THE SENATE

Thursday, March 21, 2013

The Senate met at 1:30 p.m., the Speaker in the chair.

Prayers.

[Translation]

Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am pleased to speak today to mark an event that took place yesterday at the National Assembly of Quebec.

Every year, the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie recognizes illustrious individuals who have distinguished themselves in their service to the ideals of the assembly and the Francophonie by awarding them the Ordre de la Pléiade, Order of the Francophonie and of the dialogue of cultures.

Yesterday, our colleagues the Honourable Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu and the Honourable Senator Jacques Demers were awarded this honorary order by the Chancellor of the Order of the Francophonie and of the dialogue of cultures.

Honourable senators, I have an enormous amount of respect for the institution of the Senate. On both sides of this chamber, there are individuals with a great deal to offer. They have impressive backgrounds and outstanding qualities.

The fact that two of our colleagues have been recognized for their unquestionable contribution to the advancement of our society definitely deserves to be acknowledged here in this chamber.

Through his personal story and his determination to promote the rights of victims of crime in Canada, there is no doubt that the Honourable Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu exemplifies the words of the French psychoanalyst Françoise Dolto, who said:

In every trial there is a treasure. The key is finding it.

Senator Boisvenu did more than just find that treasure. He invested it and shared the profit in order to help society as a whole.

As for the Honourable Senator Jacques Demers, he has touched the hearts of many Quebecers and Canadians. He is an example of resilience and perseverance. He made a place for himself in the sun despite functional limitations with regard to reading and writing — limitations that he overcame through determination and courage. To now be awarded the Ordre de la Pléiade, Order of the Francophonie and of the dialogue of cultures, therefore has very special meaning for Senator Demers. He has been a great role model for many people for many years.

Honourable senators, I offer my dear colleagues my sincere congratulations on the honour they received yesterday and thank them for their commitment, warmth and great kindness.

I would like to reiterate my most heartfelt congratulations on this well-deserved honour. Be proud of it. I thank you for all that you do here. You are great men, and your honour reflects well on all members of this chamber and our institution.

[English]

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, Navroz Mubarak to all of you. Today is a very special day for many religious and cultural communities, particularly Shia Muslim communities. Today, March 21, marks the celebration of the Festival of Navroz, which means "the new day" in Persian. The festival marks the beginning of a new year, the first day of spring.

The Festival of Navroz dates back 3,000 years when astrologers of King Jamshid, the mythical Iranian king, determined that March 21 marks the vernal equinox, when day and night are exactly equal. Following this discovery, he declared March 21 to be Navroz, the first day of the Iranian calendar.

Navroz was initially observed by the Persians but is now celebrated in various geographical regions, including Central and South Asia, North America and Europe. In many countries, Navroz is a national holiday.

On Navroz, families and friends gather to greet each other, exchange gifts and share a festive meal. Adherents of many faiths, including Muslims, Zoroastrians and Baha'is, attend their place of worship to offer prayers and gratitude and celebrate with their communities. They often enjoy delicacies, including sweets, dried fruit, nuts and grains, which symbolize blessings of abundance and prosperity. Homes

are also cleaned and decorated and new clothes are worn, signifying the cleansing of one's mind, body and spirit. Every community celebrates the beginning of the spring season in their own unique ways.

The extraordinary feature of Navroz is its symbolic meaning: When winter ends, spring ushers in new life. It is time for physical and spiritual revival, and a time to renew our commitment to deeply rooted Canadian values of peace and brotherhood.

Celebrating the new year offers an important opportunity to reflect on last year's successes and challenges and to remember those who are less fortunate and vulnerable. Let us hope in the new year there will be a better world of humanity — a world of peace, hope and security.

Honourable senators, on this auspicious and joyous festival, please join me in wishing Canadians who celebrate Navroz a very happy Navroz Mubarak.

Hon. Tobias C. Enverga, Jr.: Honourable senators, I rise today to inform you that today is really close to my heart. Today, March 21, is World Down Syndrome Day. The United Nations General Assembly declared this by resolution in 2011 and has officially observed it since 2012. It is celebrated in cities across Canada through a number of events. The date stands as a symbol for the extra twenty-first chromosome that 95 per cent of people with Down syndrome have.

(1340)

Honourable senators, World Down Syndrome Day is about raising awareness. It is about highlighting and sharing information on Down syndrome with educators, medical practitioners, law enforcement officials and the general public. It is about debunking myths and replacing them with facts that will make the lives of people with Down syndrome better and longer, facts that will enrich the lives of all members of society through understanding.

Honourable senators, the fact is that one in 900 people is born with Down syndrome regardless of the mother's age, race or nationality or the social or economic status of the family. The fact is that 30 per cent to 40 per cent of people with Down syndrome have heart defects that can often be corrected with surgery. The fact is that people with Down syndrome are as diverse as the rest of the population in terms of their hopes, aspirations and abilities. The fact is that a child with Down syndrome is not a burden to his or her family but a gift, as is any other child, to their parents, their families and their communities.

Honourable senators, I have been fortunate to serve on the Special Education Advisory Committee of the Toronto Catholic District School Board where I advise the board on educational policies for children with special needs. I will continue the national dialogue on this matter through my Senate committee work.

Honourable senators, raising awareness is key, and it is more than just talking about an issue. Raising awareness saves lives, generates procedures in law enforcement and allows for inclusion of people with challenges in our society. Awareness allows for debate on allocating more resources to further medical research and to improve educational opportunities for people with Down syndrome. It allows for people with abilities to contribute in a meaningful way to our society and to our economy.

My own daughter, Rocel Enverga, is proof of this. Rocel is a loving and caring daughter, the special gift that keeps on giving to me, to our family and to the whole community. I know that I am not the only member of the house who can personally attest to this fact.

Thank you, honourable senators.

Hon. Jim Munson: Honourable senators, today, on World Down Syndrome Day, I am on the same team as Senator Enverga. As he said, today is World Down Syndrome Day, a day for us to reflect upon and raise awareness of the vital role that people with Down syndrome play in our lives and communities.

Down syndrome is a natural occurrence. It has always existed and is universal across racial, gender and socio-economic lines. One in 800 Canadian children is born with Down syndrome. You need not go very far back in time to see how drastically different life once was for people with Down syndrome. Not so long ago, they were separated, kept hidden from society, work, sport and art and even simple social outings. These basic aspects of life were reserved for others, not for them.

Fortunately for us, there have always been individuals in our society who not only believe in equality and inclusiveness but also have the fortitude to act on their beliefs. Today there are groups and organizations across the country that have formed on the basis of these beliefs. Their missions are to ensure inclusion and opportunities for everyone.

Under its slogan "See the Ability!," the Canadian Down Syndrome Society is celebrating today by highlighting heroes, people with Down syndrome who are living exceptional lives. They are athletes, volunteers, students and social advocates, and through their activities and achievements they show us the abilities and contributions of all people with Down syndrome.

The society is also marking this important day with a remarkable and timely initiative. It has released a position statement on value-neutral language. Language is indeed powerful, with the potential to include people in our society or to exclude them.

The statement from the Canadian Down Syndrome Society reads:

The Canadian Down Syndrome Society promotes the use of value-neutral language that respects the unique strengths, skills, and talents of persons with Down syndrome. By using language that is respectful and informed, we can help build communities in which all people are valued, participating citizens.

Of course, as honourable senators know, I have been a supporter of Special Olympics Canada for many years now. The organization provides sports training and competition for people with intellectual disabilities. More than 34,000 children, youth and adults are registered in programs that run every day of the week. They are supported by an extraordinary network of more than 16,400 volunteers. Special Olympics Canada is also proud to celebrate and be part of this international day to recognize people with Down syndrome.

Honourable senators, I invite you to join the Canadian Down Syndrome Society, Special Olympics Canada and countless other groups, organizations and individuals worldwide, including Michael Trinque, who works in my office and has Down syndrome, and in memory of my late son, in commemorating World Down Syndrome Day.

Hon. Norman E. Doyle: Honourable senators, over the last few days I had the honour and distinct privilege to represent the Senate of Canada as part of the Governor General's delegation that travelled to Rome for the installation of the new Pope, His Holiness Pope Francis I.

To say that the event was extremely moving would indeed be an understatement. Leaders, both church and civil, from virtually every corner of the world were present to be part of that great moment.

At about 7 a.m. on Tuesday, the day of the mass of inauguration, over 200,000 people, including our Canadian delegation, were beginning our trek into St. Peter's Square for the 9:30 a.m. service and homily that the Pope would deliver. The homily at the inauguration mass of any Pope is often looked upon by the world's 1.2 billion Catholics as the road map for the future papal ministry. However, Christians generally also view it as an opportunity to understand more fully the role of the church as a spiritual vehicle giving voice to the expectations of the people. In my opinion, this particular homily by Pope Francis did that very well. It did not disappoint. In speaking of the church as a protector, for instance, he said:

The vocation of being a "protector," however, is not just something involving us Christians alone; it also has a prior dimension which is simply human, involving everyone. It means protecting all creation, the beauty of the created world, as the Book of Genesis tells us and as Saint Francis of Assisi showed us. It means respecting each of God's creatures and respecting the environment in which we live. It means protecting people, showing loving concern for each and every person, especially children, the elderly, those in need, who are often the last we think about. It means caring for one another in our families . . .

He went on to say:

Please, I would like to ask all those who have positions of responsibility in economic, political and social life, and all men and women of goodwill: let us be "protectors" of creation, protectors of God's plan inscribed in nature, protectors of one another and of the environment.

The environment, the poor, the needy, the marginalized and the weakest seem to be very important to this Pope. He is the first Pope from overseas and thereby one who emphasizes the universal nature of the church. One gets the impression up close that he is a modest man, not given to lavish personal adornment or living in luxury. He is a Pope who is first and foremost a pastor, who has a deep and abiding concern for those in need.

Having been fortunate enough to be present at these ceremonies, I found it also quite easy to see beneath the genteel exterior a person of unshakeable faith, one who will indeed make it a cornerstone of his papacy to bring the church back to first principles.

(1350)

Honourable senators, I would again like to thank you and the Governor General for allowing me the rare opportunity and privilege to attend the installation of Pope Francis I. I am sure we all wish him well as he takes up his duties as the spiritual head of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Honourable senators, I rise today on an issue of vital importance to the people of Prince Edward Island. For a number of years now, the provincial government has been requesting support from the federal government to add a new electrical cable between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.

In 2005, the Governments of Canada and Prince Edward Island jointly announced a project to upgrade this electricity transmission system. A new cable would have been placed inside the Confederation Bridge utility corridor specifically designed and built for this purpose. However, in 2006 the partnership fund that would have financed this project was cancelled by the new government.

Other than wind power, virtually all of Prince Edward Island's electricity requirements are acquired from New Brunswick Power. Electricity is currently transmitted through two underwater cables installed in 1977, and they are nearing end of their 40-year life expectancy. A recent leak in one of the cables, which required that it be taken out of service until repairs were made, was a stark reminder that they do have an infinite life and will eventually require replacement.

At the same time, the growth in electricity demand is rising in Prince Edward Island. It is forecast that an additional cable will be required by 2017, even with the two existing cables.

As well, another cable would provide the capacity for the province to export wind power when it was not needed to meet local demand.

This new cable is a vital infrastructure requirement that creates a great deal of uncertainty for the people of my province. Even the Honourable Gail Shea, the federal minister with responsibility for the province, recognizes this is something that needs to be done soon.

Honourable senators, I have raised this issue several times in this house. Again I am calling on the federal government to do the right thing and help bring Prince Edward Islanders the energy security they need and deserve.

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore: Honourable senators, I rise today to pay tribute to Edward William "Billy" Downey, native of Halifax, who departed this life on Friday, March 8, 2013. He was the son of the late George Alexander Downey and Leotra Tomlinson Downey. An avid sportsman, Billy was a talented baseball player, boxer and hockey player and a groundbreaking, proud Black businessman.

In his younger years, Billy was the manager of the Vaughan Furriers, a Maritime championship junior baseball team of superb Black and White athletes. He was not only the manager but also the visionary who saw no colour as he put together his team, to which he gave his personal treasure. The team built a strong following and regularly drew upwards of 4,000 fans to the games played on the Halifax Commons. The story of Billy and his team is contained in Frank Mitchell's book, The Boys of '62.

Billy is perhaps best known for his love of music and the entertainment business. In the mid-1960s Billy, with one of his brothers, Graham, opened the Arrows Club, first in a house on Creighton Street and then moved to Agricola Street. In 1969, Billy moved his Arrows Club to new, larger premises on Brunswick Street. Billy's cabaret rivalled those in Montreal and New York and all places in between. He brought in such entertainers as Ike & Tina Turner, Sam & Dave and Lotsa Poppa, to name a few. His was the place to be. Persons of all stations in society, the great and the near great, of all colour and political stripes made their way to Billy's club and his warm hospitality. Upon closing the Arrows Club years later, Billy opened a new establishment in 1987, on Gottingen Street, called the Open Circle, where he continued his promotion and staging of local and visiting entertainers.

In the late 1960s, one of the entertainers Billy brought to the Arrows Club was Miriam Makeba, the Grammy Award winning folk singer who was married to Stokely Carmichael, then the leader of the Black Panthers. Stokley told Billy that Miriam would not perform unless the Black patrons sat on one side of the Arrows Club and the Whites on the other. Billy's response was that Miriam could not perform in his club under such a condition. In Billy's heart, music had no boundaries. Stokely got that message, and Meriam performed to the delight of all, including Stokely, who sat in the mixed audience. Billy Downey did so much to single-handedly defuse the racial tension that then existed in Halifax.

Last month, Billy Downey received the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal in recognition of his unique entrepreneurship and community activism. It was a proud moment for him and his family. I thank my colleague Senator Cowan for nominating Billy for this most deserved award.

Last Saturday, more than 500 people gathered at Emmanuel Baptist Church in Upper Hammonds Plains to celebrate Billy's life. He was predeceased by his wife, Carol. We extend our heartfelt sympathy to Billy's children, his sisters and brothers. He was a unique and well-motivated man. I am proud to have had him as a friend.

[Translation]

Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Implementation Report for 2010-11.

[English]

Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2012 Annual Report of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, together with the auditor's report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012.

Hon. Bob Runciman, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented the following report:

Thursday, March 21, 2013

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its

TWENTY-SECOND REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-53, An Act to assent to alterations in the law touching the Succession to the Throne, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, March 7, 2013, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment. Respectfully submitted, BOB RUNCIMAN

Chair

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

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

[Translation]

Hon. Joseph A. Day: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the eighteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance on the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013.

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

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

[English]

Hon. Percy Mockler: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, which deals with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's user fee proposal for importer licensing for non-federally registered sector products.

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

Senator Mockler: I propose that this report be included on the Orders of the Day for the next sitting of the Senate.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

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

[Translation]

Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence on a study of the New Veterans Charter.

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

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

(1400)

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-58, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2013.

(Bill read first time.)

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

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

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-59, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014.

(Bill read first time.)

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

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

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.

(Bill read first time.)

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

[Translation]

Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5, I move that this bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading later this day.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is leave granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(On motion of Senator Carignan, notwithstanding rule 5-5, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading later this day.)

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity).

(Bill read first time.)

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

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

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore introduced Bill S-217, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (borrowing of money).

(Bill read first time.)

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

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

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

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on March 8, 2012, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in relation to its study on the lobster fishery in Atlantic Canada and Quebec be extended from March 31, 2013 to May 31, 2013.

Hon. Colin Kenny: Honourable senators, I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate concerning some basic facts that seem to be difficult to obtain.

The first area where we are having difficulty obtaining information is with regard to the budget for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for fiscal years 2002-03 through to 2012-13; second, the number of regular members recruited each year from fiscal year 2002-03 to 2012-13; and third, RCMP attrition figures for each year from 2002-03 to 2012-13.

I did give notice of this question. I do not expect an answer today, but I would be grateful if we could receive an answer shortly, before we get too engaged in Bill C-42.

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): I thank the honourable senator and very much appreciate his giving advance notice of the question. He is quite right that there is a lot of detail, and I have already referred the question to the Minister of Public Safety for a detailed response.

Hon. Elizabeth Hubley: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I would like to follow up on a question asked by Senator Callbeck last May 2 and on the delayed answer she received to that question on December 14.

Senator Callbeck asked a very specific question about the Veterans Independence Program and the inequity that exists in eligibility criteria for surviving spouses.

(1410)

I, too, am concerned about this inequity and have heard from many veterans' widows on Prince Edward Island that they have been denied access to services that they need and should be eligible for.

As the Veterans Ombudsman, Guy Parent, pointed out in a press release on March 6, this is not a new issue. In fact, he has also raised it with the government on several occasions, but so far nothing has come of his efforts.

The problem seems to stem from a loophole in the eligibility criteria that makes it impossible for some spouses to qualify for certain services, even though they meet the essential financial and/ or disability standards. The delayed answer to Senator Callbeck's question explained the nature of this loophole very clearly. According to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, certain individuals will not be eligible for all services because, once determined as eligible for the Veterans Independence Program as a primary caregiver, an individual cannot be considered eligible as a survivor.

I would like to know why this loophole still exists. In its response to Senator Callbeck, the government identified this loophole as the cause of this inequity but did not explain why it has not fixed the problem. A veteran's surviving spouse should not be denied a service based on an administrative or bureaucratic rule that she would otherwise qualify for in principle.

I would again ask, why is this unfair rule not being addressed? Could the leader also inform the Senate when we might expect the change to be made?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): As honourable senators know, over 38,000 widows of Canadian veterans have benefited from the Veterans Independence Program since our government made them eligible in 2008. I well remember the written response and the acknowledgment in that written response about the discrepancy that the honourable senator refers to. I will take that portion of the question as notice and see if, when we send it back, they have had a chance to address that specific item.

[Translation]

Hon. Claudette Tardif (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is about the Library and Archives Canada code of conduct, which has been the subject of some controversy for the past several days. Among the controversial elements of the new code of conduct are passages that identify activities such as speaking to a class of students or attending a conference as being high-risk.

The code also appears to prohibit employees from participating in such public activities if the theme of the discussion is related to their work or the mandate of Library and Archives Canada or if the organizers of the activity collaborate or could at some point have dealings with Library and Archives Canada.

Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate explain to us why these activities have suddenly been identified as being high-risk and why the code of conduct appears to prohibit Library and Archives Canada employees from interacting on their own time with groups working in that sector or other sectors?

[English]

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the fact is that librarians and archivists are still able to speak at conferences and other events. There has not been a change in policy.

With regard to the code of conduct, this is a process that dates back to 2004 under the previous government. At the time, it was spearheaded by the Clerk of the Privy Council. Reg Alcock, who was the President of the Treasury Board, made reference to Bill C-11 because this was the policy practised by the previous government and which has been in place since 2004. I quote Reg Alcock from October 14, 2004 when speaking to Bill C-11, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Bill:

The bill requires the Treasury Board to establish a code of conduct for the entire federal public service.

This is a policy that has been in place now for nine years, and there has been no change in that policy. Archivists and librarians are free to continue to participate at conferences and other events.

Senator Tardif: Honourable senators, the code states that public servants' duty of loyalty to the government, and I quote, "derives from the essential mission of the public service to help the duly elected government, under law, to serve the public interest and implement government policies. . . ."

Why would Library and Archives Canada adopt a code of conduct that would limit staff members from speaking in public and with other professionals from their area of expertise, but that also stresses employees' duty of loyalty to the dutifully elected government? Why would that be?

Senator LeBreton: The government is the government, no matter who it is. As was the case in 2004, it was another party that was in government and this is a policy that was established then. This policy has not changed. On the Treasury Board website, the quote is:

. . . all federal public sector employees are required to adhere to the Code as a term and condition of employment.

With regard to the archivists and librarians, the policy has not changed. They are free to continue to participate as they have in the past in events and, of course, at school events.

Senator Tardif: According to Richard Provencher, Library and Archives Canada Senior Communication Adviser, the code was written in response to the April 2012 Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector, which called for federal departments to establish their own codes of conduct. Library and Archives Canada based their code of conduct on what other federal organizations were doing.

Does the government support the fact that speaking in classrooms and speaking to teachers and in other areas is a high-risk activity? Is that the public sector code that is being supported in federal organizations?

Senator LeBreton: I think I have already answered that. There is no change in policy. Archivists and librarians are absolutely free to speak to school organizations and at other such events.

Senator Tardif: Why is it, then, honourable senators, that this code was written in April 2012, based on the values and ethics code for the public sector and that the government is pushing in other federal organizations? Why is that? Those dates do not correspond.

Senator LeBreton: If the honourable senator has questions with regard to Library and Archives Canada, I would encourage her to invite Mr. Caron, the head of Library and Archives Canada, to address this issue before a committee of the Senate.

Individuals are in charge of their own departments. There is a standard Treasury Board guideline, which I have already put on the record, and there is nothing more I can add to that.

Senator Tardif: Honourable senators, I understand that Library and Archives Canada have put forward this code of conduct, but they have based it on what is going on in other federal organizations.

My question is: Does the government support this code of conduct and how the behaviour of employees should be regulated? Is this something that the government accepts in other federal organizations?

Senator LeBreton: Again, honourable senators, this is a practice that has been followed, as I pointed out, and I can only repeat what is on the Treasury Board website:

. . . all federal public sector employees are required to adhere to the Code as a term and condition of employment.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

According to the Correctional Investigator's recent report, Spirit Matters, Aboriginal offenders account for 22 per cent of Canada's incarcerated population, while they make up 2 per cent of the Canadian population. The situation of Aboriginal female offenders is even more concerning. Aboriginal women account for 32 per cent of all federally incarcerated women, representing an increase of 86 per cent over the last decade.

More than 20 years ago, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act came into force. The act, to borrow the Correctional Investigator's description, contains provisions to enhance Aboriginal community involvement in corrections and to address chronic overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in federal corrections.

(1420)

I ask the leader: What will the government do in reaction to the investigator's report as to the situation that exists for Aboriginal people in prison?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the government is well aware of the report and has invested in programs through various departments to assist inmates, especially women, who find themselves incarcerated. There is a long list of programs that I would be happy to provide by written response.

Senator Jaffer: I have a supplementary question. The Correctional Investigator's report also found substantial funding discrepancies between section 81 healing lodges operated by Aboriginal communities and Correctional Service of Canada facilities. The Correctional Investigator estimates that Aboriginal communities are getting about 60 cents on the dollar to operate their healing lodges compared to those operated by the Correctional Service of Canada. There are 68 beds in four Aboriginal community healing lodges across Canada. These faith facilities can only accommodate 2 per cent of the federally sentenced Aboriginal offenders. What will the government do to negotiate permanent, realistic and at-parity funding levels for existing and future Aboriginal community healing lodges and to significantly increase the number of bed spaces available in those healing lodges?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, with regard to Aboriginals in prison, of course, like any segment of the population, any decision with respect to the guilt or innocence of an individual is made by the justice system. Through the justice system, decisions are made with regard to their incarceration based on the evidence before the courts.

The government has provided significant resources, honourable senators, to the Aboriginal Justice Strategy, which enables Aboriginal communities to have increased involvement in the local administration of justice. We provide funding through the Aboriginal Courtwork Program, which ensures fair and equitable treatment for Aboriginals charged with offences. We have taken a balanced approach, which includes prevention, such as investing in the Northern and Aboriginal Crime Prevention Fund, the Youth Gang Prevention Fund, the National Anti-Drug Strategy and the National Crime Prevention Strategy.

With regard to the specific question about healing lodges, I do not have information in order to respond, so I will take the question as notice.

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I was told today that the public was denied access to the tours of our Parliament Buildings. I do not know if she would know that, and I would like an answer as to why.

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the parliamentary precinct does not fall within the purview of my jurisdiction as Leader of the Government in the Senate. I was not aware of the situation, and I do not think my capacity as Leader of the Government in the Senate qualifies me to respond.

Senator Moore: I have a supplementary question. I understand that the Sergeant-at-Arms in the other place, and perhaps in this place, made that ruling. International visitors here this morning wanted to tour our buildings and could not. I would think something like that, whereby the people are denied access to their own buildings, would be known. I do not know if anyone on the leader's side wanted to bring guests through today, but maybe she could inquire about the situation and advise the chamber.

Senator LeBreton: Again, honourable senators, this is not an area that would fall under my responsibility. I would imagine this falls under the Speakers of both chambers. If there was a security concern on Parliament Hill, obviously this would be something that the Sergeants-at-Arms and the Speakers would be aware of. I am not aware of it. I normally do not have guests.

Honourable senators, if there was a decision by the parliamentary precinct and the police authorities to take specific action with regard to Parliament Hill, it does not fall within the area of my responsibility or the government's responsibility. However, I would suggest that the senator seek a response through the proper authorities in the Senate and House of Commons.

Senator Moore: Perhaps the Senate precinct ultimately falls under the auspices of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Maybe the chair of that committee could respond.

Hon. David Tkachuk: I cannot answer the question, but I will find out if there was increased precinct security.

Senator Moore: Will the honourable senator find out and let us know?

Senator Tkachuk: Yes.

Senator Moore: If it was something to do with security of the precinct, was there a threat that we did not know about? I would like to know why. Could the Chair of the Internal Economy Committee find out the specific reason why the public was denied access to these buildings?

Senator Tkachuk: I am not aware of any security threat of any kind, but I will try to find an answer to the question.

[Translation]

Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that when we proceed to Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: Bill C-27, Motion No. 63 and the other items in the order in which they stand on the Order Paper.

Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government), pursuant to notice of March 20, 2013, moved:

That, pursuant to rule 7-2, not more than a further six hours of debate be allocated for consideration at third reading stage of Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations.

He said: Honourable senators, this is a time allocation motion. As I explained yesterday, we believe it is important to allocate a maximum of six hours to debate this bill. It is important that the bill be enacted before March 31, 2013, so that it can be applied immediately in the next fiscal year to the financial statements of the reserves covered by the bill. That is why we are asking to proceed with this time allocation motion.

I urge all honourable senators to help demonstrate the effectiveness of the Senate and ensure compliance with this legislation as soon as possible.

[English]

Hon. Claudette Tardif (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the guillotine motion to close debate on Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations. This is a bill that will have serious and wide-ranging implications for Canada's indigenous people and the institutions through which they organize and govern themselves.

Some senators in this chamber support this bill. Other senators are opposed to it. There is strong disagreement.

(1430)

Honourable senators, is that not the whole reason we are here: to discuss, to debate points of disagreement and to try and make Canada's laws better through our deliberations?

Debate is a good thing. I would like to see more of it on Bill C-27 before we move so quickly to close debate. The government is now seeking to end discussion on this bill — in one day. This bill has been before us at third reading for hardly 48 hours. Senator Patterson moved third reading of Bill C-27 on Tuesday. I hardly think we have heard a fulsome debate on this important bill since that time.

The Deputy Leader of the Government was correct when he rose and stated that he and I had failed to agree to a satisfactory number of days or hours in which to complete third reading of Bill C-27. I could not consent to a time limit.

Honourable senators should know that no reason was given for the urgency in passing this bill immediately.

On March 19 Senator Patterson stated:

My understanding is that the bill, even though passed, will not be proclaimed, nor will it become effective, until fiscal year 2014.

That means April 1, 2014, over one year from now.

Senator Patterson stated that it was important "to allow bands to adjust to the new regime."

I do not dispute the honourable senator's point. However, I hardly think that a few more days of debate in Parliament before this bill becomes law — as we know it will since the government will use its majority to ensure passage — will inhibit bands from adjusting their affairs and practices in time for April 1, 2014. It is, frankly, a preposterous proposition.

I would contrast the situation with Bill C-27 to the situation with Bill C-55. In relation to Bill C-55, which we have received today, there is a tangible reason for the urgency in passing the bill without delay. This bill amends the Criminal Code to provide safeguards relative to the authority to intercept private communications because, on February 11, the Supreme Court found that the current relevant provisions in the act were unconstitutional. The court gave Parliament until April 13 to make the provisions constitutionally compliant. For these reasons, our caucus accorded its unanimous consent for the bill to be read a second time today. There is no such urgency with Bill C-27. For the government to use its force to compel the Senate to end debate on this bill for no tangible reason is highly inappropriate.

On the matter of the bill itself, transparency and proactive disclosure are important goals for all governments, including First Nations governments, and these are goals that I support. However, the Conservative government has a duty to work with First Nations on improving mutual accountability, not just to impose their own notions of what will work.

As Senator Dyck has so eloquently stated on numerous occasions, First Nations are willing partners on issues of governance, but this government must stop treating them as adversaries.

Bill C-27 does nothing to streamline the existing overwhelming reporting burden, especially for small First Nations with limited administrative capacity. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development alone receives over 60,000 reports from First Nations annually. Now the government is imposing additional reporting duties, while at the same time cutting the resources First Nations have to comply with these requirements.

As we heard from Senator Dyck, the government's approach to this matter violates the constitutional duty that the Crown has to consult with First Nations before changing laws or policies that affect First Nations people, institutions and rights.

Now the government is using its majority in this chamber to force the closure of debate and ultimately the passage of unconstitutional public policy.

Through these actions a tone is being set. Through these actions a statement is being made about the government's attitude towards its relationship with Canada's First Nations people. When there should be trust, there is distrust. Where there should be a spirit of cooperation, there is an adversarial environment. This is not leadership.

Honourable senators, I will be voting against this time allocation motion and I encourage senators on both sides to do the same.

Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck: I thank the Honourable Senator Tardif for her very good speech.

Honourable senators, I still consider myself a relatively new senator. It is almost eight years that I have been here in the chamber. This motion to limit debate is one of the things that always surprises me, because in any democratic society we should be debating. To me, this motion is totally ludicrous. In our role as senators, we are here to debate bills and improve them, not to shut them down. This motion is fundamentally anti-democratic.

With respect to Bill C-27, which honourable senators heard me speak on yesterday, it is ill-conceived, illogical, unnecessary, and is being imposed on First Nations without their input and without their consent. By limiting debate, we are even rubbing more salt into that wound because we are not allowing senators on both sides to get up and say what they really think about the bill. It is a very bad move.

Yesterday I informed the chamber of the heightened concern about the new funding agreements going across the country. I talked about Burnt Church First Nation and how they feel that the funding agreement is like a gun to their head; they have no choice. When they hear that in this chamber another bill will be imposed upon them, it will not make them feel very good. In fact, even late yesterday afternoon there was a press release from the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Shawn Atleo, who said:

The government's "unilateral legislative initiatives" have "consistently failed" and have left First Nations without adequate say in major policy decisions. Those sour feelings boiled over last year — and have continued — after the Harper government's 2012 budget resulted in two omnibus bills that many First Nations opposed, helping to spur the indigenous grassroots Idle No More movement and leading to hunger strikes and protests on the Parliament Hill.

At the January 11 meeting between Stephen Harper and First Nation leaders, there was a promise of a follow-up meeting between Harper and Atleo. At the time, the Prime Minister's office said it would occur in the coming weeks. Here we are, two and a half months later, no follow-up meeting with the Prime Minister and at a critical juncture, at an historic moment in time, with the first bill concerning First Nations about be to passed after all this unrest since December. Instead of pushing ahead to impose another unwanted bill on First Nations by limiting debate, we should be allowing a free, open and democratic debate on it.

Ironically, today is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. We heard from the Treaty 6 Confederacy that they have put in an urgent appeal to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to deal with the onslaught of bills being forced upon First Nations. Today I have asked my colleagues to read sections of that appeal into the record to document how frustrated First Nations are across Canada. They are so frustrated they have gotten nowhere with this government that they have to go to the UN for help and they are waiting for a letter from the UN to say to Canada, "Shape up and do something to help these people."

Now my colleagues will take sections and read it into the record.

(1440)

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: This is entitled: Submission to the 82nd Session of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination with Regard to Canada's Failure to Comply with the UN Human Rights Conventions and General Recommendation No. 23 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The submission was made on February 11 to March 1, 2013, in Geneva, by the people of Ermineskin Cree Nation, Onion Lake Cree Nation, Samson Cree Nation, Montana Cree Nation, Coal Lake Dene, Saddle Lake Cree Nation, Alexander Cree Nation, Kehewin Cree Nation, Lubicon Cree Nation, Little Pine Cree Nation, Piapot Cree Nation, Witcheken Cree Nation, Sweetgrass Cree Nation, James Smith, Saultaux, Sakimay, Muskoday, Serpent River Cree Nation, Starblanket Cree Nation and the Thunderchild Cree Nation.

The nations:

. . . believe in our Creation and it is the spiritual relationship that determines how we recognize and practice our inherent and Treaty rights on our lands. The relationship we have with our Creator, through the connection with our lands, is keeping with our Laws and practicing our inherent rights with our respective Treaty and traditional territories. The Nations maintain that we have always been sovereign nations and have always practiced our inherent rights in our territories given to us by our Creator. The Nations also assert that we have occupied our lands and territory in ways consistent with our traditional Cree . . . and Ojibwe . . . legal orders, laws, belief systems, governance structure(s) and these acts are found in and consistent with our languages. The Nations govern ourselves in accordance with our Laws that are distinct and separate from the state of Canada. Canada was created through an act of the British Parliament. We negotiated and made Treaties with the British Crown to allow for settlers to enter our territories. These were peace and friendship treaties and a subject of the UN Study on Treaties, Agreements and other Constructive Agreements undertaken by the late Miguel Alfonso-Martinez. Canada, as a successor state, inherited the obligations to implement the Treaties in good faith to uphold the honour of the Crown. However, the state of Canada has breached the treaties by unilaterally imposing on us, through its legal system, using policies, programs and legislation, including the "Indian Act." The "Indian Act" is federal legislation that restricts and limits the way in which Indigenous Nations included in this submission use our territories and access the resources of our territories. The Indian Act governs all aspects of our lives, from birth to death, in the designated "reserved" or "reserve" lands. However, these recognized "reserved lands" are only one small part of the larger traditional territories of the Nations that fall under lands within our respective Treaty territories. The Idle No More Indigenous movement began in early November in response to a suite of legislation introduced by Canada that directly affected Indigenous Peoples in the northern half of Turtle Island (now called Canada), including the Nations in this application. . . . The Indigenous Nations file this Request for Early Warning Measures and Urgent Procedures . . . to bring to the attention of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) the ongoing and systemic series of actions that violate fundamental human rights of the Nations, and Canada's complete disregard of the Recommendations of the CERD, which upholds the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The activities taking place in Canada have escalated into severe forms of racism and hatred being directed toward members of the Nations and other citizens of Indigenous ancestry within Canada. The action Canada is engaging in includes a complete denial of the Nations Indigenous rights, especially the right to self-determination. The denial of our rights is evident in the suite of legislation introduced by the Conservative government in Canada to usurp, disregard and deny the Nations existing sovereignty to our territories. We exercised our sovereignty by our original occupation in our territories, practice our own forms of government consistent with our own legal orders and laws that are found in our culture, traditions and languages. . . . Canada has introduced a suite of legislation that directly violates the Nations inherent Creator given rights, our human rights and our right to exercise and practice our self-determination within our respective traditional and treaty territories. The legislation was introduced in Canada's Parliament in 2012, and each bill is making its way through the parliamentary process to become law. Some bills are still making their way through the House of Commons and Senate before they become law. In total, there are 10 Bills that violate the inherent rights of nations, treaty promises made between the British Crown, which Canada is the successor state of and the Nations; and the right of self-determination of the Nations submitting this Request. Two of these bills (C-38 and Bill C-45) have already become law in Canada even though the Chiefs of Nations in this Request vehemently oppose the legislation. . . . The immediate bills that initiated the Idle No More Indigenous movement were Omnibus Bills C-38 and C-45, which despite widely held opposition and protest are now law in Canada. Omnibus Bills are Budget Bills that encompass multiple pieces of legislation, are hundreds of pages long and do not go through the regular course of parliamentary process to allow for more debate or consultation on contentious legislation set to be amended, repealed or enacted. An Omnibus Bill is best understood as: [A]n omnibus bill seeks to amend, repeal or enact several Acts, and it is characterized by the fact that it has a number of related but separate paths. An omnibus bill has "one basic principle or purpose which ties together all the proposed enactments and thereby renders the Bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes". One of the reasons cited for introducing an omnibus bill is to bring together in a single bill all legislative amendments resulting from policy decisions to facilitate parliamentary debate. The use of omnibus bills is unique to Canada. The British Parliament does enact this kind of bill, but its legislative practice is different, specifically in that there is much tighter control over the length of debate. During 2012, the Canadian government introduced two controversial Omnibus Bills that directly violate the Nations inherent Indigenous rights, including our human rights, those rights recognized by the treaty relationship and further denigrates the our right to self-determination. The process in which these Bills were enacted violates the Treaty terms and disregards the Treaty relationship that the Nations understood . . . and goes against the Nations right to self-determination. Canada has gone ahead and enacted bills without informing, including and engaging in meaningful consultations as they are required to do, as outlined in the Supreme Court jurisprudence on the Duty to Consult.

Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, before I continue reading the submission to the UN committee, let me just add my voice to those who say that it is absolutely preposterous to argue that there is any justification whatsoever for ramming this bill through more than a year before it will come into effect.

I read now from the submission to the UN committee:

On April 26, 2012, the Canadian government introduced Bill C-38 into the House of Commons for First Reading and on June 29, 2012, the Bill received Royal Assent without going through proper consultations with affected parties or groups, including the Nations who submit this Request. Within this controversial Bill were changes made to over 70 federal laws. There was also limited or no debate on the legislation that affected the Nations. The Bills that directly affect the Nations and other Indigenous people in Canada, within this Omnibus Bill, include, but are not limited to: a. "Enactment of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012" b. "First Nations Land Management Act" (repeal of s. 41) . . . c. "First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act" d. "First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act" e. "Fisheries Act" Despite opposition by Indigenous nations, various parties and concerned civil society groups, this bill is now law within the state of Canada. The law limits and restricts the ability for the Nations to exercise our inherent Indigenous rights to self-determination on our lands. The government's intention is to allow quicker access to our resources without any oversight. As a colonial country, Canada needs to access our territories to drive its economy and keep it at the height that the state presently enjoys. The state's enjoyment is at the cost to our environment and our Peoples. On October 18, 2012, the Canadian government introduced Bill C-45 into the House of Commons for first reading and on December 14, 2012, the Bill received Royal Assent. The Chiefs were not made aware of the changes in the laws that directly affect them until the Minister of Indian Affairs sent a mass mail out to the Chiefs on the 22nd of October 2012. This was a full four days after the legislation was introduced. There was no consultation with the Indigenous Nations prior to the introduction despite the fact that the Conservative government stated to various news media that consultation did indeed take place. Is this the way for the state of Canada to uphold the honour of the Crown? Further, failing to consult the Indigenous Nations who are directly impacted by these Bills is in contravention of a basic principle of democracy that is the participation of the people directly affected by government action to have a voice in such action.

(1450)

When the Chiefs attempted to make a statement before the Committee studying the bill, they were denied. There was a procedural difficulty as stated by the Committee clerk. The representatives were in the room but not allowed to address our concerns despite the government telling the Canadian public that the Chiefs had an opportunity to speak. This is also incorrect. Bill C-45 passed into law without going through proper consultations with affected parties and groups, including the Indigenous Nations who submit this Request. Within this Omnibus Bill were changes to over 50 federal laws including the "Indian Act" which directly affects our rights to our lands and territories. These amendments were made without input, debate and consultation from the Nations. The sections of the Indian Act that were amended deal with Indian lands and changes how our reserved lands are dealt with; specifically how lands are `designated' and `surrendered'. When Treaties were made we understood that we would share the land with newcomers. The colonial narrative continues today through continued introduction of legislation to control what we do on our own lands. For example, in current Senate Debate regarding the Idle No More movement in relation to C-45, the Hon Senator Dennis Glen Patterson states: I have been observing with concern the Idle No More movement, in particular protests — some of which involve unlawful obstruction and blockades — over the impacts of Bill C-45 as perceived by some Aboriginal leader and misinformed media reports. Amongst the more inflammatory claims made by the Idle No More movement is that Bill C-45 has ensured an easier path to the selling off of First Nation lands . In the December 12 edition of the Yukon News, Assembly of First Nations Regional Chief Mike Smith stated: We are the people of this land, and what we have to say to the governments of Canada and the Yukon is this land is not for sale. Further to that, according to a December 14 CBC report, protesters in P.E.I. stated that Bill C-45 proposes significant changes to land management on reserves that make it easier for the federal government to control reserved land. The statement made by the Senator demonstrates misunderstanding promoted by the state of Canada about our lands. The actions of the state of Canada violate our right to self-determination and enjoy our inherent Indigenous rights, and those derived through Treaty on our own lands.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Jim Munson: Honourable senators, I will continue with the submission to the eighty-second session of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. I am continuing to read from the submission from the 20 First Nations we are talking about.

I also join the chorus in denouncing this piece of legislation.

I will read from the transcript:

The First Nations Financial Transparency Act is the most recent Bill in Parliament and is in the final stages to becoming law. Currently, the Bill is being debated with the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. The Bill was in the Standing Committee of the House of Commons, our traditional Chiefs were not able to have input into the process. There was so much public outcry against the Bill and calls for major amendments and a consultation process that the Government imposed closure on the Bill. This cut off the democratic process.

It never seems to end.

The imposition of closure shut off the Opposition Parties within Parliament from proposing amendments. The Chiefs outside of Parliament were cut off from the parliamentary system. The Chiefs wanted to see major changes and a new process put in place to get our free, prior and informed consent as is our right as Treaty Peoples. Closure within the Parliamentary system of Canada is a heavy hand of the government to stop debate and discussions. It was arbitrary and swift. The purpose of this Bill as stated by Canada is meant to increase First Nations transparency by forcing leadership on the Nations to publicly disclose our finances. These financial records will be posted on a government of Canada website. It will interfere with our ability to do business and violate the privacy rights of citizens. Despite the comments by the Government, this Bill is meant to have access to all monies that the Nations made from our own sources. In addition, there is a myth about the legislation that is fueling racism against our Nations. Our Indigenous Nations already have multiple reporting measures we must meet before our monies are distributed by the government of Canada. This legislation perpetuates the myth that First Nations are corrupt and incapable of maintaining our own affairs. It further erodes our sovereignty status and our ability to assert our own principles of self-determination as the legislation undermines our traditional forms of government. In current Senate debate on this Bill the Hon Senator Dennis Glen Patterson makes the following statements regarding First Nations leaders and governments: "[T]hey (leaders — our emphasis) work to keep this information hidden, if not from all members, from those who oppose them. As reported by some witnesses before the committee considering this bill in the other place, intimidation has occurred in some communities when a member asked for access to this basic financial information." The statement made by Senator Patterson implies that all First Nations governments utilize corrupt tactics and assumes that First Nations leaders need legislation to keep them accountable to our members, further eroding our ability to develop our own governments through our inherent Indigenous rights. The statements further perpetuate the colonial narrative that First Nation leaders and governments are corrupt, incapable of maintaining our affairs and it belittles our ability to implement our own governance structure through practicing self-determination.

Hon. Elizabeth Hubley: Honourable senators, I wish to continue with the debate.

First of all, however, I would like to say as a previous member of the Aboriginal Committee how disappointing it is to be speaking against a bill that I feel is again a top-down approach to dealing with another nation, nation to nation, where we should be dealing with a bottom-up approach. It grieves me to think that we still have not learned the lessons of our past.

Regarding Bill C-428, the "Indian Act amendment and replacement act," the submission says:

On June 4, 2012 the Canadian government introduced Bill C-428 into the House of Commons for First Reading and it is making its way through Parliament to become law. This is a private member's Bill that seeks to make significant and sweeping changes to the Indian Act. To date, there has not been any meaningful consultation to discuss these drastic changes that would impact the Nations. The unique features of private member's Bills are best understood as: [T]he purpose or intent of a private bill is to confer special powers or benefits upon one or more persons or body of persons; or to exclude one or more persons or body of persons from the general application of the law. [A] private bill relates directly to the affairs of an individual or group of individuals, including a corporation, named in the bill; the bill seeks something which cannot be obtained by means of the general law and is founded on a petition from an individual or group of individuals. The Bill aims to make substantive changes and seeks to replace the Indian Act, yet no consultation has been initiated with First Nations by the Canadian government. The manner the Conservative government introduced this Bill giving a false impression. The media stories said that it was legislation desired by the Nations, and indeed various members of the Conservative government have stated to various news media that the Nations were consulted on this Bill. This statement by the Conservative government is not only incorrect, but furthers the colonial narrative that First Nations are irresponsible and incapable of making decisions in our own best interests and therefore substantive legislative amendments are required as thereby introduced by the Conservative government of Canada. The actions taken by the Conservative government by imposing this Bill denies the Nations our inherent Creator given rights, our human rights and the ability to exercise our self-determination within our respective territories.

(1500)

Turning to Bill S-2, the "family homes on reserve and matrimonial interests or rights act," the submission continues:

This Bill was introduced in the Senate on September 28, 2011 and recently went through second reading in the House of Commons on November 22, 2012. It has been tabled and referred to the Standing House Committee on the Status of Women. The Conservative MP that introduced the Bill into the House for debate suggested the Bill would "provide individuals living on reserves the similar matrimonial real property rights and protections as other Canadians living off reserve." However, there was inadequate consultation that meets the legal standard required with First Nations, especially the Nations. Furthermore, the Bill undermines the relationship the Nations understood to be in place as found in our Treaties. The Bill attempts to erode our inherent rights and those recognized in Treaty by subsuming our own laws under Canada thus denying our ability to practice self-determination. The problems with this Bill imposed on First Nations, especially the Nations, is best understood by the following comments made during this debate by one Member of Parliament who stated: I will insist on the fact that imposing provincial laws on first nations without their consent is problematic ethically and practically, and it also disregards their inherent rights and their sovereignty. However, that is nothing new. In fact, in the past year and a half, the Conservatives have imposed measures unilaterally, especially in aboriginal affairs. I am an expert in this area and, as the critic; I often talk about such matters. In this case, the Conservatives are just trying to prove that they have brought forward measures — albeit in a hasty, uninspired and rather disorganized manner — simply to take some credit and to say that they have dealt with the matter head-on. The conflicting perspectives in House debate on this Bill demonstrate the Conservative government's agenda in pushing through legislation that severely impedes on the Nations sovereignty; especially, our ability to exercise our own laws and jurisdiction by practicing self-determination. Further, it perpetuates the colonial narrative that First Nations are incapable or deciding for ourselves what is best for our citizens and Nations. The colonial legislative agenda suppresses the Nations ability to develop our own governance initiatives based on our own cultural and spiritual laws that guide our Nation's governments.

Hon. Terry M. Mercer: Honourable senators, I am saddened to take part in this afternoon's debate. I am further saddened — I am sure you are, and you should be ashamed yourselves — to read into the record further parts of the submission to the eighty-second session of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination with regard to Canada's failure to comply with UN human rights conventions and General Recommendation No. 23 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. It is sad that this is what it has come to, folks — that our First Nations people again have to appeal to the United Nations.

Let me go on:

Bill S-6 "First Nations Elections Act" This Senate Bill was introduced on December 6, 2011 and was introduced in first reading in the House on May 4, 2012. This Bill attempts to make changes to the elections of leadership of First Nations that will enable the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to have more control over First Nations government's by imposing an election process emanating from colonial origins.

That ought to make you proud over there.

The Conservative Senator that sponsored this Bill made the following statements in debate regarding the Bill: [P]rovide First Nations with the right tools and frameworks for modern government. The benefits it will bring about are too good to ignore. Bill S-6 will discourage questionable election practices and encourage practices that are reliable, consistent, effective and less open to abuse. The First Nations elections act is legislation coming from the Government of Canada. . . . The Senate debate on this Bill perpetuates the colonial agenda and narrative that First Nations forms of traditional government, based on our values, culture and spiritual beliefs are inadequate and backwards and that our Nations are best served by legislation introduced by the Conservative government to ‘modernize̕ the Nations government processes. However, the Bill undermines the Nations jurisdiction, sovereignty and ability to practice self-determination in our territories that originate from our Creator given inherent rights and our human rights. Bill S-8 "Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act" This Senate Bill was introduced on February 29, 2012 and is currently in second reading in the House being debated as of November 26, 2012. This Bill attempts to introduce Canadian government regulations related to water on the Nations lands which the government says will address concerns of water quality. However, the Bill undermines the Nations own inherent government laws and jurisdiction within our territories. A First Nation leader who spoke during one of the debates discusses the concerns of lack of consultation on the Bill and stated "Bill S-8, [C]ontinues a pattern of unilaterally imposed legislation and does not meet the standards of joint development and clear recognition of First Nation jurisdiction". Regarding lack of consultation in developing the Bill, one MP made the following statements about the concerns this Bill raises: There is no recognition in this legislation that the first nations themselves may already have a regime for safe drinking water or may choose to go down the path, with assistance from the federal government, of implementing our own regime. There are also problems with the non-derogation clause, which one could shoot cannon through, a huge exemption. Clause 7 also provides a potential conflict with section 35 of the Constitution, where it would allow federal regulations under Bill S-8 to prevail over first nation laws. The lack of consultation on this Bill is another concern the Nations have and how the imposed legislation disregards the treaty relationship, our inherent Indigenous rights, our human rights and our ability to practice self-determination. There is another large problem with the legislation. The government of Canada could force our Nations into arrangements with private companies to provide water in our territories for our members. The legislation is going to impose big obligations on the Nations without any funding to support the imposed criteria as set out in the bill. Essentially, the government of Canada is setting our nations for failure. The legislation undermines our rights to water — when we made treaties with the Crown — we did not give up or surrender our rights to water.

(1510)

Hon. Grant Mitchell: Honourable senators, Bill S-212, the First Nations Self-Government Recognition Bill —

. . . was introduced on November 1, 2012 and is currently in First Reading. The Bill had been introduced a number of times in the past twenty years. It has undergone amendments and is now called Bill S-212. The Bill attempts to provide a legislative process for First Nations to become self-governing in designating similar authorities to the provincial powers. Since this Bill was introduced, there has not been any consultation with First Nations on the impacts it has on the Nations governments and our inherent human and indigenous rights and those rights recognized by the Treaty relationship. Imposing legislation on First Nations not only disregards our forms of traditional government that are based on our values, culture and spirituality, and implies such forms are backwards needing of improvement, but also perpetuates the colonial narrative about First Nations that our culture is stuck in the past requiring Canadian intervention.

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore: Honourable senators, it is so discouraging when our own people have to go outside of Canada to try to seek justice. Our first families literally have to go outside of Canada to seek justice against their own — I will not say government — but their own counter-nation.

I will start with "Section B, "The Nations Response to Imposed Legislation":

The Idle No More Indigenous movement which started in early November through local teach-ins began in response to bring attention to the suite of legislation that has been referred to as First Nation termination legislation. Each Bill is at various stages in the parliamentary process making our way to becoming law. Despite attempts to stop the progress of these Bills through peaceful demonstrations (rally's, public round dancing, letter writing campaign's etc.) our demands have fallen on deaf ears of the Canadian government. Through this legislative process, Canada is attempting to silence us. The government is denying our ability to raise issues related to treaties that govern our relationship. The process of silencing and erasing of the Treaty relationship undermines the state of Canada within the international community. The state needs the treaties to give them the legitimacy to any interests in our territories. Canada, as a treaty successor state, is obligated to uphold the Treaties made with the Crown. Canada is directly connected to the colonial narrative that the Nations are not sovereign entities and our Nations require legislation imposed by Canada to govern our affairs as such narrative justifies the continued dispossession of our Nations' lands, resources and the denial of our inherent rights including our human rights, and those rights recognized by the Treaty relationships. The denial of our nationhood is evident through Canada's refusal to include us in discussions related to the way in which this legislation became introduced as it was done without our input. The national political organizations which are non-profit corporations created under Canadian legislation did not make treaties. These organizations did not make Treaties with the Crown. These organizations do not have standing to be consulted on behalf of the Nations who made Treaties with the Crown.

I would ask honourable senators to pay attention here, please.

Some Hon. Senators: Order.

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (The Hon. the Acting Speaker): There is a little bit of disturbance.

Senator Moore: Thank you, Your Honour.

In numerous letters to the Prime Minister, we have raised concerns about the impact the legislation has on our Nations and we were denied the opportunity to be included in the democratic process. Under Article 18 of the United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ("UNDRIP") the Nations are entitled to: [T]he right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect our rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision making institutions. The refusal to include us in the process violates our inherent rights; our right recognized through treaty making, and further denies our ability to practice self-determination. For example, Chiefs of the Nations represented in this Request received a letter from the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Development Canada ("AANDC") on October 22, 2012 stating amendments would be made to the Indian Act contained within Bill C-45. The Chiefs of the Nations did not ask for these changes and further were not consulted in any way that meets the international standard of free, prior and informed consent as outlined in Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ("UNDRIP"). As a result of this, we were forced to write written submissions to Committee in order to have our concerns addressed and even then, this act fell on deaf ears as the legislation passed into law on December 14, 2012. Opposition to Bill C-38, C-45 and the remaining suite of legislation is found in letters, press releases, Resolutions we sent to the Prime Minister and when our requests were not heard to stop the Bills the Chiefs of the Nations were forced to make a physical demonstration on Parliament Hill on December 4, 2012. Chiefs of the Nations have made every effort to oppose the suite of legislation imposed upon us through mechanisms made available to us. We continue to be denied input into decisions made by Canada that undermine the Nations tribal governments' which continue to oppress our people through these colonial legislative agendas.

[Translation]

Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire: Honourable senators, I would like to steer the debate in a different direction. Instead of looking at the issue from a technical perspective, why not look at it from a moral and ethical perspective? I think that this bill shows not only a lack of sensitivity, but also a fundamental lack of recognition for people who have every right to expect to be respected in accordance with their own social values and therefore as full members of Canadian society.

I would like to read an excerpt from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act about Aboriginal people. I want to share what we say to the people who immigrate to our country, what we ask of them and what we offer them, and I ask that we keep in mind that we are the ones who are immigrants here, since the Aboriginal peoples were here long before us. We came and we have evolved with these peoples over the decades and centuries. I would like to flip this around and ask you this: what do we do with the people who are immigrating now and how do we respond to these newcomers compared to what we do with Aboriginal people?

I would like to read the following:

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act provides a legal framework to guide federal responsibilities [our responsibilities] and activities in regard to multiculturalism in Canada.

Here are the basic principles of the act. First, the act:

Reaffirms multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society.

We integrate. They are part of us and we are part of a whole.

Second, the act:

Encourages federal institutions to uphold longstanding values of respect, fairness and equality of opportunity with respect to members of diverse groups.

Third, the act:

Helps protect the rights of all Canadians, foster the full participation of all members of society, celebrate Canada's diverse heritage, and recognize the vast contributions of all Canadians regardless of their ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic background.

And lastly, the act:

Encourages federal institutions to carry out their activities in a manner that is sensitive and responsive to the multicultural reality of Canada.

(1520)

It is a far-reaching law that is designed to ensure that those who come to Canada are warmly welcomed here. It also ensures that they not only respect the fundamental values of our country, but that they also respect who we are so that we can work together and they can grow as part of our country.

Bill C-27 is being imposed on us in a draconian and less than democratic fashion. It is fine for us to talk and have discussions here, but if we are not able to take that debate further because we are the minority, because our viewpoint differs from that of the government, and if we are not able to have an in-depth debate on a topic as important as other human beings who live in this country and who have every right to be treated with respect and recognition, why are we here?

We may as well not bother, which is what many would prefer, and leave everything in the hands of the cabinet. We do not even need legislators. All we need is the executive and, sometimes, the judiciary, in a pinch. It is like saying, "Everyone else can go home." Maybe they are right; maybe we are wasting money.

Canadians can tell by this bill and the way it is being handled that we are not being paid to do our job right now. Instead, we are being paid to allow an autocratic, overbearing, unyielding power to impose its will and its vision on the future of nations that were here long before us and that have every right to be respected.

I will be voting against this bill not because it is technically flawed, but because I believe that it is fundamentally opposed to the values, ethics and morals that we stand for. These are people who have given their lives in service to the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian people and who have been ready to die to help us. Now it seems that we are not ready to recognize them and to give them a fair chance in institutions like this one in the context of a debate that should be reviewing the content of such an ill-conceived bill imposed so autocratically.

Do not talk to me about democracy when the government in power behaves so autocratically.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Will all those in favour of the motion please say "yea"?

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

Hon. Fernand Robichaud: Would the Honourable the Acting Speaker please read the motion that we are voting on aloud?

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Carignan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Nancy Ruth:

That, pursuant to rule 7-2, not more than a further six hours of debate be allocated for consideration at third reading of Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations.

I have already asked the question about senators in favour and I will now ask: All those opposed to the motion please say "nay"?

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: In my opinion, the "yeas" have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, the bells will ring for 30 minutes. The vote will take place at 3:55 p.m.

Call in the senators.

(1550)

[English]

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Batters McInnis Bellemare McIntyre Beyak Meredith Boisvenu Mockler Braley Nancy Ruth Brown Neufeld Buth Ngo Carignan Ogilvie Champagne Oh Dagenais Patterson Demers Plett Doyle Poirier Duffy Raine Eaton Rivard Enverga Runciman Gerstein Seidman Greene Seth Housakos Smith (Saurel) Johnson Stewart Olsen Lang Tkachuk LeBreton Unger MacDonald Verner Maltais Wallace Manning Wells Marshall White—51 Martin

NAYS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Baker Jaffer Callbeck Joyal Charette-Poulin McCoy Cowan Mercer Dallaire Mitchell Dyck Moore Eggleton Munson Fraser Ringuette Harb Robichaud Hervieux-Payette Tardif Hubley Zimmer—22

ABSTENTIONS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Nil

(1600)

Hon. Denise Batters moved second reading of Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.

She said: Honourable senators, I am honoured to rise today for the first time as a senator in this chamber. I have lived and worked in Saskatchewan my whole life, and I am proud to represent the people of Saskatchewan in this hallowed place.

I welcome the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-55, the Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Bill. This is an important piece of legislation. It concerns section 184.4 of the Criminal Code. This gives the authority to intercept private communications, to wiretap, without judicial authorization in cases of imminent harm. Section 184.4 is critical from a law enforcement perspective. It is used by the police in situations like bomb threats and kidnappings.

Honourable senators, the legislative context in which we find ourselves requires that we move quickly. The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Tse declared that section 184.4 of the Criminal Code was constitutionally invalid. The court suspended its declaration of invalidity until April 13, 2013. If Bill C-55 does not pass through Parliament before then, the police will no longer be able to rely on section 184.4 in situations involving an immediate risk of imminent harm. I will expand on the possible consequences of this later in my remarks, but obviously those consequences are potentially very serious.

At its core, honourable senators, the bill before you represents the government's execution of the roadmap provided by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Tse. Before speaking more specifically about the content of Bill C-55, let me say a few words about how section 184.4 relates to other wiretap provisions included in the Criminal Code.

The interception power in section 184.4, which does not require court authorization and is only used in exceptional circumstances, is different than the emergency interception power contained in section 188 of the Criminal Code. Under section 188, a specially designated peace officer can obtain the authorization of a designated judge to intercept private communications for a maximum of 36 hours. This would occur in situations where a conventional wiretap authorization cannot be obtained with reasonable diligence within the time constraints at hand. Unlike section 184.4, which does not require a judicial authorization, section 188 involves an abbreviated process for a judicial authorization.

On the other hand, for the police to rely on section 184.4 of the Criminal Code, the time frame within which the wiretap is needed must be so short that even the expedited process provided for by section 188 is not feasible. Put another way, honourable senators, while both section 188 and section 184.4 contemplate wiretapping in emergency situations, section 184.4 is available in a far more limited class of emergencies.

The existence of section 188 itself underlines the necessity of using section 184.4 only where it is absolutely essential. In the R. v. Tse decision, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that section 188, along with other wiretaps authorized by the Criminal Code, ensures that the availability of the authority under section 184.4 is inherently time-limited. Before using section 184.4, police must first assess the ability to use other provisions. When section 184.4 is used, police must move to use other wiretap provisions as soon as possible.

Let me now turn to the amendments proposed in Bill C-55. The overarching goal of the bill is to add accountability and privacy-related safeguards to section 184.4 of the Criminal Code. Bill C-55 accomplishes this goal by doing four things. First, it would require after-the-fact notification to those people whose private communications have been intercepted in exigent circumstances under section 184.4. Second, it would require annual reports on the use of section 184.4 powers. Third, it would limit the application of section 184.4 to the list of offences in section 183 of the Criminal Code. Fourth, it would narrow the availability of section 184.4 wiretaps to police officers.

The addition of these safeguards would ensure that the essential power for police to respond in a crisis under section 184.4 continues to be available. I will frame my discussion of these four components around the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Tse.

The Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. Tse that after-the-fact notification, or a comparable safeguard, was the one change to the law necessary for section 184.4 of the Criminal Code to be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The notice provision provided for in Bill C-55 is similar to existing wiretap notification requirements in the Criminal Code. It sets out that a person who is the object of an interception under section 184.4 must be notified of that fact within 90 days of the interception occurring. The 90-day deadline is subject to extensions granted by a judge. The notification scheme created by Bill C-55 follows the guidance of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Tse.

The second modification proposed in Bill C-55 would subject the use of section 184.4 to a public reporting requirement. Although the Supreme Court of Canada held that reporting was not constitutionally required, the court did endorse the concept of reporting as good public policy. This concept was also endorsed by some of the lower courts that have weighed in on the constitutionality of section 184.4 of the Criminal Code.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-55 would extend, with necessary modifications, the reporting requirements that presently exist for other wiretapping provisions in the Criminal Code to section 184.4 wiretaps. The addition of such a requirement for annual reporting would enhance the transparency and public understanding of the provision.

The third amendment would limit the availability of section 184.4 to cases where it is immediately necessary to prevent the commission of an offence as defined in section 183 of the Criminal Code. The definition of "offence" in section 183 covers a relatively broad scope of criminal activity but is designed to be limited to more serious offences. In contrast, the current language in section 184.4 refers only to the prevention of unlawful acts, which can be interpreted more broadly.

(1610)

Narrowing the application of section 184.4 of the Criminal Code to "offences" was viewed as constitutionally necessary by some lower courts in British Columbia and Quebec. While this view was not endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada, the government believes, nevertheless, that limiting the application of section 184.4 is a worthwhile endeavour. In addition to narrowing the availability of section 184.4 wiretaps to a list of specific offences, this amendment would also harmonize section 184.4 with other wiretap provisions that are similarly restricted to section 183 listed offences.

Honourable senators, it is important to note that in the deliberations on Bill C-55 by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Criminal Lawyers' Association, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Bar Association all advised the committee that they supported this amendment.

Finally, Bill C-55 would also limit the availability of the provision to police officers. Currently, section 184.4 is available to peace officers, a term with a rather broad definition in section 2 of the Criminal Code.

In R. v. Tse, the Supreme Court of Canada indicated it did not consider, based on the evidentiary record before it, that it could pronounce on this aspect of section 184.4; however, the decision did suggest that the government might wish to consider narrowing the provision, since the availability of section 184.4 to the broad category of peace officers could make section 184.4 constitutionally vulnerable in the future.

For this reason, Bill C-55 proposes limiting the availability of section 184.4 to police officers. This is defined in section 183 as "any officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace."

This definition is used elsewhere in the Criminal Code and in other statutes. It has been interpreted as including all federally and provincially designated police authorities as well as enforcement officers who have a duty that involves the "preservation and maintenance of the public peace." This would include, for example, military police, who are first responders on military bases, but would not include those who are not appointed pursuant to a statute. It would exclude privately employed security officials such as mall security or office building security guards.

This sums up the safeguards the government is proposing to add to section 184.4 of the Criminal Code. They comply with the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Tse. Plus, they strike an appropriate balance between the need for the police to act quickly and decisively in cases of imminent harm and the need for privacy and accountability.

Honourable senators, I would like to emphasize that in addition to the safeguards that would be added to section 184.4 by Bill C-55, all of the existing limitations on the use of section 184.4 would be maintained. The Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged in R. v. Tse that the existing restrictions on the use of section 184.4 limit it to genuine emergency situations. The police can rely on section 184.4 only where the situation is too urgent to obtain a wiretap authorization, the interception is immediately necessary to prevent harm to any person or to property, and the originator or recipient of the communication is the perpetrator of the harm or the victim or intended victim of the harm.

I will conclude my remarks today by urging honourable senators to study this bill and pass it as soon as possible. As I mentioned earlier, section 184.4 of the Criminal Code will be constitutionally invalid after April 13, 2013, if the changes in this bill are not enacted by that date. If these changes do not happen, law enforcement will lose the ability to rely on section 184.4 for wiretapping without a judicial authorization when there is a risk of imminent harm.

From a law enforcement perspective, section 184.4 is of critical importance. In R. v. Tse, for example, the police used the provision to intercept telephone communications in order to investigate three related kidnappings. Similarly, in Ontario the police resorted to section 184.4 of the Criminal Code in the aftermath of a gang-related shooting in order to determine the whereabouts of a suspect and prevent him from committing any further violent acts. In another case in British Columbia, section 184.4 was used to prevent a murder after, in the course of a homicide investigation, the police learned of an impending hit. The police knew the identity of the would-be perpetrator but did not know the identity of the target. In light of the time pressure and the unique investigative context, section 184.4 of the Criminal Code was the only investigative tool that could be expediently used to prevent the murder.

As honourable senators can imagine, section 184.4 can be used in many such situations. It can be used in crises, such as a chemical weapon threat or threats of gang violence. Depriving police of this investigative tool could hinder the ability of the police to respond to critical situations involving threats of imminent harm. As we definitely do not want that to occur, I encourage honourable senators to move quickly to pass Bill C-55.

Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, let me begin by congratulating Senator Batters on her very clear and well-delivered explanation of this bill. It is indeed a necessary bill. We all have to agree that there are times when the police desperately and very quickly need to be able to use a wiretap without getting a warrant. As the Supreme Court said in the Tse case, extreme measures in extreme circumstances, and this bill responds to the Tse judgment that Senator Batters discussed. Therefore, we do have to act.

My problems have to do as much with the process as with any particular element of this bill. It is now nearly a year since the Supreme Court of Canada told us we needed to fix this element of the law. That was on April 13 last year. Now we find ourselves in the Senate with four sitting days, including this one, to dispose of a very serious amendment to the Criminal Code. I do not think that is acceptable.

It worked out that way because initially the government was sort of going to wrap this particular necessary change into the infamous Bill C-30, I think it was, on electronic communications. I cannot imagine why they did that, because it was obvious from the start that Bill C-30 would have a very rough passage. It would have been so easy to move expeditiously a year ago to do what they are doing now with this bill. Instead, they sat around until finally that bill was withdrawn on February 11, 2013, and this bill was presented in its stead.

The House of Commons did its best to study the bill fairly expeditiously. Since February 11, honourable senators, we have had two break weeks. Now we have received the bill, and we have four days to spend examining it. If we find anything in this bill that should be fixed, that is too bad. As we all know, if the Senate amends a bill, it has to go back to the House of Commons, and the House of Commons will be away on Easter break and will not be back until after the drop-dead Supreme Court deadline of April 13 this year.

Senator Mercer: Poor management.

(1620)

Senator Fraser: Very poor management. That is why the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, on order from the Senate, had begun a pre-study of the bill. Now that the bill is before the Senate, the committee will move into regular consideration of it, although on an expedited basis. I congratulate the Chair of the Legal C