plan ads. Ads without jobs; I wish we could have jobs without ads.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Cordy: The average age of our World War II veterans and the Korean War veterans is 88 years of age. We're asking them to drive from Sydney, Cape Breton, to Halifax in order to meet with a Veterans Affairs agent; or, even better, download a government app onto their smartphone for Veterans Affairs services.

As Rick Mercer said in one of his rants — and if you haven't heard it, you should — why are we putting our veterans, who went to the front line for us, at the back of the Service Canada line?

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Cordy: How does this government plan to ensure that those veterans who do not use smartphones are provided the best possible service when they will not have access to a local Veterans Affairs office or a local Veterans Affairs representative?

Perhaps you could also answer the question that I asked previously: How many additional specialized people that you talked about at Service Canada will be hired to provide services in the areas where the veterans' offices will be closed?

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: You talked about the advertising budget. Advertising is essential to educate Canadians about programs that are available, to inform the public, and we have a good example here. If it were not for the misinformation spread by the other side, we might not be forced to advertise to explain that there are programs available to veterans.

As I said, Service Canada has 600 new points of service, which are available to veterans so that they can access the services and programs that are there for them.

[English]

Senator Cordy: Unfortunately, like the ad campaign in Washington on the sides of buses that's costing us millions of dollars, which, from all reports, is having little effect, the Canada action plan ads that taxpayers are paying $25 million for are also not having an effect. No one phones the 1-800 number. No one in Canada has phoned the 1-800 number that is on the advertisement on TV. No one has phoned and that is a waste of taxpayers' money.

You still haven't answered the question: How many of these specialized people that you have spoken about for Service Canada will be hired?

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: It may be that no one is phoning because the ads are clear and contain sufficiently detailed information. That would answer your question.

Justice

Proposed Quebec Charter Affirming Secular Values and Religious Neutrality

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Today, Bernard Drainville, the Quebec Minister responsible for Democratic Institutions, will introduce the bill entitled: Charter affirming the values of State secularism and religious neutrality and of equality between women and men, and providing a framework for accommodation requests.

My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. What kind of leadership will the federal government show in response to this bill?

Hon. Claude Carignan (Leader of the Government): Its usual leadership, senator. I hope this reassures you. Like most parties in the Quebec National Assembly, we oppose the charter in its current form. We will take every possible measure to counter it if it is passed. All Canadians should feel at home; our government will defend their rights regardless of their race, religion or origin.

(1510)

Senator Jaffer: Leader, I am very pleased to hear you say that all Canadians are welcome in our country. I agree with you.

My supplementary question is as follows: What resources will the federal government allocate to counter this bill?

Senator Carignan: First, we must wait for the bill to pass. As I have already explained, it seems that the majority currently in the National Assembly opposes the bill as tabled. However, if the bill does pass, we will do what we must to counter its application and to defend the constitutional rights of Canadians.

Any proposal that would curtail the right of people to practise their religion without discrimination gives us great cause for concern, and we intend to take action. I am sure you know that we will take action to ensure respect for Canadians' rights.

[English]

Senator Jaffer: Your answer is like saying close the gate after the horse has left the barn. I think that it's too late after the bill has been passed to look at how we will counter it.

With the greatest of respect, this is an issue that affects all Canadians. It affects the fabric of our society. I ask that the federal government take the leadership to fight the divisiveness in our community. It affects all of Canada, and I am expecting the federal government to show great leadership now, not after the bill is passed.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: You are quite right and, as a Quebecer, I am very mindful of this bill. For the government, defending the constitutional rights of the people we welcome, especially in Canada, is fundamental because we share the same objectives.

[English]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Statutory Instruments Act
Statutory Instruments Regulations

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Linda Frum moved second reading of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations.

She said: Honourable senators, today I would like to speak to you about Bill S-2, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act. This bill is being reintroduced after having successfully passed through the Senate. Given the recent and thorough consideration that this place has given to this bill during the previous session of Parliament, I would urge that honourable senators give it swift passage through this house.

This bill deals with a regulatory drafting technique, essentially about when federal regulators can or cannot use the technique of incorporation by reference. Incorporation by reference is an important tool in the government's arsenal to regulate in an effective and responsive manner.

The technique of incorporation by reference is currently used in a wide range of federal regulations. It is used in regulations varying from those preventing the financing of terrorism, to those governing medical devices, to those that control the collection of cells, tissues and organ transplants for donation, and those governing the way that ships are built. Indeed, it is difficult to think of a heavily regulated area in which incorporation by reference is not used to some degree.

This bill is about securing the government's access to a drafting technique that has already become essential to the way government regulates and that has already become an important tool of modern regulation.

In addition, this bill responds to concerns expressed by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations about when incorporation by reference can be used.

Five years ago, the government indicated in a response to a report of the standing joint committee on the use of incorporation by reference that it would consider legislation to address their preoccupations. This bill is intended to address the committee's concerns and to create the certainty that is needed.

What is incorporation by reference?

Incorporation by reference essentially allows material to be included in a regulation without reproducing it in the regulation itself. A straightforward example can illustrate how it works.

If a regulation provides that all hockey helmets must be manufactured in accordance with a particular standard written by the Canadian Standards Association, the effect of that reference is to make that standard part of the regulation without actually reproducing the text of the standard in the regulation itself. The rules found in the Canadian Standards Association standard form part of the law, even though they are not reproduced in the regulation.

Frequently, technical standards, like the one used in this example, are incorporated as amended from time to time. This means that when the Canadian Standards Association makes amendments to the standard to keep up to date with changes in technology or improvements in manufacturing and science, those changes are automatically included in the regulation. In other words, the changes made to that standard are incorporated into the regulation and become law without amending the text of the regulation. This is otherwise known as "ambulatory incorporation by reference."

Sometimes documents are incorporated as they exist on a certain date. This means that only one particular version of the document is incorporated. In that case, regardless of what happens to the document after the regulations are made, it is the only version that is described in the regulation that is incorporated. If the regulator wants to adopt a newer version of the document, it needs to amend the regulation. This is "static incorporation by reference."

Incorporation by reference has become increasingly common in federal regulations over the last 15 years. It is an effective way to achieve many of the goals of the Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management, an important directive from the government designed to improve the efficiency and performance of regulations.

Regulations that use this technique are effective in facilitating intergovernmental cooperation and collaboration. By incorporating the legislation of other jurisdictions with which harmonization is desired, or by incorporating standards developed internationally, regulations can minimize duplication. This is an important step towards achieving the objectives of the Regulatory Cooperation Council, which is an initiative between Canada and the United States intended to improve regulatory alignment where possible, established by Prime Minister Harper and President Obama in 2011.

Referencing the material that is internationally accepted rather than attempting to reproduce the same rules in the regulations also reduces technical differences that create barriers to trade. Often, reproduction of documents or standards ends up creating differences that do not go to the real substance of the regulations or differences that are not material to the true regulatory objective. Rather, these differences are created by differences in expression or drafting style or may even be created inadvertently.

Incorporation by reference can minimize and even avoid these undesirable barriers to trade, an objective that is also an international obligation. The removal of technical barriers to trade is an objective endorsed by the World Trade Organization in the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement. This agreement requires that regulations and standards do not create unnecessary obstacles. It balances this objective against the legitimate needs of a country to adopt unique standards when necessary to protect its citizens and economy. Of course, differences can be justified on the grounds of geographic or other particular features of a country, but the idea is that, when possible, the international approach should be to minimize or avoid creating technical differences that are unnecessary.

Incorporation by reference is an important tool for the government to help Canada comply with these international obligations. It is an important option when Canada decides that it is in the best interests of its citizens to adopt standards that are internationally accepted.

Incorporation by reference is also an effective way to maximize the use of the expertise of standards-writing bodies in Canada. Canada has a national standards system that is recognized all over the world. These standards-development organizations work with interested stakeholders. They consult and they tap into expertise that cannot easily be replicated by government. They develop standards through a consensus-based approach using volunteers, experts and interested stakeholders through a process of consultation. These standards give the government access to expertise that it would not otherwise have, and ambulatory incorporation by reference of those standards similarly gives the government a regulatory tool that is immediately responsive to changes in science, technology and approach. This is necessary in a world in which technology changes at a rapid pace.

Ambulatory incorporation of standards, whether developed in Canada or internationally, allows for the application of the best science and the most accepted approach in almost every area that affects people on a day-to-day basis. Indeed, reliance on this expertise is essential to ensuring access to technical knowledge across the country and around the world.

(1520)

Incorporation by reference of standards developed by organizations like the Canadian Standards Association or the Canadian General Standards Board have been key to the development of regulations intended to respond to the most important issues in Canadian society, including the safety of cells, tissues and organ transplants, and occupational health and safety regulations.

Ambulatory incorporation by reference allows for the expertise of the Canadian National Standards System to be maximized and to form a meaningful part of the regulatory toolbox.

During the previous Senate committee hearings on this bill last year, representatives from the Standards Council of Canada appeared in support of this legislation and explained the importance of having access to the most up-to-date standards developed by the experts in the field and being able to use these standards effectively as part of regulations. This bill also strikes an important balance in respect of the types of documents that can be incorporated "as amended from time to time."

There are two points to highlight about these types of documents. The first is this: The ability to incorporate some documents that the regulator produces will be limited to those documents that contain obligations that are only incidental to the regulation. The most important rules and obligations, those that form the core of the regulatory regime, will continue to be included in the text of the regulation and subject to the entire regulatory process.

Parliament has established a regulatory process in furtherance of the goals of consultation, transparency, legality and the accessibility of regulations. For this reason, this bill allows incorporation of documents generated by the regulation-maker itself, but only when they are incidental to the core obligations of the regulation. These documents can only build upon or merely elaborate on the key elements that must fall within the text of the regulation itself. This strikes an appropriate balance between the objectives of the regulatory process and the need to use incorporation by reference in some circumstances.

The second point to highlight is this: Material produced by the regulator itself will be limited to incorporation by reference on a static basis. This is in contrast to the ability of the regulator to incorporate material produced by another person or body. In that case, as we have seen above, the ambulatory incorporation by reference is essential. As mentioned above, this would include material generated by someone else, such as a technical standards writing body, international agreements or conventions, or material produced by another government department or independent agency.

However, for documents generated by the regulator, documents would be incorporated only as they exist on a certain day. This means that if the regulator wants to include changes made to that document after it has been incorporated by reference, the regulation would have to be amended. This ensures that notice of any changes to the regulation through the incorporated document is subject to the regulatory process and its requirements of examination, publication and registration.

Why allow for any incorporation by reference of documents that the regulator creates itself? There are various reasons that justify incorporating a document rather than repeating it in the regulation. Sometimes the nature of the document is so highly technical that it is not amenable to regulatory language. Often the regulated community is already familiar with the documents.

These two safeguards — first, requiring that the nature of the document is incidental to the real obligations found in the regulation itself, and second, ensuring that they are incorporated only as they exist on a specific date — are an appropriate balance to strike.

With this important regulatory tool, there come important obligations. This bill recognizes the need to provide a solid legal basis for the use of this regulatory drafting technique, but it also expressly imposes in legislation an obligation on the regulator to make sure that documents it incorporates are accessible. While this has always been something that the government recognizes as a fundamental obligation, this bill would enshrine that obligation in legislation.

There is no doubt that accessibility should be part of this bill. It is essential that documents incorporated by reference be accessible to those who are required to comply with them and those who want to know how the law regulates industries or sectors that are of interest to them.

The general approach to accessibility found in this bill would provide flexibility to each regulation-maker to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the material is in fact accessible. We also know that it is in the interests of regulators to ensure that the material that they incorporated by reference is accessible, understandable and enforceable.

Both the organizations that develop standards, as well as regulators, are working to find innovative ideas to ensure ready access to standards incorporated by reference or published by the regulator so that they are accessible. This bill creates a meaningful obligation on regulators to ensure accessibility while still allowing for innovation, flexibility and creativity.

There is another feature of this bill that goes hand-in-hand with the obligation on regulators to ensure material is accessible. This bill expressly provides protection so that no person can be penalized in any way for failing to comply with material incorporated by reference if that material was not accessible. This is an essential aspect of the bill that connects directly with the positive obligation on regulators to ensure that the material is accessible.

It is also important to emphasize that this bill will in no way change the obligations of the government to ensure that the material is incorporated by reference in both official languages, except where there's a legitimate reason to do so in only one language. The Supreme Court of Canada in 1992 established the rules for the constitutional use of incorporation by reference of unilingual material, and this legislation in no way would alter that test.

Bill S-2 will solidify in legislation the position that the government has long taken on the question of when regulations can and cannot use the technique of incorporation by reference. It will provide express legislative authority for the use of this technique in the future and end any debate about existing regulations incorporating documents in a manner consistent with that authority.

Enactment of this legislation is necessary now to address concerns expressed by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. By enacting this legislative proposal, Parliament will have spoken clearly as to its intentions, and the committee's concerns will have been addressed.

The committee will continue to have the mandate to scrutinize how incorporation by reference is being used in accordance with this bill. Certainly, it will continue to be able to review the documents that are incorporated by reference and compare them to their scrutiny criteria.

Enactment of this legislation is the logical and necessary next step to securing access in a reasonable manner to incorporation by reference in regulations. For these reasons, honourable senators, I hope you will join me in supporting Bill S-2.

(On motion of Senator Fraser, for Senator Hervieux-Payette, debate adjourned.)

The Estimates, 2013-14

National Finance Committee Authorized to Study Main Estimates

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Government), pursuant to notice of earlier this day, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

National Finance Committee Authorized to Study Supplementary Estimates (B)

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Government), pursuant to notice of earlier this day, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(1530)

Financial Administration Act

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore moved second reading of Bill S-204, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (borrowing of money).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S- 204, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (borrowing of money).

Colleagues, this is the fifth incarnation of this bill — three previously introduced by my former colleague Senator Lowell Murray. Bill S-204 is my second kick at this can.

My perseverance with this initiative is borne by sincere belief that this arrangement we live under at the moment is improper and that all matters of the public purse must be approved by the public through the Parliament they elected.

I will provide a brief recap of how we arrived here. Indeed, the method of change is to be held up as just as inappropriate as the change itself. We need to keep in mind that the medium actually can be the message.

In 2007 the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-52, an omnibus bill that sought to amend 25 acts of Parliament, including the Financial Administration Act. At the time, we in opposition were concerned chiefly with the proposed changes to equalization and the Atlantic Accords. Both houses missed an amendment to the Financial Administration Act which stated:

The Governor in Council may authorize the Minister to borrow money on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada.

As my then-colleague Senator Murray put it, "until that moment, borrowing by the government had to be expressly authorized by act of Parliament."

There was no advertisement of this change. There was no mention at all made to the people of Canada that they were about to be cut out of the loop when it came to the government borrowing money, and it was not stated in the Conservative Party's election platform.

Since that change in 2007, the executive of the Government of Canada has borrowed over $1.7 trillion without the approval of Parliament. The Prime Minister and his cabinet have saddled Canadians with a debt that they will be paying off for decades. Long after this Prime Minister has faded off into the past, Canadians will be paying for his debt made without their approval, let alone permission. This is hardly a satisfactory state of affairs in what used to be a responsible parliamentary democracy.

So why would removing the authority over borrowing by Parliament be desirable by our government, especially one that came to power on the promise of accountability and transparency? We were given several reasons, each one as hollow as the next. I will recap them briefly.

First, the government stated that, in comparison to the previous framework which the previous Bill S-217 sought to restore, the present borrowing authority regime has provided for a more efficient, flexible response and prudent financial management and greater transparency and accountability in crisis such as that of 2008.

Well, this is merely cutting Parliament out of the process for reasons of secrecy and expedience. In fact, Parliament is more than capable of responding to a crisis. The ability to recall both houses within 24 hours exists in the Standing Orders of both houses.

Honourable senators, there could be no greater transparency than Parliament. Legislation in the form of a borrowing authority bill for members to debate represents the ultimate accountability.

Furthermore, Parliament could have dealt with the emergency of 2008 in appropriate time. A two-week time period was required for the actions to be taken, and Parliament would be more than capable of meeting of this time frame.

Second, the government stated that the current regime introduced enhanced disclosure requirements on anticipated borrowing and planned use of funds. In part, this is achieved through the Debt Management Strategy which is included in the budget and is debated and voted on by members of the House of Commons each year. The Debt Management Strategy contains information regarding anticipated financial requirements, borrowing requirements, refunding requirements, as well as detailed information outlining the planned sources and uses of funds.

Honourable senators, the enhanced disclosure requirements of the Debt Management Strategy could be maintained by still bringing a bill to Parliament and allowing the people of Canada to make the final decision on borrowing by the government.

Third, the government responded that, in addition to the Debt Management Strategy, the government is required to publish a debt management report. This report provides a reconciliation of the projections in the Debt Management Strategy and what was actually required by the government. This information, like the Debt Management Strategy, is available to Canadians and parliamentarians. Under the current system, the debt management report is required to be published within 30 days of the release of that year's Public Accounts, 15 days less than under the previous process.

Colleagues, this debt management report existed prior to 2007, and is tabled after the fact in Parliament. There's no reason — I repeat, no reason — as to why this report could not be tabled, while at the same time coming to Parliament with a borrowing authority bill. We could change the regime to an even more prompt publishing of the Debt Management Strategy to 15 days after the release of Public Accounts instead of 30 to be even more accountable.

Fourth and finally, the government stated that it is important to note that the process relating to borrowing authority has changed a number of times in the last half century. Various governments have attempted to find a borrowing authority process that balances the need for parliamentary oversight with the requirement for efficiency and flexibility.

Honourable senators, the last time changes were made to the process of borrowing authority was in 1975, when the Standing Orders were changed to allow for an independent debate on a borrowing authority bill, not to remove Parliament's oversight. There is nothing appropriate about allowing the executive to borrow at will without the consent of the people of Canada in the form of their Parliament.

The removal of Parliament's oversight role in borrowing does not make for a balanced system. In fact, the pendulum swings too far to the executive and away from Parliament to a situation where there is imbalance. Efficiency and flexibility do not trump the role of Parliament, which we have heard is flexible and efficient enough to have dealt with borrowing authority for the past 140 years.

So we know the arguments put forth by the government and that they ring hollow. The government would have Canadians believe that their Parliament is somehow not up to the task in times of emergency. We have lived through two world wars without the need of such a significant change to our parliamentary system. We do a disservice to those who came before us in maintaining these changes today.

While I have sympathy for those who must defend the situation, I also understand that some positions are impossible to defend. This certainly is one of them.

There are concepts which compose the core of our parliamentary system. These concepts were paid for in blood in some instances.

One of the most fundamental principles of what makes this country what it is, is that ministers of the Crown derive whatever authority they have from Parliament and that Parliament is the higher authority. But it is not only the Crown and its ministers who have forgotten the correct order of things. Successive governments of both stripes have been able to get away with this kind of cavalier behaviour largely because the individuals who sit in the House of Commons and who sit in this place have collectively forgotten the fundamentals of the Constitution and the proper role of Parliament. That is a sad state of affairs.

There are volumes upon volumes written about the role of Parliament, but, really, at its core it is quite simple: Parliament is the ultimate check on the executive. The power of Parliament to oversee borrowing by government essentially goes to the root of why Parliament exists. Monitoring the spending of government requires monitoring borrowing by government. The power of borrowing oversight is essential to fulfil oversight of spending.

My colleagues across the way must be able to see the need for us to rectify this situation. We are the chamber of sober second thought. How can we fulfil our constitutional duty without the power of oversight of government borrowing authority?

William Gladstone, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, placed value on parliamentary control over the public purse when he said:

The finance of the country is ultimately associated with the liberties of the country... If the House of Commons by any possibility lose the power of the control of the grants of public money, depend upon it, your very liberty will be worth very little in comparison. That powerful leverage has been what is commonly known as the power of the purse — the control of the House of Commons over public expenditure.

(1540)

So there is it is, colleagues: our liberty directly tied to the control of the public purse.

What do you say about a government that promises accountability to Canadians, but refuses to debate the amount of borrowing it does on behalf of those same Canadians? Long after this Prime Minister is gone his debt will remain. It will remain on the books for decades and it will be Canadians who are holding that bill, having had no say in how much was borrowed and at what rate. Is that the meaning of "accountability" these days?

Indeed this same Prime Minister, in a previous guise as member of the Reform Party in 1993, spoke for his fully allotted 40 minutes to debate the borrowing policies of the government of that day. That debate was focused on Bill C-14, a borrowing bill. What would that Stephen Harper have said had a Liberal government taken this power away from Parliament?

Senator Fraser: Good question.

Senator Moore: Honourable senators, this struggle dates back to Runnymede where, in 1215, in the form of the Magna Carta, King John was forced to make several concessions to the barons, the first steps toward our parliamentary system. However, these concessions did not end the struggle and centuries were to pass before the monarch could truly be reined in.

In the 1600s the conflict came to a head when King Charles was forced, at times, to ask for permission to borrow monies. But the Crown had its own way of getting around these rules, and I quote from a World Bank brief entitled Effective Financial Scrutiny: The Role of Parliament in Public Finance:

A crucial shortcoming of parliamentary control was that it did not extend to royal borrowing on the monarch's personal credit. After Charles II claimed the throne in 1660 parliament started to demand estimations of cost before voting money to be granted to the king, who claimed to get short shrift. To evade expenditure control, a popular royal tactic was to resort to borrowing and hope that parliament would later consent to the raising of funds to repay such loans. But this practice was not sustainable when parliament refused to oblige.

So there we have it. In 1660 the King was attempting to get around Parliament, by hook or by crook, through borrowing and then asking for parliamentary approval.

The amendments in Budget 2007 in Canada mirror efforts of the 17th century monarch who took control of the public purse away from Parliament. It stopped when Parliament refused to follow along anymore. I say we should do the same. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Business of the Senate

All Committees Authorized to Engage Services

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Government), pursuant to notice of October 24, 2013, moved:

That, pursuant to section 1(2) of chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, all committees have power, for the remainder of the current session, to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical, and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of their examination and consideration of such bills, subject-matters of bills and estimates as are referred to them.

Hon. Joan Fraser (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Question.

Senator Martin: Yes, question.

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Acting Speaker): The question has been called for.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Human Rights, Official Languages and National Defence Committees Authorized to Meet on Mondays for Remainder of Current Session

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Government), pursuant to notice of October 24, 2013, moved:

That, pursuant to rule 12-18(2), for the remainder of this session, the Standing Senate Committees on Human Rights, Official Languages, and National Security and Defence be authorized to meet at their approved meeting times as determined by the Government and Opposition Whips on any Monday which immediately precedes a Tuesday when the Senate is scheduled to sit, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding a week.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Agriculture and Forestry

Committee Authorized to Study Research and Innovation Efforts in Agricultural Sector and Refer Papers and Evidence Received during First Session of Forty-first Parliament

Hon. Percy Mockler, pursuant to notice of earlier this day, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry be authorized to examine and report on research and innovation efforts in the agricultural sector. In particular, the Committee shall be authorized to examine research and development efforts in the context of:

(a) developing new markets domestically and internationally;

(b) enhancing agricultural sustainability;

(c) improving food diversity and security; and

That the papers and evidence received and taken and work accomplished by the committee on this subject during the First session of the Forty-first Parliament be referred to the Committee; and

That the Committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than June 30, 2014 and that the Committee retain until September 30, 2014 all powers necessary to publicize its findings.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Banking, Trade and Commerce

Committee Authorized to Study Present State of Domestic and International Financial System

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Government), for Senator Gerstein, pursuant to notice of earlier this day, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce be authorized to examine and report upon the present state of the domestic and international financial system; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2015, and that the committee retain until March 31, 2016, all powers necessary to publicize its findings.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Tour of Alberta

Inquiry—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Grant Mitchell rose pursuant to notice of October 17, 2013:

That he will call the attention of the Senate to Canada's Pro-Cycling Festival, the Tour of Alberta.

He said: Honourable senators, thank you very much.

I would like to just talk a bit today about the recent Tour of Alberta. The Tour of Alberta is a Pro-Cycling Festival. It is a six- day bicycle stage race that took place in Alberta for the first time from September 2 to 8 of this year.

This is a very important, significant, big-time international cycling sporting event. This race is sanctioned by Union Cycliste Internationale, UCI. It's cycling's governing body and this race is part of the UCI American tour.

Get this: it is classified as a 2.1 race. That doesn't mean very much to most of us North Americans, but it means a great deal to people in those nations, those parts of the world where cycling is of particular prominence. It means that this race is one of the highest rated races on the international pro-cycling tour. This is a race that, of course, isn't as big in its presence in the world as the Tour de France or the Giro d'Italia, but it is of that nature and it involves athletes of that stature.

The annual event — and this was the first year, beginning in September 2013 — featured 15 professional, international cycling teams comprised of 8 riders per team. Doing the math, it is clear that this year there were 120, literally the elite of the elite of professional cyclists who participated in this event.

(1550)

The inaugural tour featured a prologue, which is a short race, a time trial, that only took the winner 8 minutes and 48 seconds to do through the streets of Edmonton. It would probably take most of us 30 to 40 minutes to do that distance. Those 8 minutes and 48 seconds, if we were able to do it in that time, would perhaps be eight of the most agonizing minutes that we had ever experienced in our lives. It is extremely intense to do that first prologue in that period of time.

That was followed by five stages that went through 18 Alberta communities. The prologue, as I said, took place in Edmonton on September 2. Stage 1 was from Strathcona County to Camrose. Stage 2 was from Devon to Red Deer. Stage 3 was from Strathmore to Drumheller. Stage 4 was from Black Diamond to Canmore. Stage 5 was from Okotoks to Calgary. Each stage was hundreds of kilometres, and they would be done in half to a third of the time or even better that a good amateur — a good daily cyclist — could do that in.

These cyclists will sustain upwards of 50 kilometres an hour for literally hours on end. It is an immensely impressive physical effort that they are capable of producing.

There was also a great deal of community involvement. In fact, two special events were involved in what can be described well as a festival — a true celebration of sport, culture and the beauty of Alberta.

One event was a prologue to the prologue, the day before the race officially started. It was a family-friendly event, designed to bring awareness to and raise money for CASA, Child, Adolescent and Family Mental Health, based in Alberta. I gave a speech about that wonderful organization in June, at the end of the last session.

Cyclists with more experience were invited to ride in the second event. This was called the Tour of Alberta Challenge. It coincided with the final stage of the Tour of Alberta itself — the professional race — and went from Okotoks to Calgary. This event was presented by TransRockies Events. It was a mass participation ride from Okotoks to Calgary, as I said. Participants could choose from two distances. These are distances that were ridden, therefore, by ordinary, non-professional athletes — a long loop of 125 kilometres or a medium loop of 83 kilometres. There was a registration fee for each cyclist, and they could raise extra money, which was used to assist the Canadian Red Cross flood relief fund.

The event — and this is interesting — was the brain child of Alex Stieda. Alex was the first North American ever to wear the yellow jersey in the Tour de France. He led the race after the second day in 1986. I know Alex Stieda quite well. He is a friend of mine. I want to say that I have ridden hundreds and hundreds of kilometres with him. That is half right. I have ridden hundreds and hundreds of kilometres with him only because he would bother to drop back and ride with me. Otherwise, we would see each other as we turned the pedal the first time, and then, after that, I would meet him hours later, at the end of the ride. I've done many rides. I've ridden with him for a week during the Tour de France, on a tour that he took, and done a week of riding with him in Italy, as well as much riding in Alberta.

Senator Munson: On a bicycle built for two?

Senator Mitchell: He is a very fine person, a remarkable leader, and an amazing athlete, and he took this event from an idea to realization this year as an international, high-quality, professional cycling event.

He spent a great number of years, from 2003 on, educating, selling the idea and making it reasonable in people's minds that you could hold an event of this quality and complexity in Alberta. The major breakthrough came when co-founder Jared Smith made the connection with the Rural Alberta Development Fund, RADF, which is the initial source of the race's funding. The RADF saw the potential to showcase rural and, to some extent, urban Alberta and to bring economic impact to, in particular, rural communities. This fund committed $3.5 million to the project, and it built from there. There were many, many benefits to Alberta and to Canada.

The benefits are that this race — and this will not be its only time — is an opportunity to showcase rural Alberta, in particular; to help to develop sustainable economies for rural Alberta; and to showcase the potential for tourism.

You can imagine this because I expect that everybody in this house has seen pictures of or films or tv shows about professional cycling races. I've stood beside the Tour de France as these racers whipped by. They are beautiful. There is a certain poetry and artistry and a profound beauty to seeing these racers in their colourful uniforms course through the beautiful countryside of a place like Alberta, and these images were projected literally all over the world. So you can see where they would have tremendous potential for impact on tourism and simply in bringing the world's awareness of Alberta to an even higher level.

The race was marketed, as I said earlier, more as a festival than simply as a sporting event because of the unique challenges fans face watching the sport. If you are actually there, you stand and wait for many hours for a race that will pass in front of you in literally milliseconds. However, people have a great deal of fun along the route and, in many cases, particularly in hilly areas where the race slows down a bit, people will camp, picnic and party.

Here is some of this described by Tom Babin, who wrote in the Calgary Herald online:

... [Often] fans stake out an observation spot on the route and wait for hours for the cyclists to zoom by, only for it all to be over within seconds. Yet, bike races are uniquely fan friendly in other ways. They are free of charge, for one thing. Also, the big races in Europe attract as many as a million spectators along certain routes because they become day-long parties for spectators, not unlike a tailgate party before a football game.

From a tourism perspective, there are also few sports that can highlight a location better than cycling. Half the fun of watching the Tour de France on television is the helicopter images of the French countryside, and the pithy historical facts from commentator Paul Sherwen.

This race was attended, if I can put it that way, along the route by literally hundreds of thousands of Albertans, Canadians and tourists from literally all over the world. In fact, the tourists watching and attending the various stages of this race were largely Western Canadian but also from all provinces, 10 states in the U.S. and 20 other countries.

The cycling industry is no small industry. Worldwide, there are nearly 65 million active participants in cycling as a sport, making the sport larger than golf, tennis, skiing or snowboarding. Also, $5.3 billion is spent on bikes each year, outdoing spending on golf, tennis, ski and snowboard equipment combined. My wife and I have had many conversations about how much money I have actually spent on bicycles and bicycling each year. More than $650 million is currently invested in teams and events around the world. And the Tour de France is the world's largest sporting event, and it occurs not once every four years like the Olympics but once a year.

(1600)

Sportsnet was the official broadcasting partner for the event, and this is really significant: The event was broadcast daily across their network. It was also broadcast internationally. It was estimated that over the six-day event, upwards of 30 million people from over 100 different countries actually viewed the event on television.

As I said, hundreds of thousands of people were specifically in attendance on the ground, as they say. Attendance was estimated to be about 300,000. It was approximately 45 per cent women and 55 per cent men. All age categories were included. It's interesting that over 20 per cent of the attendees were over the age of 50.

Honourable senators, this is an interesting statistic on spending habits: The on-site spectator of a race of this nature spends about $200 per day on average, and visitors to Alberta to view this event or parts of it averaged about 3.1 days each. The race teams and their crews alone rented 4,324 room nights in Alberta hotels. The total economic benefit to Alberta was about $35 million.

The race was won, not by a Canadian, unfortunately, but by a very distinguished rider, 23-year-old Rohan Dennis from Australia. The top Canadian rider came in eighth, and he was, interestingly and coincidentally, from Spruce Grove, Alberta, which is just outside Edmonton. He had a top-10 finish. An eighth-place finish overall in a race of this stature in the world, with these kinds of athletes, is a very fine result and augers very well for what Ryan Anderson's success as a professional cyclist may well be in the future.

Thank you, colleagues, for listening to me explain with great excitement this wonderful event. I urge you to follow it with interest in the future. Perhaps you will join Albertans and people from around the world next year, and years subsequent, to enjoy not only Alberta, urban and rural, but one of the finest professional sporting events in the world.

(On motion of Senator Day, debate adjourned.)

Adjournment

Motion Adopted

Leave having been given to revert to Government Notices of Motions:

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(g), I move:

That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, November 19, 2013, at 2 p.m.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(The Senate adjourned until Tuesday, November 19, 2013, at 2 p.m.)

General Expenses	$ 397
Witness expenses	0
SUBTOTAL	$ 397
TOTAL	$ 3,058

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

2nd Session, 41st Parliament, Volume 149, Issue 14

Thursday, November 7, 2013 The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker

THE SENATE

Thursday, November 7, 2013

2nd Session, 41st Parliament,
Volume 149, Issue 14

Thursday, November 7, 2013
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker