debates of the senate - sencanada.ca€¦ · debates services: d’arcy mcpherson, national press...

Debates of the Senate

2nd SESSION . 41st PARLIAMENT . VOLUME 149 . NUMBER 123

OFFICIAL REPORT(HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

The Honourable PIERRE CLAUDE NOLINSpeaker

This issue contains the latest listing of Senators,Officers of the Senate and the Ministry.

CONTENTS

(Daily index of proceedings appears at back of this issue).

Debates Services: D’Arcy McPherson, National Press Building, Room 906, Tel. 613-995-5756Publications Centre: David Reeves, National Press Building, Room 926, Tel. 613-947-0609

Published by the SenateAvailable on the Internet: http://www.parl.gc.ca

THE SENATE


The Senate met at 2 p.m., the Speaker in the chair.

Prayers.

[Translation]

IRAQ—FALLEN SOLDIER

SILENT TRIBUTE

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before we begintoday, I invite senators to rise to observe a minute of silence inmemory of Sergeant Andrew Joseph Doiron, who died tragicallywhile serving his country in Iraq.

Honourable senators then stood in silent tribute.

[English]

SENATORS’ STATEMENTS

VISITORS IN THE GALLERY

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to drawyour attention to the presence in the gallery of a parliamentarydelegation led by His Excellency Valeriu Stefan Zgonea,President of the Chamber of Deputies of Romania.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to theSenate of Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

THE LATE SERGEANT ANDREW JOSEPH DOIRON

Hon. Carolyn Stewart Olsen: Honourable senators, it is with aheavy heart that I rise today to acknowledge the loss of one ofNew Brunswick’s sons.

[English]

Sergeant Andrew Doiron, or Drew, as he is known by hisfriends, was a native of Moncton and a distinguished soldier inour Canadian Special Operations Regiment. He died in the line ofduty last Friday in Northern Iraq.

He is our first loss in the ongoing mission in Iraq, and as such,his sacrifice holds a special significance in our ongoing fightagainst terrorism.

Our soldiers bravely support the Kurdish Peshmerga, who areholding the line against the armies of ISIS.

Like his comrades in generations past, Sergeant Doiron took uparms to defend those who cannot defend themselves. His friendsand comrades describe him as a soldier, a warrior and aconsummate professional. He was very proud of what he did.

He joined in 2002 and served with the Princess Pats andthree terms in Afghanistan. That’s just a small portion of hismilitary service for our country.

He loved his family, he loved his job, and he had a greatrelationship with everyone around him.

In my previous career, I had the opportunity to interact withmany of the men in our special forces. I know how hard theywork, and I have nothing but the highest appreciation for thededication they show in their struggle to protect Canada fromthreats that we do not always know about or understand.

As I have noted here before, I do not view our veterans as apartisan issue. Our soldiers serve all Canadians, and in a time ofloss like this, it is our job, our only job, as senators to cometogether as one to honour their sacrifice and support those whoremain.

In closing, I would like to thank Sergeant Doiron’s family forgiving him to us to remain forever one of Canada’s immortalsons. We bring him home in dignity, with all the honour ourcountry can give, and lay him silently to a hero’s rest.

Thank you, senators.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

THE LATE ERNEST CÔTÉ

Hon. Claudette Tardif: Honourable senators, it was withdeep sadness that I learned of the passing on February 25 ofFranco-Albertan veteran Ernest Côté. He was 101.

He was one of the most famous veterans in the country. He wasa true hero who leaves behind many medals and insignia and thememory of a man who showed exemplary heroism and greatgenerosity.

He was recognized for playing a major role in the historic eventthat led to the fall of Nazi Germany during the Second WorldWar. In fact, he was named a member of the Order of the BritishEmpire by King George VI.

The lieutenant-colonel was in charge of logistics for the3rd Canadian Infantry Division during the famous Normandylanding on Juno Beach on June 6, 1944. Seventy years later to the

3021

day, I had the immense pleasure of attending the officialinternational ceremony commemorating the 70th anniversary ofthe allied landing in Ouistreham, Normandy.

The next day, I had the honour of speaking with Mr. Côté atthe Bretteville-sur-Laize Canadian military cemetery in Cintheauxduring a ceremony to pay tribute to the Canadian soldiers buriedthere. Mr. Côté delivered a memorable speech in both officiallanguages, without notes and with remarkable coherence andclarity.

I had the privilege of knowing Mr. Côté when I was the deanof the University of Alberta’s Campus Saint-Jean. He cameto meet with me to honour the contribution his father hadmade to Alberta’s francophone community by creating theJean-Léon Côté bursary for francophone students pursuingtheir studies at the Campus Saint-Jean. Jean-Léon Côté,Ernest’s father, was a surveyor, engineer, miner and AlbertaMLA before being appointed to the Senate of Canada in 1923.

After studying law at the University of Alberta, Ernest Côtéjoined the Royal 22e Régiment in 1939 as a lieutenant. He landedin Normandy on June 6, 1944 as the logistics coordinator for the3rd Canadian Infantry Division.

. (1410)

After the war, Mr. Côté had a distinguished career in thefederal public service as a diplomat and a public servant. Heparticipated in the first meetings of the United Nations GeneralAssembly. He was appointed as Canadian ambassador to Finlandby Pierre Elliott Trudeau before retiring in 1975.

Honourable senators, we have lost a dignified and humble manwho lived an impressive life and demonstrated extraordinarycourage. I will never forget how much he truly cared aboutAlberta’s francophone community, as demonstrated by the factthat when I met with him here in Ottawa just a few weeks ago, hewanted to know how he could continue to support the CampusSaint-Jean.

Ernest Côté is a hero who must always be remembered.

Well done.

[English]

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Honourable senators, I rise today todraw attention to International Women’s Day, which is heldannually on March 8. This celebration dates back to 1909 in theUnited States.

[Translation]

It was made official in 1977 by the United Nations in order toencourage all countries to celebrate and advocate for women’srights and gender equality.

Although the status of women has improved over time, there isstill a lot of work to be done, particularly when it comes toeconomic and social issues. Above all, we must be vigilant in

maintaining the progress that has been made with regard towomen’s rights, including a woman’s right to control her ownbody and choose what is best for her.

[English]

I have chosen to mark International Women’s Day byhighlighting the work and exceptional contribution to thedefence of women’s rights of one of our colleagues. I’mreferring to the Honourable Janis Johnson, who will becelebrating her twenty-fifth anniversary in the Senate thisupcoming September.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Bellemare: In my opinion, it is thanks to her leadershipand through her speeches in chambers that she upheld the rightsof women in contributing to defeat Bill C-43 concerning therecriminalization of abortion in 1991, for those who don’t know itor those who arrived late, as I did.

[Translation]

Bill C-43 sought to once again criminalize abortion even afterthe Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1988 in theDr. Morgentaler case that prohibiting abortion was contrary tosection 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, whichguarantees women the right to life, liberty and security of theperson.

In her speech in the Senate on January 31, 1991, Janis Johnsonobjected to Bill C-43 because the core problem was that itlabelled, and I quote:

. . . as criminals women who seek abortions on the basis oftheir own priorities and aspirations if these priorities do notcoincide with those of a doctor and the state.

She also said that Bill C-43, and I quote:

. . . takes us to pre-1969 days and the days when women hadabsolutely no control over their reproductive lives—we wereso powerless that to have a tubal ligation required thehusband’s signature.

I share the opinion expressed by my colleague Senator Johnsonthat only the woman should decide what is best for her. Againaccording to Senator Johnson:

It implies that people . . . who believe that women shouldchoose on this matter, are somehow against life itself. It isabsolutely crazy.

[English]

Dear Janis, I would like to thank you for having taken on thetremendous responsibility to fight this dossier for the thousandsof women who cannot speak to the issue and be heard themselves.Thank you for expressing your conviction while being a newlyappointed senator. Congratulations on your 25 years of service inthe Senate. The Senate, in part thanks to you, has shown its utilityand validity.

3022 SENATE DEBATES March 10, 2015

[ Senator Tardif ]

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, Shalom/Salaam. This year a unique commemoration of InternationalWomen’s Day was held by Na’amat Canada Toronto, a Jewishwomen’s volunteer organization; the Canadian Council ofMuslim Women; the Canadian Association of Jews andMuslims; and the Women’s Intercultural Network. It was amost amazing day that I will never forget.

The theme was Shalom/Salaam — Together we will make ithappen! Women of diverse backgrounds and of all ages cametogether at the Borochov Cultural Centre in North York inToronto.

Na’amat is concerned with the rise of anti-Semitism andIslamophobia in Canada and worldwide and decided to reach outto Muslim women for their annual celebration of InternationalWomen’s Day so that they could get to know one another andtogether help to reduce stereotypes about the other community.

Dr. Karen Mock was instrumental in bringing all the groupstogether with the help of Talat Muinuddin.

Gerry Anklewicz, President of Na’amat, stated:

We wanted to celebrate with Muslim women, as wefervently believe if women who oppose violence and hatredspeak to each other and find common ground, then we cancounter anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

Fathima Hussain, President of the Canadian Council ofMuslim Women, stated:

Working on the planning committee together, I was sopleased that both our Muslim and Jewish women’s groupsare committed to exactly the same thing— working towardsequality, safety and security. We discovered we have moresimilarities than differences.

Karen Mock summed up the outstanding event as follows:

What a thrill it was to see Jewish and Muslim womenengage in lively discussion, learning about each other’scustoms, customs and concerns, in a safe place and in such awarm and inclusive environment. We are delighted thefeedback has been so positive and that so many want tocontinue the dialogue, to take action together againstdiscrimination, and to promote peace and harmony.

Honourable senators, in my remarks to the group, I stated:

We can start by strengthening our personal relationships,by partnering with each other’s organizations locally andthen by also working internationally.

I gave examples of my work in Israel and Palestine, and I urgedthe women to come together to help bring about peace. I believe ifwe start to break down barriers in Canada, we will be able towork together for peace in Israel and Palestine.

The women of Israel and Palestine are also our sisters. If not inCanada, then where? If not us, then who? The time to start is now.

Honourable senators, Jewish people in Hebrew say shalomaleichem. Muslims in Arabic say alechim salaam.

May peace be upon us all for the sake of our grandchildren.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY ANDTHE PLIGHT OF NADIYA SAVCHENKO

Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I also riseto speak to International Women’s Day. This year’s InternationalWomen’s Day celebrates the twentieth anniversary of theBeijing Declaration and Platform for Action — a key globalpolicy document on gender equality.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has notedthat the declaration was signed as ‘‘the devastating conflict in theformer Yugoslavia prompted deserved attention to rape and otherwar crimes there against civilians.’’

Two decades later, real progress has been made in many partsof world. Yet, women and girls continue to struggle for theirrights, particularly in the world’s conflict and refugee situations.

The Beijing Declaration recognizes that:

While entire communities suffer the consequences ofarmed conflict and terrorism, women and girls areparticularly affected because of their status in society andtheir sex.

It also includes some of the earliest international commitmentsto:

Increase the participation of women in conflict resolutionat decision-making levels and protect women living insituations of armed and other conflicts or under foreignoccupation.

One of the leading symbols of women’s bravery insituations of armed struggle and foreign occupation today isMs. Nadiya Savchenko.

Thirty-three-year-old Nadiya Savchenko is a Ukrainian airforce pilot and a member of Parliament. Since last June 18, shehas been a political prisoner in the Kremlin’s war on Ukraine.Captured by separatists and abducted into Russia, she is accusedof complicity in the deaths of two Russian journalists and of‘‘illegally crossing the border.’’ No evidence has been produced tosupport these accusations; yet, Savchenko’s detention has beenrepeatedly extended.

. (1420)

The Minsk protocols signed last September call for the‘‘immediate release of all hostages and illegally detained persons.’’

March 10, 2015 SENATE DEBATES 3023

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, theEuropean Parliament, United States senators and others havecalled for Savchenko’s release — all to no avail.

Now in the eighty-eighth day of a hunger strike, concerns aregrowing for Savchenko’s health.

Savchenko has repeatedly stated that she will continue herhunger strike:

— as long as necessary so that my people have the right tobe Ukrainians in Ukrainian lands, to live truthfully,honestly, and according to their conscience, to determinetheir own fates.

Whether in peace or in conflict, all women should enjoy suchbasic human rights and dignities. Sadly, too many do not.

The theme of this year’s International Women’s Day isEmpowering Women, Empowering Humanity: Picture it! Let ushere in the Senate support Nadiya Savchenko’s immediate releaseand let us use her example to reaffirm our commitment to theempowerment of women everywhere who suffer daily.

THE SENATE

GENDER-BASED EQUALITY

Hon. Nancy Ruth: Honourable senators, we’re often talkingaround here about making the Senate more efficient, accountableand transparent. Perhaps this is another way to talk about whoshould have power. So let’s mark International Women’s Daywith five specific actions we can take here in the Senate that wouldmake a healthy shift in the balance of power and produce betterwork.

The Senate is well-placed to lead on gender equality. It wascreated to represent the interests of minorities. Over time,minority interests have evolved to include linguistic minorities,women, visible minorities, Aboriginals and others whohistorically have had limited access to power and resources.Nothing stands in our way to lead on these equalities. Here arefive actions that we can take immediately.

First of all, our membership: It is not possible, and it never was,to argue that Canada lacks for qualified women for any positionin the Senate or its administration. We should recommend to theGovernor-General-in-Council, as did the Royal Commission onthe Status of Women 45 years ago, that women be appointedto the Senate until each province and territory is representedequitably by women and men. Right now, only four out of tenprovinces have equal numbers of male and female senators. Thoseprovinces are Alberta, B.C., Manitoba and New Brunswick. Noneof the territories is represented by a woman at this time.

My second point is leadership and administration. Gender- andequality-sensitivity training should be mandatory for everysenator and Senate official. Women and men should beappointed and promoted equitably across all of our bodies andinternal structures.

Third, gender-based analysis should be done in committees onbills and in studies. All committee members should be required toexplicitly address the gender and equality implications of everypolicy, legislative and budget matter under consideration. Assenators, we need to look at a bill or study’s appropriateness forwomen and men and girls and boys.

The implementation of gender-based analysis in the federalgovernment is largely an illusion, as the Auditor Generalreported. It will remain so unless Parliamentarians undertakegender-based analysis actively and directly.

Fourth, parliamentary research: Every committee should besupported by parliamentary research staff with gender expertise.Steps should be taken to continue to increase the capacity ofparliamentary staff to conduct equality analysis of legislation,budgets and policies.

Fifth, Charter and constitutional compliance: Every committeeshould call the Department of Justice and other experts to ensurethat all legislation is in compliance with the Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms and is constitutional.

Those are five things to make the Senate better: Ensure ourmembership is 50 per cent female; have mandatory gender- andequality-sensitivity training for every senator and Senate official;do gender-based analysis in committees and on bills; requireParliamentary research staff have gender expertise; and ensureCharter and constitutional compliance in bills.

[Translation]

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

STUDY ON PRESCRIPTION PHARMACEUTICALS

EIGHTEENTH REPORT OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCEAND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE TABLED

Hon. Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie: Honourable senators, I have thehonour to table, in both official languages, the eighteenth report(final) of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs,Science and Technology, entitled: Prescription Pharmaceuticals inCanada: Final Report.

HUMAN RIGHTS

NOTICE OF MOTION TO AUTHORIZE COMMITTEETO EXTEND DATE OF FINAL REPORT ON STUDY

OF INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONALHUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS

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

That, notwithstanding the orders of the Senateadopted on Tuesday, November 19, 2013, and Thursday,June 12, 2014, the date for the final report of the Standing


[ Senator Andreychuk ]

Senate Committee on Human Rights in relation to itsexamination and monitoring of issues relating to humanrights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of governmentdealing with Canada’s international and national humanrights obligations be extended from March 31, 2015, toFebruary 29, 2016.

[English]

NOTICE OF MOTION TO AUTHORIZE COMMITTEETO EXTEND DATE OF FINAL REPORT ON STUDYOF INTERNATIONAL MECHANISMS TOWARD

IMPROVING COOPERATION IN THE SETTLEMENTOF CROSS-BORDER FAMILY DISPUTES

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

That, notwithstanding the orders of the Senateadopted on Thursday, February 27, 2014, and Thursday,December 11, 2014, the date for the final report of theStanding Senate Committee on Human Rights in relationto its examination of international mechanisms towardimproving cooperation in the settlement of cross-borderfamily disputes, including Canada’s actions to encourageuniversal adherence to and compliance with theHague Abductions Convention, and to strengthencooperation with the non-Hague State Parties with thepurpose of upholding children’s best interests be extendedfrom March 31, 2015 to February 29, 2016.

. (1430)

NOTICE OF MOTION TO AUTHORIZE COMMITTEE TOEXTEND DATE OF FINAL REPORT ON STUDY OFISSUES OF DISCRIMINATION IN HIRING ANDPROMOTION PRACTICES OF FEDERAL PUBLICSERVICE AND LABOUR MARKET OUTCOMESFOR MINORITY GROUPS IN PRIVATE SECTOR

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

That, notwithstanding the orders of the Senateadopted on Tuesday, November 19, 2013, and Thursday,June 12, 2014, the date for the final report of the StandingSenate Committee on Human Rights in relation to itsexamination of issues of discrimination in the hiring andpromotion practices of the Federal Public Service, to studythe extent to which targets to achieve employment equity arebeing met, and to examine labour market outcomes forminority groups in the private sector be extended fromMarch 31, 2015, to February 29, 2016.

QUESTION PERIOD

PUBLIC SAFETY

CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCESERVICE—OVERSIGHT

Hon. James S. Cowan (Leader of the Opposition): Honourablesenators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in theSenate, and it pertains to Bill C-51.

Last month, four former Prime Ministers — John Turner,Joe Clark, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin — all signed an openletter calling for Bill C-51 to include enhanced oversight of ournational security agencies. The other signatories included fiveformer Supreme Court justices, four former Solicitors General,three former Justice Ministers, three former Security IntelligenceReview Committee members, two former Privacy Commissionersand one former chairperson of the Commission for PublicComplaints Against the RCMP.

Does the government believe that these individuals lackcredibility on this issue?

[Translation]

Hon. Claude Carignan (Leader of the Government): As I havesaid repeatedly, we believe that third-party, non-partisan,independent expert oversight of our national security agencies isa better model. The key powers granted under the new bill aresubject to judicial review and authorization.

I would remind you that the Security Intelligence ReviewCommittee’s 2013-14 annual report states the following onpage 6:

Our model of ongoing and methodical review also has thedistinct advantage of allowing for a full and impartialassessment of CSIS’s performance, arguably betterpositioning it to detect potential problems earlier.

[English]

Senator Cowan: That is the position which the government hastaken, but I’ve given you the names and I’ve referred to anumber of eminent Canadians, in addition to the Prime Ministers,Ministers of Justice, Solicitors General, Justice Ministers, SecurityIntelligence Review Committee members.

Can you provide a list of similarly eminent Canadians whosupport the bill?

Senator Carignan: Stephen Harper.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.


Senator Cowan: That says it all.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: My question is for the Leader of theGovernment in the Senate.

Leader, there is no doubt that there is great angst in ourcommunity, especially in the Muslim community, with what ishappening with Bill C-51 and other government actions. In theUnited States, when this kind of thing happens, the first thingthey do is they reach out to the communities affected. In theUnited Kingdom, they first reach out to the communities affected.Why are we not doing that?

Senator Mitchell: That’s a tough one.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: Senator, as you know, Bill C-51 iscomprehensive. It includes privacy protection and preventionmeasures. The House of Commons is studying the bill right now,and we will have a chance to examine it thoroughly in the Senate.You will be able to ask the experts questions on all of the bill’smeasures during the Senate committee meetings.

Once our study is complete, I think you will agree that Bill C-51is crucial to protecting Canadians and keeping them safe.

[English]

Senator Jaffer: Leader, thank you for your response, but I’mnot speaking specifically about the bill. I’m also speakinggenerally.

There is no doubt there is one community that really feels that itis less and less becoming part of Canada. I belong to thatcommunity and I’m proud to be a Canadian, but when I walkaround and people do not see me as a Canadian because of myfaith, I am asking what is our government doing to protect myrights?

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: Senator, after the attacks last fall, the PrimeMinister specifically thanked the Muslim community for havingcategorically and unequivocally condemned the attacks.

He recognized the efforts of the Muslim community in the fightagainst radicalization. He clearly stated that he regards theMuslim community as an integral part of Canada and theCanadian community.

[English]

Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much, leader, for yourresponse. My question is what is the government doing inoutreach programs for this community?

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: Senator, as you know, it is very important toprotect the ties with all communities. As we are doing with theMuslim community, we need to recognize the communities that

condemn disgraceful actions and are working with members ofthe community to prevent radicalization. That is what needs to bedone and that is what is being done.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNALDECISION—EXXONMOBIL

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, myquestion is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.This past weekend we learned that the Canadian public willhave to pay $17.3 million to ExxonMobil and Murphy Oilbecause Canada lost its case under NAFTA’s investor-statedispute settlement mechanism. As I am always pointing out, thismechanism can also be found in the Canada-European Union freetrade agreement, and you continue to defend the mechanismtooth and nail, since you claim it is in the best interests ofCanadians. I cannot figure out how it is in the interests ofCanadians when they’ll have to pay $17.3 million to an oilcompany like ExxonMobil, which posted annual revenues of$393.97 billion as of May 1, 2014, for a total profit of$32.6 billion.

ExxonMobil ranks seventh among the 10 most profitablecompanies in the world. Its revenues come close to theGDP of European countries like Austria and are higher thanthe GDP of 166 of the 199 UN-recognized states.

Mr. Leader, can you tell us why Canada was ordered to paymillions of dollars to ExxonMobil?

Hon. Claude Carignan (Leader of the Government): Senator,your questions are always surprising, especially since you are alawyer. It’s as though you lost a case in court and werequestioning the merits of an independent and impartial legalsystem. This is a rather unusual question about the investor-statedispute settlement mechanism.

. (1440)

The investor protection standards provided for by Canada willbe the same as those in the other free trade agreements. TheCanada-European Union agreement will not allow investors tosue Canada more easily, just like all the trade agreements signedsince NAFTA.

The agreement includes a chapter on dispute settlement; withthose provisions, Canadian businesses are also protected fromany arbitrary or discriminatory measures taken by governments.

In the event of any disputes, Canadian businesses will haveaccess to dispute settlement by an independent and impartial thirdparty. Investor-state dispute settlement has been a key part ofCanada’s policy for over a generation, ever since the historicCanada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA were signed.Just because we did not win in a particular situation does notmean that we have to question the entire system and theimportance of having a dispute settlement mechanism.


Some Hon. Senators:

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I am not sure why you are referringto a case that is usually handled by our legal system. That is whatwe are talking about; our legal system is ignored by thismechanism that, right now, takes place behind closed doorsbetween parties independent of governments.

I will nevertheless give you the answer, since you might not beaware that $17.3 million has been taken from the budget ofCanadians, the budget of the federal government, because oilcompanies had to invest in research and development underNAFTA. However, those companies were not happy with thedecisions of the democratically elected provincial government. Asa result, they went after the federal government, because it is asignatory to NAFTA. According to the media, Newfoundlandand Labrador will have to amend its legislation on research anddevelopment. Otherwise, you will still be required to pay theamount that multibillion-dollar multinationals ask you for. Whodecides about the best interests of Canadians? Parliament, thecourts or companies?

Senator Carignan: Parliament decides what is in the bestinterests of Canadians in negotiations. In some cases, whennegotiating free trade agreements, governments will includeinvestor-state dispute settlement methods to protect theirinterests. That has been the case for many years. What is more,for free trade agreements that has been the case for more than ageneration.

CANADA-EUROPEAN UNION COMPREHENSIVEECONOMIC AND TRADE AGREEMENT—

TRADE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Let us pursue this topic. WhenMr. Couillard, the Premier of Quebec, recently travelled toFrance, he had a meeting with the French secretary of state forinternational trade. That meeting was on the Canada-Europe freetrade agreement, specifically the investor-state dispute settlementmechanism, which allows companies to go after states inkangaroo courts without giving them the chance to appeal.

The March 5 issue of Le Devoir reported the comments madeby the secretary of state, saying that he represented the officialposition not only of France, but also of Germany and allsocial democrats in Europe. The secretary of state is of the viewthat before the agreement is ratified — because let’s not forgetthat the agreement has not been ratified by Europe— the currentinvestor-state dispute settlement or ISDS clauses have to be eitherwithdrawn or rewritten entirely.

In light of these extremely clear comments made last week, isyour government prepared to renegotiate this part of theagreement? If not, would you agree that we are at an impasse?

Hon. Claude Carignan (Leader of the Government): The spinoffsfor Canadians from the Canada-European Union ComprehensiveEconomic and Trade Agreement are tremendous. It is estimatedthat the agreement represents more than 80,000 new jobs andmore than half a billion new customers for Canadian

businesses. This trade agreement with the European Union willlead to major spinoffs in the long term in every sector of oureconomy and have an impact on every region of our country.

Canada will be one of the only developed countries withpreferred access to over 800 million consumers in thetwo largest economies in the world: the European Union andthe United States.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: We’ve heard your promo severaltimes. We know it well, and you don’t have to repeat it again.Once again, I would like to quote the words, and especially thecrux of the matter, as reported in Le Devoir. The French secretaryof state said that the only options are, and I quote:

. . . to remove the ISDS altogether or come up withsomething new.

In his opinion, there will be no more movement in that directionand the Canada-European Union agreement will not be signedunless, and I quote:

. . . a new proposal is put forward — not arbitration[private, secret and by parties that do not even have theoption of appealing], but a new way of settling disputes thatmakes public jurisdictions part of the process.

Le Devoir also reported, and I quote:

The secretary of state also called for the addition of anappeal process.

Evidently, there is no process for appealing a private arbitrationdecision in the treaty as it has been negotiated so far.

Mr. Leader, why is it that European leaders understand thatthis dispute settlement mechanism, which is outside of publicjurisdiction and does not include an appeal process, is contrary tothe interests of their people, contrary to their democraticinterests and contrary to the very notion of justice when ourPrime Minister thinks that this is a good thing, as you just said?

Senator Carignan: As you probably heard during her recentvisit, Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that Germany supportsthis agreement and that she hopes it will take effect as soon aspossible. Minister Fast went to Europe recently. He heard lots ofgood things about the agreement. Trade missions from theEuropean Union are excited about the idea of doing business inCanada. This agreement is good for Canada and good for theEuropean Union. Honourable senator, I hope that you willsupport it and stop criticizing it.

Senator Hervieux-Payette: You believe that all agreements areblack or white; they cannot be amended. However, our mainEuropean partners are realizing that this provision makes nosense. A Swedish energy group that owns two nuclear plants inGermany is currently going after the German government. The


matter is before the International Centre for the Settlement ofInvestment Disputes in Washington. This Swedish group isoutraged by Germany’s decision to get out of the nuclearindustry, which is jeopardizing its medium-term profits, eventhough this political decision reflected the popular will asexpressed during democratic elections. The Swedish group issuing the German government under this process for about3.7 billion euros, which will come out of the German treasury, ascompensation for future losses.

Are your government and the Prime Minister recommendingthis type of arbitration for Canada? Do your government and thePrime Minister want a foreign company established in Canada tobe able to dictate to Canadians how they should manage theirnatural resources? Do you want us to find ourselves in a situationwhere we have to pay out billions of dollars in compensation tocompanies that one day decide that legislation that should goforward is not in their interests and where the legislation iseventually abandoned or the federal government has to pay?

Senator Carignan: Senator, you said that I believe it is black orwhite. I will correct you: To me, it is black and white, that is,black writing on white paper, and the agreement is in the interestsof Canadians. Different laws will maintain our power to legislatelegitimately in sectors of activity. We and the European Union areconfident that all the countries will ratify this agreement becauseit is good for both communities.

. (1450)

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Leader, could you at leastdemonstrate a little flexibility and agree to examine the negativeimpact of this procedure and, more importantly, trust our courts,which continually hand down rulings on damages incurred bycompanies? A number of countries are currently negotiating withcountries in Asia. At this time, many countries consider thismechanism undemocratic, and they will refuse to sign any freetrade agreement that includes such an investor-state disputesettlement mechanism, so that governments can keep theirpowers.

Under what rule are your government and your Prime Ministergiving up the right of all parliaments and legislatures and handingit over to multinational companies that invest here in Canada?Under what legal rule is Parliament agreeing to allow investors tocome in and lay down the law here, leaving Canadians to pay theprice?

Senator Carignan: Senator, dispute settlement throughinternational arbitration in free trade agreements does notrestrict any level of government from legislating fairly in thepublic interest. Canadian and foreign investors are bound by thesame Canadian laws and regulations with respect toenvironmental, labour, health, building and safety standards.Nothing in any of Canada’s free trade agreements exemptsforeign service providers from Canadian laws and regulations.

Canada and the European Union negotiated a comprehensivechapter on investment that provides a high degree of protectionfor investors while maintaining governments’ right to regulate inthe public interest.

[English]

DELAYED ANSWER TO ORAL QUESTION

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Government):Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answer tothe oral question asked by the Honourable Senator Moore onOctober 28, 2014, concerning Arctic sovereignty.

NATIONAL DEFENCE

ARCTIC SOVEREIGNTY

(Response to quest ion raised by the HonourableWilfred P. Moore on October 28, 2014)

Since introducing Canada’s Northern Strategy in 2007,the Government has made significant progress in all fourpriority areas: exercising our Arctic sovereignty, protectingour environmental heritage, promoting social and economicdevelopment, and improving and devolving Northerngovernance.

National Defence has made a number of contributions inthe North and to Canada’s Northern Strategy. Thesecontributions include key investments in infrastructure,equipment and personnel, as well as the creation andparticipation in annual exercises and operations to enhancesovereignty. National Defence also continues to cooperatewith international partners to promote dialogue and mutualunderstanding of safety and security issues in the North.

A few concrete examples of National Defence’sinvestments in the Arctic include:

. The construction of the Nanisivik Naval Facility(NNF), a deep-water docking and fueling facility inNanisivik, Nunavut, which will serve as a staging areafor Royal Canadian Navy ships and other governmentvessels operating in the High Arctic.

. The manufacture, launch and commission of threesmall radar satellites with the capacity to providecoverage of Canada’s land and oceans at least once perday, and up to four times per day in the High Arctic.These satellites, which are expected to be launched in2018 and fully operational in by 2019, will providedetailed images of Canada’s land, water, and bordersand other points of interest for surveillance, as well asdisaster, environmental and resource management.

. In partnership with Natural Resources Canada, theCanadian Armed Forces Arctic Training Centre(CAFATC) facility opened in August 2013. Thisfacility provides specialized arctic training in coldweather survival and military search and rescuetechniques, as well as Canadian Ranger training forover 140 personnel.


[ Senator Hervieux-Payette ]

. The acquisition of a class of custom-designed Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS), through the NationalShipbuilding Procurement Strategy, that will be able topatrol the length of the Northwest Passage during thenavigable season, and its approaches year round.Irving Shipbuilding Inc. was selected in October 2011as the shipyard to build the ships. Construction isexpected to begin in 2015, with delivery of the first shipanticipated in 2018.

The Government has also made investments in personnelon the ground, such as the Arctic Response CompanyGroups (ARCGs), which are primarily composed of Armyreservists and supported by the Canadian Armed Forces’Regular Force. The Canadian Rangers’ presence has alsobeen expanded from approximately 3,500 personnel in 2007to over 5,000 today, including 18 new patrol groups inremote, isolated and coastal communities across Canada.

The Canadian Armed Forces also conducts several keyannual operations and exercises, which support thesovereignty pillar of the Government of Canada’sNorthern Strategy. For example:

. Operation NANOOK: Canada’s largest sovereigntyexercise in the North includes multiple levels ofgovernment and departments and agencies. Previousexercises have also included international participationfrom the US Navy, US Coast Guard and RoyalDanish Navy.

. Operation NUNALIVUT: an operation that providesan opportunity for the Canadian Armed Forces toassert Canada’s sovereignty over its northernmostregions, demonstrate the ability to operate in theharsh winter environment in remote areas of the HighArctic, and enhance its capability to respond to anysituation in Canada’s North. The operation, which hasbeen conducted since 2007, also allows the CanadianArmed Forces to support scientific research in theArctic and demonstrate interoperability in the HighArctic with military allies and other Canadiangovernment institutions.

. Operation NUNAKPUT: an operation that seeks toassert Canada’s sovereignty over the western Arcticregion, as well as enhance the Canadian ArmedForces’ ability to operate in Arctic conditions;improve coordination and cooperation in whole-of-government operations; and, maintain interoperabilitywith mission partners in the North.

. Operation QIMMIQ: the Joint Task Force (North)surveillance and presence operation is conductedcontinuously throughout the year in Canada’s Northand includes the 1st Canadian Ranger Patrol Grouppatrols, CP140 Aurora patrols, and an annualAugust deployment of the Royal Canadian Navy.

National Defence also participates in a number of forumsto enhance cooperation in the arctic with key allies, such as:

. The Northern Chiefs of Defence meeting, which wasinitiated by Canada’s Chief of the Defence Staff in2012, to discuss common safety and security issues inthe North. The forum is comprised of Chiefs ofDefence from the eight Arctic nations (Canada,Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia,Sweden, and the United States), and meets annuallyto enhance military cooperation on emergencyresponse, responsible stewardship and support tocivilian authorities.

. National Defence played a significant role in thedevelopment of, and negotiations surrounding, theArctic Council’s Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement,signed in 2011. This Agreement builds upon previousUN and other agreements addressing SAR tostrengthen cooperation between the Arctic states andimproves the way Arctic Council countries respond toemergencies in the region.

. The annual Arctic Security Forces Roundtable, whichbrings General Officers from a number of countriestogether, including from Canada, Denmark, Germany,Finland, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, Swedenand the United Kingdom, to promote regionalunderstanding, dialogue and cooperation on theArctic, as well as enhance multilateral Arctic securityand safety operations.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACTCRIMINAL CODE

BILL TO AMEND—TWENTY-FOURTH REPORT OFLEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

COMMITTEE—DEBATE ADJOURNED

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the twenty-fourthreport of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal andConstitutional Affairs (Bill C-279, An Act to amend theCanadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (genderidentity), with amendments), presented in the Senate onFebruary 26, 2015.

Hon. Bob Runciman moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to speak to thetwenty-fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legaland Constitutional Affairs. This report is in regard to thecommittee’s study of Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Canadian


Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code in respect to genderidentity. Specifically, I would like to outline the sevenamendments approved by the committee. I say sevenamendments, but these dealt with just three substantive matters.

The first amendment was to clause 1. The bill, as it came to theSenate, proposed a definition of gender identity to be included inthe Canadian Human Rights Act, which read as follows:

(2) In this section, ‘‘gender identity’’ means, in respect ofan individual, the individual’s deeply felt internal andindividual experience of gender, which may or may notcorrespond with the sex that the individual was assigned atbirth.

This amendment removes that definition from the bill. Thecommittee heard expert testimony from lawyer Michael Crystalthat this definition is overly broad and subjective and wouldcomplicate matters for the courts and human rights tribunals,making it difficult for them to determine reasonable parametersfor when such protections should apply.

Further, no other Canadian jurisdiction that has protection forgender identity has such a definition in its human rights code.These are the reasons why members of the committee supportedthis amendment.

Amendments to clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the bill were also adoptedin relation to the removal of the definition.

There is another amendment to clause 2 of the bill that adds anew clause, 2.1. This clause amends the Canadian Human RightsAct to make clear that operators of federal facilities are notdiscriminating against transgender people:

. . . in respect of any service, facility, accommodation orpremises that is restricted to one sex only — such as acorrectional facility, crisis counselling facility, shelter forvictims of abuse, washroom facility, shower facility orclothing changing room— the practice is undertaken for thepurpose of protecting individuals in a vulnerablesituation . . .

I suspect this second amendment to clause 2 will be a matter ofsome debate at third reading, and I will leave it to others to makethe case for and against this amendment.

The final two changes by the committee are coordinatingamendments to ensure that Bill C-279 does not erase changes tosection 318(4) of the Criminal Code made by Bill C-13, theProtecting Canadians from Online Crime Act.

Section 318 of the Criminal Code, part of the hate crimeprovisions, makes it an offence to incite or promote genocideagainst an identifiable group. Subsection (4) lists the identifiablegroups that are covered under section 318, previously defined as‘‘any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion,ethnic origin or sexual orientation.’’

Bill C-13 added ‘‘sex,’’ ‘‘age’’ or ‘‘mental or physical disability’’to this list of identifiable groups. However, Bill C-279 in itsamendment of subsection (4) included ‘‘age’’ and ‘‘mental orphysical disability’’ but did not include ‘‘sex’’ as prohibitedgrounds for inciting genocide.

Bill C-13 was given Royal Assent on December 9 of last yearand came into force yesterday.

Passing Bill C-279 without amendment would wipe out theword ‘‘sex,’’ meaning a group defined by its sex would not gainthe important protection against hate propaganda extended byBill C-13.

Therefore, the committee approved an amendment to add anew clause, 4.1, that reads as follows:

4.1 On the first day on which both section 12 of theProtecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, chapter 31 ofthe Statutes of Canada, 2014, and section 3 of this Act are inforce, subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced bythe following:

(4) In this section, ‘‘identifiable group’’ means any sectionof the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, nationalor ethnic origin, age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation,or mental or physical disability.’’.

The need to ensure that all intended groups are protected fromhate crimes also leads to the final amendment approved by thecommittee, and this is a change to clause 5 of the bill.

Clause 5 previously said, ‘‘This Act comes into force 30 daysafter the day on which it receives royal assent.’’

The amendment reads:

‘‘5. This Act, other than section 4.1, comes into force30 days after’’.

That means after the day on which it receives Royal Assent.This is to ensure the coordination of Bill C-13 and Bill C-279 inamending section 318(4) of the Criminal Code.

Honourable senators, I know there will be disagreement on theneed or desirability of one or more of the amendments to this bill.However, these final two amendments, the coordinatingamendments, were not just desirable but necessary to avoidremoving important protections for women in the Criminal Code.

. (1500)

Hon. Grant Mitchell: Honourable senators, I wish to thankSenator Runciman for a number of things: one, for outlining thisbill and its amendments very clearly. I hadn’t ever before sat on acommittee that he chaired, and I would like to recognize hisexpertise as a chair and the dignity and expertise with which heconducted what was a difficult study on a difficult andcontentious issue that at times certainly raised emotions.


[ Senator Runciman ]

I also would like to thank all of my colleagues on both sides inthe committee for the importance with which they approachedthis issue. Clearly, it reflects on the Canadian set of values. Therights, inclusion and acceptance of all people are important, andthe intensity of that debate I think was very clear. Everybodyinvolved, I think, came from a place of great sincerity and greateffort to make this bill an important step in improving therecognition of significant rights of a significant group ofCanadians.

The fact is— I’ve said this many times and it’s been said manytimes— that gender identity addresses very serious issues that arefelt by the transgender community. Transgender people, in theirlives, experience, almost to a person, a great deal of abuse, bothphysical and verbal. Particularly in youth, but throughout the lifeof a transgender person, the likelihood of suicide is greatlyelevated over others in their comparative demographics, others inthe population. They are often denied housing. They are oftendenied jobs. Despite the fact that they are well educated — aheadof the average levels of education of Canadians as a whole— theyare underpaid significantly compared with the pay that is receivedby Canadians of commensurate education and experience.

It has been a remarkable experience for me to have undertakenthis and to have met many people in the trans community andtheir parents and relatives. It shouldn’t be surprising, butprobably to many of us it is, that most families, most people, inone way or another, know or are actually related to somebodywho is a transgender person. I was very moved by many of thepersonal stories that I encountered, as I know others have been aswell.

We had Jesse Thompson, a young transgender man who foughtthe fight under provincial legislation in Ontario so that he couldjoin his fellow hockey players in the locker room. He was a veryarticulate witness and reminded me in many ways of our threesons, who played sports and hung out with their buddies. That’swhat Jesse Thompson wanted to be able to do. That’s what thatlegislation in Ontario ultimately allowed him to do.

I was particularly moved as well by the story of a mother,Wendy Kauffman from Alberta, Edmonton, and their trans son,Wren Kauffman, 12 years old — a remarkably articulate youngboy and a wonderful mother and father who so deeply love thischild — and their experience of what that child was goingthrough. They have supported Wren in such a way that he hasbecome so well adjusted and articulate. Support was underlined intheir relationship with their son. Support is underlined in all ofthe studies; namely, those who are transgender and who aresupported adjust so much better and have less likelihood oftrauma, depression and suicide and are then able to contribute somuch more productively as fully-fledged, equal Canadians in oursociety and in our economy. It has been a remarkable experiencefor that reason.

To this point the bill has accomplished a great deal— not quiteenough, but a great deal. While it has taken a long time, itcertainly has provided a number of very important and, if I canuse the word, teachable moments. It isn’t enough to have a pieceof legislation. Canadian society needs to open up and understandwhat these rights mean and who trans people really are in our

society. I believe that a great deal of progress has been made overthe last several years, coincidentally but perhaps causally as wellbecause of the debate that has surrounded this bill.

I think it’s very important to note — and congratulations toSenator Nancy Ruth— that in the process of refining this bill, wehave accepted, as a country, sex into our Criminal Code. That wasa breakthrough, and that certainly recommends very strongly theone set of amendments that Senator Runciman mentioned andthat the report mentions.

The second amendment that we’re accepting is the change in thedefinition. Michael Crystal was an excellent witness, a lawyer whoclearly has a well-trained legal mind, who argued that, amongstother things, to define ‘‘gender identity,’’ which would then be theonly identifiable characteristic that is defined in these pieces oflegislation, would be in itself discriminatory and inappropriate.That’s not contentious, either.

What is contentious is another amendment, andSenator Runciman alluded to the fact that it is.

However, as another great accomplishment of this bill, whenyou count up all the stages between the House of Commons andthe Senate, we’re actually seven eighths of the way through thetwo houses of Parliament of Canada, recognizing in two of themost significant pieces of legislation in this country, the CanadianHuman Rights Act and the Criminal Code, gender identity as anidentifiable characteristic. That is not insignificant. It would benice if we could get to the eighth step and pass it into law, buttwo houses have gone seven eighths of the way, and that is notinsignificant.

Unfortunately, and I say this with a good deal of reticence, theamendment to the legislation that would allow discrimination inlocker rooms or in certain kinds of facilities, federal facilities,shelters, and so on, and washrooms, really is a contradiction ofeverything that that bill is designed to establish. While therecognition of gender identity in itself is a huge recognition, theimpact at both a practical and an emotional level for people in thetrans community and for people who are concerned deeply aboutthis issue, and on their behalf, is so powerful as to really takeaway the ultimate benefit in recognizing trans rights, genderrights. This amendment simply takes away the value and theimpact of the bill that it would otherwise have. It’s veryunfortunate. For that reason, I would like to amend this report.

I will get to an amendment in a moment, but I’d just like toexplain why this amendment, 2.1 I’ll refer to it as, the one thatallows, I would argue, discrimination against transgenderedpeople in the use of washrooms and locker rooms in certainfacilities, isn’t appropriate and why it doesn’t work.

First, it’s inherently discriminatory. Trans people are who theyare. A trans man believes in their heart of hearts as deeply as anyof us believes about our gender that they are a man. A transwoman believes, as deeply as any of us believes in our gender, thatthey are a woman and that it would be inappropriate for them touse a washroom that does not correspond to their gender identity.So it is inherently discriminatory on the one hand to say, ‘‘Werecognize your gender identity’’ while, on the other hand, not


allowing it to be expressed in one of the most personal of waysthat one could imagine. That is in the use of washrooms or lockerrooms.

. (1510)

The second point is that it really is difficult to understand howit will actually work. There was a very powerful picture in anewspaper article of, clearly, a woman, a transwoman. It turnedout she was a transwoman. I don’t mean to be patronizing, butshe was very attractive. If you walked by her on the street, youwould not for a moment believe that she was anything other thana woman. That is who she is. She’s pictured in a men’s washroomwith urinals across the way. That transwoman, under the force ofthis amendment, would have to use that men’s washroom. Howwould that work?

The flip side is, of course, that transmen — and there could betransmen in this building; there probably are; we don’t even know— with a full beard, a three-piece suit, well-muscled, every bit asmasculine as any man in this room today, would be forced to usea women’s washroom. How would women who are in thererespond to that? They would have no idea. That person is a man.That’s who that person is, and they would see that. How wouldwe monitor the use of washrooms? How would it be that we couldever actually apply this particular amendment in any way, shapeor form?

The third point is that, in a way, it comes from a place wherethere is a concern that, somehow, somebody in a washroom,perhaps a young child, might be approached or might seesomething inappropriate, if I can use those words. It’s difficult tofind the words. But it’s really piling on, legislative piling on. Wealready have legislation that covers inappropriate activity bywhomever in a washroom or any other public facility, or anyother private facility, for that matter. We don’t need this piece oflegislation to provide greater protection. We already have it in theCriminal Code.

Not only that, but, if you look at wherever this particularlegislation has been applied provincially — and there are at leastfive provinces — there have been no problems whatsoever.Schools in my province of Alberta have worked out policies thathave worked just fine and that allow transgender people andnon-transgender people absolute access to these facilities withouta problem.

We need to understand that there isn’t something that needs tobe protected from. In fact, quite often and usually, if not always,it is the trans people who do not want to be exposed in anyinadvertent way. They are the ones who bear the brunt of theabuse so often.

Senator Jaffer made a very powerful point that implicit in thisamendment is, somehow, that the transperson would be theaggressor, whereas that’s almost never the case. In jurisdictionswhere these rights have been extended legally, as I’ve said, therejust isn’t evidence of that being the case.

I use an example, a parallel argument to the argument thatwas used so frequently against gun control. It was said thatlaw-abiding gun owners shouldn’t be held accountable for theactivities or actions of non-law-abiding gun owners. But, in effect,that’s what this bill will do. It will hold accountable law-abidingtransgender people for the potential — although not oftenrealized, that we know of— inappropriate actions in a bathroomor a locker room by somebody who might not even betransgender. It could just be somebody who has decided thatthey will infiltrate a locker room inappropriately.

It seems to me that, if you make the argument in gun controland can’t hold somebody who isn’t responsible accountable forthe unlawful activities of somebody else, you can’t make theargument in the case of this amendment, which is exactly whatthis amendment essentially amounts to.

One witness we had was a witness from an Aboriginal women’sshelter. Her concern was that men might be allowed in.Transwomen, who, she would argue, in some senses, were men,would be allowed into that shelter and, not necessarily physically,but just by being there —

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Mitchell, do you need moretime? Is five more minutes granted to Senator Mitchell?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: Five more minutes.

Senator Mitchell: Thank you.

They might pose a threat. Again, in jurisdictions where theserights have been extended provincially, there haven’t been issueslike that that can’t be dealt with in policy. In fact, if we actuallyrecognize transgender rights, policies will begin to flow from thateven more aggressively and more will be done. I think we’ll find,as we did in the case of gay marriage, that, once it was done, wejust made a lot more people happy and society was only better forit.

I think that this piece of legislation almost gets there. It’s almostexactly right. It does a great deal in recognizing transgender rightsin those two pieces of legislation. On the one hand, it gives thatand, on the other hand, it just takes all of that away with thisamendment that really won’t work, that really is discriminatory,and that really is — to use the oft-used statement — a solutionlooking for a problem that doesn’t, in fact, exist. We are at amoment where we can literally make rights history in this countryand, again, send around the world the message of what Canadiansare in the sense of our acceptance, our understanding and ourinclusiveness and reflect deeply held Canadian values.

If we could have a vote, even today, against that amendment, itwould be — I will offer you the opportunity and the vehicle bywhich to do that — by moving a motion that would amend thisreport.


[ Senator Mitchell ]

MOTION IN AMENDMENT

Hon. Grant Mitchell: Therefore, honourable senators, I move,with respect to the Twenty-fourth Report of the Standing SenateCommittee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs:

That the Twenty-fourth Report of the Standing SenateCommittee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs be not nowadopted, but that it be amended by deleting amendmentNo. 3.

(On motion of Senator Plett, debate adjourned.)

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT

BILL TO AMEND—SECOND READING—DEBATE CONTINUED

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the HonourableSenator Mercer, seconded by the HonourableSenator Mitchell, for the second reading of Bill S-223, AnAct to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Parliamentof Canada Act (Speakership of the Senate).

Hon. Stephen Greene: Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I wouldlike to thank Senator Mercer — and I certainly wish him well —for putting Bill S-223 forward. It has been very quiet in thechamber without Senator Mercer. It was so quiet in here inDecember that our Speaker felt compelled to make a specialprohibition against sleeping.

As you all know, when the seconds tick down before the end ofthe parliamentary session every June, we strain to get things done,to dot every ‘‘i’’ and cross every ‘‘t.’’ It can be a very seriousbusiness.

But Senator Mercer, in those last few minutes this last June,added some lightheartedness to the festivities. He offered up a billconcerning the speakership of the Senate that proposed nothingless than a constitutional change. Can you imagine?

. (1520)

This has been tried before, of course. In 2003, Senator Oliverput forward a bill very similar to Senator Mercer’s bill.

I wish to state at the outset that I stand four-square in favour ofthis chamber choosing our own Speaker, but perhaps offering abill to do so is counterproductive at this time. Moreover, there areat least two methods that could result in this chamber choosingour own Speaker and I will explore them briefly.

Senator Mercer’s method to achieve a Speaker chosen by thischamber is to ask the House of Commons for a constitutionalchange through section 44. This section enables changes to theConstitution by simple votes of Parliament where those changesare a matter of governance. I think Senator Mercer is right that

this issue is a matter of governance, so this section could be used.However, I have no stomach at this time for a debate in the Houseof Commons on the issue of the Senate. The other side may ormay not have colleagues on the other side, but I do and I wouldn’twish a debate on the Senate on them at this time.

Let’s continue. Why is our Speaker currently chosen by theGovernor General on the Prime Minister’s advice? The history isa bit foggy, but I believe the choice of our Speaker was put thereinitially as a result of British practice and, as the Confederationdebates of that time show, as a way to tie the Senate to the Houseof Commons, the elected body, and to enhance the prospects for astable government.

Over time, of course, numerous practices, procedures andconventions reveal that the real tie to the House of Commons andto the government of the day is now not through the Speaker butthrough the office of the Leader of the Government in the Senate,who is sometimes in cabinet, and also the role of deputy leader, asort of government house leader whose job is to pass thegovernment’s legislation through the Senate with as few changesas possible. These two positions are not mentioned in theConstitution, but they are vastly more important today ingetting government legislation passed than is the Speaker.Today it is these roles, and not the role of Speaker, that are theSenate’s umbilical cord to the government of the day. Thus, thepractical reasons for having the Governor General choose ourSpeaker on behalf of the Prime Minister hold less weight today.

I am in favour of us eventually choosing our own Speaker for anumber of reasons.

As we all know, the idea of a body, any body, group,organization or institution, choosing its own Speaker or,essentially, chairperson, is commonplace in our society. It is thenorm in most businesses, trade associations and public andprivate institutions of various and many kinds. It is seen to be ademocratic way of doing things. It is seen as accountable andtransparent. Many financial and business auditors encouragetheir clients, if they don’t already, to adopt these practices withregard to their boards. It is more transparent and accountable toelect than to appoint. In short, a body electing its ownchairperson is seen as good governance. I would hope that thischamber is an example of good governance.

When I mention to my friends that we don’t elect our Speaker,it strikes them as just plain odd, if not undemocratic. Leavingindependence and autonomy issues to one side, I would evenargue that it would be more democratic than our current practiceif members of the House of Commons elected our Speaker, asridiculous as that sounds.

Indeed, all of our provincial and territorial legislatures electtheir own Speakers. Our House of Commons does so, and theAustralian Senate has been doing so since 1901 by a secret ballotfor a three-year mandate.

It is generally seen that a legislature electing its own Speaker bysecret ballot strengthens the impartiality of the office. BothSenator Oliver and Senator Mercer made this point in theirspeeches, particularly with regard to the secret ballot.


Senators Oliver and Mercer agree that an elected Speakershould vote only in case of a tie but may abstain at that time, andthat the Speaker’s decisions should not be reviewable by theSenate as a whole. To have them reviewable weakens theSpeaker’s power and impartiality.

Senator Oliver adds a further point that Senator Mercerdoes not address. That is that the Speaker should serve for anon-renewable term of, perhaps, three years as in Australia. Thatwould be the advantage of enabling more senators to bring theirexperience and talents to this important position. I agree withSenator Oliver. Such a rule would be an investment in the humancapital of this place.

Senator Oliver said in 2004, with reference to his bill, Bill S-16:

The Speaker is not the servant of the Prime Minister, of thegovernment or of the opposition. He is the servant of theSenate.

Senator Kinsella, as we all know, has subsequently echoed andquoted this comment, and I agree with it, too, for our Speaker isnot only the chairman of this chamber; he is also becoming thelead administrator of this institution.

The issue of whether we should elect our Speaker is not just amatter of the good governance of this institution. It goes to theheart of how autonomous the Senate should be. It is important tounderstand the difference between the independence of the Senateand the Senate’s autonomous nature.

I think we all agree that we must be autonomous in our ownrealm. Senators Nolin, Joyal and Carignan have recently spokenabout this. It doesn’t serve Canadian democracy to have either theHouse of Commons or the cabinet, or the Governor General orany other body influencing our role unduly. This is precisely whywe need to take charge of the role and selection of our Speaker.

As for independence, from many discussions with manysenators on both sides of the aisle, I think it is generally thecase that the majority of senators believe the Senate should bemore independent than it currently is, but, after that, the viewsdiffer widely as to how much independence the Senate shouldhave and with respect to what precisely. The degree ofindependence we should have is somewhat mixed up with thelevel of partisanship you feel and whether you are on thegovernment side or not.

I say, let us take our time with this issue. There is no need torush. As we all know, the federal election is about eight monthsaway. There are many issues in the other place crowding the plate:the budget, anti-terror and public security legislation, renewal ofour military role against ISIS, and so on.

We are also in a season when issues can swiftly becomefootballs and, for some in the other place, the Senate is theirpolitical football of choice. Senator Mercer supposedly no longerhas colleagues on the other side, but I do and I wouldn’t wish anunnecessary debate on the Senate on them at this particular time.

This is not to suggest that choosing our own Speaker is notimportant. It is very important. But we are not in a rush. We havean excellent Speaker, recently selected, a person we would havevoted for if we had had the chance, and he isn’t going very faranywhere soon. We must have the luxury of time. We have it. Letus take our time and do this right.

Barring the type of constitutional change recommended bySenators Oliver and Mercer, another method that could be used,which is within our control, is through rules changes in thischamber. In these rules changes, we could outline procedures —including secret ballot and renewable term limits, if we like —culminating in selection and pro forma election by the Committeeof Selection of the next Speaker. We would expect that over timethe convention of the Prime Minister advising the GovernorGeneral on appointment of the Speaker would be replaced by theconvention of the Senate doing so.

But there is another aspect to this debate that perhapsreinforces the eventual need for a change through section 44rather than a change to our own rules. I refer to the recent debateon expanding the administrative powers of the Speaker in his roleas chair of Internal Economy.

The logic is the house elects their Speaker so theiradministrative authority is appropriately held by their electedSpeaker. The administrative powers of the Senate, according toour rules, reside with the Senate as a whole by being vested in theBoard of Internal Economy. With possible changingadministrative powers for the role of our Speaker, it seems tome it would be appropriate for us to practise good government inthe election of the person to whom these powers are beingawarded.

What I urge today is the following: that we not adoptSenator Mercer’s bill, not because it’s not a good bill butbecause the timing is wrong and maybe it has too narrow ascope. After the coming federal election, we might consider adifferent bill to elect our Speaker that might also include a clearstatement of the powers of our Speaker.

(On motion of Senator Fraser, debate adjourned.)

. (1530)

THE SENATE

MOTION TO STRIKE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SENATETRANSFORMATION—DEBATE CONTINUED

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the HonourableSenator Ringuette, seconded by the HonourableSenator Cordy:

That a Special Committee on Senate Transformation beappointed to consider;

1. methods to reduce the role of political parties in theSenate by establishing regional caucuses and systemsto provide accountability to citizens;


[ Senator Greene ]

2. methods to broaden participation of all senators inmanaging the business of the Senate by establishing acommittee to assume those responsibilities, and toprovide for equal regional representation on saidcommittee;

3. methods to allow senators to participate in theselection of the Speaker of the Senate by providinga recommendation to the Prime Minister;

4. methods to adapt Question Period to better serve itsrole as an accountability exercise; and

5. such other matters as may be referred to it by theSenate;

That the committee be composed of nine members, to benominated by the Committee of Selection and that fourmembers constitute a quorum;

That, the committee have power to send for persons,papers and records; to examine witnesses; and to publishsuch papers and evidence from day to day as may be orderedby the committee;

That, notwithstanding rule 12-18(2)(b)(i), the committeehave power to sit from Monday to Friday, even though theSenate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding oneweek; and

That the committee be empowered to report fromtime to time and to submit its final report no later thanJune 30, 2015.

Hon. Stephen Greene: Honourable senators, I reserve thisfascinating motion in my name.

(On motion of Senator Greene, debate adjourned.)

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY

INQUIRY—DEBATE CONTINUED

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the HonourableSenator Plett, calling the attention of the Senate to thedecisions made by certain provinces’ law societies to denyaccreditation to Trinity Western University’s proposed newlaw school.

Hon. Bob Runciman: Honourable senators, I am pleased tospeak today to Senator Plett’s inquiry calling attention to thedecisions made by several provinces’ law societies to denyaccreditation to Trinity Western University’s proposed new lawschool. At the outset, I want to commend Senator Plett. He’s asenator who ventures where others fear to tread, and Icongratulate him for bringing this inquiry before the Senate.

What disturbs me the most about this issue is that the verypeople on whom we depend to uphold the values of diversity andtolerance can be so intolerant when it comes to this matter. Thevery people who champion the supremacy of the CanadianCharter of Rights and Freedoms are, in this case, quite willing todismiss a fundamental freedom — the freedom of religion —simply because this institution holds values that do not align withtheir own ultra-liberal views.

At issue here is the community covenant Trinity Westernrequires its students to sign. The covenant requires students toagree to abstain from ‘‘sexual intimacy that violates thesacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.’’

This covenant may not reflect the prevailing views of Canadiansociety, but it does reflect the philosophy of Trinity Western, aprivate Christian university. Trinity does not ban gay studentsfrom enrolling, nor should it be able to, but it has every right toexpect students to conduct themselves in a manner that isconsistent with the school’s values.

The Supreme Court, in a 2001 decision involving certification ofgraduates from the school’s teachers program, has already ruledthat Trinity Western’s covenant is not discriminatory because itseeks to prohibit conduct, not beliefs.

The benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada, aprofessional body representing lawyers in my own province ofOntario, voted 28-21 last spring to prohibit graduates of TrinityWestern from practising law in the province. I do not know if thisis the majority opinion in Ontario’s legal community — Icertainly hope not — or whether it is merely another exampleof an organization where the leadership is out of step with itsmembers. Surely the typical lawyer in the province of Ontariowould not give such short shrift to a fundamental Canadianfreedom.

As lawyer Anna Wong wrote in the Law Times last year:

By denying accreditation to Trinity Western, the lawsociety categorically denies its graduates the chance topractice in Ontario because they decided to exercise theirfreedom of religion to live by their Christian ethos andattend a private Christian university that reflects thosevalues as set out in the community covenant, without givingthem an opportunity to demonstrate they have the legal andethical competency to provide legal services.

I think she raised a very important point there. This has nothingto do with trying to prevent bad lawyers from practising in theprovince. The quality of the school’s proposed program seems tobe not an issue that concerns its opponents. Rather, they arefocused on banning people from earning a living based on thereligious beliefs they may or may not hold.

Whether or not the Law Society of Upper Canada prevails inthis misguided, prejudiced and hypocritical witch hunt is yet to beseen. The matter remains before the courts. But Trinity Western,and all those who believe in freedom of religion, can take heartfrom the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia,


which ruled in late January that the Nova Scotia BarristersSociety did not have the right to demand Trinity Westernabandon its community covenant in order to allow its graduatesto practise law in that province. Justice Jamie Campbell, in thatdecision, noted it is not Trinity Western that is discriminating, butthe Nova Scotia lawyers.

Honourable senators, I will quote from that decision:

People have the right to attend a private religiousuniversity that imposes a religiously based code of conduct. . . Learning in an environment with people who promise tocomply with the code is a religious practice and anexpression of religious faith. Requiring a person to give upthat right in order to get his or her professional educationrecognized is an infringement of religious freedom.

Justice Campbell also pointed out the lack of logic in theNova Scotia Barristers Society trying to ban a Trinity Westerngraduate;

. . . even though he or she may not agree with theuniversity’s policies and may even be a member of theLBGT committee. Yet, quite properly, it does not preventlawyers from practicing law who may agree with thereligious tenets that underlie Trinity’s policy, or whobelong to religions or private organizations that espousethose moral positions and impose similar restrictions ontheir members.

It just doesn’t make any sense, honourable senators. Thehysterical reactions to Trinity Western’s plans for a law schoolwould be laughable if they were not coming from some ofCanada’s most prominent lawyers. It’s a mystery to me why theyshould be so afraid of a small post-secondary institution and alaw program that does not yet exist.

This is a group of people who routinely argue that even themost minor recalibration of the criminal justice system is a steptowards the imposition of a police state; yet they are only toowilling to violate one of the most fundamental freedoms inCanada so they can target a group they don’t agree with. They arehypocrites of the first order.

(On motion of Senator Meredith, debate adjourned.)

LIVING WITH DEMENTIA

INQUIRY—DEBATE CONTINUED

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the HonourableSenator Andreychuk calling the attention of the Senate tothe challenges confronting a large and growing number ofCanadians who provide care to relatives and friends livingwith dementia.

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, imagine a world wherethe known becomes the unknown, the familiar unfamiliar.Imagine waking up next to someone you do not recognize or

forgetting memories that it has taken a lifetime to make. Thisworld must indeed be a frightening one, and yet this is somethingthat is experienced by a growing number of Canadians.

In 2011 it was estimated that 740,000 Canadians suffered fromsome form of dementia. It is projected that should nothing changein Canada this number will increase to 1.4 million people by theyear 2031. Sadly, this does not even begin to reflect the number ofpeople who are affected or touched by this disease when youcalculate the number of spouses, children and caregivers who dealwith it on a day-to-day basis.

I would like to speak to you for a moment regarding oneparticular man from Nova Scotia. His name is Darce Fardy.Darce is a former journalist and former freedom of informationofficer who lives in Halifax. He was diagnosed with dementia andhe has been writing regular articles for The Chronicle Herald on itsprogression. He has shared stories about his return to the gym tohelp him with focus, as well as his consultations with thephysiotherapist in order for his body to remain strong for as longas possible. What is most remarkable about Darce’s stories is thehumour he has managed to retain throughout his diagnosis andprogression. He talks openly about how this disease affects himand those around him on a day-to-day basis. He has said:

There is no reason for those with dementia to avoidpeople and that’s the message I am trying to get out.

. (1540)

Darce has said that many people have thanked him profuselyfor sharing his stories, and they have encouraged him to continuehis writing. He also has a fair share of people who are unsure ofhow to act around him, but slowly and surely he shows them thatthere is much about who he is that still remains. Honourablesenators, his articles in Halifax’s The Chronicle Herald areextraordinary and it is well worth reading them. His doctor,Dr. Ken Rockwood, Professor and Director of GeriatricMedicine Research at Dalhousie University, was a witnessbefore the Special Senate Committee on Aging for our reportIssues and Options for an Aging Population, tabled in the Senate inMarch 2008.

Dementia can appear in many different forms. It is verydifferent from but often confused with age-associated memoryimpairment, the latter of which will affect nearly 40 per cent ofpeople over 65. Warning signs for dementia and Alzheimer’sdisease in particular can include memory loss that affectsday-to-day function; difficulty performing familiar tasks;problems with language; disorientation of time and place; pooror decreased judgment; problems with abstract thinking;misplacing things; changes in mood, behaviour or personality;and loss of initiative.

There are many benefits to an early, accurate diagnosis of thedisease, including having the patient become actively involved intheir health care, as well as learning to use medications effectively.This also provides the family with an opportunity to learn aboutthe condition and to prepare to support their loved ones.Honourable senators, it is important that families seek supportfor themselves as caregivers. Early diagnosis is also helpful in


[ Senator Runciman ]

fighting the stigma that is often associated with mental healthissues. It can help people with dementia to continue to live theirlives to the fullest and to share their experiences so that others willbe encouraged to seek diagnosis and support. As with any disease,it is important to learn the facts, not to make assumptions, and totreat those with dementia with respect and dignity.

Some steps can be effective in preventing dementia. It is helpfulto maintain a healthy weight through regular exercise and ahealthy diet. It is also recommended to limit alcoholconsumption, to not smoke, and to keep blood pressure at ahealthy level. Further to these important steps, we need leadershipin the way of education. While it is clear that Canadians over 65must be encouraged to be more active, we must develop programsand national advertising strategies that are targeted towardsseniors and the types of activities they can do to keep active andto delay the onset of dementia. Such activities might includewalking, swimming, aerobics and aquasize.

Honourable senators, the effects of this disease are far reaching.Because we do not, as yet, have a straightforward test to diagnosedementia and because there is no known cure or way to reverse itsdamage, it is critical that we make prevention a top priority. It isessential that we not only care for those with dementia but alsotheir caregivers. The strain of caring for a loved one withdementia can often be overwhelming on many levels. There is, ofcourse, the physical care that is required, but it is often theemotional toll that leaves the deeper, longer-lasting impression.When originally asked to speak with CBC’s ‘‘The Current’’regarding his condition, Darce Fardy commented that theysensibly asked his wife to join the interview. In one of hisarticles he notes:

. . . I have said many times that when dementia happens,the family is affected as much as the person diagnosed.

Dorothea does not share the same enthusiasm for publicattention that her husband, a former journalist, does. Butshe recognizes that people need to hear her story as well asmine.

Honourable senators, it is imperative that we develop someform of skill-building support programs for informal caregivers.It has been noted that while women make up 72 per cent ofCanadians with Alzheimer’s disease, mainly due to longer lifeexpectancy, they also make up the larger percentage of caregiversfor those with Alzheimer’s. There’s currently little training andfew supports available for informal caregivers. Supports forstrategies in terms of competency and coping skills, or a casemanager to support and provide coordination to the patient aswell as to the caregiver would be not only beneficial but it isestimated that it would also save the health care systemapproximately $114 billion.

I’m supportive of Senator Andreychuk’s suggestion that wedevelop a Canadian response and that we re-evaluate ourlong-term care system in order to better recognize the work andneeds of informal caregivers and to support them in this way.Many countries, including Australia, Norway, the Netherlands,France, Scotland and the United Kingdom have developedspecific frameworks to deal with dementia. Unfortunately, we inCanada do not have a national strategy. Currently, six out often provinces are developing strategies, but it is clear, as it hasbeen in the past with other diseases, such as diabetes, cancer andHIV/AIDS, that stronger programs develop once the federalgovernment commits to being seriously engaged. Thiscommitment will ensure that informal caregivers are able toprovide better care for their loved ones.

We cannot change the challenges of the situation for those withdementia and their caregivers, but we can make it easier for themto deal with this disease.

Hon. Percy Mockler: Honourable senators, when I was aminister in a provincial house, I remember very well thechallenges that were brought to my attention during those daysabout dementia. I would be honoured to take the adjournment ofthe debate.

(On motion of Senator Mockler, debate adjourned.)

(The Senate adjourned until Wednesday, March 11, 2015, at1:30 p.m.)


APPENDIX

Officers of the Senate

The Ministry

Senators

(Listed according to seniority, alphabetically and by provinces)

March 10, 2015 SENATE DEBATES ii

THE SPEAKER

The Honourable Pierre Claude Nolin

THE LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT

The Honourable Claude Carignan, P.C.

THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

The Honourable James S. Cowan

—————

OFFICERS OF THE SENATE

CLERK OF THE SENATE AND CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS

Charles Robert

LAW CLERK AND PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL

Michel Patrice

USHER OF THE BLACK ROD

J. Greg Peters

iii SENATE DEBATES March 10, 2015

THE MINISTRY

(In order of precedence)

—————

(March 10, 2015)

—————The Right Hon. Stephen Joseph Harper Prime Minister

The Hon. Bernard Valcourt Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern DevelopmentThe Hon. Robert Douglas Nicholson Minister of Foreign Affairs

The Hon. Peter Gordon MacKay Minister of JusticeAttorney General of Canada

The Hon. Rona Ambrose Minister of HealthThe Hon. Diane Finley Minister of Public Works and Government Services

The Hon. Tony Clement President of the Treasury BoardThe Hon. Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of CommonsThe Hon. Jason Kenney Minister of National Defence

Minister for MulticulturalismThe Hon. Gerry Ritz Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

The Hon. Christian Paradis Minister of International DevelopmentMinister for La Francophonie

The Hon. James Moore Minister of IndustryThe Hon. Denis Lebel Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada

for the Regions of QuebecPresident of the Queen’s Privy Council for CanadaMinister of Infrastructure, Communities andIntergovernmental Affairs

The Hon. Leona Aglukkaq Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic DevelopmentAgency

Minister for the Arctic CouncilMinister of the Environment

The Hon. Lisa Raitt Minister of TransportThe Hon. Gail Shea Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

The Hon. Julian Fantino Associate Minister of National DefenceThe Hon. Steven Blaney Minister of Public Safety and Emergency PreparednessThe Hon. Edward Fast Minister of International Trade

The Hon. Joe Oliver Minister of FinanceThe Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay Minister of National Revenue

The Hon. Pierre Poilievre Minister of Employment and Social DevelopmentMinister of Democratic Reform

The Hon. Shelly Glover Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official LanguagesThe Hon. Chris Alexander Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

The Hon. Kellie Leitch Minister of LabourMinister of Status of Women

The Hon. Greg Rickford Minister of Natural ResourcesMinister for the Federal Economic Development Initiativefor Northern Ontario)

The Hon. Erin O’Toole Minister of Veterans AffairsThe Hon. Maxime Bernier Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism, and

Agriculture)The Hon. Lynne Yelich Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular)

The Hon. Gary Goodyear Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agencyfor Southern Ontario)

The Hon. Rob Moore Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)The Hon. John Duncan Minister of State and Chief Government WhipThe Hon. Tim Uppal Minister of State (Multiculturalism)The Hon. Alice Wong Minister of State (Seniors)The Hon. Bal Gosal Minister of State (Sport)

The Hon. Kevin Sorenson Minister of State (Finance)The Hon. Candice Bergen Minister of State (Social Development)The Hon. Michelle Rempel Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)

The Hon. Ed Holder Minister of State (Science and Technology)

March 10, 2015 SENATE DEBATES iv

SENATORS OF CANADA

ACCORDING TO SENIORITY

(March 10, 2015)

Senator Designation Post Office Address

The Honourable

Anne C. Cools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto Centre-York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto, Ont.Charlie Watt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inkerman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kuujjuaq, Que.Colin Kenny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rideau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ottawa, Ont.Janis G. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manitoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gimli, Man.A. Raynell Andreychuk . . . . . . . . . . . . Saskatchewan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regina, Sask.David Tkachuk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saskatchewan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saskatoon, Sask.Pierre Claude Nolin, Speaker . . . . . . . . . . De Salaberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quebec, Que.Marjory LeBreton, P.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manotick, Ont.Céline Hervieux-Payette, P.C. . . . . . . . . . . Bedford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Montreal, Que.Marie-P. Charette-Poulin . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nord de l’Ontario/Northern Ontario . . . . . . . . . . Ottawa, Ont.Wilfred P. Moore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stanhope St./South Shore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chester, N.S.Serge Joyal, P.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kennebec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Montreal, Que.Joan Thorne Fraser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . De Lorimier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Montreal, Que.George Furey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newfoundland and Labrador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. John’s, Nfld. & Lab.Nick G. Sibbeston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Northwest Territories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fort Simpson, N.W.T.Jane Cordy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nova Scotia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dartmouth, N.S.Elizabeth M. Hubley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prince Edward Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kensington, P.E.I.Mobina S. B. Jaffer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North Vancouver, B.C.Joseph A. Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saint John-Kennebecasis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hampton, N.B.George S. Baker, P.C.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newfoundland and Labrador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gander, Nfld. & Lab.David P. Smith, P.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cobourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto, Ont.Maria Chaput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manitoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sainte-Anne, Man.Pana Merchant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saskatchewan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regina, Sask.Pierrette Ringuette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmundston, N.B.Percy E. Downe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charlottetown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charlottetown, P.E.I.Paul J. Massicotte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . De Lanaudière . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mont-Saint-Hilaire, Que.Terry M. Mercer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Northend Halifax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caribou River, N.S.Jim Munson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ottawa/Rideau Canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ottawa, Ont.Claudette Tardif. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton, Alta.Grant Mitchell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton, Alta.Elaine McCoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calgary, Alta.Lillian Eva Dyck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saskatchewan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saskatoon, Sask.Art Eggleton, P.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto, Ont.Nancy Ruth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cluny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto, Ont.James S. Cowan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nova Scotia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Halifax, N.S.Larry W. Campbell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vancouver, B.C.Dennis Dawson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lauzon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sainte-Foy, Que.Sandra Lovelace Nicholas . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tobique First Nations, N.B.Stephen Greene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Halifax-The Citadel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Halifax, N.S.Michael L. MacDonald. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cape Breton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dartmouth, N.S.Michael Duffy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prince Edward Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cavendish, P.E.I.Percy Mockler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Leonard, N.B.John D. Wallace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rothesay, N.B.Michel Rivard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Laurentides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quebec, Que.Nicole Eaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caledon, Ont.Irving Gerstein. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto, Ont.Pamela Wallin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saskatchewan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wadena, Sask.

v SENATE DEBATES March 10, 2015


Nancy Greene Raine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thompson-Okanagan-Kootenay . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sun Peaks, B.C.Yonah Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vancouver, B.C.Richard Neufeld. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fort St. John, B.C.Daniel Lang. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yukon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whitehorse, YukonPatrick Brazeau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Repentigny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maniwaki, Que.Leo Housakos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wellington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laval, Que.Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rougemont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quebec, Que.Donald Neil Plett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Landmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Landmark, Man.Linda Frum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto, Ont.Claude Carignan, P.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mille Isles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saint-Eustache, Que.Jacques Demers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rigaud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hudson, Que.Judith G. Seidman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . De la Durantaye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saint-Raphaël, Que.Carolyn Stewart Olsen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sackville, N.B.Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annapolis Valley - Hants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Canning, N.S.Dennis Glen Patterson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nunavut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iqaluit, NunavutBob Runciman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes . . . Brockville, Ont.Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . La Salle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sherbrooke, Que.Elizabeth Marshall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newfoundland and Labrador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paradise, Nfld. & Lab.Rose-May Poirier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Brunswick—Saint-Louis-de-Kent . . . . . . . . . Saint-Louis-de-Kent, N.B.Salma Ataullahjan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto—Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto, Ont.Don Meredith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richmond Hill, Ont.Fabian Manning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newfoundland and Labrador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Bride’s, Nfld. & Lab.Larry W. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saurel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hudson, Que.Josée Verner, P.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Montarville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures, Que.Betty E. Unger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton, Alta.Norman E. Doyle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newfoundland and Labrador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. John’s, Nfld. & Lab.Ghislain Maltais. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shawinegan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quebec City, Que.Jean-Guy Dagenais. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Victoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blainville, Que.Vernon White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ottawa, Ont.Paul E. McIntyre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charlo, N.B.Thomas Johnson McInnis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nova Scotia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sheet Harbour, N.S.Tobias C. Enverga, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto, Ont.Thanh Hai Ngo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orleans, Ont.Diane Bellemare. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Outremont, Que.Douglas John Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Canmore, Alta.David Mark Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newfoundland and Labrador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. John’s, Nfld. & Lab.Lynn Beyak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dryden, Ont.Victor Oh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mississauga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mississauga, Ont.Denise Leanne Batters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saskatchewan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regina, Sask.Scott Tannas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High River, Alta.

March 10, 2015 SENATE DEBATES vi

SENATORS OF CANADA

ALPHABETICAL LIST

(March 10, 2015)

Senator DesignationPost OfficeAddress

PoliticalAffiliation

The Honourable

Andreychuk, A. Raynell . . . Saskatchewan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Regina, Sask. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeAtaullahjan, Salma . . . . . . . Toronto—Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Toronto, Ont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeBaker, George S., P.C. . . . . . Newfoundland and Labrador . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gander, Nfld. & Lab. . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalBatters, Denise Leanne . . . . Saskatchewan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Regina, Sask. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeBellemare, Diane . . . . . . . . . Alma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Outremont, Que. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeBeyak, Lynn . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dryden, Ont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeBlack, Douglas John . . . . . . Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Canmore, Alta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeBoisvenu, Pierre-Hugues . . . La Salle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sherbrooke, Que. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeBrazeau, Patrick . . . . . . . . . Repentigny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Maniwaki, Que. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IndependentCampbell, Larry W. . . . . . . British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vancouver, B.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalCarignan, Claude, P.C. . . . . Mille Isles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Saint-Eustache, Que. . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeChaput, Maria . . . . . . . . . . . Manitoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sainte-Anne, Man. . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalCharette-Poulin, Marie-P. . . Nord de l’Ontario/Northern Ontario . . . . . . . . . Ottawa, Ont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalCools, Anne C. . . . . . . . . . . Toronto Centre-York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Toronto, Ont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IndependentCordy, Jane . . . . . . . . . . . . Nova Scotia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dartmouth, N.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalCowan, James S. . . . . . . . . . Nova Scotia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Halifax, N.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalDagenais, Jean-Guy . . . . . . . Victoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Blainville, Que. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeDawson, Dennis. . . . . . . . . . Lauzon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ste-Foy, Que.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalDay, Joseph A. . . . . . . . . . . Saint John-Kennebecasis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hampton, N.B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalDemers, Jacques . . . . . . . . . Rigaud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hudson, Que. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeDowne, Percy E. . . . . . . . . . Charlottetown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charlottetown, P.E.I. . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalDoyle, Norman E. . . . . . . . . Newfoundland and Labrador . . . . . . . . . . . . . .St. John’s, Nfld. & Lab. . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeDuffy, Michael . . . . . . . . . . Prince Edward Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cavendish, P.E.I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IndependentDyck, Lillian Eva . . . . . . . . . Saskatchewan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Saskatoon, Sask. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalEaton, Nicole . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Caledon, Ont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeEggleton, Art, P.C.. . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Toronto, Ont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalEnverga, Tobias C., Jr. . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Toronto, Ont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeFortin-Duplessis, Suzanne . . Rougemont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Quebec, Que. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeFraser, Joan Thorne . . . . . . . De Lorimier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Montreal, Que. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalFrum, Linda . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Toronto, Ont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeFurey, George . . . . . . . . . . . Newfoundland and Labrador . . . . . . . . . . . . . .St. John’s, Nfld. & Lab. . . . . . . . . . . LiberalGerstein, Irving . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Toronto, Ont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeGreene, Stephen . . . . . . . . . Halifax - The Citadel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Halifax, N.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeHervieux-Payette, Céline, P.C. Bedford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Montreal, Que. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalHousakos, Leo . . . . . . . . . . Wellington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Laval, Que. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeHubley, Elizabeth M. . . . . . Prince Edward Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kensington, P.E.I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalJaffer, Mobina S. B. . . . . . . British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North Vancouver, B.C. . . . . . . . . . . LiberalJohnson, Janis G.. . . . . . . . . Manitoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gimli, Man.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeJoyal, Serge, P.C. . . . . . . . . Kennebec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Montreal, Que. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalKenny, Colin . . . . . . . . . . . Rideau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ottawa, Ont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalLang, Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . Yukon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Whitehorse, Yukon . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeLeBreton, Marjory, P.C. . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Manotick, Ont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeLovelace Nicholas, Sandra . . New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tobique First Nations, N.B. . . . . . . . LiberalMacDonald, Michael L. . . . . Cape Breton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dartmouth, N.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeMaltais, Ghislain . . . . . . . . . Shawinegan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Quebec City, Que. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conservative

vii SENATE DEBATES March 10, 2015

Senator DesignationPost OfficeAddress

PoliticalAffiliation

Manning, Fabian . . . . . . . . Newfoundland and Labrador . . . . . . . . . . . . . .St. Bride’s, Nfld. & Lab. . . . . . . . . . ConservativeMarshall, Elizabeth . . . . . . . Newfoundland and Labrador . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Paradise, Nfld. & Lab. . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeMartin, Yonah . . . . . . . . . . British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vancouver, B.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeMassicotte, Paul J. . . . . . . . De Lanaudière . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mont-Saint-Hilaire, Que. . . . . . . . . . LiberalMcCoy, Elaine . . . . . . . . . . . Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Calgary, Alta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Independent (PC)McInnis, Thomas Johnson . . Nova Scotia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sheet Harbour, N.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeMcIntyre, Paul E. . . . . . . . . New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Charlo, N.B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeMercer, Terry M. . . . . . . . . Northend Halifax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Caribou River, N.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalMerchant, Pana . . . . . . . . . Saskatchewan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Regina, Sask. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalMeredith, Don . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Richmond Hill, Ont.. . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeMitchell, Grant . . . . . . . . . . Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Edmonton, Alta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalMockler, Percy . . . . . . . . . . New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .St. Leonard, N.B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeMoore, Wilfred P. . . . . . . . . Stanhope St./South Shore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chester, N.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalMunson, Jim . . . . . . . . . . . Ottawa/Rideau Canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ottawa, Ont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalNancy Ruth. . . . . . . . . . . . . Cluny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Toronto, Ont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeNeufeld, Richard . . . . . . . . . British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fort St. John, B.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeNgo, Thanh Hai . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Orleans, Ont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeNolin, Pierre Claude, Speaker De Salaberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Quebec, Que. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeOgilvie, Kelvin Kenneth . . . . Annapolis Valley - Hants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Canning, N.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeOh, Victor . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mississauga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mississauga, Ont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativePatterson, Dennis Glen . . . . Nunavut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Iqaluit, Nunavut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativePlett, Donald Neil . . . . . . . . Landmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Landmark, Man. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativePoirier, Rose-May . . . . . . . . New Brunswick—Saint-Louis-de-Kent . . . . . . . .Saint-Louis-de-Kent, N.B.. . . . . . . . . ConservativeRaine, Nancy Greene . . . . . . Thompson-Okanagan-Kootenay . . . . . . . . . . . .Sun Peaks, B.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeRinguette, Pierrette . . . . . . . New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Edmundston, N.B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalRivard, Michel . . . . . . . . . . The Laurentides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Quebec, Que. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeRunciman, Bob . . . . . . . . . . Ontario—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes . .Brockville, Ont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeSeidman, Judith G.. . . . . . . . De la Durantaye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Saint-Raphaël, Que. . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeSibbeston, Nick G. . . . . . . . Northwest Territories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fort Simpson, N.W.T. . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalSmith, David P., P.C. . . . . . Cobourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Toronto, Ont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalSmith, Larry W.. . . . . . . . . . Saurel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hudson, Que. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeStewart Olsen, Carolyn . . . . New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sackville, N.B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeTannas, Scott . . . . . . . . . . . Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .High River, Alta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeTardif, Claudette . . . . . . . . . Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Edmonton, Alta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalTkachuk, David . . . . . . . . . Saskatchewan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Saskatoon, Sask. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeUnger, Betty E. . . . . . . . . . . Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Edmonton, Alta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeVerner, Josée, P.C. . . . . . . . . Montarville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures, Que. . . . ConservativeWallace, John D. . . . . . . . . New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rothesay, N.B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConservativeWallin, Pamela . . . . . . . . . . Saskatchewan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wadena, Sask. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IndependentWatt, Charlie . . . . . . . . . . . Inkerman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kuujjuaq, Que. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LiberalWells, David Mark. . . . . . . . Newfoundland and Labrador . . . . . . . . . . . . . .St. John’s, Nfld. & Lab. . . . . . . . . . ConservativeWhite, Vernon . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ottawa, Ont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conservative

March 10, 2015 SENATE DEBATES viii

SENATORS OF CANADA

BY PROVINCE AND TERRITORY

(March 10, 2015)

ONTARIO—24


The Honourable

1 Anne C. Cools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto Centre-York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto2 Colin Kenny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rideau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ottawa3 Marjory LeBreton, P.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manotick4 Marie-P. Charette-Poulin . . . . . . . . . . . Northern Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ottawa5 David P. Smith, P.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cobourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto6 Jim Munson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ottawa/Rideau Canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ottawa7 Art Eggleton, P.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto8 Nancy Ruth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cluny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto9 Nicole Eaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caledon10 Irving Gerstein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto11 Linda Frum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto12 Bob Runciman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes . . . . Brockville13 Salma Ataullahjan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto—Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto14 Don Meredith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richmond Hill15 Vernon White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ottawa16 Tobias C. Enverga, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toronto17 Thanh Hai Ngo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orleans18 Lynn Beyak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dryden19 Victor Oh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mississauga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mississauga20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix SENATE DEBATES March 10, 2015

SENATORS BY PROVINCE AND TERRITORY

QUEBEC—24


The Honourable

1 Charlie Watt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inkerman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kuujjuaq2 Pierre Claude Nolin, Speaker . . . . . . . . De Salaberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quebec3 Céline Hervieux-Payette, P.C. . . . . . . . . Bedford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Montreal4 Serge Joyal, P.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kennebec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Montreal5 Joan Thorne Fraser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . De Lorimier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Montreal6 Paul J. Massicotte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . De Lanaudière . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mont-Saint-Hilaire7 Dennis Dawson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lauzon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ste-Foy8 Michel Rivard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Laurentides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quebec9 Patrick Brazeau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Repentigny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maniwaki10 Leo Housakos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wellington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laval11 Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis . . . . . . . . . . . Rougemont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quebec12 Claude Carignan, P.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mille Isles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saint-Eustache13 Jacques Demers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rigaud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hudson14 Judith G. Seidman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . De la Durantaye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saint-Raphaël15 Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu . . . . . . . . . . . . La Salle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sherbrooke16 Larry W. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saurel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hudson17 Josée Verner, P.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Montarville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures18 Ghislain Maltais . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shawinegan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quebec City19 Jean-Guy Dagenais . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Victoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blainville20 Diane Bellemare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Outremont21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

March 10, 2015 SENATE DEBATES x

SENATORS BY PROVINCE-MARITIME DIVISION

NOVA SCOTIA—10


The Honourable

1 Wilfred P. Moore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stanhope St./South Shore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chester2 Jane Cordy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nova Scotia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dartmouth3 Terry M. Mercer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Northend Halifax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caribou River4 James S. Cowan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nova Scotia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Halifax5 Stephen Greene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Halifax - The Citadel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Halifax6 Michael L. MacDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . Cape Breton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dartmouth7 Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie. . . . . . . . . . . . . Annapolis Valley - Hants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Canning8 Thomas Johnson McInnis . . . . . . . . . . Nova Scotia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sheet Harbour9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NEW BRUNSWICK—10


The Honourable

1 Joseph A. Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saint John-Kennebecasis, New Brunswick . . . . . Hampton2 Pierrette Ringuette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmundston3 Sandra Lovelace Nicholas . . . . . . . . . . . New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tobique First Nations4 Percy Mockler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Leonard5 John D. Wallace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rothesay6 Carolyn Stewart Olsen . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sackville7 Rose-May Poirier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Brunswick—Saint-Louis-de-Kent . . . . . . . . Saint-Louis-de-Kent8 Paul E. McIntyre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Brunswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charlo9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND—4


The Honourable

1 Elizabeth M. Hubley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prince Edward Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kensington1 Percy E. Downe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charlottetown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charlottetown2 Michael Duffy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prince Edward Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cavendish4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi SENATE DEBATES March 10, 2015

SENATORS BY PROVINCE-WESTERN DIVISION

MANITOBA—6


The Honourable

1 Janis G. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manitoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gimli2 Maria Chaput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manitoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sainte-Anne3 Donald Neil Plett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Landmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Landmark4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BRITISH COLUMBIA—6


The Honourable

1 Mobina S. B. Jaffer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North Vancouver2 Larry W. Campbell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vancouver3 Nancy Greene Raine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thompson-Okanagan-Kootenay . . . . . . . . . . . . Sun Peaks4 Yonah Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vancouver5 Richard Neufeld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fort St. John6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SASKATCHEWAN—6


The Honourable

1 A. Raynell Andreychuk . . . . . . . . . . . . Saskatchewan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regina2 David Tkachuk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saskatchewan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saskatoon3 Pana Merchant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saskatchewan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regina4 Lillian Eva Dyck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saskatchewan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saskatoon5 Pamela Wallin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saskatchewan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wadena6 Denise Leanne Batters . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saskatchewan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regina

ALBERTA—6


The Honourable

1 Claudette Tardif . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton2 Grant Mitchell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton3 Elaine McCoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calgary4 Betty E. Unger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmonton5 Douglas John Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Canmore6 Scott Tannas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High River

March 10, 2015 SENATE DEBATES xii

SENATORS BY PROVINCE AND TERRITORY

NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR—6


The Honourable

1 George Furey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newfoundland and Labrador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. John’s2 George S. Baker, P.C.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newfoundland and Labrador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gander3 Elizabeth Marshall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newfoundland and Labrador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paradise4 Fabian Manning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newfoundland and Labrador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. Bride’s5 Norman E. Doyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newfoundland and Labrador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. John’s6 David Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newfoundland and Labrador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St. John’s

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES—1


The Honourable

1 Nick G. Sibbeston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Northwest Territories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fort Simpson

NUNAVUT—1


The Honourable

1 Dennis Glen Patterson . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nunavut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iqaluit

YUKON—1


The Honourable

1 Daniel Lang. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yukon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whitehorse

PAGE

Iraq—Fallen SoldierSilent Tribute.The Hon. the Speaker. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3021

SENATORS’ STATEMENTS

Visitors in the GalleryThe Hon. the Speaker. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3021

The Late Sergeant Andrew Joseph DoironHon. Carolyn Stewart Olsen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3021

The Late Ernest CôtéHon. Claudette Tardif . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3021

International Women’s DayHon. Diane Bellemare. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3022Hon. Mobina S.B. Jaffer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3023

International Women’s Day and the Plight ofNadiya SavchenkoHon. A. Raynell Andreychuk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3023

The SenateGender-based Equality.Hon. Nancy Ruth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3024

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Study on Prescription PharmaceuticalsEighteenth Report of Social Affairs, Science andTechnology Committee Tabled.Hon. Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3024

Human RightsNotice of Motion to Authorize Committee to ExtendDate of Final Report on Study of International andNational Human Rights Obligations.Hon. Mobina S.B. Jaffer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3024Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to ExtendDate of Final Report on Study of InternationalMechanisms toward Improving Cooperation in theSettlement of Cross-Border Family Disputes.Hon. Mobina S.B. Jaffer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3025Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to ExtendDate of Final Report on Study of Issues ofDiscrimination in Hiring and Promotion Practices ofFederal Public Service and Labour Market Outcomesfor Minority Groups in Private Sector.Hon. Mobina S.B. Jaffer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3025

PAGE

QUESTION PERIOD

Public SafetyCanadian Security Intelligence Service—Oversight.Hon. James S. Cowan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3025Hon. Claude Carignan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3025Hon. Mobina S.B. Jaffer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3026

International TradeInternational Trade Tribunal Decision—ExxonMobil.Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3026Hon. Claude Carignan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3026Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic andTrade Agreement—Trade Dispute Resolution Mechanisms.Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3027Hon. Claude Carignan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3027

Delayed Answer to Oral QuestionHon. Yonah Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3028

National DefenceArctic Sovereignty.Question by Wilfred P. Moore.Hon. Yonah Martin (Delayed Answer). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3028

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Canadian Human Rights ActCriminal Code (Bill C-279)Bill to Amend—Twenty-Fourth Report of Legal andConstitutional Affairs Committee—Debate Adjourned.Hon. Bob Runciman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3029Hon. Grant Mitchell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3030Motion in Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3033

Constitution Act, 1867Parliament of Canada Act (Bill S-223)Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued.Hon. Stephen Greene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3033

The SenateMotion to Strike Special Committee on SenateTransformation—Debate Continued.Hon. Stephen Greene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3035

Trinity Western UniversityInquiry—Debate Continued.Hon. Bob Runciman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3035

Living with DementiaInquiry—Debate Continued.Hon. Jane Cordy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3036Hon. Percy Mockler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3037

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

CONTENTS


Published by the Senate

Available on the Internet: http://www.parl.gc.ca

debates of the senate - sencanada.ca€¦ · debates services: d’arcy mcpherson, national press...

Documents