THE SENATE

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

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

Prayers.

The Hon. the Speaker: I would ask all honourable senators to rise and observe one minute of silence in memory of Corporal Donald Anguyoak, Canadian Ranger, whose tragic death occurred February 19 during a training exercise in Gjoa Haven, Nunavut.

Honourable senators then stood in silent tribute.

[Translation]

Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, I rise today to draw your attention to a recent article written by Paul Boothe, a former deputy minister at Environment Canada, in which he discusses the role of deputy ministers in the public service.

It is a story that is rarely told, but should be more often — namely, that a deputy minister is as important and influential as the CEO of a large Canadian corporation.

[English]

The main points that he made in the article entitled "Deputy ministers: the CEOs nobody knows" were, first, that deputy ministers can be compared to the CEOs of major Bay Street Canadian companies and, second, that these positions are every bit as complex and demanding as their private sector counterparts. I could not agree more. Consider this, honourable senators: Mr. Boothe says that the Deputy Minister of Transport is responsible for a budget of more than $1 billion and employs more than 4,000 people; the department is about the same size as Postmedia. In his article, Mr. Boothe referred to the reassignment of five senior deputy ministers of considerable influence: Yaprak Baltacioglu to Treasury Board Secretariat, Michelle d'Auray to Public Works, François Guimont to Public Safety, Simon Kennedy to International Trade and Louis Lévesque to Transport Canada. However, these powerful appointments have garnered very little media attention. This would not be the case if there were a shuffle of the top five CEOs of our major banks on Bay Street.

Many Canadians may not realize how influential deputy ministers are. In his article, Mr. Boothe lists some of the main differences between deputy ministers and CEOs. First, unlike their private sector counterparts, deputy ministers work in the political area where serving the minister is the top priority. Second, DMs are accountable to Parliament, and the ratio of authority to accountability is very different for deputy ministers. Third, DMs are further judged on how they implement the government's policy agenda, reduce red tape, cut spending and generally keep their departments out of trouble and the news. Fourth, deputy ministers are often called to appear as witnesses before parliamentary committees but, as Mr. Boothe wrote, would prefer to operate out of the limelight. He concluded his article:

... newsworthy or not, how well these deputies do in their new jobs will be critically important to the success of the government and affect the quality of public services that Canadians receive.

Honourable senators, in my 23 years on the Hill, I have been blessed to have collaborated with a number of deputy ministers. I have been honoured to appear before the weekly DM breakfast and, a few years ago, I initiated the Deputy Minister/Senator Dialogue Dinner. Some senators have attended these dinners that encourage dialogue on important public policy issues between senior bureaucrats and members of the Senate. I feel parliamentarians and senior bureaucrats can work closely together in moving forward to provide Canadians with strong public policies to benefit all. These dinners help to break down any real or apparent walls between our two groups.

Honourable senators, I share Mr. Boothe's article to remind all just how lucky we are in Canada to have a highly talented team of qualified deputy ministers serving the people of Canada.

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, earlier today I gave my written notice that I would raise a question of privilege later this day. I now, pursuant to rule 13-4(4), give my oral notice that I will raise a question of privilege regarding the highly public actions and claims of an officer of the Library of Parliament, Mr. Kevin Page, Parliamentary Budget Officer. This question of privilege is in respect of the

actions of this officer of Parliament, which were widely reported in last week's press, notably on Friday, February 22, 2013. That day, a Toronto Star article by Gary Corbett reported that:

His requests for more information have gone unanswered or faced prolonged delay, his calculations have been dismissed out of hand or publicly called into question, his role and reputation as a watchdog has been attacked with an intensity usually reserved for environmentalists. Even taking the government to court to reveal details of the government's proposed cuts and expenses has met mostly with a deafening silence.

Further, an Ottawa Citizen article that day, "PBO battle `surprises' observers, says Page," reported on a two-day meeting of international officials and budget officers from 22 countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:

Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page says some international observers have expressed shock at the difficulties he has had in prying information from the government. Page . . . is taking the Conservative Government to court over its refusal to release information on billions of dollars in department spending cuts.

(1410)

The article also informed us that, on Thursday last, this international meeting heard presentations on accessing information in Canada, the U.K. and the U.S. and reported that:

Page said his office has had the roughest ride.

Honourable senators, the actions and claims of this Library officer, now reaching beyond our borders and into the international arena and Canada's foreign relations therein, are breaches of the privileges of the Senate and of senators.

[Translation]

Hon. Maria Chaput: Honourable senators, very good questions that provide food for thought are often asked in the Senate.

About two weeks ago, a question was asked about what is different for official languages communities now as compared to 1969, when the Official Languages Act came into force. I took advantage of the break week to do some research. Here are a few examples of what I found.

In 1981, New Brunswick passed the Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick. In 1982, the Charter was enacted. In 1991, the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations came into effect. In 1998, the Reference re Secession of Quebec recognized the protection of minorities as one of the four fundamental constitutional principles. In 1999, in Beaulac, the Supreme Court explained that language rights must be applied based on the principle of equality's "true meaning," or in other words, "substantive equality."

In 2000, in Montfort, the Ontario courts confirmed that an institution that was vital to the development of the minority francophone community could not be closed as a result of the constitutional principle guaranteeing the protection of minority rights. In 2006, Statistics Canada indicated that one in five Canadians is an allophone, someone whose mother tongue is neither French nor English, and that from 1971 to 2006, this number more than doubled, from 1.6 million to 3.7 million.

In 2009, the Supreme Court held in Desrochers that federal institutions must provide services of equal quality, or in other words, services that, in some cases, are adapted to the special needs of official language communities. In October 2012, the results of the most recent national census indicated that, while the number of francophones living in minority communities has increased over the past 10 years, their relative size has decreased.

Statistics Canada says that international immigration is one of the main reasons for this decrease in the relative size of francophone communities. Lastly, in February 2012, Manitobans finally got bilingual licence plates for their vehicles. These are only a few examples, honourable senators. There are more to come.

[English]

Hon. Larry W. Campbell: Honourable senators, originally I tried to slip this little speech in while tabling a report and got caught. For that I apologize to all honourable senators.

This has to do with the Ukrainian election and I just wanted to tell honourable senators what I wrote the night after the election.

I set out with Leif Pettersson, an M.P. from Sweden; an interpreter and a driver for a rural area of the Ukraine. We left at six in the morning and drove for an hour and a half. Urban quickly turned into rural within 20 kilometres of Kiev. From that time until 8 p.m., we travelled from one small polling booth to another. The largest of our stations had 1,800 voters and the smallest, 250.

There are few young people left in the rural area. Because there is no work, they migrate to the cities. This is true farmland — flat, good soil, but mostly fallow. There is no equipment and no one is working the fields. Therefore, people subsist mainly on small market gardens.

The vast majority of people we met during the day would have been over 65 years old, with many of them looking over 80. They rode bicycles or old motorcycles, walked with canes and came in trucks to vote. There is something incredibly moving about a 90-year-old woman, who walked with one cane and a stick, working her way down the road to the polling station.

No one was starving, but, judging from their clothes, not much had moved since the 1970s. I learned that the Ukraine has only been free of foreign domination for about 20 years. This was after being ruled by successive invaders for centuries. Every village, no matter how small, had memorials to those who fought and died in these wars. It was sobering to see a village that only had 200-plus voters with a memorial listing easily over 200 dead.

We saw no real problems in the polling stations. They were well managed, with cameras on the voting booths and the voting tables. The halls themselves ranged from a school built 115 years ago to an unused disco hall complete with a glittering globe on the ceiling.

I have stories both funny and poignant. Suffice it to say, I was extremely grateful to be Canadian and to have the quite incredible life that I have had. The strength and dignity of the Ukrainian people were a great inspiration to me.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, I rise to pay tribute to my friend Amin Shivji, a talented entrepreneur, tireless community advocate and proud Canadian.

After the expulsion of Ugandan Asians in 1972, Amin arrived in Canada as a refugee with little money and few belongings. He was 26 years old and newly married. He had left behind a comfortable life and a successful sugarcane farm in Uganda. Not one to wallow in his misfortune, Amin bought a home in Richmond, B.C., and enrolled in the MBA program at the University of British Columbia within two years of his arrival. Three years later, in 1977, Amin became a proud Canadian citizen. He would contribute work to the banking sector and later found a start-up venture company.

In the 1990s, he decided to return the skills he learned in Canada to Uganda. Amin reclaimed his cherished sugarcane farm, which was in ruins. Ever the optimist and visionary, he started from scratch and pioneered organic, biodynamic and fair trade farming in Uganda. Today, his business remains the oldest and largest exporter of organic fruit in Uganda.

Throughout his life, Amin dedicated himself to his three great passions: community service, education and his family. He instilled the importance of education in his daughters and funded an annual trophy called the Shivji Cup to recognize outstanding citizenship and academic achievement at Walter Lee Elementary School in Richmond, which his daughters had attended.

A former student of the Aga Khan Schools in Uganda, Amin would later volunteer as chairman of the schools in 1997, modernizing the curriculum, introducing information technologies and ensuring access for all deserving students, regardless of their means.

A loving father, Amin taught his daughters, Farah, Nazma and Aliya, to take special pride in their Canadian citizenship, stressing the importance of hard work and community service. Today, they are each accomplished women who make valuable contributions to their communities.

In his final years, Amin took special delight in playing with his two granddaughters and baby grandson.

Amin always encouraged his wife, Gulzar, to take on challenges and today she is the chairperson of the Aga Khan Schools in Uganda.

Amin's siblings are also committed to community service. His brother, Salim Ahmed, is a prominent Ismaili leader who gives remarkable service to his community.

Amin took his final breath in the same beloved home in Richmond, B.C., that he had purchased as a refugee 38 years before. What I remember about Amin are his beaming smile and bottomless heart, which made every human being whose life he touched feel special and valued.

Amin, we spent a lot of time together when I returned to Uganda. We will all miss you.

Hon. Elizabeth Hubley: Honourable senators, today is Scouts Day on the Hill. I would like to take a few minutes to recognize the dedication and enthusiasm of all of the Scouts, their leaders and volunteers across Canada who contribute so much to our communities. We appreciate your passion and your leadership.

(1420)

Last Friday, February 22, I had the pleasure of speaking to a group of Scouts and awarding a Diamond Jubilee Medal to a 45-year veteran of Scouts, Mrs. Lois Brown of Kensington. February 22 is known as Founder's Day and is the birthday of the founders of the Boy Scout and Girl Guides movements, Lord and Lady Baden-Powell. It is a special day to reflect on what it means to be a Scout and to be proud of everything Scouts have accomplished.

While I was preparing my notes for my remarks, I came across the copy of the last letter Lord Baden-Powell wrote to the Scouts. He was talking about happiness — what it means and where it comes from. He wrote:

Happiness does not come from being rich, nor merely being successful in your career, nor by self-indulgence.... Be contented with what you have and make the best of it. Look on the bright side of things.... But the real way to get happiness is by giving out happiness to other people. Try and leave this world a little better than when you found it....

I think these words really capture what it means to be a Scout and, more than that, a volunteer. Volunteers are some of the most important people in our communities. They give freely of themselves, of their time, their energy and their skills in order to help others. Often when I meet volunteers and they tell me about themselves, I am never surprised to learn that their first volunteer experiences were with organizations such as the Scouts.

To all of the Scouts here on the Hill today and to those at home, I encourage you to participate in as many new things as you can. The experiences you will have as a Scout and as a young person will stay with you your whole life and possibly open up doors to your future. Do not be afraid to face challenges and seek out new opportunities. Your life will be much richer for it.

I encourage you to follow your dreams and seek out new experiences. We need your ideas and your enthusiasm. Get involved in your community and become a volunteer. You just might find that in helping others you will also find happiness for yourself.

Happy Scouts' Day and Happy Founder's Day!

[Translation]

Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Supplementary Estimates (C) 2012-13 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013.

[English]

Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, Parts I and II of the 2013-14 Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.

Hon. Pamela Wallin, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, presented the following report:

Tuesday February, 26, 2013

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence has the honour to present its EIGHTH REPORT Your Committee, to which was referred Bill S-213, An Act respecting a national day of remembrance to honour Canadian veterans of the Korean War, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, December 13, 2012, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment. Respectfully submitted, PAMELA WALLIN

Chair

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

(On motion of Senator Wallin, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

Hon. David Tkachuk, Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, presented the following report:

Tuesday, February, 26, 2013

The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its EIGHTEENTH REPORT Your Committee has approved the Senate Main Estimates for the fiscal year 2013-14 and recommends their adoption. (Annex A) Your Committee notes that the proposed total budget is $92,517,029. Respectfully submitted, DAVID TKACHUK

Chair

(For text of budget, see today's Journals of the Senate, Appendix, p. 1943.)

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

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

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

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013, with the exception of Parliament Vote 10 c.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[Translation]

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

That the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in Parliament Vote 10 c of the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013; and That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House accordingly.

[English]

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

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014, with the exception of Parliament Vote 10.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[Translation]

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

That the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in Parliament Vote 10 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014; and That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House accordingly.

Hon. Grant Mitchell: Honourable senators, I give notice that, two days hence:

I will call the attention of the Senate to the need for an assessment of the impacts of cutting federal funding to the Experimental Lakes Area.

(1430)

Hon. Grant Mitchell: Honourable senators, I give notice that, two days hence:

I will call the attention of the Senate to the work of Child, Family and Adolescent Mental Health and its need for ongoing support and infrastructure.

[English]

Hon. Bert Brown: Honourable senators, I give notice that, two days hence:

I will call the attention of the Senate to more of the physical science and less of the metaphysics of climate change.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The role of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, to quote a recent Human Rights Watch report, is "primarily to monitor the processing of complaints by the RCMP. The main investigative authority resides with the RCMP and the RCMP ultimately determines what remedial action will be taken."

I believe this is what Senator Dyck meant when she said recently that the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP mechanism is like having one of your own investigate one of your own. The government's proposed legislation on amending the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, Bill C-42, would still follow an existing procedure whereby the RCMP defers to the jurisdiction of provincial bodies like the Province of British Columbia's Independent Investigation Office. However, the office's mandate does not include most cases of police rape and other forms of sexual assault.

Moreover, irrespective of the federal or provincial government body that conducts independent investigations, the federal government still retains the ultimate responsibility, under international law, to address violence against women and girls and to address discrimination.

My question to the leader is as follows: Given that the RCMP defers first to independent provincial investigative bodies, will the government work with the provinces to ensure that such bodies, including the Independent Investigation Office in B.C., have the authority to investigate allegations of rape and sexual assault by the RCMP and the police?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I thank the honourable senator for the question. As she correctly stated in her question, we have a bill before Parliament, Bill C-42, the enhancing RCMP accountability act. I answered questions in this regard before we took our parliamentary break.

Obviously, various issues have come to light. The government, of course, has referred these to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. I do not know whom the senator is quoting when she says it is like one of your own looking into affairs of others of your own, or whatever the quote was.

The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP is an independent organization, and, as I mentioned before, if people have any allegations or any information about wrongdoing in the RCMP, they are urged to go to the proper authorities and provide information and evidence with regard to the allegations.

With regard specifically to the relationship between provincial authorities and the RCMP, in many provincial jurisdictions, of course, the RCMP is the police force. I will simply take as notice the portion of the question regarding whether there is some process between the various attorneys general of the provinces and the federal government.

Senator Jaffer: Honourable senators, I understand that allegations of very serious offences, such as homicide, committed by the police are investigated, but allegations of rape and sexual assault committed by police are not investigated. May I ask that, when the leader is preparing her response, she please see whether those could also be included so that rape and sexual assault by police are also investigated.

My other supplementary question is the following: Will the new civilian review and complaints commission, proposed in Bill C-42, establish independent investigations of reported incidents of serious police misconduct, including incidents of rape and other sexual assaults?

Senator LeBreton: Obviously, honourable senators, this is a bill that is before Parliament, so I would suggest that the honourable senator hold those questions for when the bill is being considered in the Senate and sent to committee. As Leader of the Government in the Senate, quite rightly, I would not at this point in time weigh in on a piece of legislation that has not passed through Parliament.

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, Service Canada employees investigating Employment Insurance fraud have been given quotas to make "savings" of $485,000 each year by denying Employment Insurance benefits to those who are unemployed. Minister Finley has said there are no quotas but, rather, there are targets or objectives.

First, can the Leader of the Government in the Senate tell us the difference between a quota and a target? Second, how did the minister determine the quota or the target of $485,000 a year for each investigator?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I thank the honourable senator for the question. First, the Employment Insurance system is set up to assist Canadians who, through no fault of their own, find themselves without work, and the system will always be there to provide support to these people.

Many new programs have been brought in by the minister and by the department to allow people to have much more information on jobs that are available. I do believe that the Employment Insurance system is meant, therefore, for people who really do need the assistance of the Employment Insurance fund. Last year, the program lost hundreds of millions of dollars due to fraud and ineligible payments, despite the fact that half a billion dollars of such payments were detected.

I would rather think, honourable senators, that we all would not want people defrauding the system. We would much rather have the money available for those people who really need it.

With regard to the specific question, Service Canada reports that they do not have quotas that would carry negative consequences for the staff who are working for Service Canada and trying to deliver a very good service to citizens of this country who need it.

Senator Cordy: It seems, then, that the change of the word from "quota" to "target" is simply, as the leader said, that "target" sounds much better to the public than "quota," but it is all the same thing.

Judging by the reaction this past weekend and the demonstrations by those who are unemployed in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, the unemployed are not feeling that the system will be there for them in the future.

Minister Finley has hired 50 employees at Service Canada to "interview" people who have made EI claims. They are interviewing them at their homes. The EI claimants who have lost their jobs, honourable senators, are not criminals. It is not a crime to be unemployed. It is not a crime to work in the fishing industry, the farming industry, the tourism industry, the forestry industry, the hospitality industry or any other seasonal job.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Cordy: A fish plant worker in Atlantic Canada does not need a lecture from this government or from the minister about working hard. Employment Insurance is not a government handout; rather, it is an insurance plan designed to help those who are unemployed. Why is this government treating those who are unemployed like criminals?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, first, I think the honourable senator said that I said "targets" is a better word than "quotas." I said no such thing. The senator is catching the same disease as her leader, putting words in my mouth, and I do not appreciate it.

(1440)

The Employment Insurance program, I totally agree, is there to help those Canadians who, through no fault of their own, find themselves without work. There are many programs that the minister and the department are putting into place to connect people with available jobs.

Absolutely the Employment Insurance fund is there to help those Canadians who require help. However, I do not think anyone would be in favour of those people paying a penalty because other people defraud the system, most particularly the legitimate people who have claimed through the Employment Insurance program. When hundreds of thousands of dollars have been paid out wrongly, obviously the people who should be getting the money are the ones who suffer the most.

Senator Cordy: Honourable senators, those who are targeted seem to be people working in the seasonal industries, I would suggest to the leader, judging by the reaction this past weekend particularly. However, it has not just been this past weekend. It has been since all the changes to Employment Insurance were started by this minister quite a long time ago, certainly without having discussions with the premiers of Atlantic Canada — including the Conservative premiers of New Brunswick and Newfoundland — who were not advised by the minister or engaged in discussions with the minister about what was going to happen.

This government has eliminated boards of referees and umpires for Employment Insurance claimants to cut costs, but now the government has hired inspectors to intimidate people in their homes. What is the purpose of these home visits to Employment Insurance claimants by investigators? In other words, what does an investigator say or do when they reach the home of an Employment Insurance claimant?

It is interesting that I had asked the leader earlier when the boards of referees were being done away with, if there would be face-to-face discussion or if people would simply deal with phones or computers to file and explain their claim if they wanted to dispute it. Instead, we have hired investigators who will not only be in the regional offices so the people can go and speak to them but, my goodness, we now have enough money to send investigators to people's homes. What will they be doing when they go to the claimants' homes?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, the very simple answer is that the department last year was able to stop half a billion dollars of ineligible payments. Obviously the people who suffer from these ineligible payments are not the people who defraud the government but the people — whether they are seasonal workers or legitimate claimants — whom the Employment Insurance system is there to help. I do not believe it is in the interests of anyone to go on rewarding people who defraud the system at the expense of those who really need it.

Senator Cordy: Honourable senators, my question was: What does an investigator do when they go to the home of an Employment Insurance claimant?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, if half a billion dollars was found to have been defrauded from the system, obviously the various people in Service Canada are working on all these files and determining the good work that the Employment Insurance fund does to assist those who need it. We have always said the Employment Insurance fund is there to help people who need it. It is not there to help people who defraud the system.

[Translation]

Hon. Jean-Claude Rivest: Honourable senators, it might be interesting if this measure, which applies to workers and makes them subject to home visits, were applied to business people who run away to tax havens. Perhaps we could also make home visits to them in order to save money.

Honourable senators, I have a supplementary question. Last week, I raised the issue of seasonal workers and the Employment Insurance Act. Recently, especially in Quebec, where thousands of workers again turned out in good faith — in eastern Quebec, three Conservative Party candidates stood squarely behind their constituents and workers — there have been protests in order to send a simple message to the government: restrictions and measures aimed at applying the Employment Insurance Act more effectively may be legitimate, but for seasonal workers, fishers and people working in forestry and tourism, the very nature of the economy of these regions is at issue.

Could the minister convince her cabinet colleagues that measures that might be good for Canada as a whole cannot be applied to certain specific situations? That is what workers have been telling the government day after day, week after week, as they take to the streets. Unfortunately, they are being completely ignored.

They are being told, "The same rules apply to all Canadians," even though there are regional differences and a very particular economic reality in the regions. It seems to me that it would not be the end of the world if the Employment Insurance administration and the government could take this reality and Canadians' circumstances into account.

[English]

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, the government and the department do take that reality into consideration. The Employment Insurance fund is there and will continue to be there to assist those who need the assistance. In addition to that, the department has set up a new system whereby they can identify jobs in the area.

The bottom line is the Employment Insurance fund is set up for the very purpose that it is intended: to help those workers, whether seasonal or who, through no fault of their own, cannot find meaningful employment. It is not there to help people who deliberately defraud the system.

It is the same in the province of Quebec as it is in other jurisdictions in the country. The Employment Insurance program, of course, is a federal responsibility. Minister Finley and our government continue to work with the Government of Quebec because we share some common goals which focus on meaningful, good-paying jobs and economic growth.

Hon. James S. Cowan (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, for weeks now the leader's colleague Minister Finley has been saying that EI fraud costs Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars a year. The public accounts have shown that in 2010 the recovery rate was all but 0.01 per cent; in 2011, 0.02 per cent; and in 2012, 0.01 per cent. Who do we believe, the Public Accounts of Canada or her colleague, the minister?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, when the minister and the department responsible for administering this program report that hundreds of millions of dollars have been lost to fraud and ineligible payments, I would dare say that they have valid data to back that up.

Senator Cowan: Is the leader saying the public accounts are incorrect? Is that the leader's position?

Senator LeBreton: There goes Senator Cowan again, putting words in my mouth.

Senator Cowan: No, I am not. I will give the honourable senator the figures. In 2010, there was $119,124,773 of fraudulent claims and all but 0.01 per cent recovered. In 2011, $136,713,797, everything recovered except for 0.02 per cent. In 2012, $128,656,145, and the rate of recovery was all but 0.01 per cent.

If those figures are correct, how can the minister possibly say that EI fraud is costing Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars a year? They cannot both be correct.

(1450)

Senator LeBreton: First, anyone who would read those numbers — millions and millions and millions of dollars — and think that is all right is rather interesting.

Senator Cowan: Who is putting what in whose mouth? I did not say that.

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I can only say to Senator Cowan what is a fact, and the fact is that HRSDC has stated, and I will repeat it, that last year the Employment Insurance program lost hundreds of millions of dollars due to fraud and ineligible payments, despite nearly half a billion dollars in ineligible payments that were detected and stopped by Service Canada.

We do not treat the Employment Insurance fund like it was treated in the past where it was used to pay down the deficit. Our intention is to ensure that the Employment Insurance fund is there for those seasonal workers Senator Rivest speaks of and for the people in Atlantic Canada and all across the country who have need for the Employment Insurance fund. We do not think it should be paid to people who deliberately defraud or claim ineligible payments.

Senator Cowan: I would like to understand correctly. When the government calculates the losses, it is not netting against the recoveries; is that right?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I will only repeat what I have said. The fact of the matter is hundreds of millions of dollars have been improperly claimed and the system has been defrauded, and the government really believes that the Employment Insurance fund should be there to help people who need it.

Senator Cowan: This is an important issue, honourable senators. Would the minister undertake to check with the minister's office and come back to this chamber with the gross figures of fraudulent claims, the recoveries that have been made as a result of existing recovery efforts by the department, and the resulting net loss? Would she undertake to get that information for the last three years — but she could go back further if she wishes — and then table it in the Senate?

Senator LeBreton: Obviously I would be happy to take the specific question as notice. I will not commit to going back, although I suppose we could go back into the 1990s when the EI fund was completely stripped of all its resources and the government used it to pay down the debt.

[Translation]

Hon. Maria Chaput: Honourable senators, I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I would like to follow up on the imminent closure of the Experimental Lakes Area, the ELA. The government clearly stated that it intended to abolish this federal program but that it would be open to transferring the facility to an organization interested in taking it over.

Unfortunately, as honourable senators are aware, no buyer has been found. Federal funding will run out at the end of March. If a buyer is not found by then, the facility will be closed and the government will have to spend nearly $50 million to clean up the site. There is only one month left.

Could the leader tell us if the government is currently negotiating with any potential buyers? Would the government be prepared to extend funding for another year, at a cost of $2 million, to have some more time to find a buyer?

[English]

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have answered this question before many times. Over the years we provided significant funding for new investment in research and science, including significant funding in the last budget. Of course, the opposition voted against it. The decision with regard to the experimental lakes took into consideration research that is being done in other areas, and there is no intention on the part of the government to reconsider that program.

[Translation]

Senator Chaput: Would it not be more cost-effective to fund the program for another year in order to have more time to find a buyer instead of spending nearly $50 million to clean up the site?

[English]

Senator LeBreton: I just answered that question.

Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Honourable senators, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada lost an electronic storage device containing the credit information of 583,000 Canada student loan borrowers from 2000 to 2007. We were told first that the information was lost in November. Now we learn the breach may go back as far as August. However, it was not until January 11 that the department alerted the public and began sending letters to the individuals affected. The public is concerned about the delay in alerting them to this problem and also the speed at which the individuals are being notified.

My questions are: Why did the department wait until January 11 to alert the public? Has the department notified every person affected by this privacy breach? If not, how many letters have gone out so far, and when will the notification process be complete?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I thank Senator Callbeck for those questions. As the minister stated, this loss by the department is completely unacceptable. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner was notified and an investigation into this incident is taking place as we speak.

To safeguard against future incidents, Minister Finley directed the department to review the ways employees handle Canadians' data and fix any gaps that allowed this to happen; update network security practices to prohibit external hard drives; provide more mandatory training for all employees on the proper handling of sensitive and personal information; and of course the new security policies.

With regard to notification of those individuals who were involved in this, honourable senators, I will of course take that question as notice. I am not absolutely certain about the procedures that were followed by the minister and department in contacting these people.

Senator Callbeck: On a supplementary question, I thank the minister for taking those questions as notice as it will be interesting to see whether everyone has been notified and, if not, when they will be.

There is also another concern about this problem, and that is the so-called credit protection being offered. The department says it has a contract with Equifax Canada, but that is not the only credit reporting agency in Canada. TransUnion Canada is another, and even the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada recommends that Canadians use both when checking their own credit reports. Why is Human Resources and Skills Development Canada not using both reporting services when even the government's own financial consumer agency recommends doing so?

Senator LeBreton: To further protect those Canadians affected, the government is providing a free opt-in credit and identity protection service through Equifax. HRSDC has brought Equifax's broad alert protection for those clients whose information was on the missing hard drive, and this agreement with Equifax offers a six-year protection.

Senator Callbeck: I am happy that the government has the agreement with Equifax, but my question is what about TransUnion Canada? It is another reporting agency, and even the Financial Consumer Agency recommends that Canadians use both when checking their own credit records. Why has the government not made an agreement with TransUnion Canada as well?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, the government made an agreement through Equifax. I know there are many portals through which Canadians can check their own credit ratings. HRSDC has made arrangements with Equifax. I do believe that was the proper step to take, but I will be happy to add the senator's further question as to how the process evolved with regard to protecting these credit ratings.

(1500)

[Translation]

Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answer to the oral question asked by the Honourable Senator Moore on November 21, 2012, concerning missing and murdered Aboriginal women.

[English]

Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answers to the oral questions asked by the Honourable Senator Callbeck on December 4, 2012, concerning persons with disabilities.

[Translation]

(Response to question raised by Hon. Wilfred P. Moore on November 21, 2012)

The Government of Canada has been concerned about the issue of missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls for many years. Indeed, the Government funded the work of the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) to determine the scope of this issue, providing $5 million over five years (2005-2010) through Status of Women Canada to their Sisters in Spirit initiative. When NWAC's research showed a disturbingly high number of missing and murdered Aboriginal women across Canada, the Government responded by taking action in 2010 with an additional investment of $25 million over five years for a seven-point strategy to improve law enforcement and justice system responses, so they can better meet the needs of Aboriginal women and their families. That strategy included investments to: establish a new National Centre for Missing Persons and Unidentified Remains, working with a Committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police;

work with Aboriginal communities to develop community safety plans;

support the development and adaptation of culturally-appropriate victim services for Aboriginal people, and specific services to support the families of missing and murdered women;

support the development of school and community pilot projects aimed at reducing vulnerability to violence among young Aboriginal women;

support the development of public awareness materials to help break intergenerational cycles of violence affecting Aboriginal people; and

develop a compendium of promising practices to help Aboriginal communities, law enforcement, and justice partners in future work. That seven-point strategy was in addition to significant investments that the Government has focused on making over recent years in a number of core areas, including family violence prevention; child and family services; on-reserve housing; economic security and prosperity; education; health; policing; and urban living, working closely with Aboriginal organizations and communities, and with provincial and territorial partners. Much of this action is in response to myriad studies identifying the root causes of disproportionate risks of violence and victimization in Aboriginal communities, and in response to a large number of recommendations from those studies and from other commissions and inquiries. Projects funded are producing results, and more successes can be expected as additional projects come to fruition. We know from the work of the Native Women's Association of Canada, the earlier work of the Manitoba Aboriginal Justice Inquiry and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, and from the work of many others, that the higher vulnerability of Aboriginal women and girls to violence is a complex issue requiring coordinated attention from Aboriginal organizations and communities as well as from all levels of government. Coordinated action from federal, provincial, and territorial departments responsible for justice, public safety and policing, gender issues, and Aboriginal affairs, working with Aboriginal people and other stakeholders to develop more effective and appropriate solutions in each community, is necessary to bring lasting change. There have been results from this collaborative action as well, such as the work of the FPT Missing Women's Working Group who produced a report with 52 recommendations. The FPT Working Group on Aboriginal Justice, which is currently working on a national justice framework to coordinate federal, provincial and territorial actions across the law enforcement and justice spectrum to address violence against Aboriginal women and girls at the request of Ministers. Because of the complex and interrelated causes of this vulnerability to violence, creating lasting change will take time, and concerted effort. Lasting change will be gained community by community. The problems are just too complex and too tightly interwoven to resolve in any other way. This is why the Government has focussed on community safety planning, as communities are in the best position to identify for themselves what change is needed, and to establish priorities. Another key goal is finding better ways to support Aboriginal victims of crime, as well as meet the specific needs of families of missing and murdered Aboriginal women. In concert with preventing violence, we must, and we will, resolve outstanding cases of missing and murdered Aboriginal women. This work is basic to our criminal justice system. All Canadians expect the perpetrators of such crimes to be identified and dealt with as a matter of basic respect for individual lives. Like all families and communities, Aboriginal families and communities need to heal. Many more projects and initiatives are underway, and more work is needed. The Government of Canada recognizes the need to work closely with Aboriginal organizations and communities to develop more effective, appropriate, and collaborative responses to help ensure the safety of women in Canada. We know we must work to prevent any further disappearances or deaths of Aboriginal women and girls.

(Response to question raised by Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck on December 4, 2012)

The Public Service Commission (PSC) is an independent agency reporting to Parliament, mandated to safeguard the integrity of the public service staffing system and the political neutrality of the public service. In addition, the PSC recruits qualified Canadians from across the country. Appointments in the federal public service are governed by the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA). The PSEA confers to the Commission the authority to make appointments to and from within the public service, and to establish policies in the manner of making and revoking appointments. As permitted by the legislation, the Commission has delegated the authority to make appointments to deputy heads of organizations subject to the PSEA, and holds them accountable for their staffing decisions. Employment equity (EE) in the federal public service is a collective responsibility that is shared by all organizations. Under the Employment Equity Act (EEA), the PSC plays an enabler role in working with departments and agencies to identify and eliminate barriers in the appointment system, and institute positive policies and practices to ensure that persons in all EEA-designated groups — women, Aboriginal Peoples, members of visible minorities and persons with disabilities — achieve a degree of representation in the public service that reflects their representation in the Canadian workforce. In the current delegated staffing system, it is the deputy heads' responsibility to ensure that their organization achieves and maintains representation in all four designated groups. Where under-representation exists, the EEA requires organizations to develop and implement positive measures to correct that situation. For example, limiting appointment processes to members of one or more of the designated groups is a measure that can be used to correct gaps in under-representation of these groups in a particular organization, or in the public service. This is consistent with the PSEA, the EEA and the Canadian Human Rights Act. According to the PSC's data, organizations are using appointment processes limited to designated groups judiciously to address under-representation in the federal public service. In the last five years ending on March 31, 2012, there were 478 external advertisements opened only to one or more of the four designated groups out of a total of 18 668 external advertisements. This represents about 2.6 per cent of all external advertisements. Out of the four groups, 88 advertisements targeted EE groups including persons with disabilities. Of these advertisements, three were restricted only to persons with disabilities. These three restricted advertisements targeted at least nine positions in three organizations. The PSC looks at the inflow of public servants into the public service, not the overall population numbers in the public service. These numbers are the responsibility of the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer (OCHRO). According to OCHRO's data for 2010-2011, the population of persons with disabilities is 5.6 per cent which is above their workforce availability of 4.0 per cent. As we indicated in our 2011-2012 Annual Report, the percentage of applicants in the persons with disabilities group continued to fall: from 2.7 per cent in 2010-2011 to 2.6 per cent in 2011-2012. However, there was a slight increase in the persons with disabilities' share of external appointments, from 2.6 per cent in 2010-2011 to 3 per cent in 2011-2012. The PSC is building on initiatives in order to increase participation of persons with disabilities in the public service. For example, PSC conducted a literature review on the barriers and best practices in the recruitment of persons with disabilities in Canada and abroad, in both the private and public sector, which we published in November 2011. In 2011-2012, we engaged the top recruiting departments in a dialogue to gain further insight into the issue, share some of the findings from the literature review, and identify additional best practices. This year, we are conducting a study on the career progression and perception toward the appointment process of employment equity members, with a particular focus on persons with disabilities. In parallel, we are conducting a review of past public service recruitment programs dedicated to the recruitment of persons with disabilities with a view to identifying what worked in these programs and what did not contribute to increasing the recruitment rate. We also plan to examine the possible causes for the low application rate of persons with disabilities and we continue to work with departments and agencies to identify and implement more effective outreach and recruitment strategies.

Hon. Ghislain Maltais moved third reading of Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act.

He said: Honourable senators, given the quality of this bill and the fact that it was supported unanimously at committee, I do not feel I need to make a lengthy speech.

The public has been waiting for this bill. It affects many Canadians, including seniors, immigrants, Aboriginal people and youth. This bill will give all Canadians a better perspective and a better understanding of the consequences of entering into a contract with credit card companies.

Honourable senators, I would like to thank Caisses populaires Desjardins and other credit unions in Canada that are not governed by the Bank Act but did not hesitate to get involved in the bill. They will be part of the information committee that will work to educate youth in the schools. I would like to publicly thank them, because they were not obligated to get involved, yet they did so with incredible fervour.

I would also like to thank the government and opposition members of the committee. They did a remarkable job. The bill was passed unanimously by the committee members. I invite honourable senators to do the same in this chamber.

[English]

Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Honourable senators, I would like to say a few words at third reading of Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act.

I am sure we all realize there is a great need for improved financial literacy in the country. In fact, the Canadian Financial Capability Survey, released in 2009 by Statistics Canada, illustrated that need. There were many examples in those statistics, but let me give honourable senators just one: 70 per cent of Canadians were optimistic about their retirement, yet 40 per cent of them did not even know how much they would need.

Two years ago, the Task Force on Financial Literacy made 30 recommendations in its report entitled Canadians and Their Money: Building a Brighter Financial Future. This legislation, on which we are at third reading, will implement only a part of their number one recommendation.

I am pleased that the government is taking this small step to improve financial literacy by establishing the post of the Financial Literacy Leader. However, this person will be responsible to the Commissioner of the Financial, Consumer Agency of Canada, not the Minister of Finance, as was recommended by the task force. I still believe that being accountable directly to the minister is a much stronger position for the Financial Literacy Leader. It strengthens his or her mandate and makes clear that the leader is operating with the support of the Minister of Finance.

I also would like to have seen this legislation go further by implementing the task force's second recommendation, which calls on the government to "establish an advisory council on financial literacy, both as a forum for collaboration and to provide ongoing advice to the Financial Literacy Leader".

We have a wealth of experience in this country on this particular topic. We certainly would all benefit from these experts working together, bringing forth new ideas and strategies to help improve financial literacy. I urge the government to follow through on the task force's second recommendation.

Honourable senators, I support Bill C-28 overall but recognize it is only a small step forward to providing financial literacy to Canadians. I would like to repeat that the Task Force on Financial Literacy made 30 recommendations and this legislation only deals with the first one. There is a great deal more work to be done, and I hope that the government will continue working on these 30 recommendations so that financial literacy can be greatly improved in this country.

The Hon. the Speaker: Questions and comments, Senator Maltais.

[Translation]

Senator Maltais: Honourable senators, I realize what the senator is saying. However, we had to start somewhere. The first thing was to put financial literacy in order and to invite financial partners to work with the government. They agreed.

Next, we had to create the position of Financial Literacy Leader and provide staff to get things going. This committee will include representatives of financial and educational institutions. The new leader will be able to consult them on a regular basis.

No matter who the Financial Literacy Leader reports to, he will be there to serve all Canadians. I do not believe that a dispute between departments is necessary. What is important is providing excellent service to those who need it.

[English]

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

Hon. Senators: Question.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, and bill read third time and passed.)

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government) moved second reading of Bill C-53, An Act to assent to alterations in the law touching the Succession to the Throne.

She said: Honourable senators, today we have an opportunity to debate an important piece of legislation, Bill C-53, the succession to the throne act. Bill C-53 will provide the Parliament of Canada's assent to the changes to the rules governing the line of succession to the throne.

The Constitution provides that the Queen of the United Kingdom is also the Queen of Canada. We share our monarch and, indeed, a culture and heritage with 15 other countries.

(1510)

The rules governing succession are set out in United Kingdom law, not Canadian law. Accordingly, the Government of the United Kingdom, with the agreement of the realms for which Her Majesty the Queen is the head of state, introduced legislation in December 2012 to amend these laws. Their bill is currently under consideration in the House of Lords and was tabled in this chamber on February 5.

Under the proposed changes, heirs will be placed in the line of succession with no regard to their gender. Female heirs will no longer be displaced by their younger brothers. Once the United Kingdom's law is enacted, this provision will apply to any child born after October 28, 2011. This will include the children of their Royal Highnesses, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

The new laws of succession will also eliminate provisions that remove heirs from the line of succession if they marry a Roman Catholic. This will apply to all existing marriages at the time the law comes into force as well as future marriages.

This modernization of the laws governing succession is the result of significant international cooperation. The 16 realms agreed in October 2011 to change the practice of placing male heirs before their elder sisters and to end the ban against marrying Roman Catholics. The Government of the United Kingdom has stated that it will not bring the U.K. law into force until all realms complete any domestic activities that they plan to undertake.

The preamble to the Statute of Westminster, 1931 provides that:

And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:

The preamble expresses the convention that all Dominion parliaments, including that of Canada, give their assent to changes to the laws governing succession. Bill C-53, introduced by the Minister of Justice, accomplishes this. In particular, clause 2 of the bill would provide Parliament's assent to the changes to the laws of succession as set out in the United Kingdom's bill.

We have used this approach in the past. Parliament passed the legislation to acknowledge the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1937. Legislation was also enacted in the 1950s to assent to changes to the royal titles.

Honourable senators, questions have been raised in the media about whether this is an amendment to the Constitution of Canada and, if so, what amending procedure would apply. As I noted previously, the laws of succession are United Kingdom law; they are not Canadian law and are not part of Canada's Constitution. Specifically, they are not enumerated in the schedule to our Constitution Act, 1982 as part of the Constitution of Canada.

In addition, the office of the Queen will not be altered by the changes to the laws governing succession. The office of the Queen includes the sovereign's constitutional status, powers and rights in Canada. Neither the ban on the marriages of heirs to Roman Catholics nor the common law governing male preference primogeniture can properly be said to be royal powers or prerogatives in Canada.

Concern has been raised regarding the timing of the passage of Bill C-53 that I would like to address. The Statute of Westminster, 1931 and a desire to seek a smooth resolution to the questions before us place us in a sort of Catch-22. Parliamentarians in the United Kingdom have been concerned about the possibility of passing a bill to which the realms may not consent. At the same time, parliamentarians here are concerned that we may consent to a bill that may change substantially before it is passed in the United Kingdom.

While we are proceeding concurrently with the process at Westminster, we are building safeguards into this legislation. The United Kingdom bill will not come into force until such time as the realms have gone through their various processes to consent to the proposed changes; and our bill will not come into force except by order-in-council. Should the United Kingdom Parliament not pass a bill or pass a bill that is significantly different from its current form, the government will not bring Bill C-53 into force, ensuring the United Kingdom bill itself cannot be brought into force. The government is satisfied, however, that the likelihood of the United Kingdom passing the bill in substantially the same form as is now before the Committee of the Whole of the House of Lords is very high.

As honourable senators may know, the Queen's consent was conveyed in the United Kingdom's Parliament for their succession to the throne legislation. The United Kingdom bill specifically touches on Her Majesty's prerogatives with respect to those marriages to which she must consent. Currently, any descendant of King George II must obtain the monarch's consent to marry. The U.K. bill proposes to limit those who must seek the monarch's consent to marry to the six individuals at the top of the line of succession.

However, Her Majesty's prerogatives and powers are not affected by Bill C-53, as it does not, on its own, touch upon the prerogatives of the Crown. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, on January 31, 2013, the Minister of Justice indicated in the other place that the government has advised the Governor General of the purport of Bill C-53 and has asked him, to the degree to which it may affect the Royal Prerogative by the Crown, to give his consent to the consideration by Parliament of the bill and to Parliament doing therein as it sees fit. His Excellency has so consented.

Honourable senators, the modernization of the laws of succession ensures that the monarchy remains a vital institution for Canadians. Daughters and sons will be treated equally in the line of succession as they are in other walks of life. The Catholic faith of a prospective spouse will no longer be an impediment to their places in the line of succession.

The deep attachment that Canadians have for the Queen and the royal family has never been more evident. Canadians celebrated Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee throughout 2012. It is appropriate that we and our fellow realms are advancing the changes of the laws of succession following this important anniversary. These celebrations gave us an opportunity to honour the Queen's 60 years of service to Canada, our connection to the monarchy and to recognize how Canada has flourished during her reign. The year-long celebrations were a unifying event for Canadians.

Canadians have been fortunate to host several royal tours in recent years, most recently that of their Royal Highnesses, the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall. The opportunity to welcome the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in 2011 was a highlight for many Canadians.

The government shares Canadians' well-wishes for the royal couple as they expect their first child later this year. We are certainly hopeful of having the arrangements for the new laws of succession in place before the happy arrival of a daughter or son.

Honourable senators, our colleagues in the House of Commons have worked collaboratively to ensure the swift passage of this bill. I believe we can work together here in the Senate in a similar partnership to approve this bill and signal Parliament's assent to the changes to the laws governing succession.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Joyal, debate adjourned.)

(1520)

Hon. Nicole Eaton moved second reading of Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

She said: I rise in this chamber today to speak in support of Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals bill.

Honourable senators, Canadians have a long tradition of being welcoming and generous. In fact, since 2006, our Conservative government has maintained the highest sustained levels of immigration in Canada's history and one of the highest per capita rates of immigration in the developed world.

In order to maintain that tradition, Canadians need to have confidence in the way we undertake and manage immigration. Over the past few months, our government has put forward a number of initiatives aimed at bringing transformational change to this country's immigration system.

Honourable senators, for too long Canadians have seen countless stories of people who view Canada as a doormat, a light touch, a nation whose immigration system is an easy target for fraudsters and criminals.

Understandably, Canadians have had enough. They have made it clear they want us to restore the integrity of our immigration system, and our Conservative government is doing just that.

We are creating an immigration system that can fill significant current and future labour shortages across the country and help us meet our economic needs more quickly and efficiently — a system designed to give newcomers the best possible chance to succeed.

You see, honourable senators, the security and integrity of the immigration system go hand-in-hand with its ability to best serve our society and our economy. That is why our government introduced Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals bill.

Bill C-43 fulfils a long-standing commitment to take action on a problem afflicting our immigration system. Honourable senators, Bill C-43 does three things: It makes it easier for the government to deport dangerous foreign criminals from our country; it makes it harder for those who may pose a risk to Canada to enter the country in the first place; and it removes barriers for genuine visitors who want to come to Canada.

Our Conservative government is committed to the safety and security of Canadians. This bill is a strong expression of that commitment.

Under our current laws, if a foreign national is sentenced to six months or greater, they are subject to removal; yet, under the current system, they have access to the Immigration Appeal Division as long as their sentence is less than two years.

Through Bill C-43, our government will streamline the process for deporting foreign criminals by limiting access to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

An Hon. Senator: About time.

Senator Eaton: This change would reduce the amount of time certain criminals could remain in Canada by up to 14 months. We will ensure that foreign criminals will not be allowed to endlessly abuse our generosity.

Unfortunately, there are many examples of convicted criminals doing just that — murderers, drug traffickers, fraudsters, child abusers and thieves, some of whom were on most-wanted lists. In fact, on average, each year 850 foreign criminals appeal their deportation. Currently there are more than 2,700 foreign criminals awaiting a decision on whether they can delay their deportation.

The problem is clear: Not only have these dangerous foreign criminals already committed crimes and victimized Canadians, but also many use the time they are allowed to remain in Canada while they appeal their deportation to commit more crimes and victimize even greater numbers of Canadians.

Let me relate just a few examples — out of many — that illustrate the extent of the problem and its impact upon Canadians.

Geo Wei Wu, born in China, came to Canada as a student and gained permanent residency as a spouse in 1990. Over the next two decades, he was convicted of a series of crimes including attempted theft, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, criminal harassment, assault causing bodily harm, break and enter, fraud — and, sadly, the list goes on.

He served time for each of these convictions. By 2008, he was found inadmissible and a removal order was issued. Under the current rules, he was entitled to appeal this order.

The appeal process took almost two and a half years and ultimately failed: Wu's appeal was dismissed.

Wu then disappeared after failing to show up for his pre-removal interview. The CBSA posted his information on its "Wanted" website last summer. Just a few weeks ago, media reported that he is now wanted by Peel Regional Police in connection with the kidnapping last year of two men in Mississauga. He is still at large.

Here is another example. Patrick Octaves De Florimonte arrived as a permanent resident from Guyana in 1994. Within two years of his arrival, he was convicted of a serious crime: assault with a weapon. Less than a year later, he was convicted of two more crimes: theft and possession of a narcotic. Six months later, he was convicted once again of assault. Just six more months passed and he already faced yet another conviction: uttering threats.

Then there is the case of Jackie Tran, born in Vietnam. He became a permanent resident in January of 1993, when he was 10 years old. By his late teens, he had become known to law enforcement officials in Calgary, and he was first convicted at the age of 19 for cocaine trafficking.

Despite having a long criminal record as a gangster and a major drug trafficker, he had never received a sentence of more than two years less a day. Thanks to repeated appeals, he was able to continuously delay his deportation for six years. He was first ordered deported in April of 2004 but was not removed from Canada until March of 2010.

Take as one final example, perhaps the most sadly illustrative case, Clinton Gayle from Jamaica, who received a sentence of two years less a day when he was convicted of multiple drug offences.

Between 1990 and 1996, the government tried to deport Mr. Gayle on multiple occasions, but because many of his convictions earned him sentences of less than two years, he was able to appeal his deportation and delay his removal from Canada.

Tragically, on the night of June 16, 1994, Toronto Police Service constables Todd Baylis and Mike Leone were on foot patrol. They encountered Gayle, a veteran drug trafficker, who had with him a fully loaded nine millimetre handgun and pockets filled with bags of crack cocaine.

Clinton Gayle struck Constable Baylis and then attempted to flee the scene. He was caught by the two young Toronto officers and a gunfight erupted. Tragically, Constable Baylis, a young man in his mid-20s, was shot in the head and killed in the line of duty, after only four years' service, leaving behind family, friends and colleagues.

Honourable senators, under the current system, too many of these foreign criminals have been able to appeal deportation orders and extend their time in Canada following convictions.

Serious criminals sentenced to imprisonment for any time less than two years have been able to delay or permanently set aside their removal orders. While they remain in Canada, on our streets and in our communities, many commit more crimes and further victimize innocent Canadians.

Measures in the faster removal of foreign criminals bill will remove a right of appeal, which will expedite their deportation.

While we agree that even foreign criminals deserve their day in court, we do not believe they deserve endless years in court, delaying their removal. We agree with due process, not endless process due to technicality.

Simply said, we are closing the avenues of delay that have been long and winding roads of process that have protected foreign criminals and allowed further harm to both new and existing Canadian citizens.

In addition, foreign nationals who are inadmissible on the most serious grounds — such as involvement in organized crime or perpetration of war crimes — would no longer have access to a program that is meant for cases deserving of humanitarian and compassionate consideration.

It is shocking that war criminals, terrorists and gangsters involved in organized crimes could delay their deportation by applying to remain in Canada under these grounds.

It is doubly ironic considering that humanitarianism and compassion are precisely what these individuals failed to show their victims. I think we can all agree that this is a common-sense change that is long overdue.

In addition, honourable senators, in order to prevent those who pose a risk to Canada from entering the country in the first place, Bill C-43 provides the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a new authority: an authority, in exceptional cases, to deny temporary resident status to foreign nationals who seek to do harm to Canadians.

Honourable senators, there is a good deal of support for this legislation.

(1530)

In October 2011, the Quebec legislature passed a unanimous motion: "To demand that the federal government refuse entry to Canada of Abdur Raheem Green and of Hamza Tzortzis given their hate speech, which is homophobic and minimizes violence against women."

There has also been a lot of media interest in unapologetic hate mongers like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptists. This group vehemently accosts gays, lesbians, women and our brave soldiers in uniform. They have made specifically clear their unapologetic hatred for Canada.

The comments and positions of those whose stock in trade is hatred illustrate the best rationale for these new provisions. I am sure everyone will agree that such individuals should not be allowed into Canada.

For years, immigration ministers have been asked to keep people who promote hatred and violence out of Canada. I think most Canadians assume that the immigration minister has this ability. The truth is the minister certainly does not. Unfortunately, under the current system, if they meet the criteria to enter Canada, there is no mechanism to deny them entry.

Bill C-43 will change that. It will ensure that those who pose a risk to Canadians, who spew hate and incite violence will be barred from entering our country. This new authority would allow the government to make it clear to those foreign nationals that they are not welcome here, that they should not travel to Canada and they that will be refused temporary resident status.

We have been transparent about the guidelines that would be used by the minister, so transparent in fact that the minister tabled the guidelines at committee in the other place. They are posted on the departmental website for all Canadians, and indeed all who seek refuge and citizenship here, to review. Those who would be barred under the new provisions include anyone who promotes terrorism, violence or criminal activity. As well, foreign nationals from sanctioned countries or corrupt foreign officials would also be barred from entering.

I think all honourable senators in this chamber can agree that these provisions represent common sense. I find it hard to believe anyone could disagree with them. What is more, in making these legislative changes, Canada is playing catch-up. We indeed lag behind other countries that already have similar powers in place. In fact, most countries have powers that are much more discretionary than those in Bill C-43. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Home Office has barred the entry of individuals whose presence is considered "not conducive to the public good."

In Australia, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has various powers to act personally in the national interest. It is up to the minister to determine whether a decision is warranted. In addition, Australia's immigration laws allow for visa refusals based on foreign policy interests and the likelihood that an individual will promote or participate in violence in the community.

In the United States, the Secretary of State may direct a consular officer to refuse a visa, if necessary, for U.S. foreign policy or security interests. The Secretary of Homeland Security can delegate the authority to immigration officials to revoke a visa. Additionally, the President may restrict the international travel and suspend the entry of certain individuals whose presence would be considered detrimental to the U.S.

Here in Canada, gay and lesbian groups as well as women's groups, amongst others, have pressed ministers in the past to use such a power. It is unfortunate that those in opposition to this legislation are ignoring the pleas of these groups. Until this legislation becomes law, we will continue to be unable to stop these undesirable foreigners from spewing their hurtful, misogynistic, minority-hating, bigoted venom on our soil.

Bill C-43 would enable the minister to bar such extremists from entering Canada in the future. The advantage of this new discretionary authority for refusal is that it is flexible, allowing a case-by-case analysis and quick responses to unpredictable and fast-changing events. It allows the minister to make a carefully weighted decision, taking into account the public environment and potential consequences. Ultimately, the Minister of Immigration would be accountable to Parliament and to Canadians for decisions made in this regard.

However, let me make it perfectly clear that this power is intended to be used very sparingly. We anticipate it would only be used in a handful of exceptional cases each year where there are no other legal grounds to keep despicable people out of the country.

Honourable senators, I would like to point out that this bill would also facilitate the entry of legitimate low-risk visitors to Canada. Under the current system, when a family travels to Canada and one of the members is inadmissible for non-serious grounds such as health, the entire family is found inadmissible. One can imagine that this can cost families a considerable amount of both time and money. Bill C-43 would improve the system by allowing all other family members who are admissible to enter Canada if one of the family members is found inadmissible on non-serious grounds.

Honourable senators, our Conservative government introduced the faster removal of foreign criminals bill because we know that Canadian families care about safety and security. Canadians support this bill. Stakeholders and experts support this bill. I quote from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which asserted:

The CACP supports the efforts of the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act to provide for a more expeditious removal from Canada of foreigners who are convicted of committing serious crimes against Canadians. As well, we support measures to prevent those with a history of committing criminal offenses, or who pose a risk to our society, from entering Canada. The Act will help to make Canadians and those who legitimately enter Canada safer.

I continue to quote from the Canadian Police Association, which:

... welcomes the introduction of the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, particularly with respect to the enhanced prohibitions against those who have committed serious crimes abroad from coming to Canada. While the overwhelming majority of those who come to Canada make a tremendous contribution to our shared communities, there does remain a small minority who flout Canadian law and have taken advantage of drawn-out proceedings to remain in the country at a risk to public safety. This legislation will help us by streamlining the procedures necessary to remove individuals who remain at-risk to re-offend. Ensuring that public safety is one of the considerations with respect to admissibility to Canada is a clear step in the right direction.

This act has also been praised by victim associations like Victims of Violence, which said:

Cutting short foreign criminals' opportunity for lengthy appeals will go a long way in minimizing and preventing the re-victimization of those innocent Canadians who are the victims of foreign offenders.

Honourable senators, this legislation is also supported by several immigration lawyers and experts. It has also received a good deal of editorial endorsement in the press. The provisions contained in Bill C-43 are clearly reflective of an idea whose time has come.

Honourable senators, our Conservative government is putting a full stop to dangerous foreign criminals relying on endless appeals in order, while they remain free, to further victimize innocent Canadians.

Through this legislation's provisions, our government is fulfilling a commitment to take a stand against a problem that is the core of our immigration system; a problem that sadly sees the welfare of dangerous foreign criminals given more due consideration than their victims.

I close, honourable senators, with the words of Theodore Roosevelt:

No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it.

Though those words were from another time and place, they are apt. Their sensibility and wisdom for our age are echoed in the provisions of Bill C-43. I look forward, honourable senators, to our debate.

Hon. Hugh Segal: Would the honourable senator take a question?

Senator Eaton: With pleasure, honourable senator.

Senator Segal: In congratulating the sponsor of the bill on the eloquence and clarity of her superb presentation, I wonder if I could ask her to undertake to determine what advice the law officers of the Crown have given as to the constitutionality of the provisions in this bill.

(1540)

I support the bill and its purpose; and I am delighted to vote for it when the time comes. However, as we know, the minister, who has been courageous on immigration issues, has run into difficulties with some of the new laws that have been deemed by various courts to be not necessarily constitutional. I would not expect anyone here to know the precise answer to this question, but I wonder whether the honourable senator might consider inviting the law officers of the Crown to appear before committee, should the house refer the bill to committee at second reading, to provide the full basis of their constitutional view that the bill is constitutionally appropriate and conforms to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Honourable senators, it would be a great tragedy if after all the work that has gone into the bill and all the work of the sponsor, which I know will be diligent and superb, we find that the courts strike it down. She will know that honourable senators on both sides of the house worked on the Anti-terrorism Committee for a review of legislation brought in by the Chrétien government after 9/11, which they believed was truly constitutional. However, because of court decisions made at various levels, including the Supreme Court of Canada, senators worked in a non-partisan way to make amendments so that that bill would be brought into line with the Constitution and those court rulings and appeals.

As the sponsor of the bill, would the honourable senator bring her authority to bear on the government so that law officers of the Crown would appear before committee to answer detailed questions about the constitutional provisions that may be impacted by various pieces of this important and constructive legislation?

Senator Eaton: I thank the senator for the question. It is an excellent idea to have them appear as witnesses before the committee. I would like to emphasize that one avenue has been closed to someone who is convicted for more than six months: They can no longer appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division. However, they can appeal to the court system. As you know, before a person is deported, a pre-risk assessment is done to ensure that they are not going back to face torture or to be killed. Bearing those two factors in mind, there are avenues for appeal after six months. I take the senator's point and would certainly recommend that to the chair of the committee.

Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck: Would the senator take another question?

Senator Eaton: Yes.

Senator Dyck: I am not sure if I heard the honourable senator correctly, but I believe she talked about getting tougher on foreigners who deliver hate messages or are extremely misogynistic. Is that correct?

Senator Eaton: The minister will have the discretion to make that determination. If someone is known to be misogynistic or homophobic or is known to spew hatred or partake of terrorist activity, the minister can deny that person entry to the country.

Senator Dyck: I understand the rationale, but it confuses me that another bill, Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, takes almost the opposite stance by proposing to remove section 13 in respect of spreading hate messages via the Internet. Under Bill C-304, it is okay for Canadians to spew hate, but under Bill C-43 it is not okay for foreigners to do so. There seems to be an inconsistency. Perhaps the honourable senator could rationalize the two conflicting viewpoints.

Senator Eaton: I am sorry, honourable senators; I am not familiar with Bill C-304. Bill C-43 deals with non-Canadian citizens. The honourable senator is quite right in saying that if Canadians want to spew that kind of thing, it is a whole other matter. This bill deals with non-Canadian citizens.

Hon. Claudette Tardif (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I wish to adjourn the debate in the name of Senator Campbell. However, I want to ask Senator Eaton whether she spoke in support of Bill C-304 when it was before the house.

Senator Eaton: I am sorry, honourable senators; perhaps I did, but I cannot remember because it was a long time ago. I believe that it was before the house last year. Is the honourable senator referring to Senator Finley's inquiry?

Senator Tardif: Yes.

Senator Eaton: Yes, I spoke to it, but I am not familiar with the debate at the Human Rights Committee. At that time last year it was an inquiry, not a bill.

Senator Tardif: There was an inquiry, and there is also Bill C-304, which repeals section 13 dealing with hate speech in the name of freedom of expression. That was the question asked by Senator Dyck.

Senator Eaton: I appreciate the question, but I spoke to an inquiry. I have not read the bill, and I am not familiar with the bill currently before the Human Rights Committee.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, for clarification, Bill C-304 is at second reading in the chamber and is not before the Human Rights Committee.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, it has been moved by the Honourable Senator Tardif, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cowan, that further debate be adjourned in the name of the Honourable Senator Campbell. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(On motion of Senator Tardif, for Senator Campbell, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government), pursuant to notice of February 26, 2013, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013, with the exception of Parliament Vote 10 c.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government), pursuant to notice of February 26, 2013, moved:

That the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in Parliament Vote 10 c of the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013; and That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House accordingly.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

[English]

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

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014, with the exception of Parliament Vote 10.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

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

That the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in Parliament Vote 10 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014; and That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House accordingly.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(1550)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Runciman, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman, for the second reading of Bill C-370, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (St. Lawrence Islands National Park of Canada).

Hon. David P. Smith: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on Bill C-370. It is pretty simple. It changes the name of the St. Lawrence Islands National Park of Canada to Thousand Islands National Park of Canada. It comes to us from the other place, from the member for Leeds—Grenville, and it is supported by the member for Kingston and the Islands, a wise man with great judgment, in whom I have great confidence. He also wears a red shirt.

As our colleague in this chamber, Senator Runciman, pointed out in December, seconded by Senator Seidman, this is one of these situations where we have general agreement.

For those who are not familiar with the area, the park stretches from just south of Kingston to Mallorytown and comprises about 20 larger islands, a series of islets and a number of inland properties. Geographically, it is composed of old granite mountain tops and an old hilly strip connecting the Canadian Shield to the Adirondack Mountains.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: There is an honourable senator speaking. Could we have a bit more quiet so that we could hear the Honourable Senator Smith?

Senator Smith: The park is of significant importance as a reserve of biodiversity. It is part of the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve, an official United Nations biosphere reserve, and the function of the park is to help preserve that biodiversity and to make it available to people, especially to students. The history and the biodiversity are two reasons why this is such an important park for the region and for the country, which is why it is designated a national park.

There has been a great deal of community consultation regarding changing the name to Thousand Islands National Park, and constituents and stakeholders are very much in favour of this change. The name is recognized throughout the world. Furthermore, the associated cost to rename the park will be relatively low. Much of the cost will be included in ongoing costs, such as website maintenance.

The name is part of the vernacular, and this change reflects the common usage. The name change will eliminate confusion. The St. Lawrence River goes from Kingston all the way to the Atlantic Ocean. Changing the name will ensure that the park is distinguishable from other islands and the more expansive St. Lawrence region. The name change also serves to distinguish this particular national park from the phrase "Parks of St. Lawrence," which is used by the Province of Ontario to describe a number of other attractions in the area.

I can say that I have slept there several times on my boat. When I was younger and my kids were younger, I had a very nice boat that a few people could sleep on, and I would take them down to the Thousand Islands. We would, in the evening, anchor in some little bay of one of the islands and sleep the sleep of the just and the righteous. Amen.

The bill passed almost unanimously in the other house; only one member voted against it. I think it is a good idea. I do not think there is much more to be said. On our side, our view is, "Let us just get on with this." We are supportive.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Further debate? Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It has been moved by the Honourable Senator Runciman, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman, that Bill C-370, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (St. Lawrence Islands National Park of Canada), be now read a second time.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time.)

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

(On motion of Senator Carignan, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Runciman calling the attention of the Senate to the need for improved mental health treatment for inmates, especially female inmates, in federal correctional institutions and the viability of providing such treatment through alternative service delivery options.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I note that this matter stands in the name of Senator Carignan but that Senator Jaffer will be making a presentation.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, I have asked Senator Carignan if he could let me proceed today and he has kindly agreed that I can do so.

I am pleased to add my voice to Senator Runciman's call to improve mental health treatment for federally sentenced women. Senator Runciman's commitment to addressing the challenges that face inmates with mental illness is long-standing, and I want to thank him for raising this issue in the Senate.

At its most fundamental level, ensuring mental health treatment for federally sentenced women is about protecting the rights of citizens, of mothers, of wives, of daughters, of human beings.

In his novel The House of the Dead, the Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky says:

The degree of civilization within a society can be judged by entering its prisons.

Honourable senators, that was in 1862. More than 150 years later, we are compelled to question the degree of our civilization. The case of Ashley Smith would be reason enough to ask that question, but that case is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, in 2009, 29 per cent of federally sentenced women were identified at admission as presenting mental health problems. This proportion has more than doubled over the past decade.

Thirty-three per cent of federally sentenced women were identified, at intake, as having a past mental health diagnosis, representing a 63 per cent increase over the past decade. What is more, 48 per cent of women were identified, at intake, as having a current need for prescribed medication.

Since 2003, at intake, approximately 77 per cent of federally sentenced women report abusing both alcohol and drugs. Just under half of these women report having engaged in self-harming behaviour.

[English]

Elizabeth Bingham and Rebecca Sutton of the University of Toronto's International Human Rights program observed the following in their 2012 report Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading? Canada's treatment of federally-sentenced women with mental health issues. They say: "Ms. Smith's problems were extreme but not unique."

(1600)

As the Office of the Correctional Investigator reported four and a half years ago, Ms. Smith's death "was the result of individual failures that occurred in combination with much larger systemic issues within ill-functioning and under-resourced correctional mental health systems."

Just weeks ago, Kinew James, a 35-year-old federally sentenced Aboriginal woman, died at the Regional Psychiatric Centre in Saskatoon. Investigations are ongoing, and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and the John Howard Society have asked questions about the care that Ms. James received.

Asked to comment on the link between Ms. Smith's and Ms. James' cases, the Correctional Investigator, Mr. Howard Sapers, said:

I think what these situations underscore is the constant challenge that correctional service faces to be vigilant and to provide safe custody and care for some very very difficult to manage individuals.

Mr. Sapers put it more succinctly in his appearance before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee last year when he said: "... prisons are not hospitals, but some offenders are patients."

Honourable senators, I want to use my time today to profile two groups of federally sentenced women — Aboriginal women and Black women — who are the most disserved by the ill-functioning and under-resourced correctional mental health systems to which Mr. Sapers refers.

Over the past 10 years, the number of federally sentenced Aboriginal women has increased by 80 per cent. Though they represe