THE SENATE

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

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

Prayers.

Hon. Pana Merchant: Honourable senators, it is with sadness, great respect and the best of memories that I rise to mark the passing of our esteemed colleague, the Honourable Herb Sparrow, Member of the Order of Canada, Honorary Doctor of Science McGill University, who died on September 6, 2012. He was 82.

The gratitude and pride of the overflow crowd in the city of North Battlefield, his city, was on display during the celebration of his life of service: alderman; Kinsmen; Mason; Shriner; co-founder of the School for Retarded Children; co-founder of the Battlefords Sheltered Workshop for physically and mentally challenged citizens; honorary life Rotarian; Junior Chamber of Commerce Outstanding Young Man of the Year; United Nations Environmental Leadership and Certificate of Distinction for Soil Conservation recipient, whose leadership and dedication have brought about significant change to farm practices not only in the Canadian farming context but to world agricultural farming practices; Battlefords and District Citizen of the Decade for the 1980s; strong supporter of the Battleford Boys and Girls Club, the Salvation Army, the Battleford's Indian and Metis Friendship Centre and the North Battleford Homeless Shelter; founder of school meal programs to ensure that students from poor families got enough nutrition to learn properly; successful businessman; farmer-rancher; long-serving senator; caring philanthropist; and good-natured, humorous friend and proud Canadian.

The prairie experience and prairie people played a pivotal role in shaping his soul, character and way of life. Senator Sparrow was a staunch defender of the Senate and the importance of its independence from the other place. He regretted the politicization of this place because he felt that this impaired our capacity and our value as a chamber of sober second thought.

Senator Sparrow was a valued friend of my family for three generations. He offered me welcome advice and assistance through the benefit of his long experience, and I was particularly grateful to him.

I ask honourable senators to join me in conveying our sincere condolences to his wife Lois, his six children, their spouses, and his grandchildren and great grandchild.

Hon. JoAnne L. Buth: Honourable senators, I rise today to pay tribute to former Senator Herb Sparrow. Senator Sparrow was a remarkable man. He made significant contributions to the Senate and good governance of our country, but, true to his roots as a farmer and businessman, Senator Sparrow's greatest impact was undoubtedly in the field of agriculture, particularly in the advancement of sustainable farming practices and the prevention of soil degradation.

While chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, he helped author the highly influential study, Soil at Risk: Canada's Eroding Future, which focused attention on the seriousness of soil degradation. It is widely credited for increasing government programming for soil conservation and driving changes in farming practices. As a testament to its authority, Soil at Risk remains one of most requested publications produced by the Senate.

Senator Sparrow later founded and became the first president of Soil Conservation Council of Canada, where he pioneered the Save our Soils Program. For his decades of tireless work educating Canadians and the world about the problems of soil degradation, he received many accolades, including induction into the Canadian Conservation Hall of Fame, an honorary doctorate from McGill University and the Order of Canada.

Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to meet Senator Sparrow, but his work has made a considerable and lasting impact on me and many other agricultural professionals. His efforts brought much-needed attention to not only the issue of soil erosion and sustainability but also the importance of Canadian agriculture as a whole. The words of a farmer interviewed in Soil at Risk certainly echo the sentiments of Senator Sparrow:

This is soil that belongs to our children and its loss guarantees they cannot be as prosperous as we are.

I am pleased to say that Senator Sparrow's diligence has contributed greatly to the ability of Canadian farmers to prosper today and into the future.

Honourable senators, please join me in saluting this exceptional Canadian.

Hon. David P. Smith: Honourable senators, I also rise to pay tribute to the late Senator Herb Sparrow. He was a long-time friend, a colleague, a fellow Liberal and a fine senator.

I was born in Toronto and I guess I am thought of as a Toronto guy, but, believe it or not, Herb Sparrow and my sister Cay, my only sister, who has lived in California for over 60 years, were born 16 days apart in Saskatoon.

I really got to know Herb in the fall of 1964 when I went with Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson to the annual convention of the Saskatchewan Liberal Association at the Bessborough Hotel. Herb was elected president of the party. Of course, four years later, Prime Minister Pearson appointed him to the Senate.

I got to know him really well. I was, of course, very young in 1964, 48 years ago. I was just a kid, but I was out there as the National Director of the Young Liberals and Keith Davey's right-hand guy. I spent the next couple of years helping to organize for the 1965 election, and I spoke to Herb Sparrow all the time.

I will never forget being in Mr. Pearson's suite when Ross Thatcher walked into the room, but I will not go into that now as it is not that relevant. There are some memories that one will never forget, and that is one of mine.

Herb Sparrow and I kept in touch over the years. We were friends. When I came to the Senate, we were seatmates. Regardless of who was speaking, Herb would make a joke every two or three minutes. His jokes were always witty and funny, and he would poke me in the ribs as he told them. I will never forget one time when I asked Herb whether he had heard the story about the Saskatchewan farmer who retired to B.C. Some of his neighbours went out to visit him the next summer and asked how he liked the mountains. The man replied, "I do not; they block the view." Herb must have laughed for five minutes over that. I think he stole that joke from me.

(1410)

Ironically, Herb Sparrow lived for many years on Walker Drive in North Battleford. Believe it or not, Walker Drive was named after my wife's grandfather, who was a lawyer in Saskatchewan and the mayor of North Battleford. After he died in 1928, they named Walker Drive after him. I guess Herb thought so much of him that he moved to that street. I have very fond memories of Herb; and we will miss him. I wanted to rise and pay my respects.

Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, I also rise to pay tribute to the late Senator Herb Sparrow. I will not repeat what has been said of his accomplishments because I hate repetition. Herb and I had a lot in common. He was a rancher, and I was a rancher for a while. I was a chicken farmer, and he was the Mr. Chicken of Saskatchewan and North Dakota because he owned a Colonel Sanders Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise in that area. My first business was Brownies Recipe Fried Chicken, which was a takeoff of Colonel Sanders. Herb always called me a phoney. He was a great guy.

I remember that Herb was a great Liberal, but more than that, he was a great Canadian. He was principled, honest and decent, and he espoused integrity. As well, he had a genuine sense of humour that would last forever.

We roasted Senator Lawson in Vancouver at the Bayshore Inn, where all the downtown folks were spiffed up. When Herb walked in, one person asked, "Who the heck is that?" I said that he was Herb Sparrow, one of the roasters. Someone said, "Really? How did we pick him?" I said, "Just wait." Herb rose to speak and blew the entire crowd away. The people were in tears. They recently did an event for me. They asked whether I could find Herb Sparrow. I said, "Yes, I can, but I do not want to find him right now. He is up there, and I do not want to go up there right now."

Politicians from all parties could learn from a man like Herb Sparrow. I recall Herb establishing in his mind what was right and what was wrong with this place. He took a stand on various issues, and I will mention two of them. The first was the gun registry, which he thought was ridiculous. He stood his ground and voted the way he thought. The second was the Toronto airport deal whereby the process would deny people access to the courts. I can remember Herb saying that this would never happen in his lifetime. He stood up and voted the way he saw the entire issue.

Senator Mercer: I remember that.

Senator St. Germain: I learned from him a little bit; and, more important, we should all learn from him because he was a decent and good human being. He will be missed by thousands of people who knew him right across this country. I thank honourable senators for giving me the opportunity to say a few words about Herb Sparrow, not only a great senator but also a good friend.

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore: Honourable senators, I wish to be associated with the remarks of my colleagues and to touch on one of the items that Senator St. Germain mentioned. The government bill in respect of the Toronto airport had a little clause in it that, as mentioned, denied due process to the parties and the opportunity to have their case heard under the rule of law. That Liberal bill was defeated by one Liberal vote against; and the voter was Herb Sparrow, a man of deep integrity, who was making sure that Canadians would have due process available to them. I was not here at the time, but I remember reading about the case.

When I came here, I got to know Herb and his fabulous sense of humour. For me, who better was there to go to for advice, to try to emulate and to have as a mentor? He was a mentor to me, and that comical, full and robust relationship continued after he left this place. He was a dear friend and a stalwart Canadian. I shall miss him. I offer my deepest sympathy to his family.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, the last time Herb Sparrow and I talked was after the Conservative government put an end to the gun registration program. It was a celebratory phone call over a program that saw Herb on the same side as many of us on this side of the chamber. He was joined by others on the Liberal side, of course. He represented the best interests of the province of Saskatchewan, be they farm interests on the treatment of animals, the gun registration or, most important, the rights of Canadians to take their issues to court. He defended it even when he believed his party did not. He was always a Liberal — no question about it — but at least this side got to adopt him once in a while.

He was accorded accolades from the Chamber of Commerce and the Kinsmen Club; and he was awarded the United Nations Environmental Leadership Medal for his work on soil conservation. He was inducted into the Saskatchewan Baseball Hall of Fame and the Saskatchewan Agricultural Hall of Fame; and he was awarded the Order of Canada in 2009.

Herb was my friend. There were many people at his funeral. At funerals, there are people who are sorry to see you go and people who are happy to see you go. However, honourable senators, I knew that Herb Sparrow was well-liked when I went to a roast for him after his retirement. I was sort of the token Tory speaking at that roast, and we had the most wonderful time. There were more people there than at the funeral. It was a fabulous event, and we had a wonderful time.

He was a good man who represented all in our province. I express my deepest condolences to his wife, Lois, and to his wonderful sons, daughters and grandchildren. Our province is a better place because he lived among us. Rest in peace, Herb.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before proceeding with other senators' statements, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a distinguished delegation from the People's National Congress of China led by the Honourable Ma Wenpu, member of the China-Canada Legislative Association and Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs of the National People's Congress of China, accompanied by colleagues from the People's Republic of China and His Excellency Zhang Junsai, Ambassador of the Peoples' Republic of China to Canada.

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Marie-P. Charette-Poulin: Honourable senators, I rise to pay tribute to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, who has chosen to step down after leading our province with a quiet strength for 9 years and after 16 years at the helm of the Ontario Liberal Party. Premier McGuinty is a man whose strong family values are reflected in the legacy he leaves for Ontario families and future generations. He has strengthened our education system by reducing classroom sizes and bringing in full-day kindergarten. He has responded to Ontarians' concerns about health care and has worked hard to reduce hospital wait times. Our province now boasts greener energy generation. Its economy is well positioned and its deficit is in decline.

(1420)

On September 25, we celebrated Le Jour des Franco-Ontariens et des Franco-Ontariennes, another significant part of Premier McGuinty's legacy. When this day was first celebrated in 2010, the premier proudly declared:

[Translation]

This unique day is a reminder of the inclusive character of the province and also serves to pay tribute to all Franco-Ontarians and francophones of all origins, who, for 400 years, have been contributing to Ontario's development.

[English]

Honourable senators, under Premier McGuinty's leadership, the Ontario government has been committed to making improvements to francophone services and to recognizing the francophone community's numerous contributions to the quality of life in Ontario. Amongst the many enhancements made is the Office of the French Language Services Commissioner, which was created to ensure the continuity of these improvements.

I wish to thank you, Premier McGuinty, for your vision and for your leadership. Dalton, on behalf of all Ontarians, I want to thank your wife Terri and your family for the many sacrifices they have made as you served the people of Ontario selflessly, with strength, compassion and conviction.

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable senators, I rise today to mark a happy event, even though we have lost a great Canadian.

On September 27, at the Salaberry Armoury, in the presence of guest of honour Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice of Canada, and Senators Jean-Guy Dagenais and Vernon White, we awarded 50 Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medals.

The medals were awarded to people in four specific categories: those who stand up for the rights of victims of crime, police officers recognized for their social commitment outside work hours, members of the military working abroad, and individuals who toil anonymously to improve the quality of life in their community.

I would first like to thank Minister Nicholson for being so generous with his time and for honouring the people who attended the medal ceremony with his presence. Minister Nicholson is greatly appreciated for his attention to and concern for the victims of crime, which he has demonstrated from his very first day on the job as the Minister of Justice of Canada.

Personally, I hold the minister in very high esteem for the great empathy he has always demonstrated for families who experience unspeakable tragedies such as the murder of a family member or the disappearance of a loved one as a result of crime.

As I said in my introduction, my colleagues, Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais and Senator Vernon White, honoured me with their presence and joined my team in applauding the outstanding contribution made by these Canadians, who have moved us with their courage, their dedication and their involvement. I would like to thank my colleagues once again for attending the event.

Honourable senators, this ceremony was our way of commending the extraordinary and largely unrecognized contribution made by these 50 individuals to Quebec and Canadian society and the meaningful action they have taken in this country and around the world. We chose these individuals easily and without compromise, taking into account the extent of their commitment, because, in our minds, they had all distinguished themselves in some meaningful way. Whether police officers, military personnel, victims' rights advocates or just ordinary engaged citizens, they are excellent role models for us and for those in their communities, in their workplaces and in their families.

In closing, I would be remiss if I did not underscore the wonderful job done by the two individuals who were mainly involved in organizing the event and who were responsible for its success, since all of the recipients invited to attend on September 27 accepted our invitation to be recognized.

Such tremendous organization required near-perfect logistics, and I would therefore like to commend the excellent job done by Chief Petty Officer Second Class Mario Richard, who coordinated the Canadian Forces resources put at our disposal. The professional quality of the ceremony was unanimously applauded by all the participants and their guests.

I would also like to thank my Senate communications officer, Isabelle Lapointe, who served as master of ceremonies for the evening. I applaud her professionalism in planning and organizing the event and her consistent efforts to make the ceremony a success.

In conclusion, one of parliamentarians' most gratifying jobs is recognizing Canadians for their dedication to making our world a better place. Clearly, the awarding of the Queen's Jubilee Medal goes beyond the mere political and happy symbolism surrounding it. This medal is much more meaningful to recipients, who are received in this way with all the honours conferred upon them by their outstanding professional and social commitment. To them, on the evening of September 27, 2012, Canada and its Governor General thanked them.

Thank you to the recipients for helping to make Canada the best country in which to live.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Senator Benjamin Nwandibe Obi of Nigeria. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Segal.

Senator, on behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre De Bané: Honourable senators, I would like to add my voice to those of my colleagues in honouring the late Senator Sparrow. Senator Sparrow played an extremely important role. The report that he produced as the chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture is by far the most printed and most widely distributed report in Canada, with over 50,000 copies. This report has become a standard work on the development of agricultural policy throughout the entire world.

Most of us knew Senator Sparrow. He was a very generous and sincere man. He was truly in touch with ordinary Canadians.

[English]

Honourable senators, I wish to emphasize that point. Herb Sparrow really wanted to be close to the people, to feel their problems and their experiences. I will remind senators that one day he went undercover as a homeless man, with $1.50 and some food stamps, and lived with the street people on skid row in Vancouver for a full week. This is the type of man who really wanted to feel what homeless people, poor people, are living through.

If it is true that sincerity really is reflected in one's actions, what he did in his province for the poor people, for the students who were handicapped and for others proved how much that man was really one of the most inspiring senators we have had. I want to add my voice to those of my colleagues to pay tribute to him and to offer to his family my sincere condolences.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2011-12 annual reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages, pursuant to section 72 of both the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2011-12 annual report, pursuant to the Official Languages Act.

(1430)

[English]

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 Senator Jaffer on May 8, 2012 concerning international cooperation and the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answer to the oral question asked by the Honourable Senator Dallaire on May 17, 2012, concerning the RADARSAT Constellation Mission.

[English]

I have the honour to table the answer to the oral question asked by the Honourable Senator Chaput on September 26, 2012 concerning the rural municipality of Taché.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answer to the oral question asked by the Honourable Senator Eggleton on June 21, 2012, concerning Statistics Canada—Information on Income and Labour.

[English]

I have the honour to table the answer to the oral question asked by Senator Jaffer on June 6, 2012 concerning women's rights in Afghanistan.

(Response to question raised by Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer on May 8, 2012)

Canada has committed and made important contributions to global efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals particularly through the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). CIDA's mission of leading Canada's international efforts to help people living in poverty relates to all of the Millennium Development Goals. CIDA supports the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals through its three program channels — bilateral, multilateral and Canadian partnership. The Agency is especially active in the areas of food security; education and gender equality; and, health, including maternal, newborn and child health. It is important to note Canada's role, under the leadership of Prime Minister Harper, in mobilizing global action to reduce maternal and infant mortality and improve the health of mothers and children in the world's poorest countries. In June 2010, under Canada's Presidency, the G8 launched the Muskoka Initiative on Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, which aims to save the lives of women and children in developing countries. In cooperation with select non-G8 nations and organizations that joined the Muskoka Initiative, the G8 committed a total of US$7.3 billion in new and additional funding over five years (2010-2015). Canada committed $1.1 billion in new and additional funding to the Muskoka Initiative, while maintaining existing Maternal Newborn and Child Health programming at $1.75 billion over five years, for a total commitment of $2.85 billion. CIDA is working with bilateral and multilateral partners and Canadian civil society to implement the Muskoka Initiative. Canada is proud to have used its G8 Presidency to champion the Muskoka Initiative, which helped pave the way for the UN Secretary-General's Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health, which is a multi-stakeholder effort launched in September 2010 that has raised approximately US $60 billion. In addition to contributing to reducing child mortality and improving maternal health, these two initiatives also contribute to the achievement of combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, as well as reducing the proportion of people who suffer from hunger. Canada's contribution to the Muskoka Initiative is achieving results. For example, in Mozambique, Canada supported a nation-wide campaign in 2011, which vaccinated nearly 4 million children against measles and resulted in an 80% reduction in measles cases compared to the same period in 2010. In Haiti, Canada is contributing to the development of new maternity and paediatric wards and providing equipment for maternity clinics and community health centres. These institutions will serve a population of 1.4 million people. In Ethiopia, Canada supported community health days for nutrition, which resulted in 1.5 million children under five years receiving regular vitamin A supplements and 1 million children aged two to six receiving regular deworming treatments. For more information on how Canada is contributing to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, please consult Annex 1. As part of the Government's Aid Effectiveness Agenda, CIDA undertook a comprehensive review of all its multilateral programming to ensure that its funding to multilateral institutions remains focused on the most effective institutions, is linked with clear objectives to make a real difference on the ground, and is aligned with Government of Canada and CIDA priorities. Consistent with this, CIDA works with multilateral partners that have endorsed the Goals, ensuring that Canadian aid dollars support their achievement. The Management Accountability Framework provides national governments and other development stakeholders with a systematic approach to identify and analyze bottlenecks, and recommend collaborative solutions. This framework has now been applied in 37 countries with the support of national governments, including in four Sahel countries where the frameworks specifically address food and nutritional security. CIDA supports this effort, as well as work being done by United Nations Development Program to help develop a global consensus on a new development framework for 2015 and beyond. CIDA's disbursements for the fiscal year 2011-12 to multilateral partners involved with addressing the Millennium Development Goals were as follows: United Nations Women $ 14.32 million The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) $ 175.49 million United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) $ 38.34 million United Nations Development Program (UNDP) $ 91.8 million United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) $ 61.5 million World Health Organization (WHO) $ 146.86 million World Food Programme (WFP) $ 402.61 million As part of Canada's aid effectiveness agenda, the Government also announced in 2009, that 80 percent of CIDA's bilateral programming would be focused on 20 countries, which were chosen based on their real needs, their capacity to benefit from aid, and their alignment with Canadian foreign policy priorities. CIDA's bilateral programming towards the achievement of Millennium Development Goals is concentrated in the Agency's 20 countries of focus, which are: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Colombia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Mali, Mozambique, Pakistan, Peru, Senegal, Sudan, Tanzania, Ukraine and Vietnam, as well as the Caribbean region and West Bank and Gaza. (For Annex 1, see Appendix, p. 2601.)

[Translation]

(Response to question raised by Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire on May 17, 2012)

The RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM) is designed to provide complete coverage of Canada's land and oceans at least once per day, up to four times daily in the high Arctic, as well as provide greatly improved operational capability and reliability. The Government of Canada remains committed to the RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM) and maintaining Canada's leadership and expertise in Earth observation and radar technology. The Government recognizes that Canada has niche capabilities in synthetic aperture radar (SAR) technologies, and that a mission like the RCM requires the work and dedication of highly skilled scientists and engineers. The Canadian Space Agency continues to work with its Prime Contractor Macdonald, Dettwiler and Associates (MDA) to complete the design phase of RCM. At this time, the Government is reviewing options for completing the RCM. This review requires careful due diligence, so as to ensure the project is completed in a cost effective manner.

[English]

(Response to question raised by Hon. Maria Chaput on September 26, 2012)

On August 1st, 2012, the Rural Municipality of Taché sent a letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans concerning the Experimental Lakes Area and enclosed a resolution of the Rural Municipality acknowledging their continued support. On August 15th, 2012, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans responded to the letter. Fisheries and Oceans Canada believes universities and non-government research facilities are better suited to conduct the type of research that has been done at the Experimental Lakes Area, and the Department is working to transfer operations to an organization that is better positioned to do studies based on fundamental ecosystem manipulation. Departmental officials are working diligently to find another operator for the facility, so that this important work can continue by another party better suited for this type of research.

[Translation]

(Response to question raised by Hon. Art Eggleton on June 21, 2012)

The Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID) was designed to provide national-level data on family and individual financial well-being. To track Canadians' labour market activity and income, SLID produced two types of information: static measures for a particular moment in time (cross-sectional) and transitional measures over a period of time (longitudinal). The vast majority of uses of and products derived from SLID were released through an annual publication called Income in Canada and were based on the point-in-time measures (or cross-sectional information). This information is what allows the monitoring of overall trends among specific subsets of the population. There were, however, some uses based on the longitudinal information, for example the monitoring of the persistence of low-income. Statistics Canada published the last release of the longitudinal component of SLID in 2012. To replace SLID, Statistics Canada will develop and conduct a new survey in early 2013 to produce annual (cross-sectional) estimates on income. This new data series will continue to provide year-to-year trends in income over time. Approximately 90% of the current data tables from the Income in Canada publication will still be available. However, there will be less information, particularly on the labour market component. Statistics Canada is investigating possibilities to provide longitudinal information to its users, in a different way than what was produced in SLID. Before making the changes to its programs, Statistics Canada conducted a thorough review of its activities to manage resources while maintaining a balanced national statistical program that accurately measures the economy and society. By focusing resources where they are most needed, Statistics Canada continues to provide high-quality, reliable and timely information at a lower cost to Canadians that is sustainable into the future.

[English]

(Response to questions raised by Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer on June 6, 2012)

Question #1: Investing in the future of Afghan children and youth through development programs in education and health is one of Canada's four priorities in Afghanistan. How much time, money and resources have we invested in achieving this priority? What are our plans for the future? Response #1: From 2006-2012, CIDA provided $125.9 million to support education initiatives, some of which are funded solely by CIDA, and others which are multi-donor with results at the national level. The majority of our support to education initiatives directly targeted access and quality of girls' education. Key results include: Over 4,000 CIDA-funded community based schools across Afghanistan have provided education to approximately 125,000 students - more than 84 percent of whom are girls;

CIDA has trained over 3,000 community based education teachers, the majority of whom are female;

CIDA has helped to raise the quality of teaching in the classroom by supporting training opportunities to more than 130,000 teachers, including almost 40,000 female teachers;

Almost 100 community-based preschools have been established to support early childhood development for hundreds of young children, the majority of whom are girls;

Over 2,000 girls have entered Teacher Training Colleges;

CIDA has implemented 561 small-scale physical school improvement projects, such as boundary walls and latrines, to support girls' access to education; and,

More than 1,600 school construction/rehabilitation projects have been completed or are in progress across the country to enhance access to education, particularly in remote areas. In addition to the $125.9 million spent on education initiatives, CIDA also supports the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund - Recurrent Cost program. This support provides for wages, benefits and other payments for government employees, most notably teachers and principals, and operating costs of schools. CIDA overall support for health from 2006-2012 was $169.35 million — the majority of which has been targeted for maternal and child health initiatives, some of which are funded solely by CIDA, and others which are multi-donor with results at the national level. Key results include: The percentage of children 12-23 months who receive routine diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) vaccination has increased from 34.6% in 2006 to 85% in 2011;

The percentage of pregnant women aged 15-49 years that received at least one antenatal care visit by a skilled health provider has increased from 32.3% in 2006 to 74% in 2011;

The proportion of births attended by a skilled health worker increased from 18.9% in 2006 to 34% in 2011;

Since 2008, CIDA funding to tuberculosis control activities has contributed to the detection of 113,062 cases (64% of which were women), thus helping to control the spread of the disease. As a result, 87% of detected women (62,953 cases) were treated successfully;

The distribution of multiple micronutrient powder to 230,000 children aged six months to five years to help prevent diarrhea, blindness and death;

The distribution of iron and folic acid supplements to 127,000 pregnant or lactating women for 180 days to ensure healthy pregnancies, deliveries and babies; and,

The training of more than 100 health facility personnel and nearly 900 community health workers on the administration and benefits of micronutrients. Key results in Kandahar Province include: The construction of a maternal waiting home equipped with basic supplies, including patient beds and office equipment;

Maternal and neonatal health care training for health care workers;

The delivery of a safe motherhood information campaign;

The training of 264 health workers on Integrated Management of Childhood Illnesses and the administration of essential vaccines and medication to women and children under-five; and,

The provision of Emergency Obstetric and Newborn Care supplies and medical equipment. What are our plans for the future? In November 2010, the Government of Canada announced the parameters for its engagement in Afghanistan for the period of 2011 to 2014. Canada's non-combat role for that period focuses on four areas: investing in the future of Afghan children and youth through education and health; advancing security, the rule of law and human rights; promoting regional diplomacy; and delivering humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people. Women and girls were identified as a specific area of focus for Canada's development efforts. Education: CIDA's current programming in education is focussed on improving the quality of and access to basic education for Afghan children and youth, with a particular focus on women and girls. Key objectives include: Supporting community-based education (CBE) to increase access to education, especially of girls;

Investing in the formal system for the long-term benefit of all students; and

Getting qualified teachers, especially women, into schools. Health: Improving maternal, newborn and child health is a key commitment announced by the Prime Minister at the G-8 meeting in Muskoka (2010). CIDA's current programming in health focuses on: Increasing equitable and gender-sensitive health services to mothers, newborns and children;

Continuing to be a leading donor to polio eradication; and,

Enhancing healthy nutritional practices by mothers, and for the benefit of newborns and children under five. More recently, at the July Tokyo Conference on Afghanistan, Canada announced it will continue to maintain a significant development presence in Afghanistan by building on the priorities, experiences and successes of our current engagement. This pledge included an additional $227 million for continued CIDA programming between 2014- 2017, including programming in education and health, as well as the Canadian Government's unwavering long-term support for Afghan women and girls. Expectations of accountability and reforms in areas such as governance, anti-corruption and advancing the rights of women and girls represented an important component of Canada's announcement. These expectations were formally captured in the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework signed between the International Community and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Question #2: What steps are we taking to ensure that the small advances we have made in the education of girls are not destroyed when we leave Afghanistan? At the July 2012 Tokyo Conference on Afghanistan, the Canadian Government announced a commitment to development programming in Afghanistan until 2017. This included a pledge to continue to offer programming in education, especially as this sector supports the advancement of women and girls. This demonstrates a long-term Canadian commitment to girls' education and enables CIDA to adopt a long-term programming focus rather than a limited focus on short-term results. In order to maximise the potential for CIDA's projects to generate benefits for Afghans beyond the timeframe of specific investments, CIDA ensures that key determinants of sustainability are factored into the education projects that it funds. The following section illustrates how some of these key determinants have been taken into account in CIDA's support for girls' education. Support provided by CIDA and other donors to the education sector, as well as direction coming from the highest levels of the Afghan Government, have helped entrench a clear commitment to girls' education into a number of Afghan Government policy documents and action plans. In addition to supporting the development of these policy frameworks, CIDA has also helped build the institutional capacity of the Ministry of Education to implement and oversee the policies and action plans that promote girls' education. This is another key determinant to ensuring a long-term return on our investments in girls' education, i.e. (i) ensuring that functional institutions (from the national level down to the community level) are reinforced during the lifespan of our projects and (ii) self-sustaining after our projects end. To this end, CIDA works closely with the Afghan Ministry of Education to ensure that each education project aligns with the Ministry's own plans and priorities, and that future budgets are made available in the Government's plans and budgets to absorb the long-term operating costs of our projects (e.g. infrastructure maintenance, salaries). CIDA's partners on the ground also work with community groups to ensure that initiatives are sustainable beyond the lives of specific projects. This can be achieved when projects are implemented by communities themselves (e.g. school construction). Another successful approach has been the engagement of communities themselves in girls' education. For example, the CIDA-supported Education Quality Improvement Program has established more than 10,000 School Management Committees. These committees give communities a platform to advocate for education (including the education of girls) at the community level, while at the same time holding their government accountable for effective education service delivery. Another successful example has been CIDA's support for Community-Based Education (CBE). CBE has not only been successful in increasing girls' access to education, but also in empowering girls and their communities to take ownership and responsibility over the issue of girls' education. Through this focus on community ownership, CIDA-supported programming has taken root, and processes have been put in place to transfer the responsibility for CBE to the Ministry of Education to in order to ensure quality, sustainability and oversight. Our experience in Afghanistan has shown that the creation of a strong institutional base at the national level and at the community level, backed by full cooperation and involvement, reflecting local needs and aspirations, and consistent with Afghanistan's wider development strategy, are keys to ensuring that gains reached through CIDA investments are sustained. Question #3: Information on Resolution 1325 CIDA has made a firm and unwavering commitment to women and girls in Afghanistan and will continue to build on our common commitments under UN Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace and Security. This includes close monitoring of the impact of the security situation on women and girls, and working to address the threat of gender-based violence. Under Canada's Action Plan for Women, Peace and Security (WPS Action Plan), CIDA is obligated to support projects in fragile and conflict-affected states, deliver training for staff sent to the field, ensure our humanitarian partners have codes of conduct, support women in management positions at CIDA, and engage in policy dialogue. CIDA's Afghanistan Program focuses on promoting increased participation and representation of women, including through protection measures such as supporting women's human rights and reducing gender-based violence. During the last five years, CIDA has been supporting 8 projects for a total of $20.99 million that directly (but not exclusively) supports women's participation and addresses protection issues through promotion of women's rights and protection from gender-based violence. As per the WPS Action plan, CIDA is required to track the number of projects in fragile or conflict-affected states that address the four areas of Prevention, Protection, Participation and Representation, and also includes Relief and Recovery. Protection: CIDA supports women's right to protection including support to raising awareness and strengthening of various policies, programs and legislation, which aim to reduce gender-based violence in the country. For example: Multi-year core funding to the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) has been pivotal in preventing the back-sliding of women's rights in the country and was key to supporting changes to the Shi'a Personal Status Law and the drafting of the 2009 Elimination of Violence Against Women (EVAW) law. AIHRC is also supporting the reconciliation agenda to address victims of violence and women's rights.

CIDA's Responsive Fund for the Advancement of Women (RFAW) has supported over 30 Afghan community service organisations. Sub-projects have supported awareness of violence against women (including the EVAW law and elimination of family violence), women rights awareness, the development of shelters, and initiatives to support women's leadership and participation in the political process. Participation and Representation: Through the Responsive Fund for the Advancement of Women, CIDA also supported the Afghan Women's Network's (AWN) participation at the Bonn 2011 and the Tokyo 2012 international conferences on Afghanistan, which was instrumental in enhancing awareness and understanding of Afghan women's priorities and concerns. AWN members noted that they felt that their voices were finally heard.

Specific to women's political participation, CIDA has supported 4 projects before, during and after the 2009 provincial and 2010 national parliamentary elections. In Afghanistan's past Wolesi Jirga Election, 406 female candidates competed for the 249 seats in Parliament. Through CIDA, Canadian support provided training to nearly 80% of women candidates and elected officials in both provincial council and parliamentary electoral processes. Relief and Recovery: Basic needs must be met in order for women to meaningfully engage in decision-making and peace processes, and for their rights to be upheld. To this end, CIDA funds a number of projects that address enhanced access to, and quality of, girls education, and initiatives in the area of maternal and child health. Policy and Programming: The Afghanistan Program supports Canada's Action Plan, and Security Council Resolution 1325 through a mix of programming and policy dialogue. The Program includes reference to Canada's National Action Plan for the Implementation of the United Nations Security on Women, Peace and Security (WPS), which provides guidance to support planning and Agency compliance with the Government of Canada. In addition, the Program is supported through the assistance of gender equality technical service both in Ottawa and in the field. Field support includes a local Gender Equality consultant;

CIDA continues to play a key role in liaising with the Afghan government, donors and civil society organisations to promote greater coordination and programming in support of women, peace and security issues;

CIDA continues to support the decision-making capacities of women and girls in partner communities to take ownership and promote their engagement in both development and peace processes;

CIDA continues to support key, respected local organisations such as the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and the Afghan Women's Network. These partners are setting and supporting the pace of change for women through their community level work, and via their links with the Afghan government;

CIDA has recently undertaken a Humanitarian Assistance review to examine CIDA's humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan, and how to best meet changing needs in the evolving Afghanistan context. The review includes an assessment of the Afghan humanitarian context which addressed two primary issues: accessing people in greatest need (including women and girls); and, opportunities to support local Afghan humanitarian organizations; and,

The design of the Afghanistan Program's human rights pillar is underway and will have a focus on women's rights. Both the Humanitarian Assistance and the Human Rights sectors will take into consideration Canada's Action Plan on Peace and Security, and how to best support it.

[Translation]

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the seventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (Bill S-11, An Act respecting food commodities, including their inspection, their safety, their labelling and advertising, their import, export and interprovincial trade, the establishment of standards for them, the registration or licensing of persons who perform certain activities related to them, the establishment of standards governing establishments where those activities are performed and the registration of establishments where those activities are performed, with amendments), presented in the Senate on October 4, 2012.

Hon. Percy Mockler moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, as chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, it is my duty to outline the nature and the purpose of the two proposed amendments in the report before us.

[English]

First, I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the committee for their work on this file, which began in June 2012. Over the course of these past months, we heard from the minister and his officials, as well as from numerous stakeholders who have an interest in this particular piece of legislation in order to improve the quality of life of Canadians.

Honourable senators, the committee heard from 22 witnesses in total, and we spent approximately 12 hours reviewing Bill S-11, entitled the Safe Food for Canadians Act.

As a committee, we have done our due diligence and have come to agreement that this is a good bill and a fair bill.

Members of the committee did not always agree on the specifics, but we do agree that it is a good bill, a real, positive step in the right direction.

I would like to thank members of the committee for their hard work, their dedication and their support as we worked with the witnesses and the stakeholders. I would also like to take this opportunity, honourable senators, to thank Senator Plett, in particular, who, as sponsor, did an admirable job in representing the government's position with respect to Bill S-11, the Safe Food for Canadians Act.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I would be remiss if I did not mention the role that Senator Peterson played in the study of Bill S-11, the Safe Food for Canadians Act. Senator Peterson took his responsibility very seriously.

[English]

Honourable senators, it is also fitting to pay tribute in a special way today to Senator Peterson who acted as the critic to the bill and who has been a valuable member of our committee.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Mockler: Yes, this bill is a step in the right direction because we all participated in it. Bill S-11, the Safe Food for Canadians Act, aims to consolidate food provisions now administered and enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency under four statutes into one act and to strengthen oversight of food commodities being traded interprovincially and also internationally.

It is fair to say that, in the spirit of the bill, we collectively have the same objective, namely, food safety and security for Canadians.

However, the committee did find the need for two amendments. Honourable senators, please bear with me in informing Parliament that the first proposed amendment is technical in nature and corrects the English version of the bill in clause 51, line 34, on page 21. Clause 51 of the bill prescribes the regulatory authority of the Governor-in-Council to bring into effect the legislation.

Subclause 51(c) permits the government to prescribe inspection marks and grade names and currently refers to "any food company" when in fact it should refer to "any food commodity." The French version of the bill is correct. It is only the English version that must be corrected. The committee unanimously agreed that this change was necessary.

Honourable senators, the second proposed amendment deals with clause 68 of the bill. Subclause 68(1) requires the minister to undertake a review of the provisions and operations of the act every five years, while 68(2) requires him to provide Parliament with a report on the review.

Honourable senators, a majority of the members of the committee agreed that it would be beneficial to provide some greater specificity with respect to the nature of the review that is to take place and also to ensure that the minister assesses the resources that CFIA provides for its administration and enforcement. The proposed language in the amendment would achieve that purpose.

I should say, honourable senators, that there was some disagreement. However, due diligence and great discussions happened for this area of the bill. Some senators felt that it would be better for someone other than the minister — and I want to repeat this — some senators felt that it would be better for someone other than the minister to be responsible for the review of the legislation. To that end, Senator Peterson proposed an amendment that would mandate the Auditor General to conduct a resource audit of the CFIA.

(1440)

[Translation]

Honourable senators, Bill S-11, the Safe Food for Canadians Act, will consolidate into one law the food provisions from four statutes currently enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the CFIA. The objective of the bill is to improve oversight of food commodities being traded interprovincially and internationally.

[English]

In the end, the majority of members felt that the Auditor General already has broad authority to conduct audits, including at the CFIA, and that it would be inappropriate to direct the Auditor General in this way because he already has the authority and the jurisdiction to conduct any audits. Therefore, honourable senators, that proposal failed and the amendment before us now, which was proposed by Senator Plett, was adopted by the committee.

I would like to thank members of the committee again for their thorough examination of this report, which is an important piece of legislation for all Canadians.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, the majority of members felt that the Auditor General already has broad authority to conduct audits, including at the CFIA, and that it would be inappropriate to direct his work in this way.

[English]

Before closing, I would like to thank all members of the committee again for their thorough examination of this important piece of legislation, which permitted our witnesses and stakeholders to be heard.

Honourable senators, I understand that Senator Peterson also wishes to speak to this bill at third reading before his retirement at the end of the week. I would therefore hope that all senators would adopt this report today to allow him to have that opportunity.

Honourable senators, thank you very much.

Hon. Grant Mitchell: Honourable senators, I would like to make a few comments about this report. Before I begin my substantive comments, I would like to thank our colleague Senator Mockler for his recognition of the great work of Senator Peterson. I know that all of us on our side are going to miss him tremendously, deeply and greatly, and I am sure that most of our colleagues on the other side will as well. I think it is a testimony to how we rise above partisanship every once in a while in this place that Senator Mockler would have recognized him as kindly as he did. The rest of my speech will probably not demonstrate that particular element of the Senate, because I have a couple of things on my mind.

Senator Mockler made the point that the report was comprehensive, that 22 witnesses had been called, one of whom I understand was the minister and the first witness, and that many questions were answered. I am sure that is the case. However, as I consider the state of this issue currently, there is the state of E. coli issue, which is a reflection of the need for this kind of legislation and this debate. It strikes me that even after the appearance of the Minister of Agriculture, there is one huge question that remains unanswered. Clearly, the Minister of Agriculture was unable to answer that question. That question is: How could it be that a government that has been in government for seven years; that has a responsibility to the people of Canada for food safety; that has a responsibility to the agricultural industry and certainly to the beef industry to sustain its credibility nationally and internationally; was not surprised, it would seem, by this kind of issue, when the listeriosis issue occurred on their watch? How is it that this E. coli issue could have arisen, given all of those observations? That question has yet to be answered.

There are two views of what might have happened. One belongs to some critics of both the minister and the government who would say that the minister did not have enough resources and that the government cut funding and did not have enough inspectors. I think one can make a relatively good case, if not an excellent case, that the government has cut funding — it certainly is cutting it now — and that perhaps there are not enough people, because, some would say, a very small portion of those people whom the government has hired has been applied to this particular area of meat review.

If it is the case that the government does not have sufficient resources to do this adequately, then one could argue that it might not be the minister's fault because the minister simply could not get the money from the government. However, that would underline a problem with the government's competence in dealing with this important issue. Mr. Harper happens to be from a riding that is probably within an hour of the XL plant. If the government requires more resources, why could it not figure out how to get adequate resources to manage this issue, to manage this process, properly? That would be a logical conclusion from the observation that the government did not apply enough resources, so maybe it is an overall incompetence conclusion of the government, the Prime Minister and all those who would tell Mr. Ritz whether or not he could have extra money and extra resources. That, in itself, would be a conclusion that would be very disturbing, given the consequences of this issue, for Canadians, the Canadian beef industry and any of us who want a piece of beef on our plate and some sense of certainty that it will not make our children sick. But that is not the government's answer.

The government's answer to that accusation was no, they have actually put hundreds of millions of extra dollars into food processing since 2008 and the listeriosis problem where 22 people died on this government's watch. They have hired hundreds of new people, 700 new people. That makes the issue of competence/ incompetence even worse, even more significant, because if, in fact, the minister has had experience with the listeriosis issue, which was much the same kind of problem as the E. coli issue, so it was not a surprise and he has had experience; and if the minister actually has put tens of millions of dollars more into it, he certainly has the financial resources, which is the government's case; and if he has hired hundreds of more people — and certainly that was Minister Ritz's reaction, that clearly he has all the people he needs — then what would be the reason that he cannot deliver on a proper process that gives us a sense of security that our beef is safe to eat, not just for Canadians but for the world?

That raises directly the question of the minister's incompetence. It was not a surprise because he has dealt with it before with listeriosis; he has all the money that he says he needs because he says he has put tens of millions of dollars more into it, apparently, we are to take him at his word; and he has 700 more employees. If one gives a manager all of the things that they would probably need in order to do a job and they still do not do that job, then whose fault is that? It certainly bears upon the competence, the incompetence, of the minister. Then one starts to question up the line, the person to whom he reports. That is, of course, the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows that something went wrong with listeriosis; otherwise, why would he have given the minister extra money and people? Now that he has done that, the minister still cannot deliver.

Therefore, we have an incompetent minister. Logically, that is the conclusion that we are driven to. We have to question those up the line, namely the Prime Minister, to whom that minister reports and, ultimately, at whose desk the buck stops, if I can stay that.

(1450)

That question has not been answered. How could it be? It was not a surprise, but it is a huge responsibility to Canadians and people around the world who eat the meat and to the agriculture industry, which is reeling from BSE, which is just barely recovering and has to deal with this.

The government has the money and has the people, but it cannot deliver. When it comes to leadership, leadership must get results. It is not enough to give excuses. It is not enough to spin. Leadership must produce results. In this case, two times in four years they have not produced the kind of results that, at a very basic level, Canadians and the beef industry should be able to expect. Absolutely, as a matter of course, they should be able to expect that our meat would be safe and would be properly reviewed.

If it is not that the government cannot deliver with the resources, one must ask: Why is it? What is it about this government that has rendered it incompetent in this process? I will talk about this more when we get this omnibus bill, but I think we have to start to ask what this government has ever done that demonstrates competence almost anywhere. It cannot build a pipeline in Canada — in six years and nine months — to diversify our projects, diversify our markets for energy. One cannot fathom that that would be the case and that a government that would claim to be competent cannot do critical things for two of our most critical industries. It cannot build a pipeline to diversify our products and it cannot get safe meat that we would feel safe about on our plates.

Why is that? I think it may be the nature of the ideology that drives them. That ideology, at a fundamental level, says the private sector can do everything better than the public sector, better than government, except maybe war and military things.

Let us investigate that. Either it can or it cannot, but when one looks at the problems we have with the pipeline and with adequate consultation with Aboriginal peoples, for example — which is the constitutional responsibility of the Government of Canada and which has been, one would say kindly, delegated to the private sector, although I would say abdicated to the private sector — then one begins to see a pattern. It has been borne out with lack of government review of the meat processing process. Somehow they have put the onus more and more on the industry, on the private sector, on these companies to do it. The government has abdicated their responsibility; and it might just be that the evidence is that as powerful an incentive as economic forces, markets and meeting demand and supply considerations are on the private sector, perhaps there are just some things the private sector cannot do as well as they would do if they were properly monitored by government.

It may not be, although I think it is, that in fact the minister is incompetent or that Mr. Harper is incompetent, although there is a building case to make that point. It is certainly the case that the ideology is incompetent to meet at least this particular consideration. I ask the question: Where is it that we see evidence that this ideology has made a society better, made an economy stronger or made people's lives better? I ask that question and I do not get an answer. It certainly has not made people's lives better in Brooks when they work at the XL plant. It has not made people's lives better if they have been sick or in the beef industry, in particular. Ask whether being driven by this ideology the way that this government is driven has resulted one way or another in an incompetent management of this particular process, the meat processing monitoring case.

I wanted to make that point, and I think it is the elephant question in the room, if I might put it that way. It would be really interesting to hear from Mr. Harper and from Mr. Ritz on why it is they cannot do this basic, fundamental thing that the people of Canada, or at least 33 per cent of them, support them to do.

Hon. Jane Cordy: Is the senator willing to take a question?

Senator Mitchell: Yes.

Senator Cordy: I know in Nova Scotia people are concerned about E. coli, and the sales of beef have gone down, which is of concern to a number of people in the area. This is ironic because the contamination has taken place in Alberta and should not affect Nova Scotia. However, if one travels anywhere in Canada they will find people are very concerned about E. coli and the safety of beef.

It was under the same minister's watch that we had the listeriosis crisis. We know that at that time the minister spoke somewhat lightheartedly about death by a thousand cuts and also that, on hearing that someone had died, he said he hoped that it was Wayne Easter, who was the agriculture critic. I think that was a horrid thing for anyone to say, let alone the minister.

When the honourable senator was speaking about the E. coli crisis we are in now, it made me nervous for many of the reasons he spoke about. I wonder if he would share that concern because when questioned about it, the minister in the house and certainly the Leader of the Government in the Senate spoke about having done all these things, including putting millions of dollars into extra monitoring and hiring hundreds of people and hundreds of inspectors. Yet, that makes me even more nervous because if the money has been spent — millions of dollars extra into the Department of Agriculture and into the inspection process — and if we have hired hundreds of extra inspectors, my first question would be what else could be the problem? Could the honourable senator answer that? That answer from the minister makes me more nervous than saying we will put more money into it and we will hire more inspectors. That has already been done, so why are we having another crisis? Of course we are concerned about the health aspect, but we should also be concerned about people in the beef industry. It is decimating the industry and the trust in the beef industry from the province of Alberta, particularly.

My second question is that part of this bill, I understand, is that the minister will now be responsible for monitoring how well the system is working and, as Senator Mockler said, it is not the Auditor General who will be doing that. I wonder if the senator would comment on that.

Senator Mitchell: I thank Senator Cordy. The issue of trust is extremely important. I am hearing stories of people going to grocery stores and there is no chicken. There is lots of beef but no chicken. It is purely anecdotal, I grant you that, but I was on Air Canada this week and they were handing out the menu and they crossed off beef and in handwriting they put on salmon. Is that not an indictment of this government's ability to deliver clean, safe meat that we can have a sense of security about?

It is unbelievable that this is happening again four years later. If the Prime Minister was any kind of manager and leader he would call in Mr. Ritz and say, "You are fired." He would put someone in there who can do the job, or at least try again. How many times does this have to happen before Mr. Ritz gets fired? Will he get a third and fourth chance? Twenty-two people died the first time. Could I have five more minutes, please?

Twenty-two people died of listeriosis. No one apparently has died of E. coli, but it is up to 15 people, and a young girl in Calgary had kidney failure and they operated and saved her. Who knows what the long-term consequences are. This is not some political spin issue. This is not just saving the government's skin. This is about fundamental health and safety for Canadians so they can put a piece of meat on their child's plate and have a sense of security that they will not get sick from it, and this government cannot deliver that most basic of services. They will say it is not our fault; it is the private sector. It is your fault. You have to make sure the private sector can deliver on that. They did not in the listeriosis case, so why did the government not pick their socks up and get tougher and more specific and stringent?

In answer to the second question, which was the question of throwing money at the problem, it is amazing to me that that is really what their answer amounted to. If the government cannot deliver with all the resources, and they keep saying we have the resources, then de facto, it is saying we just threw money at the problem. That raises another fundamental question, not just an ideological problem, because your ideology does not work; we know that.

(1500)

The fact is that it is a question about management. I have often said this and I will ask this question rhetorically again. If the President of Toyota hated cars, what kind of company would Toyota be? The Prime Minister of Canada hates government and now we are seeing what kind of government we get. If you hate government, you do not listen to your public servants; you do not have faith that they can give you advice and that you might just want to follow it; and you do not have a sense of how to manage that organization. If you hate your organization, how could you ever begin to inspire the people to do what needs to be done, to listen to them and to manage them effectively? That is another problem because this government hates government, and it cannot manage it.

We see it over and over. We see it with record deficits. We see it with skyrocketing debt. We see it with a pipeline they cannot get built. We see it with food safety, which is now the second time.

My point is their ideology problem: They hate government and they cannot manage it. It is very clear that a real, fundamental level of incompetence is running this government.

Finally, there is this idea that the minister, coming out of all of this, having been an absolute abject failure twice in critical areas, now will be charged with monitoring, managing and reviewing himself. It is almost incomprehensible. Who came up with that idea? Which genius thought of that? Let us take this fellow who clearly cannot do his job and have him monitor and assess how he is doing his job. I wonder what his answer would be.

Senator Mockler: Honourable senators, I have heard the honourable senator opposite saying that it is not just political spin. With what we have witnessed here, there is no doubt in my mind that if he were to go back to Webster's Dictionary, Mr. Webster would have a different view of his comment about it not being political spin.

I listened carefully when the honourable senator mentioned cuts and cutting funding on resources and inspectors. I think there is too much fear mongering in what I have just heard. For the record, I need to bring to the attention of Parliament what our government says — and it is easy — on the question. It is also very easy to use the word "incompetent."

I would like to answer the honourable senator's two or three questions. Our government ordered an independent investigation of the Canadian food safety system following the listeria outbreak in 2008. The government committed to addressing each and every one of the 57 recommendations from the investigation led by Ms. Sheila Weatherill.

In September of 2009, we announced an initial investment of $75 million to respond to all of these recommendations. Among other things, we are providing Canadians with the information they need to reduce the risk of food-borne illness through a new food safety web portal and national public information campaigns.

In 2010, the Speech from the Throne reaffirmed the government's commitment to food safety.

Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh!

Senator Mockler: I will answer the question; please listen. It was a good question, and here is the answer.

In Budget 2010, we delivered an additional —

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the 15 minutes of Senator Mitchell's time has been exhausted, as has the extra five minutes. Is there further debate?

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Mockler, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wallace, that the seventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Bill S-11, An Act respecting food commodities, including their inspection, their safety, their labelling and advertising, their import, export and interprovincial trade, the establishment of standards for them, the registration or licensing of persons who perform certain activities related to them, the establishment of standards governing establishments where those activities are performed and the registration of establishments where those activities are performed, with amendments, be adopted.

Those in favour of the motion will signify by saying "yea."

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: Contra-minded will signify by saying "nay."

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to and report adopted, on division.)

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

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

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Harb, seconded by the Honourable Senator Poy, for the second reading of Bill S-210, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act (commercial seal fishing).

Hon. Mac Harb: Honourable senators, I am very proud to rise today to continue debate on Bill S-210, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act, which would prohibit commercial fishing for seals and disallow the issuance of commercial licences for seal fishing.

[English]

I would like once again to thank honourable senators for supporting the debate of this important national and international issue. I look forward to a debate that leaves behind emotion and focuses on the facts, facts that will be more closely examined when the bill moves on to committee.

A poll done in June of this year by Environics Research tells us that 69 per cent of Canadians support the passing of this bill. Seventy-one per cent of Canadians oppose using tax dollars to promote the hunt and 85 per cent of Canadians would approve the use of tax dollars to put a program in place to transition sealers into other employment opportunities. This is the reality that we, as politicians, have been ignoring for far too long. When it comes to the commercial seal hunt, the government needs to face this reality and accept the facts.

There are no viable markets for commercially hunted seal products. The majority of Canadians have called on their government to stop propping up the commercial seal hunt with their tax dollars.

The government should support Canada's Inuit and other First Nations whose seal products are exempt from the European seal trade ban and who can benefit from their unique access to the EU market.

Seals are not responsible for the lack of fish. Scientific evidence shows it was government inaction and misguided action on the fishery that was responsible for the depletion of the cod stocks and its continuing struggles to recover.

Finally, Canada's $5 billion commercial fishery needs the government to step up and meet its national and international commitments to establish sustainable ocean management practices.

Honourable senators, the commercial seal hunt is clinically dead and has effectively ended. Although there are 14,000 issued commercial sealing licences, only a few hundred sealers took part in the 2011 hunt. The 2011 landed value of the seal hunt was just over $730,000. Sealers earned an average of $3,000 that year, before deducting costs such as fuel, food and ammunition.

The commercial seal hunt accounted for only 0.002 per cent of the provincial GDP of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2011.

Prior to the opening of the 2012 hunt, the largest seal fur buyer in Canada closed its doors to seal products.

In February of 2012, the Newfoundland government "loaned" $3.6 million to a Norwegian-owned company operating in the province to buy and stockpile pelts. Due to that loan, almost 70,000 seals were killed in this year's hunt and the pelts were dumped in warehouses. What will they do next year — another $4 million taxpayer-funded loan?

(1510)

Honourable senators, the markets are gone. More than 34 countries, including Canada's number one and number two trading partners, the United States and the European Union, have banned the trade in commercial seal products. Last winter, Russia also banned trade in seal products. Switzerland and Taiwan are now working on bans. This trend reflects the growing international concern, supported by a new landmark report published just this fall in the international journal Marine Policy, which concluded that the commercial seal hunt is inherently inhumane given the conditions under which it operates.

Honourable senators, the government misled sealers in early 2011, saying they would soon start shipping seal products to China. However, the Chinese have not and may never open markets for these products. A few weeks ago, more than 50 Chinese organizations, representing tens of millions of supporters, sent an open letter to each honourable senator, saying that Canada's push to send seal products to China has caused "irreparable damage to Canada's reputation in China" and that the Canadian government is "out of touch with the latest developments in China."

The government is also out of touch with how Canadians want their tax dollars spent. Remember, 71 per cent of Canadians are opposed to using their tax dollars to promote the commercial seal hunt and 67 per cent of Canadians are opposed to any tax dollars being spent to support the commercial seal hunt, but their money keeps on pouring down the drain.

Along with funding million-dollar loans to a foreign-owned company with no customers, Canadians will be on the hook for $10 million spent on a futile challenge of the EU ban at the World Trade Organization. The European General Court dismissed a 2011 attempt to have the ban overturned, and legal experts agree that the ban respects international protocols for banning trade. There is no doubt in my mind that the WTO challenge will fail — and it should.

Canada has routinely carved out exemptions from trade agreements to protect our cultural industries and our values. Should we now tell the 27 EU member states that while we maintain the right to protect our values, we deny them the right to protect theirs? It may also be worth stating the obvious: The EU is not ordering Canadians to stop the hunt; it is simply respecting the democratic choice of its own citizens not to have these products brought into their countries.

As many as 100 European parliamentarians are now calling on Canada to withdraw its challenge of the EU seal ban prior to the upcoming vote on the multi-billion dollar Canada-Europe trade agreement. Remember, this agreement could boost Canada's gross domestic product by $12 billion annually and increase bilateral trade by 20 per cent. The government is risking it all for an industry with no visible life signs. It is unbelievable.

The fact is that even these futile efforts are not helping the sealers. The sad reality is that sealers are being abandoned by their government. They are being let down and deceived. Sealers are the victims of this government's lack of action.

The proposed medical use of seal heart valves has failed clinical tests. Canadians are not buying the product. Canadians are not eating the meat and, not surprisingly, the rest of the world is not, either.

To quote John Furlong of the CBC, who writes on the fisheries:

How much experimenting can we do to market seal meat? Only a handful of Newfoundlanders can gag it down. Why do we think there's a broader market somewhere?

It is a good point.

Honourable senators, the old days of the seal lamp oil markets are gone. The commercial seal hunt will never be what it once was. We have to move on to an industry buyout. Sealers are facing hard times and all they are getting is lip service.

The government has to sit down with the stakeholders in the industry and talk realistically about an industry-wide buyout. I am talking about the formal end of the commercial seal hunt, while allowing subsistence hunting to continue. Fishermen who hold sealing licences would receive financial compensation and economic alternatives would be developed in the communities most affected. This solution was used to end the commercial whale hunt in Canada, and it worked.

The good news is that a buyout would cost less than the subsidies required now just to prop up the sealing industry.

I believe these sealers themselves will be supportive. A survey done by Environics Research last year indicated that two thirds of Newfoundland sealers holding an opinion were in support of a sealing licence buyout. The people interviewed were not just sealing licence holders; they were active participants in the commercial seal hunt. While polling shows that most Canadians do not want tax dollars used to subsidize the sealing industry, Canadians overwhelmingly support funding a transition program for sealers.

Let us put it in perspective. In 1992, after the collapse of the northern cod fishery, the Canadian government provided nearly $4 billion to help fishers and plant workers adjust to the closures. Before the 1992 moratorium, the cod fishing industry was worth $250 million a year. The funds needed for a buyout of the sealing industry is far less in comparison to what the government has spent on other buyouts.

The government could turn its relationship with animal rights groups from a problem into a solution. Humane Society International (Canada), IFAW, PETA, and Canada's various environmental groups are more in touch with national and international opinions on these issues than politicians will ever be.

There is a way to take advantage of this plentiful natural resource in a different, sustainable way. Just this week, we learned of a new initiative in the United Kingdom where tourists can pay to tour Britain's largest seal colony during breeding season for the first time in its history. The non-profit sector can help. Let us draw on their expertise, research and broad bases of support to find meaningful investments into viable initiatives in lieu of the commercial seal hunt.

Let us now turn to the situation facing Inuit and First Nations hunters. Canada's Inuit are experts at living off the land in a very challenging environment. I would like to take a moment to explain how the government's action — or should I say inaction — has made their challenges that much more difficult. Inuit and First Nations people in Canada have been hunting seals for thousands of years to survive. They have an inherent right to do so. The European Union acknowledged and respected this right when drafting its commercial seal products ban.

The government knew the EU ban was coming and it had a responsibility to ensure that northern hunters' access to the market remained open. Instead, it opted to take a back seat as communities in the North struggled to cope with these changes. The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami was pressured into an appeal of the EU ban because the government did nothing to make the northern exempt status work in their favour. The Inuit problem with marketing their product is not their problem or an EU problem; it is the Canadian government's problem. The problem here is not the market but the lack of government marketing support, plain and simple.

When the EU ban went into effect, Minister Leona Aglukkaq, Member of Parliament for Nunavut, said in a statement, "in these difficult economic times . . . northern sealers need our support now more than ever." However, where was that support? Where is it now?

The federal government chose instead to use the Inuit hunt as a decoy to defend the failing, larger commercial seal hunt. Our Inuit communities have been badly used by the government as the public relations face for the commercial hunt, despite the fact that their traditional subsistence hunt bears no resemblance to the relative new kid on the block, the commercial seal hunt. That strategy has certainly not saved the commercial hunt and it has caused great harm to the northern hunters.

Unlike the commercial sealers who get a fraction of their annual income from the commercial hunt, for some Inuit and Aboriginal hunters, the sale of seal products is the only source of income in a region that is going through difficult times.

Let us look at the situation. The unemployment rate in July 2012 for Nunavut was 14.8 per cent compared with the national rate of 7.3 per cent. Half of Inuit adults earn less than $20,000 per year. They face serious issues involving lack of housing, poverty, illiteracy, poor health and food insecurity.

(1520)

The EU exemption created a unique opportunity for the government to work with the hunters and their communities to create a viable and value-added industry. This could have led to widespread economic development creating lasting jobs in the North.

Canadians are asking now: Why did the government not use this exemption to promote economic development in these struggling communities? Why did the government not facilitate the labour training programs, processing plants, training programs, certification facilities, labelling processes, marketing initiatives and shipping facilities, taking concrete action that could generate real jobs and real export opportunities for these hunters?

Now, honourable senators, let me move to dispel the myth of the cod and the seals.

[Translation]

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, the government stubbornly defended and fueled the myth that seals are responsible for the depletion of the cod stocks. It set higher quotas than the DFO scientists recommended and considered sustainable. It called for the slaughter of seal populations in direct contradiction to best practices and scientific expertise, and why? Because it was politically expedient to do so.

[English]

As honourable senators know, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has undertaken a study into the grey seal population on Canada's East Coast. I am concerned that the reason for the study was to justify the minister's predetermined desire for a cull, but I appreciated the opportunity to hear wide-ranging testimony from those involved in the fishery, both scientists and fishers.

We heard from many expert scientific witnesses who have spent their entire career studying these complex marine ecosystems. I am here to tell honourable senators frankly that they would be hard pressed to find a single scientist appearing before the committee who would agree with the premise that seals are responsible for the low number of cod in our waters. Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, sadly, fishery legislation gives broad discretionary powers to the ministers who can make decisions irrespective of science-determined guidelines, targets and principles, a matter I will discuss at more length in a moment.

Honourable senators, it is widely acknowledged that overfishing and poor fisheries management brought the cod to the brink of extinction in this country, but still the current government curries political favour by ignoring the science, even lifting the moratorium on cod fishing in some areas, despite the fact that it remains endangered. Then they blame the seals.

However, seals are not to blame. New research coming out of a 2011 study by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist Kenneth Frank showed that the collapse of the cod in the 1990s was caused by human overfishing, resulting in a population explosion of plankton-eating forage fish, such as herring and capelin. The forage fish population exploded by 900 per cent after the cod collapse. At these levels, they competed with cod and sometimes ate cod eggs and baby cod, hampering the cod recovery. It was not the seals.

Eventually, the overpopulated forage fish ran out of food and their population started to decline. Around 2005, the ecosystem went into a "recovering" state, where cod populations began rising again. Now, honourable senators, the cod are recovering on the Scotian Shelf and on the Grand Banks, despite or perhaps because of the abundance of grey seals and harp seals in these areas.

You can see that seals and fish can live side by side peacefully.

[Translation]

Scientists like Ken Frank and Boris Worm concluded that changes in forage species could explain both the failure to recover and the subsequent recovery of cod stocks. And, given that seals feed primarily on forage fish, one can reasonably conclude that the reduction in the number of seals will lead to another increase in forage fish populations, which could have a negative impact on the recovery of cod stocks.

However, in order to score political points, the government continues to increase seal hunting quotas and dismiss evidence that shows that the steady rise in the commercial hunt and targeted slaughter is definitely not in the best interest of our fisheries and oceans.

[English]

Honourable senators, Canada has one of the world's most valuable commercial fishing industries, worth more than $5 billion a year and providing more than 130,000 jobs. It is the true economic mainstay of approximately 1,500 communities in rural and coastal Canada. Unfortunately, the government is failing to manage responsibly this precious resource and important industry.

The Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on Sustaining Canada's Marine Biodiversity released a report this past February that called the government to task. In fact, they said:

Despite pledges on conservation and sound policies, Fisheries and Oceans has generally done a poor job of managing fish stocks, planning for whole ecosystems and protecting marine biodiversity.

Honourable senators, this report accuses the government of failing to protect our oceans, leaving the nation's ocean species at risk. Its chair, Professor Jeffrey Hutchings, who has appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, said that the government has failed to meet national and international commitments to sustain marine biodiversity. He is not the only one to think so.

Allow me to quote Ecology Action Centre's Marine Conservation Coordinator, Dr. Susanna D. Fuller:

Canada is one of the few countries in the world that has failed to have enforceable rebuilding targets. . . . We do not have timelines, targets or recovering harvest rules for commercially fished species. . . . Two decades following the cod collapse there has been no meaningful rebuilding of cod and the northern cod stocks are considered endangered . . . . . . the failure of fisheries management is the primary reason for stock collapses in Atlantic Canada. . . . Efforts to improve fisheries productivity should first look at the human impacts rather than seek other explanations that would not require us to change fishing practices.

Ironically, honourable senators, the Royal Society report singled out the excellence of the work done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientists in their efforts to meet Canada's commitments on marine biodiversity. Now these scientists and their work are on the government's chopping block. This is what this government does when science gets in the way of political ideology. It shuts down the science and fires the scientist.

The Royal Society report found that the 1996 Oceans Act, which would have helped move Canada towards sustainable ocean management and provide some checks and balances on the minister's discretionary powers, has not been effectively implemented. This delay has led to the politicization of the fishery decision-making process. A broad management plan might have prevented the reopening of the cod fishery in these areas, and we might be seeing the results today with stronger cod numbers.

The Royal Society report tells us that other developed countries facing the same pressures as Canada have done much better. For example, in Australia, Norway and the United States, it is science, not politics, that determines key decisions about fisheries.

It is not just this expert panel calling on the government to fulfill its obligations. In fact, the Newfoundland Minister of Fisheries, Darin King, in a letter submitted to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, called on the government to take steps. Minister King pointed out that Newfoundland Premier Dunderdale had written to the Prime Minister in April 2011, reminding him that her province has long advocated that fisheries management decisions, particularly those pertaining to the setting of total allowable catches, be based on scientific evidence.

He is right. The cod reopenings and the fact that the federal minister ignored his own scientists' warnings about the vulnerability of the harp seal herd in 2011, setting the total catch 25 per cent higher than the scientists recommended, tell us all we need to know about decisions being made based on scientific evidence.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, because of a lack of management protocols, policies have been created based on hypotheses, public perception and, of course, political expediency. For instance, since the number of seals has increased since the 1970s and since it has taken some time for cod stocks to recover, the government is assuming that those facts are related and is therefore calling for more seals to be hunted and slaughtered.

(1530)

However, scientists tell us that seal populations are currently only a fraction of what they were 100 or 200 years ago, before the advent of the modern commercial hunt, when, incidentally, there was an abundance of cod.

[English]

Marine scientist Dr. Heike Lotze told Fisheries Committee members that 100 to 200 years ago, most populations of seals and other marine mammals were much more abundant than they are today — a lot more — and, as a result, I believe it is not correct to assume that we have a problem, as some would point out.

When we talk about seals and fish populations, we have to realize that both have been much higher and that they have both been negatively affected by human activity. Commercial seal hunts or culls are not and should not be used as population management measures. Frankly, honourable senators, it is a waste of taxpayers' money and simply irresponsible.

We need a science-directed approach to fisheries policies, and we just are not getting it. While this government holds press conferences and throws good money after bad searching for non-existent markets for the seal hunt, our oceans and the multi-billion dollar fishery industry that depends upon them are being put on the back burner.

It does not have to be this way. According to Dr. Hutchings, DFO scientists have been working for years to incorporate a precautionary approach to identify target limits and reference points. It is part of the sustainable fisheries framework of DFO to do this, but it has not yet been done.

We also need to address a serious problem identified by the Royal Society report, namely, the major conflict of interest at Fisheries and Oceans Canada between its mandate to promote industrial activities and its mandate to conserve marine life and ocean health. We know all too well which mandate takes precedence when push comes to shove with this government. Short-term gain leads to long-term pain.

Canada can no longer claim to be a world leader in ocean and marine resources management. We have lost our international credibility when it comes to our environmental policies. Scientists are being silenced and facts are being ignored in the interests of short-term economic and political gains.

Sealing no longer provides a livelihood in East Coast rural communities. The commercial hunt has been dealt a mortal blow by the changing demands of the marketplace. However, the government continues to misdirect scarce public resources trying to conjure markets out of thin air and futile battles against our major trading partners. Our international reputation takes a beating every spring as the boats head out to the seal herds and Canadians join millions of people around the world calling for an end to a hunt that has no modern relevance.

The seal population is also facing climate change challenges in declining numbers. This is a one-way evolution, and it will not turn around tomorrow or five years from now. This government cannot allow nostalgia or political expediency to cloud the facts. The conversation has started. The topic is no longer taboo, even here on Parliament Hill.

It is time for real leadership that recognizes its responsibilities to support sealers and to transition those left high and dry by the end of the commercial seal hunt; its responsibilities to Inuit and First Nations hunters with viable markets to develop; and its responsibilities to the majority of Canadians who have been calling for a formal, dignified and proactive end to the commercial seal hunt.

Along with this, and perhaps most importantly, it is time that the government take its responsibilities as the steward of an ocean nation seriously and fulfill its national and international commitments to sustain marine biodiversity and to ensure that we have healthy, safe and prosperous oceans now and in the future.

Honourable senators, I am asking you, in the same spirit and courage in which we came together to support second reading of this bill, to show the same courage by supporting the motion to send this bill on to the Fisheries Committee for an open and in-depth public hearing. We owe it to the sealers, we owe it to Canadians, and we owe it to the international community to explore this issue with the help of informed experts and with the help of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Further debate? Will Senator Harb accept a question?

Senator Harb: Yes.

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, I will come back with a speech of my own after hearing the speech today about the great economic concerns of the honourable senator.

Is the honourable senator aware of whom we are serving by banning seal hunting and not fighting for these hard-working people? European parliamentarians have in fact exploited our fish off the coast of Canada and, of course, none of this is mentioned. If we are living this experience, there are two predators: the fishermen from other countries and, of course, the seals.

We must also take notice that we now have a population of nearly 10 million seals. Yesterday I was watching a Suzuki video about bears that are nearly extinct from of a lack of food, because they do not have access to seals any longer. In fact, the seals have no predators and that is the problem.

We are talking about control of our resources and about an industry that is limited but necessary to the coastal population. How does the honourable senator reconcile the fact that he would like to put these people out of work and have some respect for the European parliamentarians who are now in the process of adopting a policy at the European Parliament to start killing seals because the seals are consuming all of their fish?

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Harb: I thank the senator for the question. Let me put it this way: This is not about us and them. This is about us, collectively. We cannot have it both ways. We live in a global community. We have had poll after poll across the country showing that the majority of Canadians do not want the commercial seal hunt to continue.

By the same token, our number one trading partner, the United States, in 1974 banned the importation of commercial seal products. Our number two trading partner, the European Union, with 27 countries, has also told us they do not want our product. Now we have Russia, which used to be a very big proponent of the commercial seal hunt, saying no.

On an annual basis, honourable senators, we have millions of people — and my office has received in excess of 700