THE SENATE

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

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

Prayers.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I ask for leave to table a document. Is leave granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Auditor General of Canada, concerning his audit of the Senate.

[Translation]

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 13-4(1) of the Rules of the Senate, I give notice that later this day I intend to raise a question of privilege concerning the leaks in the media regarding the Auditor General of Canada's report on Senate expenses.

According to the Speaker of the Senate's press release of June 8, 2015, this confidential information was not to be made public until around 2:05 p.m. today, but it has made the headlines in newspapers and online media and on the television news for the past six days.

The credibility of our institution is being seriously eroded in the eyes of the public, while senators' names are in the media, which is a violation of their fundamental right to the presumption of innocence. They are entitled to a fair defence.

Honourable senators, if the Senate should rule that there is a prima facie case of privilege, I would officially and publicly ask the Speaker to order an investigation into the source of these leaks and take the appropriate measures.

[English]

Senator Plett: Then why did you leak it?

Hon. Pana Merchant: Honourable senators, last year and in 2015, Canadians have been reminded of the so-called Great War of 100 years ago.

Focused on heroes and the young men of our then young nation, we have ignored the contributions and sacrifices of Canada's women.

Women in service 100 years ago were not in the combat roles of current times. They could not even serve as clerks or in support roles, but the very brave, the dedicated, could, as posters read, serve King and country as nurses.

Three thousand Canadian nursing sisters — as they were called — served in England, France, Belgium and the Mediterranean war zone. Nurses from across Canada became prisoners of war or died, not unlike the fate of their brothers, serving our country. And at least one, Nursing Sister Creswell, of my home city Regina, was decorated for bravery by the Queen Mother.

I commend Canada's Historica Foundation for the video on YouTube that tells the story of the wartime heroism of our nursing sisters.

Their experiences were not unlike those of their countrymen.

Some were travelling on torpedoed boats, some were caught in air raids, and all were subject to lack of water, limited equipment, poor food, vermin, and the constant difficulty of keeping clean.

Of special interest to me were the challenges that Canada's nursing sisters faced in my native Greece, on the Gallipoli Peninsula. By the fall, there were 1,700 beds there in two tented hospitals. Upon arrival in Gallipoli, nurses discovered an overwhelming number of sick and wounded soldiers. It was a terribly hot summer. Safe water had to be transported from Alexandria, Egypt, and lack of sanitary conditions, with an abundance of dust and flies, accounted for as many deaths as battle wounds. Flies were probably the greatest menace.

The shortage of adequate nourishment was profoundly appalling.

At times there was nothing to eat except malted milk tablets, and most of the nursing sisters suffered through periods of dysentery, diarrhea and nausea.

Our nursing sisters also suffered from their heartbreaking experiences of not being able to do enough for the wounded soldiers.

On April 14, I met with Canada's and Australia's ambassadors in Greece, their Excellencies Robert Peck and John Griffin, in connection with their participation in the 100-year anniversary of the 1915 Gallipoli campaign and the nursing stations on Lemnos.

The great contribution of Canada's nursing sisters over time is appropriately sculptured in the grand memorial to them in the Hall of Honour, adjacent to the entrance to our Library of Parliament.

I ask honourable senators to join with me in thought as we salute the fallen.

Hon. Betty Unger: Honourable colleagues, I rise today to speak about a game I had hitherto little understanding of — nor love for — that being the game of soccer. However, all that has changed. I have been filled with awe, respect and admiration for our Canadian women's soccer team, as have countless numbers of Canadians across Canada.

On Saturday, June 6, the opening game of the FIFA Women's World Cup Canada, the largest and most prestigious women's sporting event in the world, was hosted by Edmonton, my hometown, and I was thrilled to be in attendance. The game took place in Commonwealth Stadium and over 53,000 enthusiastic cheering fans made this the largest crowd ever to watch a national team in any sport in Canada.

Additionally, I had the opportunity to meet many fans and dignitaries in attendance, including and, especially, Alberta's next Lieutenant-Governor, Lois Mitchell of Calgary, who will be sworn into office on Friday, June 12.

Our next Lieutenant-Governor was very interested in the Senate and was impressed with the work of our Senate committees, and she was especially interested in agriculture. So as we talked, I explained briefly the work of our Agriculture Committee and the report our chair has just tabled in the Senate regarding honeybee health, about which she had many questions. Naturally, I promised to send her a copy of the report about the importance of honeybee health. Then it was back to the game.

As the clock ticked down and it was still a 0-0 game, our fans grew restless and anxious, not wanting a disappointing draw, although that had seemed to be the certain outcome with time nearly expired. Then, an intervention of fate: a time stoppage penalty against China at the ninety-second minute proved to be the game changer for Canada. Captain Christine Sinclair scored on the penalty kick, her one hundred and fifty-fourth international goal, to win the game 1-0 for Canada.

Our soccer hero then ran back to the bench to be mobbed by her teammates, while the standing cheering crowd roared its approval.

(1410)

In closing, Edmonton is known for its wonderful spirit of volunteerism, which was evident once again for the FIFA game. To each and every one of those volunteers, I say a heartfelt thank you, a picture-perfect ending to this beautiful, sunny day in Edmonton. Let the games begin. Go, Canada, go.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Annual Report of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada on the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act for the period from January 1 to December 31, 2014.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2014-15 annual report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Seventh Annual Report of the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015.

[Translation]

Hon. Joseph A. Day: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the twentieth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance on the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2016.

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

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-66, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2016.

(Bill read first time.)

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

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

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-67, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2016.

(Bill read first time.)

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

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

Hon. Serge Joyal introduced Bill S-229, An Act for the advancement of the aboriginal languages of Canada and to recognize and respect aboriginal language rights.

(Bill read first time.)

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

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

[Translation]

Hon. Dennis Dawson: I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Monday, December 9, 2013, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications in relation to its study on the challenges faced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to the changing environment of broadcasting and communications be extended from June 30, 2015 to July 30, 2015; and That the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be permitted, between June 22, 2015 and July 30, 2015 and notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate a report, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Chamber.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill without amendment.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dagenais, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fortin-Duplessis, for the third reading of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Hon. Larry W. Campbell: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-2 on its third reading. I don't think it's necessary for me to get into long descriptions about addiction and what it does to our communities, what it looks like and how to affects all of us, but I think you should know why this bill is harmful. It undermines the rights of people who use drugs to access life- saving and health-protecting services.

You can think what you want about these people, but the fact is that they're suffering from an addiction and deserve the same rights as any other citizen in this country. The way we are treating them is different from how anyone else with a disease is treated in this country.

Cancer — we would never, ever consider doing this for a cancer clinic. Heart — we would never consider doing this for somebody with heart problems. Yet, for some reason, addressing this issue in a health-care way seems to be the last thing on the government's mind.

(1420)

Bill C-2 fuels misinformation about supervised consumption sites and does not recognize the well-established benefits of supervised consumption services to reduce health and social harms often associated with the use of drugs. It doesn't even mention the fact that supervised injection sites can prevent overdose-related deaths and decrease the number of HIV and hepatitis C infections. It ignores the some 18 peer-reviewed reports that have been done demonstrating that supervised consumption services are in fact beneficial for public order and safety.

It only focuses on the risks associated with illicit drug abuse, as if supervised consumption sites were exacerbating such risks when evidence clearly shows that they do the opposite.

I remember when we were fighting for Insite in Vancouver in 2002-03. There was this comment that if we opened a supervised injection site, the number of people who inject in the Lower Mainland would increase. Now, think about that. I've never used heroin, and I get up one morning and say, "Oh, wow. There's a supervised injection site in Vancouver. I think I'll start cranking."

As I said to the media, supervised injection sites cause drug addiction like flies cause garbage. It's exactly the same analogy. There is no honey-pot effect. Crime goes down around it — as does the number of people injecting out in the public, out of rainwater puddles, in the alleys, in sight of our children, in sight of our tourists, in sight of our families. Insite takes that all off the street.

Our only problem in Vancouver is that we only have one. With 800 injections a day, it's maxed out. We could easily have two or three more, which would then lower the death rate, then lower HIV and hepatitis, and stop these associated risks from being in the public.

Bill C-2 completely contradicts the spirit of the Supreme Court of Canada's 2011 decision, and this certainly shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody here. How many bills do we have to pass through here and watch them go to the Supreme Court, where they get booted out as being unconstitutional?

By touting "public safety" at the expense of public health, this bill runs counter to the court's emphasis on striking a balance between public safety and public health. By making it even more difficult to implement supervised consumption sites, Bill C-2 ignores the Supreme Court of Canada's assertion that these services are vital for the most vulnerable groups of people who use drugs and that preventing access to these services violates human rights.

Bill C-2 imposes an excessive application process that would not be imposed on other health services. There are 26 areas here that have to be looked at before you can even get this application to the minister. It's not that these are not important; it's that they are so precise that you could never open a supervised injection site anywhere in Canada, because you would always be within 400 feet of whatever, or you'd always be here or there. And, yes, there will be public opposition.

In Vancouver, there was public opposition to the premise that we should have a supervised injection site. We dealt with that. We answered the people. We talked to them. Our Chinese community did not want that centre in what we call Chinatown. I promised them that it would not be there, and it isn't.

Of course, you have to answer to public complaints. Of course you have to answer to people. You have to have consultation. This is not just "let's make an application and suddenly we have someplace where we can have supervised injections going on." It's not like that at all.

First of all, there was an idea. Senator Dagenais spoke about it. He actually agreed that we should have supervised injection sites and that they should be in big cities, and I agree with him.

I personally went to Toronto and spoke to the Toronto City Council because they were looking at having supervised injection sites. My conclusion was that they probably didn't need them, that they did not have the number of injectors that you would need to make this a viable option. So, I never considered this a silver bullet.

It disproportionately considers opinions around access to critical health services. The Canadian Police Association — I don't know; things have changed. When I was a police officer, we went out and we enforced the law. Now it seems like police officers like to make the law, decide what the law says and how it should be enforced, all without any concept of the law. The Canadian Police Association is wrong. The Canadian chiefs of police are right.

Bill C-2 effectively gives certain authorities unilateral veto power to the implementation of supervised injection sites, because an application for an exemption cannot be examined unless certain authorities have submitted a letter of opinion. The exemption process can easily be delayed or blocked. If we go out and ask these 26 different groups to send us an opinion, how long is that going to take? You know how that goes. You send it in, it goes into the mill, it gets chewed up and sent around, and no decisions are ever made.

As with any other life-saving health service, the implementation of supervised consumption services should not be dependent on whether the local government, police forces or the ministry in charge of public safety, for example, feel they're warranted. It should start from the premise that this is a health-care facility and the health-care authorities are the ones who have the expertise in how a health-care facility should be managed. Certainly, all of these other groups should have input, but they should not be able to override the concerns of the health-care authorities.

In Vancouver, that would be Coastal Health, which does all of the Lower Mainland. They are fully in support of this. They have been fully in support of it since we went and started it.

Bill C-2 creates unjustified opportunity for public opposition and discrimination against people who use drugs. As I said the last time, nobody is holding a tag day for addicts. They're not warm and fuzzy. They are not people whom you would probably invite to dinner, but that doesn't make them any less human. It doesn't mean that we should be ignoring them. It doesn't mean that we should allow them to die.

Most assuredly, honourable senators, if you pass this bill, people are going to die. That's the bottom line. People will die if you pass this bill. I want you to think about that, and I want you to think about who those people are.

Within this Senate, there are senators who have done incredible work with regard to preventing death: Senator Batters with regard to suicide; and MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, with Senator LeBreton. This is just one more attempt to prevent people from dying. It's not any more complicated than that.

It's estimated that 4.1 million Canadians have injected drugs at some point in their life. Eleven per cent of people who inject drugs in Canada are HIV positive. Fifty-nine per cent of people who inject drugs have evidence of either current or past hepatitis C. Fifty-eight per cent of the estimated new HIV infections in Aboriginal people in Canada are attributable to injection drug use.

According to a study in Toronto, 54 per cent of people who inject drugs injected in a public place such as a washroom or a stairwell, and 46 per cent injected on the street or in an alley in the six months prior to being interviewed. In the summer of 2014, the Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de Montréal investigated 83 cases of severe overdoses, 25 of which were fatal.

Insite clients in Vancouver are 70 per cent less likely to share needles than those who do not use the facility. Insite may have prevented over 48 overdose deaths over a four-year period. The opening of Insite was associated with a 33 per cent increase in rates of access to long-term addiction treatment.

I would like to propose that this bill not be heard at this time and that the following amendments be considered.

(1430)

Hon. Larry W. Campbell: Therefore, honourable senators, I propose:

That Bill C-2 be not read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 5, (a) on page 8, by replacing lines 14 to 45 with the following: "to take place at a supervised consumption site, and consideration of the application for the exemption must include the following: (a) evidence, if any, on the impact on crime rates; (b) the local conditions indicating a need for the site; (c) the regulatory structure in place to support the site; (d) the resources available to support the maintenance of the site; and (e) expressions of community support for or opposition to the site.";

Before you think that I've gotten incredibly literary with these, they're taken directly from the Supreme Court decision.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Campbell: This is what the Supreme Court of Canada wants. The amendment continues:

(b) on page 9, by deleting lines 1 to 42; (c) on page 10, by deleting lines 1 to 44; (d) on page 11, by deleting lines 1 to 45; (e) on page 12, by deleting 1 to 41; (f) on page 13, by deleting 1 to 38; and (g) on page 14, by replacing line 1 with the following: "(4) The Minister may give notice of any".

I urge you to consider this, honourable senators. I would ask that you take a deep look into your soul. Take a deep look into why we are here and realize that we are here for all Canadians, not just for those who have diseases that we think are publicly acceptable.

I would ask you to vote on this amendment and show the rest of Canada, or all of Canada, that we're here for them, for those whose rights are being abused, those whose very existence, in many cases, is being denied. I would ask you to search your heart.

Thank you.

(Debate suspended.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation led by His Excellency Dr. Ólafur R. Grímsson, President of the Republic of Iceland.

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dagenais, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fortin-Duplessis, for the third reading of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Campbell, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fraser, that Bill C-2 be not read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 5, (a) on page 8, by replacing lines 14 to 45 with the following: "to take place at a supervised consumption site, and consideration of the application for the exemption must include the following: (a) evidence, if any, on the impact on crime rates; (b) the local conditions indicating a need for the site; (c) the regulatory structure in place to support the site; (d) the resources available to support the maintenance of the site; and (e) expressions of community support for or opposition to the site."; (b) on page 9, by deleting lines 1 to 42; (c) on page 10, by deleting lines 1 to 44; (d) on page 11, by deleting lines 1 to 45; (e) on page 12, by deleting 1 to 41; (f) on page 13, by deleting 1 to 38; and (g) on page 14, by replacing line 1 with the following: "(4) The Minister may give notice of any".

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, it was moved by Senator Campbell, seconded by Honourable Senator Fraser, that Bill C-2 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 5 —

An Hon. Senator: Dispense!

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Thank you.

Hon. Jane Cordy: Will the senator take a question?

Hon. Larry W. Campbell: Absolutely.

Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. You brought forward some excellent points, I thought, particularly related to the stigma of mental health, mental illness and addictions.

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology did a study on mental health. We tend to refer to it as the mental health and illness report, but the full title was Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction. We included addiction because many people who have addictions also have mental health issues and are self-medicating. We know that many people on the streets who are addicted also suffer from poor mental health.

We've talked a lot in this chamber about the stigma around mental illness, and yet here we are with this bill removing Insite, a place where they can go to have their injections in what we would say would be a healthier way. Yet, as you said in your speech, we would never say that we are closing a health care centre or a cancer care centre.

Do you think that what this bill is doing is causing more stigma for those who have addictions?

Senator Campbell: Thank you for the question.

The problem with this bill is that it's written by people who don't understand mental health, or poverty, or abuse, or drug addiction. For many of the people who are on the street right now, it's rare that you will find them suffering from just one of these. They will be mentally ill and addicted. There will be poverty and abuse and addiction; there could be all of them altogether.

The amazing thing is that we can actually take a look at this and see exactly when it happened. It happened when we shut down the mental institutions in British Columbia and said, "Don't worry. We will find places for you in the community and find places where you can live and be helped." Then we gave them a bus ticket and a bottle of medication, and they climbed on the bus and came to my city.

They are at the bottom because they don't understand what is going on around them. So everybody picks on them. Everybody discriminates against them and everybody uses them. They never get better, and they are in this poverty. If you come to Vancouver and take a look at our First Nations in the downtown core, you'll see we have a huge number of people living with these conditions. This absolutely stigmatizes them more. This absolutely sends the message out there that your disease, which is life-threatening, doesn't count because you're not as good as me. You're not as pure as me. You're a junky. That is what this bill says.

Instead of opening our arms and treating this as a health issue, which would save us millions of dollars in health care expenses, social, courts, police, family — it just goes on and on — we are restricting this. This will absolutely affect those people who are the most vulnerable.

Hon. George Baker: I have a point for clarification from the mover of this motion. In explaining the amendment, the mover of the motion said these were not his words but the words the Supreme Court of Canada. For clarification, is the honourable senator saying that what you are doing is removing the criteria in this present bill that some persons who appeared before the committee claimed were unconstitutional, and you are substituting for those criteria the exact list of criteria listed by the Supreme Court of Canada in their judgment, which the Government of Canada claimed they were trying to meet in their bill? Is that correct?

Senator Campbell: That's correct. I'm not against having this bill. I'm not against having legislation that says how we should go about it. Effectively, with my amendments all I'm doing is taking out the minutia — those 26 reasons. Those 26 reasons all fit into five. I want to make sure that when this bill goes through, we don't end up in the Supreme Court, we don't end up with it thrown away. I would like some clarification on how we do supervised injection sites.

Mayor Coderre of Montreal says he is going to open three of them. I think it's incumbent upon us to put in a framework that answers the concerns of the public, answers the concerns of the police and answers the concerns of whoever has a concern about it. If I woke up one day and found out that there was going to be a supervised injection site on my street, I would like to know about it. I would like to know who is running it. However, I would not light my hair on fire — if I had hair — because I would know that if it's coming to my street, it's because I already have a problem there. You don't put a supervised injection site where there isn't a problem. I would already know there was a problem here with injections.

Honourable senators, I would like some clarity here. I don't want it to go to the Supreme Court and have the Supreme Court say, "These 26 specific items that you have are unconstitutional. They make this unworkable; they make it impossible." I'd much rather put it into the five that cover all the 26 and allow people to have input and allow the health ministry to take a look at it and to come to a conclusion.

I'm not against Bill C-2. I'm against the way it is written and the fact that it is written by people who do not understand the problem. I've tried to help you understand it.

(1440)

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Will the senator answer another question?

Senator Campbell: Yes.

Senator Jaffer: Senator, there has been a lot of talk about the 26 questions or the 26 exemptions that any site would have to apply to have a site. Can you clarify? Does this mean that Insite has to reapply, and are these 26 exemptions something anybody can meet?

Senator Campbell: First, with regard to Insite, I don't know if they have to reapply, but I will tell you this: If they don't get an exemption, you can come and visit me in the jail because they are going to have to arrest me to get me from in front of that door. I'm not going to allow people to die in my city because somebody decides that that's what it is. If you had to follow all 26 of those and get compliance on all 26, it could not happen. It would not happen because, certainly, in there, there are going to be two or three that say no. All I'm saying is take away those that are definitive and put them into the five categories that the Supreme Court has clearly thought about and clearly said this is what is required and will work. Let's do that, and let's watch what happens.

Believe me, senators, I promise you; there will not be a flood of supervised injection sites coming to your town. It's not going to happen.

Senator Plett: One is too many.

Senator Campbell: One is too many — well, that's from the enlightened senator over there. That's what happens when you live in a shallow ditch. I'm tired of this. I'm really tired of this. One is not enough. Maybe, in his town, he doesn't mind people dying, but, in my town, I care about it. If he were the Christian that he says he is, he would understand that.

Senator Jaffer: Senator Campbell, you are talking about your city and mine. Can you tell the senators what it was like in our city before Insite was formed, and what happens to people now?

Senator Campbell: From 1996 to 2000, I investigated over 300 deaths a year in the city of Vancouver from overdoses. Province- wide, it was probably close to 700. It continued like that. We saw the death rate start dropping virtually immediately, and we also saw HIV and hepatitis rates drop, which was critical to us.

One life. What is one life worth? That's what we are saying. We think we've probably saved 50 over four years. I don't know, but I know it's more than one. That's all I'm saying. I'm just saying give it a chance, but it's not coming to everybody. It's not going to be coming to small towns. Senator Plett doesn't have to worry about it coming to Brandon, although they have their problems.

It requires a problem. It requires a crisis in your community for the health-care officials to take a look and figure out what is going on, and that's what it really is driven by.

Hon. Art Eggleton: Honourable senators, I rise to add my voice to the previous speaker and many other Canadians calling for a rethink on Bill C-2 or the so-called respect for communities act.

You will have to forgive me as, after much study and hearing much debate, I still fail to see which communities this bill aims to respect. Currently, section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act gives the Minister of Health an opportunity to provide an exemption for safe injection sites, be it for medical or scientific purposes, or if it is otherwise in the public interest. Without this exemption, clients and staff members would be at risk of criminal prosecution for possession of illegal substances.

It is important to remember that these facilities are not supplying drugs to clients. What they do is create a safe, sterile environment to use and facilitate access to support services for those who want to quit. When things go wrong, they offer emergency medical services. They save lives.

As you are all aware, there is currently only one such facility in Canada that receives this exemption, and that is Insite in Vancouver. My colleagues who have spoken about this bill have given excellent speeches detailing the benefits that Insite has brought to Vancouver's downtown east side. Let me just go through a few of them again: 1,418 overdoses at Insite between 2004 and 2010, but, under the capable supervision of Insite staff, not one single death.

They have been able to reduce the HIV risk behaviour, such as needle sharing. There has been increase in the number of people entering into treatment for their addiction and a reduction in the number of public injections that take place in parks and stairwells and many other public places. That is even evident around the site of Insite, where injection-related litter has substantially been reduced.

Despite the public good that Insite is providing on a daily basis, Bill C-2 threatens Insite's existence and will almost certainly prevent the creation of similar sites in future. Under the terms of this bill, safe injection sites in Canada would have a number of new obstacles to overcome when applying for exemption under section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

For many, the logic of attempting to prevent such proven services simply does not add up. The Supreme Court certainly didn't see the logic. In the court's landmark ruling on Insite in 2011, they said denying safe injection services would be:

. . . grossly disproportionate to any benefit that Canada might derive from presenting a uniform stance on the possession of narcotics.

They found that:

. . . Insite has been proven to save lives with no discernible negative impact on the public safety and health objectives of Canada.

That comes from the Supreme Court. That shows respect for our communities. Ultimately, the Court found that closing down Insite would violate the Charter rights of those who use it.

The immediate response from the government following the ruling was they were "disappointed." Disappointed with what? That lives were saved? That they couldn't violate the Charter rights of those suffering from debilitating addictions?

I don't think the new bill, Bill C-2, is going to meet the test that the Supreme Court looked at and it will be found in violation of the Charter of Rights and the Constitution of Canada. I think we are headed for another Supreme Court hearing if this bill passes as is.

Honourable senators, under Bill C-2, facilities that wish to run a supervised consumption site must submit 26 pieces of information to the minister before the application would even be considered. Twenty-six. The Canadian Bar Association stated that:

Our concern is that Bill C-2 would actually subject applicants to such a rigorous application process and so many new conditions as to make it virtually impossible to establish new safe injection sites, or to continue operating existing sites.

As Senator Campbell has noted, no other health clinic is required to provide such an extensive list of information.

One particular point of contention I have is the provision in this bill that potential staff members at a centre must submit criminal record checks to the health minister. These criminal record checks would go back a long time, 10 years. In that connection, I understand that, just above the Insite facility, is another one called Onsite, where users can seek counselling, including peer-to- peer assistance. One of the most effective strategies in quitting any addition is discussing this process with those who have succeeded in getting out of it themselves. Undoubtedly, many of those individuals have faced drug-related charges at some point. They were, after all, addicts themselves. So now they want to help others but will be flagged from drug-related charges from a darker past — a past, I must reiterate, that they have courageously overcome.

(1450)

Is it this government's intention to prevent the peer-to-peer counselling that has proven so effective in overcoming addiction? Is it? Why does the minister, of all people, need this kind of private information?

Honourable senators, my colleague Senator Campbell has provided an excellent overview of the situation in his home city of Vancouver and of the good work that Insite is doing there. I'd like to tell you of the situation in my city, Toronto.

In 2013, Toronto's Medical Officer of Health released a report calling for facilities like Insite in specific areas of the city. Currently, Toronto has an impressive network of services that facilitate needle exchanges. Through these services, addicts can exchange their used needles for clean ones. The report noted that in 2010 alone there were 75,000 user visits to these services, and 1.1 million needles were distributed along with other sterile injection supplies. Again, this was in just one year.

These facilities do not operate like Insite. They cannot facilitate supervised injection. Instead, users obtain their needles and leave to find a place to inject. If they do not go to their homes or a shelter, users report that they inject in stairwells, alleyways or in public washrooms.

While the needle exchange program in Toronto has done a commendable job of providing sterile needles to help cut down on disease and death, it can do little to save the life of an addict who overdoses and dies in a stairwell, in a back alley or in a public washroom. Little can be done but to collect contaminated needles left in the grass or in stairwells around Toronto.

For this reason, the 2013 medical officer's report recommended supervised injection services at locations that already facilitate needle exchanges. Instead of collecting a clean needle and walking away, addicts would inject in an environment that protects both them and the surrounding area.

Honourable senators, as some of you may be aware I am the lead on a task force in Toronto to improve public housing. As you can rightly assume, there are addicts who live in many of these homes; as you can also correctly assume, so do many families — people with a lot of kids. Put simply, the argument that a safe injection facility will attract drug users to a community does not hold water. The drugs are already there.

The question begs to be asked: Is a child safer when their neighbour is injecting in the stairwell of their apartment building or down the street at a safe injection site? That's a logical question, isn't it?

This government wants you to believe that facilities like Insite encourage drug use and attract addicts to the communities where such services are located. Bill C-2 exists only because evidence from Insite and facilities like it around the world fly in the face of this government's view that addicts are criminals and should be treated as such.

As they cannot deny the facts based on legal or scientific grounds, they spread the misinformation that such sites will pop up, and I quote a Conservative Party petition that said, "in our backyard."

Only four days ago, the Minister of Justice said his government is focused on treating drug addicts as opposed to making "more available access to often illegal drugs." He was responding to Montreal's push to open its own supervised injection sites. Such a statement conveys a fundamental misunderstanding, misrepresentation of what these centres do.

Honourable senators, to deny these communities a tool like Insite to change this dangerous reality does not respect these communities in the least. Instead, it condemns them to the same cycle of death and disease that they have all but gotten used to. Supervised injection services get contaminated needles off the street. They provide ready support services for addicts who decide to seek help, and, most importantly, they save lives. Why in our right minds would we want to deny these services in communities that need them the most?

Yes, indeed: Respect those communities. Vote for the amendment that Senator Campbell has just put on the floor. That would make this bill reasonable. Otherwise, it should be defeated.

Hon. Serge Joyal: Honourable senators, I would like to ask a question of Senator Eggleton. I apologize for not giving him the substance of my question earlier, but given that he was the Mayor of Toronto, he might be in a position to answer.

The Mayor of Montreal said in a public statement, I believe two weeks ago, with a representative of the Montreal police force responsible for addiction issues, that even though he would not receive approval from the Minister of Health as it would take too much time, he would authorize an injection site if he got approval from the provincial Minister of Health. It would mean that if the provincial government authority agrees with the opening of a site and the mayor and the police forces agree, they could circumvent the procedure that Bill C-2 proposes.

Are you aware of that?

Senator Eggleton: You've just made me aware of that possibility.

If all those people are in agreement, and I understand they are and why they would be in terms of what these sites can do for the city, then I think they should proceed. How the legal jurisdiction works vis-à-vis the federal government remains to be seen. I don't know the answer to that. You probably would know better than I.

Senator Joyal: I'm sorry I didn't have time to look into it because I was preparing another file. I tried to figure the logic of this because we are dealing with proposed amendments to the Criminal Code — this is "not nothing." The Criminal Code applies across Canada and should be implemented equally across Canada. Is it for the provincial authority responsible for prosecution to inform the Director of Public Prosecutions not to go after the presumed illegal establishment of a site where drugs are used? Perhaps that is the way to bypass the process that Bill C-2 would put in place.

Senator Eggleton: Well, that may be quite possible. There was another issue, but I have forgotten what it was, where the provincial government in Quebec decided it wouldn't prosecute. That would be an interesting way to test this.

There is provincial responsibility for health care and if the Minister of Health sees it as something that should proceed and with the kind support of the Mayor of Montreal, the police and others, yes, this may be something they could take on and do. In terms of the absolute final legal ramifications, maybe the federal government would back off, and I hope they will.

Senator Jaffer: Honourable senators, I too rise to speak to Bill C-2 and the amendments proposed by Senator Campbell.

Before I proceed, I want to thank Senator Campbell not only for being the critic on the bill but also for his special knowledge of these issues. When he speaks, I know he speaks from a base of having worked on these issues for many years. I appreciate his continued work on these issues because what he is doing is keeping my city safe.

(1500)

Honourable senators, you have heard today from people who have been the mayors of Vancouver and Toronto and now the mayor of Montreal, who said that he is going to proceed with a safe injection site. Honourable senators, these are three very responsible people, and they are not making these allegations lightly. So I ask that when you vote on this bill you think of what Mayors Campbell, Eggleton and Coderre are saying: We need safe injection sites to keep our cities safe and to save lives.

In Canada, every life is valuable. We care for every life, and so it does not matter whose life — every life. If we care for every life, then we should heed what these three mayors are saying.

As I rise to speak on Bill C-2, safe injection sites, I want to speak to you about my home in Vancouver. Those of us who live in Vancouver know what a safe injection site has done both for the people who live in the city and for the most vulnerable people, those who have no resources.

I want to share with you a question that my then eight-year-old daughter Farzana asked me on my way to work once before the safe injection site was established. She said, "Mum, why it that gentleman cleaning his arm with dirty puddle water?" I turned around and saw a man cleaning his arm with dirty puddle water, and then he injected something in his arm. For a very long time, my daughter asked questions about what that gentleman was doing. She was puzzled and confused as to what she saw. I never was able to explain to my daughter exactly what she saw because I did not want to go into the details of what was happening. So when Insite was established, I kept thinking how many little girls would be spared what my daughter saw, because it had really affected her. For me, besides my daughter's trauma, I just kept thinking, "This is not my Canada." How can a Canadian man be in such a desperate situation? We Canadians have to look after not only those who are sick and have access to hospitals, but also those who are most vulnerable and have very few resources at their disposal.

Honourable senators, I can vouch for the fact that Insite, a safe injection site, has played a very important role in my city.

Bill C-2 sets out that it is the controlled drugs act of Canada's federal drug control statute. Its purpose is to protect public health and maintain public safety. Activities with controlled substances are prohibited unless they are allowed under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and its regulations or authorized under the section 56 exception.

Honourable senators, I understand that approximately 10,000 section 56 exemption applications are received every year, most which are routine activities using controlled substances, such as clinical trials, methadone treatment and university research.

In September 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision regarding Insite, a supervised injection site in Vancouver. The court affirmed the discretionary power of the minister to grant exemptions but stated that decisions must be made in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and must balance public health and public safety concerns. The court specified factors the minister must consider when assessing an application for a supervised injection site. The five factors that the court considered and that are part of Senator Campbell's amendment are as follows: one, evidence, if any, of the impact of the site on crime rates; two, the local conditions indicating a need for the site; three, the regulatory structure in place to support the site; four, the resources available to support the maintenance of the site; and five, expressions of community support for or opposition to the site.

Honourable senators, I am not as knowledgeable on these issues as Senator Campbell is, but I am a member of the Legal and Constitutional Committee, and I would like to share with you some of the things that we discussed in the committee.

I asked Minister Blaney, the security minister, the following question:

Minister, I've been looking at this bill and scratching my head because I have all my working life worked in downtown Vancouver. When my children were younger, we had injection needles, everything on the ground. When I went to work, they would pick them up and I was just petrified. When this bill comes into place, I'll have the same issues with my granddaughter because when Insite is in place, there is a safe place for people to have their injections. I believe this bill will take that safe environment away. The Supreme Court of Canada clearly said that your discretion was not absolute; you had to look at section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it came to life, liberty and security of person. I believe that this bill does not address the section 7 issues that the Supreme Court of Canada set out. Can you show me where that is set out?

This was Minister Blaney's answer:

Senator Jaffer, I thank you for your question. First, I would . . . reassure you that any legislation presented by the government is reviewed by our Department of Justice. While we cannot give it 100 per cent assurance, we are fully confident that this is constitutional and fully meets the decision that was rendered by the Supreme Court. . . . The second question you've asked . . . I would ask you. You have children. I have children. What this bill is doing is saying: Do you think you should be consulted if we were to open a consumption site just in front of your house? That is what this bill is doing.

I responded to the minister to say that I have no issue with being consulted, but I want us to make sure that we are Charter- compliant.

Honourable senators, I further asked, and I won't read it — it's part of the committee's record — but I asked Minister Ambrose what it will do to the hospitals in my area if Insite is closed. I asked:

Minister, where I live, we have one the hospital, St. Paul's, that looks after heart patients for all of the Lower Mainland. If Insite does not exist, the people who will suffer will go to St. Paul's Hospital. It's an issue of resources. Insite has saved [the provincial government] $17 million. My concern is this: If Insite does not exist, then we will again have a great strain on St. Paul's Hospital.

Minister Ambrose's response was that these are not mutually exclusive, and if I remember correctly, she also reminded me that these were provincial issues.

Honourable senators, I don't care if they're provincial or federal issues. Those are hospitals that we use, and if the resources are strained, then all Lower Mainland people suffer.

I have thought about how I can explain to you about Insite. After a lot of reflection, I thought the way for me to do it was to share with you what Mr. Russell Maynard, Program Director of Insite, said:

I would like . . . to share with you information that doesn't get across very often. Insite is so much more than a supervised injection site. It sees about 800 visits a day from probably a core group of about 300 users. It's not a large number of people. In fact, it's quite a small number of people and we're talking about a project that is very local and community based. It is actually in its very mandate trying to address, with everything it has, making safer the communities that are struggling with addiction, which tend to be in every single urban centre in the developed world. They always end up being in the low-income areas. I work closely — I want to emphasize closely — with the Vancouver Police Department. I meet with them regularly. I go to meetings all the time. I get invited to come and speak to new officers before they are asked to walk the beat in Downtown Eastside, so that they understand the context of the injection site and of the people who come to it. It really isn't straightforward to understand who the people are that come to the sites. Yet the people who come to the sites are incredibly homogeneous around the world, whether you are talking about the sites in Spain, Denmark, Vancouver or Sydney, Australia. They tend to be, on average, the folks who go through our foster systems. They are children who come from disadvantaged beginnings and end up going to school and not being able to pay attention because of their life style. Then they just fall through the cracks for the rest of their lives. They end up as low-income people, who are self-medicating or using drugs for all the wrong reasons. All we try to do at Insite is (a) keep them alive, so we can get them to treatment; and (b) address any services that they need — housing, health care, and mental health. I want to make sure that the Senate committee understands, and again, it's an emphatic number: there are 450 people a year who go straight from the floor at Insite, one project, into recovery. I'm speaking as an addictions expert — there is no other project that I'm aware of in the world that comes close to that number. Four hundred fifty people a year go from the floor of Insite into treatment. What that translates to, in the most common vernacular is that we don't know of another model that is as successful at connecting people to treatment as the drug consumption route. Imagine, if you can, that you are hiding in doorways and alleys to hide your use. Then, all of a sudden, a project opens up in your community that says, "All right. We acknowledge this is an ugly and chaotic problem. Come inside and let's see what we can do." All of a sudden, on a daily basis, you are interacting with people like those who are sitting around this table. That's a profound change in your lifestyle. You are going from only interacting with addicts and other people in chaos to being in a room with people who live functional lives and whose job it is to connect you with mental health and clinical services. That's what we do, day in and day out, 365 days a year, 18 hours a day.

(1510)

He went on to say:

I want to win over the perspectives that aren't convinced, and that is why I want to make sure that everyone in the room recognizes: There is no more powerful model in the developed world than the supervised consumption site in Vancouver the way it is designed, which is a Canadian design. Insite is unique in the realm of injection sites in that it has, for instance, a detox centre and a recovery program right above it. It's like having a walk-in clinic and then specialized services above that — like eye surgery, et cetera — where there is a continuum of care.

Honourable senators, I asked Mr. Maynard a question about the area and the worry I had before that there were needles all over. Mr. Maynard replied:

It's a bit of a grey area. . . . The bill is laid out clearly, so that's not grey. What brings the opaqueness to the answer to that question is that there have been three Supreme Court hearings on Insite. It's hard to imagine that were Insite to not meet this criteria, it wouldn't go back to court. We'd be going back in time. It's hard to imagine that we would not again see successes in the courts.

Honourable senators, I was floored when he said to us: "A total of 13 judges have looked at this, and all 13 have sided with Insite after listening to evidence for days at a time."

Clause 5 of the new bill lays out 26 obligations. These 26 obligations are going to be very onerous.

Honourable senators, we had many witnesses come to our committee and speak about this bill not being compliant with the Charter. The Canadian Drug Policy Coalition said why Bill C-2 is harmful in An Injection of Reason: One, "Bill C-2 fuels misinformation about supervised consumption services"; two, it "completely contradicts the spirit of the Supreme Court of Canada's 2011 decision"; three, "Bill C-2 imposes an excessive application process that would not be imposed on other health services"; four, "Bill C-2 disproportionately considers 'opinions' around access to critical health services"; and five, "Bill C-2 effectively gives certain authorities unilateral veto power to the implementation of supervised consumption services."

Can I have five minutes?

The Hon. the Speaker: Will honourable senators grant five more minutes to Senator Jaffer?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Jaffer: Honourable senators, they go on talking about all the reasons why C-2 is not meeting the test that the Supreme Court of Canada has set out.

We heard from a person who is using the services and now working with the services. He pled with us to make sure that we do not close this site, because that's how he got out of the problem.

But the last thing I want to leave with you is when we heard from Ms. Donna May, a mother of an addict, and she said:

. . . my daughter passed away. . . . I think a very important first step would be for our politicians to recognize it as a disease, listen to their constituents in the community. I know that I have knocked on many doors of our MPs, our MPPs and my councillors, and they seem to treat it as this horrid thing . . . . But the reality is it could be anybody's child. It doesn't have to start with a street drug. My daughter's addiction did not. It started with a prescription for Oxy when she fell down the basement stairs. What she found was that it quieted the voices in her head and she had an undiagnosed mental illness problem.

Honourable senators, this is a mother's plea that we have to protect the most needy in our society.

I went to see Insite with my husband. Getting into Insite is quite a challenge. When I was inside, I saw people enter in a dignified way. They were able to deal with their issues, go into detox, and they were even able to deal with eye surgery.

The day my husband and I left Insite, we were very humbled that there were Canadians who cared for the most vulnerable. I ask you today when I stand in front of you: Are we going to be counted as people who care for the most vulnerable?

Thank you.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Government): Seeing that there is very little time in Senator Jaffer's five minutes that was given, I will just speak on debate.

I wasn't planning to speak to this, but as a resident of Vancouver, hearing my colleagues Senator Campbell and Senator Jaffer — as a Vancouver resident of over 40 years, I do feel compelled to say something.

I want to just say that I do have great respect for both of you and know how much you care deeply for our city, as I do. I've said this before, but you as our mayor served us very well, and I'm proud to say that. And I'm a very proud Vancouverite as I rise today.

I also want to say that all of us have such compassion for all people because we are Canadian.

Having said that, I will be supporting the bill and not supporting the amendment. I just want to say that I feel there is one perspective that — I've been listening carefully to see if the voices of these individuals are reflected in any of our debates, and I haven't heard it. So I feel it's my responsibility to rise and at least say that I am not an advocate, a champion and expert like Senator Campbell, so I didn't necessarily want to weigh in on this debate.

I've read about the four pillars approach. I worked closely with Sam Sullivan, a successor to our colleague Senator Campbell. But what I do know is I've heard anecdotal evidence, and I've spoken to the people who live in the very region of downtown Vancouver, in Chinatown by the safe injection site, who speak about what changes they have not seen and what challenges they still face.

Senator Campbell talked about how the safe injection site has taken it off the street, but that is not what I have heard from the Vancouver Chinatown Merchants Association and those who are there trying to make ends meet and work extra hours to make this very historic Chinatown, which has quite a sad history — but on this day is the second-oldest district in North America. It's a very special place.

I do work closely with certain members of that community, and the anecdotal evidence that I've heard of the challenges that they face and what they see on the streets and alleys is that it's very real for them.

(1520)

I wanted to ask the senators opposite if they have heard from them directly, if they have sat down and met with them, because what I hear from them is not so much the kind of support but, rather, the concern and the fact that changes haven't been noticed in their very own streets and communities.

As a former educator — and there are other educators in this chamber — of 21 years, and with my husband still teaching in alternate schools in a district where he is working with kids who are fighting drug addiction issues, and as a parent, Insite has done very good work. I will say that for the record, but it has always been a very controversial place. Vancouverites are divided on this issue. The anecdotal evidence I have heard from those whom I have met and who are living in that community, as well as being a parent and a teacher and knowing what happens at the site, our great challenge is to try to educate and prevent such tragedies from happening to our own students.

The greatest word is that there is a real dilemma and a challenge in accepting such an institution.

For me, personally, I'm very torn up about this Insite that has been a part of our city for quite some time. I know the champions who have worked on it. I say that as someone who has not been a direct participant but, rather, an observer who has been at the table listening to such stakeholders, and I don't necessarily concur with everything that has been said. Based on my personal experience, I will be supporting the bill and not the amendments.

Senator Campbell: Has the senator looked at the 18 peer- reviewed papers regarding Insite?

Senator Martin: No, I have not. I did begin by saying that I am not an expert on this issue. However, as a resident of the city that has been discussed at great length and, based on the evidence through conversation and stakeholder meetings where I have heard from people who are living in that area, these are the concerns that I am simply adding to this debate today.

Senator Campbell: Again, the problem I have is that we get into these rumours and allegations.

Senator Martin: They're not rumours or allegations.

Senator Campbell: They are, because they're not factual. My question to you is: Do you know that Chinatown carried me in the last election?

Senator Martin: Pardon me?

Senator Campbell: I had the full support of the Chinatown Merchants Association. Did you know that?

Senator Martin: Yes, senator. We all supported you. That's not the point.

The Hon. the Speaker: Order, please. You can't have two senators have the floor at the same time. Senator Campbell, I think you appreciate this. Ask your question.

Senator Campbell: You should not be taking anecdotal evidence over peer-reviewed scientific evidence and this is the reason we're having this difficulty. If you took a poll of Vancouverites, the vast majority would support this.

Senator Martin: The anecdotal evidence I'm talking about is from the people that live there, that work there. I will simply say that for the record. I know that you were a very popular mayor. That is without doubt. I'm talking about anecdotal evidence from people that are directly impacted by the site.

Senator Cordy: Still anecdotal.

Senator Jaffer: Would the honourable senator take another question?

Senator Martin: Yes.

Senator Jaffer: Senator Martin, all three of us care for our city, so this is not about who cares more about the city. However, I have worked in that area since 1975. In fact, I have my law office in that area. I can tell you that what has happened with Insite is that the merchants do not have to get up every morning and clean up the needles like they had to before.

I'm not saying that it is perfect, but if we close Insite, then what is happening inside Insite will happen outside. How will the merchants be any better off?

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

Senator Martin: Question.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: Those in the favour of the motion please say "yea."

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion please say "nay."

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: Clearly, the "nay" side has it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker: Please call in the senators.

Senator Munson: Your Honour, we wish to defer the vote until tomorrow.

The Hon. the Speaker: Pursuant to Rule 9-10(2), the vote is deferred to 5:30 p.m. at the next sitting and the bells will ring at 5:15 p.m.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett moved third reading of Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

Since this bill was last debated in the chamber, it has been studied thoroughly at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. We heard from criminal justice experts, victims, criminal rehabilitation advocates, child advocacy centres, law enforcement, and the list goes on. I am happy to report that the witnesses were overwhelmingly supportive of this legislation.

Colleagues, Bill C-26 acknowledges the unjust sentences we continue to see when it comes to sexual exploitation of children, either through contact sexual offences or child pornography. The Canadian public has repeatedly seen one- to two-year sentences given for the sexual assault of a child or the opportunity for the offender to serve sentences concurrently, rather than consecutively, when they have assaulted multiple children.

While many of us are reluctant to challenge the expertise of the sentencing judges in some of these cases, there is no way to rationalize the majority of sentences we have seen in child exploitation cases.

As legal counsel to Kids Internet Safety Alliance, Mr. David Butt, who testified at committee, said the following when speaking in favour of the new increases to the mandatory penalties:

Judges are trained, and there is nothing wrong with this training, to look to precedent. When they're passing a sentence, they say, "What have we done in the past?" And that's the problem. It's backward looking. You can't move forward if you do nothing but look in the rear-view mirror. We need to sometimes take a step outside that precedent- based, backward-looking system and say, "You know what? We have to step in and adjust it."

He continued:

I see, in this context, mandatory minimum sentences as a responsible way to increase the floor to recognize the inherent worth of protecting children without taking away judicial discretion entirely . . . . We need to have Parliament step in and say we want to be forward looking, we want to be visionary, and we want to do something different and better for children.

Honourable senators, I could not agree more. This is our opportunity to be forward looking when it comes to the protection of children.

Bill C-26 makes several important changes to existing legislation. First, maximum and minimum penalties for many sexual offences against a child would be increased. This includes ensuring that the maximum penalty for all hybrid child sexual offences is increased to two years less a day on summary conviction and 14 years on indictment. This bill would also make the most serious child pornography offences, making and distributing child pornography, strictly indictable with a maximum penalty of 14 years. The existing mandatory minimum penalty of one year would continue to apply. This specific reform reflects the devastating impact the making and distributing of child pornography has, particularly in a modern technological environment where images can be accessed indefinitely.

(1530)

Penalties for breaches of supervision orders — that is prohibition orders, probation orders and peace bonds — would also be increased to ensure that those who violate conditions imposed by the courts to protect children are held to account.

Monique St. Germain, legal counsel for the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, stressed the importance of increased penalties for breaches of court-imposed conditions, stating:

When conditions are imposed upon an offender, the court takes into account the nature of the offences committed and the risk posed by the offender. The conditions are an attempt to manage that risk and protect the chance of additional victimization. The conditions are purposeful and they are extremely important to the ongoing protection of children. As such, the penalty available upon breach must be meaningful.

Colleagues, Bill C-26 would also ensure that evidence that an offence was committed while the offender was subject to a conditional sentence order, on parole or on statutory release would be considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

After hearing from victims and victims' advocates at committee, I believe the bill's most significant provision deals with the problem of judges commonly ruling that a sex offender charged with sexual offences against multiple children can serve sentences concurrently, which of course means that the offender is serving one sentence.

The new provisions mandate that courts impose consecutive sentences in two situations: first, where the offenders are sentenced at the same time for child pornography offences and contact sexual offences. This provision recognizes the increased harm caused when child pornography is involved in the commission of a contact sexual offence.

The second situation where courts would be required to impose consecutive sentences is when an offender is sentenced for contact sexual offences against multiple children at the same time.

Senators, this would finally ensure that child sexual offenders do not get sentencing discounts for offences against multiple victims. The criminal justice system must ensure that each and every victim counts and is accounted for in sentencing.

Ellen Campbell, President of the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness and a child victim of sexual assault herself, spoke about a case at committee which I have referenced before in this chamber. That is the case of Gordon Stuckless. He was given what is sometimes called a "sentencing discount" for the repeated rape against 24 different boys and was treated as a first-time offender when he was finally caught. He was given two years less a day in prison.

Martin Kruze, the first of Stuckless's victims to come forward, tragically committed suicide shortly after that measly sentence.

Ms. Campbell said this in the committee:

I've often thought, what would it have been like if this bill, Bill C 26, was in place when Martin came forward? He could have had some hope that something would have happened.

Colleagues, what kind of a message does this bundling of offences send to victims who are struggling with whether to come forward?

As Charles Adler contended:

Martin Kruze survived being raped countless times by Gordon Stuckless, but he did not survive being raped by the Canadian criminal justice system.

Sheldon Kennedy highlighted this as a major issue. He stated:

I think that's their biggest fear, that they're not going to be believed and that the systems don't support them to come forward. When they do come forward, they're clumped into one group and sentenced as a package deal, and I think that is shameful, very shameful.

Honourable senators, under this new provision, Gordon Stuckless would have to serve at least the mandatory minimum sentence for each of the known 24 victims. This provision sends a clear message to victims that they count, that they will be heard and that each and every one of them will be accounted for in the perpetrator's sentence.

Bill C-26 also proposes important reforms that would assist in tracking child sex offenders, including when they go abroad to commit offences against children in other countries whose legal systems are less robust than ours. For example, proposed amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act would require registered child sex offenders to report absences from the country, including the location and address at which they stay. As Minister MacKay said at committee, "We don't want to be a country who exports our problems."

The bill proposes further amendments to this act which would allow information sharing between the National Sex Offender Registry officials and the Canada Border Services Agency. Registered sex offenders would be required to report passport and licence number to the registry, and registry officials would be authorized to disclose certain information on registered child sex offenders.

The CBSA would be authorized to collect travel information from registered sex offenders at a port of entry if they have been flagged by the registry officials.

Bill C-26 also proposes a new publicly accessible database of high-risk child sex offenders through the enactment of the high- risk child sex offender database act. This act would authorize the RCMP to establish and administer a national, publicly accessible database of high-risk child sex offenders who have been the subject of a public notification in a province or territory.

The importance of this was stressed at committee by several victims and child advocacy centres. Both Sheldon Kennedy and Ellen Campbell, who were victims as children, and advocates for child victims now, testified after hearing Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien speak. Mr. Therrien raised concerns with whether the searchable and publicly accessible database for high-risk child sex offenders was effective policy, although he admitted that no new information would be made public after the proposed database is in effect and that this bill does not in any way violate the Privacy Act.

The major difference of opinion between Mr. Therrien and victims' advocates was whether Canadians had the right to this information. Both witnesses, after hearing Mr. Therrien's testimony, argued how critically important it is that parents and families have this information so that appropriate precautions can be taken.

As Senator McInnis said to the Privacy Commissioner:

We're not talking here, if I could put it this way, about the ordinary criminal. We're talking about a high risk child sex offender who is likely to reoffend. . . . I believe that if I'm a father or a mother, I want to know who offended so that I can take the hand of my child and walk them to school, if they're in the neighbourhood, and to protect them. That's important. That's why I disagree with you.

Colleagues, for too long we have been failing our children by not treating this crime with the seriousness it deserves. As David Butt from the Kids Internet Safety Alliance suggested at committee:

When we are out of whack in our values about how we denounce crimes . . . we have to get back into equilibrium.

He used the example of a person who robs a bank without a gun for about $8,000, which is, and I quote, " . . . less than a rounding error for any of the big banks." That person will get a sentence starting at five years.

(1540)

Courts have been very good at protecting the property of strong institutions. Then he contrasts that example with one of a child's life being ruined after being molested by a trusted adult. The child then sees that adult get probation or, as Mr. Butt put it, "goes home to watch TV."

For a child who suffered that abuse, looking at a bank whose rounding error gets five years, something is out of whack. We need to continue to protect with prevention and treatment, but we also need to reflect the appropriate sentence for this kind of a devastating crime.

Honourable senators, before I conclude I want to address briefly my colleague Senator Campbell's concern, which is largely about lengthy prison sentences without adequate access to treatment as well as a link between lack of treatment and recidivism.

I will say this in response: first, as Sue O'Sullivan the Federal Ombudsmen for Victims of Crime noted, when sex offenders are in prison for a lengthier sentence they are accessing available treatment for a longer period of time. There are various programs available through Correctional Service Canada that strive for relapse prevention with sex offenders. However, we are not dealing with a typical criminal or even a typical sex offender.

As CSC's website states, the data from the Clearwater program indicate that pedophiles, even if treated, present a greater risk to the community than other sex offenders.

I also have statistics from peer-reviewed psychiatric journals stating that about a quarter of heterosexual pedophiles and half of homosexual and bisexual pedophiles repeat offences. This is a high recidivism rate.

As Harvard's medical journal found, there is "no effective treatment" for pedophilia. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and, as the journal, notes:

Like other sexual orientations, pedophilia is unlikely to change. The goal of treatment, therefore, is to prevent someone from acting on pedophile urges — either by decreasing sexual arousal around children or increasing the ability to manage that arousal. But neither is as effective for reducing harm as preventing access to children . . .

The Harvard medical journal concluded: "There is no cure, so the focus" must be "on protecting children."

While Senator Campbell asserts that Conservatives dislike science, in reality this approach is evidence based and reflects the proven likelihood of pedophiles to reoffend, the ineffectiveness of treatment and the devastating, long-term traumatic impact this type of crime has on victims.

I commend our government for listening to both victims' groups and experts in bringing forward this comprehensive legislation that will protect children from sexual predators. I trust that all colleagues will vote in favour of this important bill.

Thank you.

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: I have a question.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Will you accept some questions, Senator Plett?

Senator Plett: Yes.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: Over the past few years, Senator Plett and I have rarely seen eye to eye on the issue of child rearing, and specifically violence against children. Now, suddenly, he is very concerned about children's health and wants everyone to be locked up for as long as possible.

Do you still support keeping section 43 in the Criminal Code, which allows parents to hit their children as a way of disciplining them?

[English]

Senator Plett: Let me start, first of all, senator, by saying how offensive I find that comment, that you would in any way equate spanking a child with the rape and sexual molestation of a child. There is absolutely no correlation to that, and I will not dignify that with an answer.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I encourage you, senator, to read the Supreme Court ruling that does in fact take away parents' permission — in the case of children aged 12 and older, for reasons related to sexuality — to spank their children. Don't say there is no correlation. There is.

For the purposes of your bill, did you consider measures such as physical or chemical castration?

[English]

Senator Plett: I will say again that I fully support my boys disciplining their children in a loving manner. If that includes a slap on the rear end, I support that. I do not support their sexual molestation. Again, there is no correlation there at all.

Second, this bill deals with the molestation of children. It does not deal with the spanking of children. We have another bill for that.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I encourage you to read the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It contains one section in particular that recommends repealing section 43, because there have been too many incidents involving young Aboriginal Canadians and there is a correlation, even though you deny it. The Supreme Court recognized that when children grow up, there is a threat related to their sexuality. Moreover, the Supreme Court took away parents' authority to spank children aged 12 and older. Don't rule that out.

During your thorough study, did you look at the fact that pedophiles often come from families with a history of abuse and that these individuals themselves may have been the victims of molestation?

[English]

Senator Plett: No, I did not.

[Translation]

Senator Hervieux-Payette: I find it strange that there was no mention of the fact that this is deviant behaviour that, for the most part, relates to abuse these individuals suffered as children that they then perpetuate as adults. It is important to take action sooner, before they head down that road.

With respect to the Harvard medical journal, which states that there is no cure, do you believe that that is the case all around the world and that countries in Europe and elsewhere have never taken any steps to treat pedophiles so that these individuals can reintegrate safely into society?

[English]

Senator Plett: I think the question in there was whether all journals would say the same thing as Harvard's did. I don't know, I haven't read all the journals across the world to see what they say. I was quoting Harvard's.

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

An Hon. Senator: Question.

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

(1550)

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Government), pursuant to notice of June 3, 2015, moved:

That, pursuant to section 3 of the Statutes Repeal Act, S.C. 2008, c. 20, the Senate resolve that the Act and the provisions of the other Acts listed below, which have not come into force in the period since their adoption, not be repealed: 1. Canada Grain Act, R.S., c. G-10: -paragraphs (d) and (e) of the definition "elevator" in section 2 and subsections 55(2) and (3); 2. Contraventions Act, S.C. 1992, c. 47: -paragraph 8(1)(d), sections 9, 10 and 12 to 16, subsections 17(1) to (3), sections 18 and 19, subsection 21(1) and sections 22, 23, 25, 26, 28 to 38, 40, 41, 44 to 47, 50 to 53, 56, 57, 60 to 62, 84 (in respect of the following sections of the schedule: sections 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 7.1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 16) and 85; 3. Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 17: -sections 17 and 18; 4. Canada Marine Act, S.C. 1998, c. 10: -section 140; 5. An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Grain Futures Act, S.C. 1998, c. 22: -subsection 1(3) and sections 5, 9, 13 to 15, 18 to 23 and 26 to 28; 6. Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, S.C. 1998, c. 32; 7. Preclearance Act, S.C. 1999, c. 20: -section 37; 8. Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, S.C. 1999, c. 34: -sections 155, 157, 158 and 160, subsections 161(1) and (4) and section 168; 9. Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, S.C. 2000, c. 12: -sections 89 and 90, subsections 107(1) and (3) and section 109; 10. Marine Liability Act, S.C. 2001, c. 6: -section 45; 11. Yukon Act, S.C. 2002, c. 7: -sections 70 to 75 and 77, subsection 117(2) and sections 167, 168, 210, 211, 221, 227, 233 and 283; 12. An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act, S.C. 2003, c. 8: -section 23; 13. An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2003, c. 26: -sections 4 and 5, subsection 13(3), section 21, subsections 26(1) to (3) and sections 30, 32, 34, 36 (with respect to section 81 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act), 42 and 43; 14. Assisted Human Reproduction Act, S.C. 2004, c. 2: -sections 12 and 45 to 58; 15. Public Safety Act, 2002, S.C. 2004, c. 15: -sections 78 and 106; 16. Amendments and Corrections Act, 2003, S.C. 2004, c. 16: -sections 10 to 17 and 25 to 27; 17. Budget Implementation Act, 2005, S.C. 2005, c. 30: -Part 18 other than section 125; and 18. An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to financial institutions, S.C. 2005, c. 54: -subsections 1(1) and 27(2), sections 29 and 102, subsections 140(1) and 166(2), sections 168 and 213, subsections 214(1) and 239(2), section 241, subsection 322(2), section 324, subsections 368(1) and 392(2) and section 394.

She said: Honourable senators, Bill S-207, which enacted the Statutes Repeal Act, was passed with unanimous support in both houses of Parliament and received Royal Assent on June 18, 2008. I believe that this was a bill sponsored by former Senator Banks. The act came into force two years later.

The purpose of the Statutes Repeal Act is to encourage the government to actively consider whether legislation that has not been brought into force within nine years or more of being enacted is still needed. Let me describe the process that it entails before I begin to explain the various items that are part of this report.

Section 2 of the Statutes Repeal Act requires that the Minister of Justice table an annual report before both houses of Parliament on any of their first five sitting days of each calendar year. Each annual report must list the acts and provisions of acts not yet in force that were assented to nine years or more before December 31 of the previous calendar year.

Under section 3 of the Statutes Repeal Act, any act or provision listed in the annual report will be repealed on December 31 of the year it was tabled, unless, before that date, they are brought into force, or one of the houses of Parliament adopts a resolution exempting them from repeal.

This is the fifth year of implementation of the Statutes Repeal Act. The fifth annual report was tabled on January 29, 2015 in the House of Commons and on February 3, 2015 in the Senate and lists one act and provisions of 18 other acts.

Honourable senators, I ask you to adopt this fifth report. The motion would adopt a resolution before December 31 of this year — well, hopefully today, after I explain — exempting one act and provisions in 17 other acts that are listed in this motion from being repealed at the end of this calendar year.

Eleven ministers have recommended the deferral of the repeal of certain legislation. These 11 are the Ministers of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development; Agriculture and Agri-Food; Finance; Foreign Affairs; Health; Justice; National Defence; Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; Public Works and Government Services; and Transport; as well as the President of the Treasury Board.

I will now set out the reasons for the recommended deferrals by each of these ministers.

First, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development: The minister is recommending a deferral for provisions of the Yukon Act. Sections 70 to 75 of the Yukon Act will allow the Yukon government to appoint its own auditor general and cease to use the services of Canada's Auditor General. Steps need to be taken by the Government of Yukon to establish a position of auditor general before these provisions can be brought into force.

The rest of the provisions of the Yukon Act are consequential amendments to other acts that should be brought into force when the federal Yukon Surface Rights Board Act is repealed and the Yukon legislature enacts legislation in its place. To date, the territorial legislation is not yet in place.

Second, Agriculture and Agri-food: The minister is recommending deferrals for provisions in the Canada Grain Act and in the amending act entitled, "An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Grain Futures Act."

In the 2010 federal budget, the government signalled its intent to move forward with its plans to modernize the Canada Grain Act. Targeted amendments to that act were introduced as part of the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012. In 2013, the not-in-force provisions were reviewed in light of the 2012 amendments and other changes that the grain industry considered necessary. This review culminated with the introduction of Bill C-48, the modernization of Canada's grain industry act. Bill C-48 addresses many of these not-in-force provisions, and for this reason, deferral of the repeal for these not-in-force provisions is being sought.

Next, the Minister of Finance is seeking a deferral for provisions in two acts. The first recommendation relates to several not-in-force provisions of "An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to financial institutions." These provisions relate to the forms that shareholders of financial institutions can use to vote by proxy and exempt certain communications to shareholders from the framework that governs communications about proxies. Additionally, these provisions amend the Green Shield Canada Act, a private act which incorporates Green Shield Canada, a not- for-profit provider of health and dental benefits, and which subjects Green Shield Canada to certain sections of the Insurance Companies Act.

These provisions would amend the sections which Green Shield Canada is subject to in the Insurance Companies Act. A deferral of the repeal of provisions is recommended as the Bank Act regulations relating to proxies are currently under review by the Department of Finance, and the results of this review must be considered when determining whether or not to bring these provisions into force.

The second deferral recommendation concerns sections 17 and 18 of the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act. Those provisions would amend certain sections of the Interest Act to facilitate the eventual creation of regulations relating to a cost of credit disclosure harmonization initiative that was referenced in the agreement on internal trade.

Active discussions are under way at this time to renew Canada's internal trade framework. As a result, until the exact scope of that renegotiation and the implications for sections 17 and 18 of the act are known, deferral of the repeal of these provisions is recommended.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is recommending deferrals for one act and provisions in two other acts. The first recommendation concerns the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act. This act will be brought into force as soon as the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty comes into force. However, before the treaty comes into force, it requires ratification by 44 specific states, and currently eight out of these 44 states have not yet ratified the treaty.

It is vital that the act not be repealed so that once the treaty does come into force, the act can be brought into force without delay, implementing the treaty in Canada. Furthermore, keeping this act on the statute books demonstrates Canada's commitment to the implementation of the treaty.

The second deferral concerns section 37 of the Preclearance Act. The act implements a bilateral treaty on air preclearance between Canada and the United States, and section 37 of the act would prevent a judicial review in Canada of preclearance officer decisions to refuse to preclear, admit persons or import goods into the United States. This section cannot be brought into force until the U.S. provides the same authorities to Canada, as the agreement is reciprocal.

Negotiations to update the agreement have recently concluded. A deferral of the repeal of section 37 is being sought so that the issue of bringing it into force can be considered in the context of the government's implementation of the obligations of the updated agreement.

The third deferral concerns section 106 of the Public Safety Act, 2002, which enacts the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Implementation Act. Deferral is recommended so that the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development may pursue consultations at the national and international level to assess the full implications of the possible repeal of the act, including any political consequences for Canada's allies and the Canadian public.

The Minister of Health is recommending a deferral for provisions of one act. The deferral recommendation is with respect to sections 12 and 45 to 58 of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act.

As a result of a 2010 Supreme Court of Canada ruling, the federal government's ability to regulate the complex and controversial area of assisted human reproduction has been significantly redefined and reduced. Therefore, this deferral request is to allow Health Canada to continue its policy assessment of how to regulate this area, an assessment which will include an examination of the impact on federal-provincial responsibility and relations.

The Department of Health will need additional time to engage interested and affected stakeholders so that it may provide meaningful options and operational considerations and develop an implementation plan.

The Minister of Justice is recommending a deferral for provisions in two acts. The first recommendation for deferral is with respect to certain provisions of the Contraventions Act. The act provides a procedural regime for prosecuting federal offences designated as contraventions. It provides two options for implementing the regime: reliance on an autonomous federal infrastructure or reliance on existing provincial penal schemes.

(1600)

The Minister of Justice has entered into agreements with several provinces to implement the federal contraventions regime through existing provincial penal schemes. The Department of Justice is still in negotiations with three provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Even though the Department of Justice remains determined to implement the contraventions regime throughout the country using the existing provincial penal schemes for issuing tickets in respect of federal contraventions, negotiations and progress depend largely on the priorities and capacity of the provinces. Therefore, in the event that agreements cannot be reached with the remaining three provinces, the Department of Justice may need to implement an autonomous federal infrastructure in those provinces by bringing into force the remaining not-in-force provisions of the act.

The second recommendation for deferral is with respect to provisions of the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, which is a comprehensive act amending 68 federal statutes to ensure equal treatment of married and common-law couples in federal law. The coming into force of two of the remaining provisions is based on the negotiated agreement and is under discussion with the relevant First Nations governments. The other three provisions are an autonomous federal infrastructure that may need to be implemented should expected amendments in provincial and territorial law not proceed. These five provisions are needed to provide a consistent approach throughout federal legislation and would ensure equal treatment between married spouses and common-law partners under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Minister of National Defence is recommending deferral provisions in two acts. The first deferral recommendation relates to certain not-in-force provisions of An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. These provisions would amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and relate to supplementary death benefits and elective service rules.

The Department of National Defence has begun a comprehensive analysis of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, including these not-in-force provisions. This analysis will lead to the development of regulations intended to add flexibility and clarity to the application of that act. The department is continuing its work developing the regulations necessary to bring these provisions into force. These regulations will add direction and clarity to the implementation of the act.

The second deferral recommendation concerns section 78 of the Public Safety Act, 2002. This section would add a new Part V.2 to the National Defence Act that would authorize certain activities to ensure the integrity of the departments and the CAF's information technology systems and the data stored on those systems. The department and the CAF have begun examining their legislative and prerogative authorities, and for this reason, a deferral is recommended so that the department and the CAF may take the time they require to consider whether Part V.2 of the National Defence Act should be brought into force.

With respect to public safety and emergency preparedness, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is recommending a deferral for section 23 of An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act.

This provision amends subsection 31(2) of the Firearms Act. Currently, the act allows for a person to transfer a firearm to a public agency, including a municipality. The amendment would make it clear that where such a transfer to a municipality occurs, the Registrar of Firearms must revoke any registration certificate for that firearm. A deferral from repeal is required to allow the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to prepare a submission with a view to bringing this provision into force.

The Minister of Public Works and Government Services is recommending a deferral with respect to Part 18 other than section 125 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2005. The provisions in question amend several provisions of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act and give the Minister of Public Works and Government Services the exclusive authority for contracting for services and allow the Department of Public Works and Government Services to enter into contracts where sufficient funds to discharge the obligations under the contract have not been set aside.

The Minister of Public Works and Government Services is currently developing options for reforming federal procurement. A deferral is therefore recommended to allow the Department of Public Works and Government Services to complete the necessary consultations with stakeholders, data gathering and analysis to determine the merits of these provisions with regard to the ongoing federal procurement reform initiative.

The Minister of Transport is recommending deferrals concerning provisions in two acts. The first deferral is with respect to section 45 of the Marine Liability Act. Section 45 will, if it comes into force, give effect to the Hamburg Rules, which is an international convention on the carriage of goods by sea adopted by the United Nations in 1978.

The Department of Transport — may I have five more minutes?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Martin: The Department of Transport, in consultation with interested stakeholders, is currently undertaking a thorough analysis of the complete body of law pertaining to carriage of goods by water in Canada and will be making recommendations to modernize it with a view of maintaining Canada's commitment to uniformity of international law, particularly with the law of our major trading partners. Given that this review is not yet complete, the repeal of section 45 of the Marine Liability Act is premature and a deferral of its repeal is requested.

The second deferral request is with respect to section 140 of the Canada Marine Act. Section 140 of the Canada Marine Act would enable Canada to enter into agreements with a third party other than Marine Atlantic Inc., the current provider, to fill Canada's constitutional obligation to Newfoundland and Labrador to provide a ferry service between North Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Port aux Basques, Newfoundland and Labrador. This is sounding awfully familiar, honourable senators.

The Department of Transport would like to retain the policy flexibility afforded by section 140. Repealing this provision at this time would limit the department's ability to examine all policy options pertaining to the provision of the ferry service in the future.

The President of the Treasury Board is recommending a provision for deferral in two acts. The first deferral recommendation is with respect to certain provisions of the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act that concern pension and related bene