Previous Sittings

Order Paper and Notice Paper

Previous Sittings

Journals of the Senate

Previous Sittings

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Download as PDF

1st Session, 44th Parliament
Volume 153, Issue 223

Tuesday, October 1, 2024
The Honourable Raymonde Gagné, Speaker

SENATORS’ STATEMENTS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
- Canada National Parks Act
  - Bill to Amend—First Reading
- Banking, Commerce and the Economy
  - Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Canada’s Monetary Policy Framework
QUESTION PERIOD
ORDERS OF THE DAY

THE SENATE

Tuesday, October 1, 2024

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

Prayers.

[Translation]

SENATORS’ STATEMENTS

Importance of Dialogue Between Governments and Socio-economic Partners

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Honourable senators, today, Senators Cardozo, Cuzner, Harder, Klyne, Oudar, Ross, Yussuff and myself are sponsoring an event to highlight the importance of dialogue between governments and economic and social partners in order to ensure sustainable and inclusive prosperity for all Canadians and Indigenous peoples.

In our era, we are experiencing major disruptions that are threatening our prosperity and that of our children, threatening our democracy and world peace, and threatening the survival of our planet.

The complex challenges that we are facing in free and democratic countries cannot be solved only through the goodwill and good ideas of governments, which are often influenced by the need to win over voters.

The most effective strategies require the ongoing, coordinated participation of all stakeholders. Canada, like other free and democratic countries, must complement its policy and strategy development process with ongoing dialogue between governments and socio-economic partners in order to share a common understanding and vision, identify winning solutions and, most importantly, implement them as quickly as possible.

[English]

In free and democratic societies, governments may find themselves unable to identify and implement the appropriate strategies to deal with complex issues. A call for individual responsibility may not be enough. A shared understanding of the issues, built through dialogue and the engagement of the entire society around the best solutions, is needed.

This practice is called social dialogue, the word “social” meaning “socio-economic partners.” The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and other United Nations organizations are calling on free and democratic countries to strengthen social dialogue to achieve sustainable development goals and to promote peace.

In Canada and the United States, while social dialogue is practised in many sectors, such as the workforce and local and regional development boards, the terminology itself is less commonly recognized. No matter what we call it, dialogue between representatives of different social and economic sectors remains a necessary practice that must be promoted in our democratic institutions.

The example of the recent pandemic clearly shows that federal, provincial and territorial governments can work together when the threat is serious. However, during this crisis, Canada could have done better on employment and economic issues if governments had worked more closely with organizations representing workers and businesses, as was the case in some countries.

I believe the Senate can play a significant role in building a permanent dialogue between all governments and socio-economic sectors. I invite you to come and meet representatives of several social and economic groups linked to the labour market, gathering today from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. in the senators’ lounge.

Thank you, meegwetch and tshinashkumitin.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

National Seniors Day

Hon. Toni Varone: Honourable senators, I rise today to recognize that today is National Seniors Day. Each year on October 1, Canadians pay tribute to the seniors who have shaped our country and who continue to enrich our lives every day. Many of us in this esteemed chamber are seniors ourselves, and it is with great humility that I honour each of you.

I feel truly blessed to still have my mother with me. In her ninety-fourth year, she continues to share the invaluable pearls of wisdom that only come with age. As I’ve mentioned in this chamber before, my mother was a war child who, before the age of 13, endured typhoid, malaria and yellow fever and has survived two plane crashes. When COVID-19 emerged a few years ago and I expressed my concern for her health, her reply was simple and unyielding: “After everything I’ve faced, COVID is undermatched.”

Seniors represent a significant and growing segment of Canada’s population. They are workers, mentors, teachers, parents, grandparents and cherished loved ones. Their contributions have been essential in building our families, communities and workplaces, making Canada a wonderful place to call home. After a lifetime of hard work and dedication to our economy, seniors deserve a stable and secure retirement, with equitable access to health care and caregiving.

I am proud to witness this government’s initiatives aimed at making life more affordable for seniors, including the implementation of the Canadian Dental Care Plan and enhancements to Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Additionally, I commend the government’s commitment to developing a national caregiving strategy and advancing legislation to establish new national long-term care standards. It is crucial that we continue to support financial aid and resources for our seniors’ well-being, especially during these challenging economic times.

I also want to express my deepest gratitude to those who support seniors on a daily basis, particularly the health care workers who tirelessly care for this vulnerable population. I think of the dedicated staff at my mother’s residence — the nurses, personal support workers and doctors — who uphold the dignity of residents and attend to their unique needs and strengths. I commend every health care professional who works with seniors; I recognize the challenges they face and I am grateful for their commitment.

In closing, Canada’s seniors have been there for us throughout our lives, and now it is our turn to be there for them. I encourage everyone to take a moment today to reach out to a senior in their life to wish them a Happy National Seniors Day and to thank them for the countless contributions they have made to our society and our country.

Grazie, thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Senator Busson’s daughter, Constable Erin Willcocks, Erin’s husband, Staff Sergeant Greg Willcocks of the RCMP, and her grandchildren, Jordynn and Ethan.

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

China—Human Rights

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, today, October 1, marks the anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. While this day is celebrated with grand displays and military might and pageantry in Beijing, I’m here not to celebrate but to stand in solidarity with those whose voices have been silenced, whose freedoms have been stripped away and whose dignity has been denied. We must remember, especially on the day when the PRC distracts from its record of repression with grand displays of patriotism, the ongoing human rights abuses committed by the Chinese Communist Party.

At the same time, we should also honour the contributions of Chinese Canadians who, in their fight for justice and freedom, have shown us the strength of resilience, the power of community and the hope for a brighter future despite current circumstances. We must continue to distinguish the Chinese people from the party and fight for justice.

(1410)

In recent years, the world has witnessed the escalating repression inflicted by the regime in Beijing. In mainland China, dissidents who once bravely spoke out, like those in the Tiananmen Square protests, continue to face imprisonment, surveillance and harsh repression for challenging the Chinese Communist Party’s authority.

In Hong Kong, the national security law has crushed civil liberties, silenced journalists and dismantled democracy. Many have been exiled or imprisoned, but their fight for freedom endures.

Meanwhile, in Xinjiang, over a million Muslim Uighurs and ethnic minorities are held in re-education camps — sites of forced labour and cultural genocide. In Tibet, decades of suppression have sought to erase Tibetan culture and religion, with strict controls over religious practices and severe crackdowns on any form of dissent.

The Chinese Communist Party continues to be belligerent toward Taiwan and other neighbours in the Asia-Pacific, flexing their tyrannical reflexes. Canada must uphold its commitment to human rights using tools like the Magnitsky Act to sanction those responsible for Beijing’s repression. Canada must stand with international allies and hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable.

On this day, as the Chinese Communist Party celebrates its power, we stand united in opposition to tyranny and for the Chinese people’s right to live freely and without fear. Let today remind us that the fight for human rights endures, and we honour the courage of those who resist. To the people of China, Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan and others, you are not forgotten. Canada will continue to raise its voice for a world where everyone enjoys fundamental rights.

Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of scientists and innovators from Research New Brunswick. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Ross.

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

ResearchNB

Hon. Krista Ross: Honourable senators, it is with great pride that I rise today to celebrate the outstanding work of the researchers and innovators of Research New Brunswick, or ResearchNB. ResearchNB’s mission is to power discovery together. By supporting research from the ground up with funding, guidance and connections, the projects funded by ResearchNB change lives. They strengthen the health care system, build talent and capacity and lead to new innovative health and bioscience solutions. The work and talent of these many researchers deserves to be recognized, and I am thrilled to have a few of them joining me here in the Senate today.

Tomorrow evening in the Wellington Building, ResearchNB will be hosting an event to showcase their latest and most exciting research, and I invite all senators to attend. This is a wonderful opportunity to highlight New Brunswick’s thriving research ecosystem and demonstrate why New Brunswick is Canada’s innovation sandbox where we can mobilize research from knowledge to action and expand the results across the country.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the positive projects of ResearchNB. Many of these projects support critical research in the health care sector, including research in disease prevention and tracking, cancer treatment and the optimization of health care access. These innovations are contributing to a stronger health care system in New Brunswick by developing crucial initiatives that will save and enhance lives throughout our communities.

Developing new technologies is key to the growth of the health and bioscience sectors. Further research in the technology sector has highlighted the innovative nature of many of these projects. This has included the use of artificial intelligence to make prostheses more efficient and adaptable, improving the lives of people with an amputation. ResearchNB’s support for projects in bioenergy and sustainability is also critical to the lives of future generations, creating a more sustainable future for New Brunswick and Canada. This includes research in the protection of New Brunswick’s coastal communities and applying sustainable development principles to the management of our province’s industries.

By generating innovation in these sectors, ResearchNB is ensuring the long-term sustainability of our resources and our economy.

Colleagues, I think it is safe to say that ResearchNB is truly improving the research ecosystem of New Brunswick and demonstrating how well New Brunswickers can rise to today’s challenges and contribute to the betterment of our country.

It has been a pleasure to learn more about the leading-edge research being driven by my guests today, and I invite you all to join me tomorrow to learn even more about the great work of New Brunswick researchers and ResearchNB. Thank you. Wela’lin.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

Creative Solutions Through Collaboration

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Colleagues, the hallmarks of the Senate as an institution are its spirit of collegiality and collaboration and a time-honoured respect for the integrity of each of us. It is a political forum that fosters honest discussion of the critical issues facing our country, while contributing a degree of humanity to our political environment.

The beauty of our democracy resides in the diversity of conflicting and opposing opinions that it engenders, and how easily we are able to express these opinions and change them. That is a tribute to our capacity for self-governance and our commitment to a process of improvement.

[English]

I want to take this time to acknowledge the strong feelings expressed by my colleagues regarding the sacred nature of opinion pieces in the press. Rules and procedures are not static; they can evolve over time when circumstances necessitate change. I, personally, am committed to ensuring that views pertaining to this issue are heard and considered at the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. I want all senators to feel at ease to express their views and disagreements with respect to processes that exist within the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee’s mandate.

As the chair of the committee, I feel compelled to clearly express that we are taking all of your feedback with careful consideration. More importantly, I wish to uphold this tradition of collegiality and respect by expressing regrets personally to my colleague Senator Plett for the unfortunate turn of events that resulted in your opinion piece in The Hill Times being modified without your consent or knowledge. I sympathize with the situation you have been placed in following the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee’s procedure.

Senator Plett and I had an engaging and constructive conversation on this issue, and we were able to settle our differences. Thank you for agreeing to meet with me, Senator Plett. I’m hoping we will continue this long tradition of collegiality, collaboration and respect of integrity that is unique to the Senate, and that we continue to serve Canadians in the best way we know how, striving to find creative solutions and engage in constructive dialogue. Thank you, colleagues, for your attention.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Kateri Coade, daughter of the Honourable Senator Francis, and his granddaughters, Kiara and Kate Coade.

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Homage to Demasduit

Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, today I am pleased to present Chapter 82 of “Telling Our Story.”

Colleagues, yesterday in the historic Town of Botwood, Newfoundland and Labrador, a very special ceremony took place to mark another step on our continuing path of reconciliation. A bronze statue was unveiled in a healing garden atop Blueberry Hill, overlooking the beautiful Bay of Exploits, to commemorate 200 years since the death of one of the last known Beothuk in Newfoundland and Labrador. The statue depicts Demasduit, her husband and their infant child.

In the fall of 1818, a small group of Beothuks captured a boat and some fishing equipment near the mouth of the Exploits River. On March 1, 1819, John Peyton Jr., and eight armed men went up the Exploits River to Beothuk Lake in search of the Beothuks and their equipment. When they came into contact with a small group of Beothuks, things went terribly wrong.

A dozen Beothuks fled the campsite, with Demasduit among them. As a nursing mother, she begged for mercy when captured. Nonosabasut, her husband and the leader of the group, was killed while attempting to negotiate for Demasduit’s release. Her infant son died two days after she was taken.

Demasduit was taken to Twillingate and, for a time, lived with the Anglican priest Reverend John Leigh. The reverend renamed her Mary March, after the Virgin Mary and the month in which she was kidnapped. Eventually, she ended up being moved to St. John’s, brought there by Reverend Leigh and her captor, John Peyton Jr. It was there where Lady Hamilton painted her portrait.

During the summer of 1819, after the people of St. John’s and Notre Dame Bay raised the money, several attempts were made to return Demasduit to her people, without success. Captain David Buchan was to go overland to Beothuk Lake in November, but, sadly, Demasduit took ill. On January 8, 1820, she died from tuberculosis at Ship Cove, now called Botwood, aboard Buchan’s vessel, the Grasshopper. Her body was left in a coffin on the lakeshore, where it was found by her fellow Beothuks and returned to her village where, initially, she was placed in a burial hut beside her husband and child. Her remains and her husband’s remains were later removed by William Cormack, brought to Scotland and held in the National Museum of Scotland.

(1420)

In 2015, Chief Mi’sel Joe spearheaded an effort to have the remains of Demasduit and her husband brought back home to Newfoundland. There was resistance at the beginning, but anyone who is familiar with Chief Joe is fully aware that he is dedicated to every cause that he takes on. In 2020, after 191 years in Scotland, the remains were repatriated to Canada and are now stored at The Rooms in St. John’s.

In 2022, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced plans for a new cultural centre at Beothuk Lake to serve as a final resting place for the remains. With the unveiling of the statue yesterday, our well-known sculptor Morgan Macdonald said about his latest project, “It’s a huge responsibility to take this part of heritage in our province and do it justice.”

He added that he took care to research the family and portray them as accurately as possible.

James Sceviour, the Mayor of Botwood, said that the chosen location for the statue is very fitting as the site overlooks the area where Demasduit is believed to have died, noting that Demasduit’s ancestors would have used the river running from the Bay of Exploits as a seasonal migration route to travel from their winter homes to their summer fishing grounds.

Andrew Furey, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, called the unveiling of the statue a step toward reconciliation. He said that the statues and the spirits they capture will now forever be a monument of the past, a gathering place for reflection today and a beacon of light and hope for the path of reconciliation.

Congratulations to everyone involved in this momentous project. It is just another great reason to come visit our beautiful province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Mr. Nguyen Duc Hai, Vice Chairman of the National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, and His Excellency Mr. Pham Vinh Quang, Ambassador to Canada of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. They are accompanied by a delegation from Viet Nam.

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Canada National Parks Act

Bill to Amend—First Reading

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act.

(Bill read first time.)

(Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on September 25, 2024, the bill was placed on the Orders of the Day for a second reading later this day.)

Banking, Commerce and the Economy

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Canada’s Monetary Policy Framework

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

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy be authorized to examine and report on Canada’s monetary policy framework, including but not limited to potential updates to the Bank of Canada’s:

(a)legislative and public mandate,

(b)operational inflation target, and

(c)preferred measures of inflation

that may be considered as part of its upcoming monetary policy framework agreement renewal in 2026;

That the Committee report its findings to the Senate from time to time, but no later than June 30, 2025;

That the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report; and

That the committee be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit reports on this study with the Clerk of the Senate, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the reports be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

QUESTION PERIOD

Finance

Cost of Living

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, after nine long years of this NDP-Liberal government, the ongoing cost-of-living crisis has robbed Canadians of affordable housing and groceries. It has taken something else as well: their hope. Statistics Canada reports that less than half of Canadians feel “. . . highly satisfied . . .” with their lives, down 5% since 2021. Hopefulness about the future also fell a similar percentage. Financial struggles were closely tied to the decline. Statistics Canada also said, “In 2024, Canadians of all age groups were feeling less hopeful about the future than they were in 2021. . . .”

Leader, life has been hard under this NDP-Liberal regime, and change, hope and common sense are needed. Why will your government not recognize this and call a carbon tax election?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question.

The point you made — although not your question, frankly — is an important and serious one that should preoccupy all of us, not only here in Canada but throughout the world, because, regrettably, the phenomenon to which you alluded, Senator Plett — that is, young people’s diminished faith in the future — is one that we see worldwide.

There are no doubt many reasons for this. There have been tough times in the world, generally, and political movements and rhetoric that feed more on fear than hope. But it is certainly preoccupying and disturbing for all of us to see that happening, whether we have children and grandchildren or not, though many of us do. So thank you for raising this important question.

Senator Plett: We live in the richest country in the world, leader. Don’t compare us with other countries.

Leader, you say “axe the tax,” “build the homes,” “fix the budget” and “stop the crimes” are just slogans. They are more than slogans; those words are giving much-needed hope to Canadians.

Do you realize that when you dismiss those words, you are also dismissing Canadians and their hopes for the future?

Senator Gold: That is certainly not my intention.

Slogans, well tested, well rehearsed and well communicated though they clearly are from the other place to this place, may be politically advantageous — and I know that is your highest priority — but they are no substitute for sound policy and the prudent application of sound political and economic principles.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Appointment of Financial Adviser

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, it has been weeks since Justin Trudeau named Brookfield Asset Management Chair Mark Carney as head of the new special Leader’s Task Force on Economic Growth in Canada. Yet, lo and behold, there are no members on this magical task force. There are no events scheduled, despite Mr. Carney saying he will be meeting with various groups to inform them of his work and report. There is no actual deadline for any such report.

What is really going on here, Senator Gold? Try to explain that. Why was this task force even necessary? You have one of the largest cabinets in Canadian history. The size of the civil service under the leadership of Justin Trudeau is bursting at the seams. You have hired billions of dollars’ worth of independent consultants, yet you need to add another level of bureaucracy. Why, Senator Gold?

How is this not an admission that your government just isn’t up for the job of fixing the mess that Justin Trudeau has created over the last nine years?

(1430)

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Well, to complain in one sentence that no members of a task force have been hired and then to complain about bureaucracy is just another example of rhetoric over fact.

The Government of Canada and all Canadians, I think — I hope — understand that the value of the experience, integrity and breadth of expertise that Mark Carney has and will bring to the service of Canadians is something that should be applauded. This government is pleased to have Mark Carney by its side as it confronts the problems that face us all.

Senator Housakos: The only one pleased is Brookfield Asset Management, Senator Gold. What measures of accountability are in place for Mr. Carney in his role? He doesn’t even have — I repeat — a reporting deadline, and he is being paid by the Liberal Party of Canada, not by the government, in order to avoid ethics guidelines and conflict laws that we have in this country.

Senator Gold, Mark Carney is just another independent Liberal appointee who has absolutely no accountability. Why is it that the Trudeau government has a hard time with transparency and accountability? You hire somebody — give them deadlines and give them —

Senator Gold: The government is pleased that Mr. Carney has agreed to advise it and to serve this country with his understanding of economics — which will be very helpful, frankly, in public policy — and his clear commitment to fighting climate change and his understanding that they both can go together.

Indigenous Services

Support for Indigenous Communities

Hon. Paula Simons: My question is for the Government Representative. Last year, I drew your attention and the attention of this chamber to the crisis facing the Little Red River Cree Nation in northern Alberta, which has been devastated by wildfire. I regret to say that the reserve was hit by wildfire again this year and forced to evacuate the entire community, which is more than 5,000 people. This got much less press attention than the fires in Jasper, unfortunately.

My question for you today is this: Now that Little Red River is having to rebuild from two sequential fires, what steps is the government taking to make sure that, unlike last year, this year they will be able to get the goods and services they need to the remote reserve in order to do that rebuilding?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for underlining the impact on the community that does sometimes get lost in larger news stories. I don’t have specific details for you, senator, but I do appreciate the importance of your question and the importance of tackling the issue for this and other remote communities where the ability to deliver what is needed is so often compromised by distances, logistics and more. I will raise this with the minister as soon as I have the opportunity to do so. Thank you again for your intervention.

Senator Simons: Two of the interlocking challenges that faced the reserve last year as they attempted to rebuild were variable water levels on the river, which are affected by BC Hydro dams to the west, and also decisions by Transport Canada to say that the nation’s barges had not been properly inspected so that federal employees and contractors could ride on them. I’ve been trying to get a response from Transport Canada for months now to know what the status is of the regulation of those barges. I wondered if you could commit to me to ask Transport Canada to try to provide us —

Senator Gold: I certainly will, and I will be happy to work with your office on this matter.

Global Affairs

Conflict in Gaza Strip

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Senator Gold, on the very day that Canada abstained on a UN General Assembly resolution calling on Israel to vacate occupied Palestinian territory, we heard at the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs from humanitarian workers in Gaza. What we heard was that since the horrendous Hamas attack on October 7, the Israeli response has resulted in more than 40,000 dead, including upwards of 15,000-16,000 children. What is Canada doing to stop the carnage, and how is that going?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. As I have stated before, harm caused and death caused to innocent civilians in any circumstance in Gaza is regrettable, and the government regrets each and every life lost.

The government also holds Hamas accountable, and properly so, for making a decision to build an underground tunnel system larger than the London subway; for placing command centres under hospitals, schools and UN buildings; for callously, deliberately and openly using children and women and innocent civilians as human shields. There was no occupation by Israel of Gaza on October 7. There was a ceasefire, which Hamas broke. Deaths are unfortunate in a war, and shameful is Hamas’ exploitation of human —

Senator Woo: The resolution has to do with the West Bank, and you know full well there is an illegal occupation going on there, so I hope you address that as well. Do I take your answer, Senator Gold, to mean that the killing of the children is justified because of what Hamas did?

Senator Gold: Senator, with all respect, that’s not what I said, and I’m not going to quote chapter and verse on the laws of war and just wars. It is that the death of any civilian is regrettable but was unavoidable when weapons, launchers and command centres are embedded in civilian areas. No country in the world would simply throw up their hands and say, “We have no right to defend ourselves.”

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Hon. Rebecca Patterson: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Gold, today marks the start of the tenure of NATO’s new Secretary General. Coincidentally, Russia also announced its 2025 defence budget. Russia has announced it will hike defence spending by 25% to a new post-Soviet era high.

As our NATO allies come forward with plans for increased defence spending, it seems that the spending goal of 2% of GDP is now a floor rather than a ceiling. Russia will not wait in its campaign of illegal aggression for Canada to inch towards 2% spending. What is the government doing concretely to join our allies in achieving 2% to counter the increasingly belligerent Russia and to protect our waning influence in NATO?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for underlining the challenge and the threat, indeed, of Russia and other world actors opposed to Canada and the West in their aggressive pursuit of military presence. Canada has announced its plan to reach NATO targets. Most importantly, this government has, year after year, increased defence spending in a significant way to a much larger degree than ever before in our history.

But you’ve underlined an important point. The world is changing so quickly, and how do we respond to it, both in terms of our military and all of government? If I can suggest, the most creative way to think about this is to look across all departments, not only National Defence, because many other institutions are critical parts of our defence ecosystem to protect Canadians from foreign dangers.

North American Aerospace Defense Command

Hon. Rebecca Patterson: Senator Gold, in April of this year, the Ukrainian ambassador was speaking at a conference here in Ottawa. She reminded the audience that, like Ukraine, Canada shares a border with Russia. Canada’s commitment to the eastern flank of NATO is steadfast, but what about our commitment to invest in the northern flank, or the Arctic front, the one that is literally in our backyard?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for this and also for underlining the threat to our northern borders and oceans, amongst others, posed by increasing Russian aspirations. Canada is working closely and has made investments and upped its game with the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, and others and will continue to defend Canada’s Arctic interests and, indeed, our sovereignty in all respects.

Public Services and Procurement

Indigenous Self-Determination

Hon. Marty Klyne: Senator Gold, as someone who has inquired about set-aside programs before, not just in these chambers but also at the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, I’m deeply concerned about the recent incident where an Indigenous tribal council allegedly asked Indigenous Services Canada what was required to prove its Indigeneity during a verification process for funding. The answer was that anything would be accepted. You could provide a bunny picture if you wanted.

(1440)

For the past two decades, Senator Gold, self-determination has been fought through Indigenous businesses taking procurement opportunities very seriously, viewing them as a crucial avenue for economic engagement, wealth creation and — just that — self-determination. This incident suggests a lack of seriousness on the government’s part, damaging hard-won trust. In contrast, provinces like Saskatchewan are known for their strict approach to preventing “Rent-A-Feather” and false indigeneity practices, as have Saskatchewan’s Indigenous nations. Can you provide the number of contracts over $1 million that Indigenous entrepreneurs have participated in since mid-COVID, including contracts initiated during the pandemic?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, senator, and for your continued advocacy on this important issue. As I stated before, but let me repeat, the response that was provided to the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council was, in a word, unacceptable. It did not meet the standards of Indigenous Services Canada.

This is precisely why the government simply needs to get out of the business of determining who is Indigenous and who is not. Thank you for your reference as well to what is done in your home province of Saskatchewan. The Indigenous Business Directory should be managed and controlled by Indigenous peoples for Indigenous peoples. Indeed, the government is actively working with First Nations, Inuit and Métis partners on this very process.

With regard to the question you asked, I have been informed that initial reports show that government departments exceeded the 5% target in its first reporting year, and that 6.23% of contracts were rewarded to Indigenous businesses.

Senator Klyne: Can you provide the number of contracts over $1 million for personal protective equipment since mid-COVID by province and territory, and for each of those, how many had Indigenous participation?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your supplementary question. I don’t have that specific information, but I will certainly reach out to the minister and pose that to them.

Indigenous Services

Opioid Crisis

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Leader, two weeks ago, a tribal council representing 14 First Nations on Vancouver Island declared a state of emergency due to the ongoing opioid drug crisis. The tribal council noted that First Nations people make up less than 4% of B.C.’s population, but almost 20% of toxic drug deaths in the province.

Speaking with Global News, tribal council president Judith Sayers pointed out, “We’ve seen British Columbia declare a state of emergency eight years ago on this . . . And what has changed?”

Leader, flooding B.C. communities with dangerous opioids has done nothing to reduce overdose deaths. Will the NDP-Liberal government put an end to its so-called safe supply experiment?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question and for underlining the tragedy that drug abuse has visited upon the communities to which you refer and, indeed, so many and too many of our communities and our citizens. Today at the flag-raising ceremony — the survivors’ ceremony — we also heard about how drug use has affected generations of those who were survivors of Indigenous residential schools.

The problem, however, is not, with all respect, the safe sites program that was initiated within the province or provinces in order to provide a safer place and a regulated place. It is much broader and much more intractable, frankly, to resolve, but it must be addressed.

Senator Martin: Leader, these 14 First Nations on Vancouver Island declared a state of emergency due to toxic drugs on September 19. Since that date, what specific actions have the NDP-Liberal government taken to provide meaningful and culturally appropriate services to these B.C. communities in their time of need?

Senator Gold: Again, nothing that I have said or would say is to minimize the seriousness of the emergency. The Government of Canada is working with its provincial counterparts and with First Nations, Inuit and Métis as appropriate to address the problems that together we have absolutely every obligation to address.

[Translation]

Prime Minister’s Office

Confidence in Prime Minister

Hon. Claude Carignan: Leader, last week, the front-page headline in the prestigious French daily, Le Figaro, was “Justin Trudeau: scandals mount as the sun sets on a progressive Canadian icon.” Among other things, the reporter wrote, “The once-promising Prime Minister has disappointed many of his constituents while committing one international blunder after another.”

Senator Gold, that’s what it has come to on the international stage. To our allies and enemies alike, Canada is a lightweight player with an unpopular, error-prone and insignificant Prime Minister.

Is this what you meant back in 2015 when the Liberals were chanting “Canada is back”?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for that question and for sharing the quote from such an eminent newspaper as Le Figaro.

The Prime Minister recently got back from New York. He addressed the United Nations, showcasing why Canada is important as a global ally. He met with his counterparts and our allies, and he will continue to ensure that Canada is well represented on the international stage.

Senator Carignan: Leader, the way the Prime Minister represents Canada is embarrassing. Our Prime Minister, our government, has no vision and no credibility. Canada is completely absent from the international stage. Meanwhile, the world keeps turning. Will this government decide to step down and give Canadians the chance to vote for a new Prime Minister who will improve Canada’s image and leadership?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. It seems that perhaps the Conservative senators are a bit tired of the work we are doing here in Parliament to ensure the well-being of Canada, but for the moment, the Prime Minister has no intention of stepping down and the government will continue to govern.

[English]

Transport

Transportation of Grain

Hon. Mary Robinson: My question is for Senator Gold. Yesterday, dock workers at the Port of Montreal initiated a three-day strike at an estimated cost of more than $90 million each day. This is the third strike in Montreal in the last five years. As of this morning, our neighbour in trade — the United States — is going through its own indefinite strike at its east and gulf coast ports, costing the U.S. economy $5 billion per day.

Last week, during an active strike at the Port of Vancouver costing Canada $35 million a day, I asked you if you would commit to having a conversation with our government on making Canada’s grain transportation system an essential service. Senator Gold, did you have this conversation?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I don’t recall what my answer was to you, but I am not in the habit of revealing conversations that I have had in confidence with members of the cabinet.

The fact is that there are many sectors — grain being a very important one — that are affected by work stoppages or lockouts in our ports. Indeed, thank you for underlining the fact that the problems we face are shared in other jurisdictions. I understand that this is a three-day strike at two terminals in the Port of Montreal. I understand further that the strike will conclude on October 3 at 6:59 a.m. The Port of Montreal is a critical part of our supply chains. The parties must return to the table to address the work needed to get a deal done quickly. Negotiated settlements are always the best way forward.

Senator Robinson: Senator Gold, the frequency of these strikes highlights the fragility of our supply chain. It leaves our farmers in an incredibly vulnerable situation. Has the government put any thought into a long-term solution to fix this persistent vulnerability that does not simply involve a call for arbitration?

(1450)

Senator Gold: The government is very concerned about the impact of supply chain disruptions on the agricultural sector and, indeed, on many others and will continue to explore creative ways. In the spirit of transparency, which is what I try to achieve here, the government believes that collective bargaining is the best solution for Canada as a whole, for the workers in whatever unions they’re involved in and, indeed, for the industries that —

The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, senator.

Employment and Social Development

Temporary Foreign Workers

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, the Liberal Toronto Star newspaper reported that in January of 2022 the Trudeau government directed staff processing temporary foreign worker applications to apply streamlining measures designed to get faster approvals. Staff were instructed to skip routine checks meant to prevent fraud, including contacting employers to confirm that they had actually applied to hire a worker.

The Star reported:

. . . since the directive to speed up application reviews came down from national headquarters, staff have scaled back on approximately “50 per cent of what we’re supposed to read on the application” and that, while potential fraud is reported, “nothing” happens.

Which member of this NDP-Liberal government directed staff to skip these fraud-prevention checks?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): As your question unfolded, senator, it took me by surprise. I thought you were adding the “Liberal Toronto Star,” to quote your words, to another institution that you have decided to disparage. I’m not sure what will be left when, finally, Question Period is over.

To your question, if you think about what we’ve been talking about today, the challenge is always about finding the right balance between the time that applications will take and the importance to businesses, to communities, to have the workers that they so desperately need. Although I don’t know the specific reasons why individual members dealing with these issues decided to work more efficiently on those applications, I will certainly raise the question with the minister.

Senator Plett: Of course, only a Liberal would consider $8 million chump change or holding the Liberal government to account as disparaging.

The United Nations recently called the NDP-Liberal government’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program a “. . . breeding ground for contemporary forms of slavery.” That’s on your watch, Senator Gold.

Leader, don’t Canadians deserve a common-sense Conservative government that will put an end to this horrendous mismanagement of our immigration system?

Senator Gold: This government has taken this seriously and has made significant changes to address the reprehensible treatment that some temporary workers have experienced at the hands of employers. It is working with provincial counterparts as well because of the shared responsibility, in many cases, that governments have for the welfare of residents within their territory, and they will continue to do so.

International Trade

Export Development Canada

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Leader, my question is a follow-up to a question posed by Senator Plett last Thursday concerning $176 million in bonuses paid out at Export Development Canada, or EDC, since 2019. You seemed to indicate in your response that you needed further information about these bonuses before answering.

During much of the time EDC handed out these bonuses, they also contracted out the entire Canada Emergency Business Account, or CEBA, loans program for small businesses. In 2020, the year the CEBA program was created, EDC paid out $24 million in bonuses. In 2023, the year we learned consulting firm Accenture was actually running the CEBA program, EDC bonuses reached almost $41 million. They went up.

Leader, in this context, were these bonuses justified?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): In the world that some of you live in, complicated questions can be reduced, however misleadingly and unhelpfully, but I am going to answer more honestly and accurately.

Bonuses that are paid to workers, whether at EDC or in private enterprise, are one feature in the compensation packages that employers provide, and each and every individual — subject to terms that include salary components, bonus components and whatever else they may include — goes through a process of evaluation and then decisions are made. It is simply impossible, even if it were appropriate, to comment on the performance of the individuals at issue or how those bonuses were calculated, much less whether in a blanket way —

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Martin.

Senator Martin: When considering these bonuses, a clear fact that is important to remember is that EDC never proactively disclosed these contracts worth over $200 million.

Some Hon. Senators: Shame.

Senator Martin: This entire mess is currently under investigation by the Auditor General.

Leader, could you make inquires and tell us whether EDC is on track to hand out $40 million in bonuses again this year, or higher?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. To the extent that this matter is being looked at by the Auditor General, I think we would all benefit from the Auditor General’s investigation and the report. I look forward to that with interest.

Answers to Order Paper Questions Tabled

Finance—Dividends Paid to the Government

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 160, dated May 5, 2022, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding dividends paid to the Government of Canada — Department of Finance Canada.

Housing and Diversity and Inclusion—Dividends Paid to the Government

Housing, Infrastructure and Communities—Shared Equity Mortgage Providers Fund

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 217, dated March 8, 2023, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding the Shared Equity Mortgage Providers Fund.

Public Safety—Foreign Interference

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 220, dated March 22, 2023, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding foreign interference.

Finance—Trans Mountain Corporation

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 222, dated March 22, 2023, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding the Trans Mountain Corporation.

National Defence—Royal Canadian Air Force

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 223, dated March 30, 2023, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Health—ArriveCAN Application

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 238, dated September 19, 2023, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding the ArriveCAN application — Health Canada.

Privy Council Office—ArriveCAN Application

Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs—ArriveCAN Application

Public Services and Procurement—ArriveCAN Application

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Canada National Parks Act

Bill to Amend—Second Reading

Hon. Karen Sorensen moved second reading of Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act.

She said: Honourable senators, the people of Jasper, devastated by wildfire, need every opportunity to rebuild quickly, effectively and with responsiveness to local needs and conditions. Bill C-76 is the next logical evolution in the relationship between Parks Canada and the Municipality of Jasper. The government and the leadership of Parks Canada believe this, the Municipality of Jasper believes this, and I believe this as well.

(1500)

As the former mayor of the Town of Banff, located in Banff National Park, I have always worked closely on shared priorities with Jasper, located in Jasper National Park, and their mayor, Richard Ireland. As the only municipalities within the national park system, Jasper and Banff are alike in many ways and have faced similar challenges, but there has been one key difference.

Since 1990, the Town of Banff has benefited from our status as a self-governing municipality with jurisdiction over our own land use and development. While Parks Canada rightfully manages the national park, local authorities have the autonomy to make the day-to-day decisions of running a town while upholding the highest standards of environmental conservation.

The Town of Banff Incorporation Agreement, signed by Parks Canada and the town, provides that the local government has responsibility for municipal services as well as land use planning and development. In practice, that means that we don’t have to obtain approval from Parks Canada officials in Ottawa to build homes for our residents or make repairs to our roads, or seek federal input over what kind of siding to use on our buildings.

Eleven years later, when Jasper negotiated its own agreement for the establishment of local government, the federal government refused to replicate the model that has been so successful in Banff. In Jasper, the Agreement for the Establishment of Local Government in the Town of Jasper — signed by the Minister of Canadian Heritage who, at that time, was responsible for Parks Canada — provides that the local government has responsibility for municipal services, but it explicitly excludes responsibility for land use planning and development.

The Municipality of Jasper is responsible for delivering a range of services to its residents; however, authorities for land use planning and development are delivered by Parks Canada through the Canada National Parks Act — a federal agency designed and equipped to manage national parks, not vibrant and complex communities serving the needs of 5,000 residents and over 2.5 million visitors per year.

For the two dozen years of its municipal life, the people of Jasper have been building their community with the planning and development decisions ultimately residing in Ottawa. This process can be time-consuming and cumbersome.

However, today, as part of the rebuilding effort, Parks Canada and the federal government are proposing amendments to the Canada National Parks Act that would remove barriers and transfer land use planning and development authorities to the municipality.

The transfer of responsibility is intended to give the municipality greater control over the rebuilding effort and to simplify the process for residents and developers. In this crucial hour of need, this bill to amend the Canada National Parks Act is an important and, indeed, necessary step in assisting Jasper with its recovery and rebuild.

This past July, Canadians watched in horror as the wildfire spread and thousands of people were evacuated. Iconic structures were destroyed, and many people — including Mayor Ireland — lost their homes. One firefighter, Morgan Kitchen of Calgary, was tragically killed. Six days after the fire was first spotted, Parks Canada declared that it was the largest wildfire that Jasper had recorded in 100 years.

At one point, I know that many people — myself included — feared that the whole town would be lost. But thanks to decades of preparation by Parks Canada, the Municipality of Jasper and Indigenous partners, the damage was not as severe as it could have been.

Parks Canada and Mayor Ireland have worked to fire-smart the community, and they worked with other partners and stakeholders to do tabletop mock disasters to prepare for this exact scenario. Thousands of hectares of forest had already been removed from around the town, which limited the spread of the fire.

Thanks to those preparations and the valiant efforts of emergency responders, the majority of the town structures were able to be saved, including much of the critical infrastructure.

I would like to acknowledge the firefighter crews who did a heroic job in saving 70% of the infrastructure in the townsite. With rising average temperatures creating drier conditions and with more intense wildfires expected across Canada in the future, I invite all Canadians to thank them.

The community of Jasper has obviously been devastated, and its residents are reeling, but they have demonstrated again and again their resilience and resolve. The people of Jasper stand ready to work with the provincial and federal governments to rebuild and welcome Canadians and the world back to this special place.

The passage of this bill not only equips them with critical tools to accelerate their rebuild and recovery, but it also demonstrates that those in this chamber and in the other place have expressed confidence that the people of Jasper and their duly elected representatives can be entrusted to accountably exercise authorities common to every municipality across Canada.

I was glad that our elected colleagues in the other place gave unanimous consent to pass this legislation quickly. Today, I am urging my colleagues here to do the same.

The passage of this bill has been expedited because of the time-sensitive situation. Jasper must rebuild quickly, and the last thing they need are delays caused by politics.

As you’ll see from reading the bill, it is a very small change to the Canada National Parks Act; it is limited in scope, but it will have a profound impact on the people of Jasper.

It is very important to note that these legislative changes will not affect the conservation of Jasper National Park. Parks Canada, Mayor Ireland and the Municipality of Jasper recognize the special nature of this park community and its place in the national park system, and they are committed to ensuring its protection for the enjoyment of current and future generations.

Parks Canada will continue to exercise oversight in the community. Jasper’s community plan and bylaws will continue to be certified by Parks Canada to ensure they meet federal requirements, including ensuring the ecological integrity of Jasper National Park.

Jasper is about to embark on the most urgent and significant rebuild in its history. It needs the tools to do so. This is one such tool. It’s a critically important one — one that we can provide them.

As the Mayor of Jasper has said, “Passage of these amendments cannot come quickly enough.”

Thank you. Hiy hiy.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Batters, do you have a question?

Hon. Denise Batters: Yes, I do. Senator Sorensen, could you give us a bit more detail about what this bill does? I certainly understand the very significant tragedy that happened in Jasper, but I couldn’t tell from your speech what this bill actually does. For a second reading speech, we should have some concrete details about it. Thank you.

Senator Sorensen: When land use planning was done within that municipality, previously everything had to go through the Parks Canada representatives in Jasper National Park and potentially upward to Ottawa. Now it will allow the mayor and council to make decisions on their own within the town limits and within the set square footage of the Town of Jasper — not out into the national park — as to where and what they can develop within the town limits. Previously, everything had to be approved through Parks Canada. On that question, I would like to note that there are several pieces of legislation above the land use bylaw: It includes the incorporation agreement and the Jasper National Park Management Plan, and they’ll be creating a community plan, all of which Parks Canada and the town will work on together. But at the end of the day, a planning department in the Town of Jasper will be able to make decisions on future development and rebuilding.

Hon. Paula Simons: Would the senator take a question?

Senator Sorensen: Of course.

Senator Simons: When you were the mayor of Banff, you had certain planning powers that Mayor Ireland in Jasper does not have. Can you give us a concrete example of the kinds of things you were able to do as the mayor of Banff because you had those local powers?

Senator Sorensen: It was an everyday occurrence, but a good example would be that a few years back — time goes by, and I don’t remember what year it was — we built an under market-value housing development, predominantly for our staffing needs within the town. It was a town-owned property. With Parks Canada, we were able to decide the location. By the way, I should add that it was Parks Canada who gave us the land for that. That’s where the parks and the municipality often do work together. In terms of what the building would be, how big it would be, how many units would be in it, what it would be made of and how it would be structured, the Town of Banff and our planning department could make those decisions. If something like that were proposed in Jasper, all the paperwork that would go to the Town of Banff’s planning department would go to the Parks Canada offices instead. They do have planning staff there, but I would suggest that planners for urban planning operate a little bit differently.

Senator Simons: I would like to ask another question.

(1510)

First, I want to say — and I should have said this at the outset — that as an Albertan, I am happy to see you sponsoring this legislation. It is important to the people who live in my region, but I know that Albertans — and other Canadians also — have very strong feelings about protecting the park. One of the things that people from my part of Alberta love about Jasper is that it is a little less commercial than Banff.

Can you explain what guarantees there are to ensure that, if this power is granted to Jasper, the beauty of Jasper that we love will be protected?

Senator Sorensen: Yes, absolutely. I mentioned all the other documents that the Municipality of Jasper will have to adhere to, and I can’t stress enough the stringent standards that are put in place for these communities that the municipalities are mandated to adhere to, which follow in the mandate of Parks Canada.

I think the other interesting part about our communities is, first and foremost, that we’re on a set footprint. We can’t build out. We can’t build a ring road around the community. That’s number one: We’re on a set footprint and only have so much space.

Second, we have what’s called a commercial cap. The amount of commercial square footage that we have to develop is capped. In fact, Banff has reached its cap. There will never be a Walmart. There will never be a Ferris wheel. There will never be any kind of large development.

Because of the need-to-reside clause — which is a speech all unto itself, and I’m happy to explain it to anybody who wants to understand that — a majority of this has to do with housing and housing people who live in those municipalities in order to serve visitors to the national parks.

I can’t stress enough the number of guidelines that we live by that no other municipality in Canada lives by in order to achieve that goal.

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Senator Sorensen, will you take a question?

Senator Sorensen: Absolutely.

Senator MacDonald: You are undoubtedly very familiar with the particulars when it comes to Banff. With these changes, do we have an equivalent set of circumstances now in terms of Jasper and how they operate? Is it identical to Banff, or is it different?

Senator Sorensen: It will be almost the same. I would have to read both of the actual documents, but it will be much the same.

That raises another point. This change will not happen the minute this bill is passed. There is a process that will need to happen in order to get this legislation agreed upon and signed off on by both parties.

What will happen immediately is that an exemption will be given for a lot of these barriers so that Jasper can get going, but in terms of actually getting the legislation passed, one thing Jasper has to do is redo their community plan. The minister will, in fact, have to sign off on their community plan.

I expect that the legislation will be very similar, but until I actually see what it looks like — and it will be months down the road before the actual legislation is written — it will take some time. There will be some time allowed to ensure things are done correctly.

Senator MacDonald: Is there any particular reason why Jasper should be treated differently than Banff in terms of its operational capacity and how it runs its town?

Senator Sorensen: There was never a time when Jasper should have been treated differently than Banff.

My opinion is that in 2001, what we’re doing today should have been done at that time. Then the two municipalities would have operated in the same way all the way along.

Hon. Scott Tannas: I wanted to double-check something. We have agreed to a very express passage of this bill through all the stages and so on, in a matter of days, and all of us here have done it on the understanding that this would provide an immediate ability for Jasper to issue things like building permits and do inspections and all of those things that would normally have been done somewhere else by bureaucrats.

I just want to make sure that’s the case. We have talked a lot about the land planning and no Ferris wheels and so on and months, but that’s not why you are asking for the express passage, right? They will be able to issue a building permit within days of this passage. Is that fair to say?

Senator Sorensen: That’s my understanding. I was at the briefing this morning with the Parks Canada staff, and that is where the word came up that, yes, it will be immediate, because there will be an exemption immediately. Getting the paperwork done right is important, and so that’s how they are going to allow them to get these authorities immediately while they continue to work on what it looks like in the endgame.

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act.

This bill was introduced by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change on September 18 following the wildfires that devastated the town of Jasper on July 24, 2024. Colleagues, I speak as the official critic of this bill.

I would like to begin my speech by paying tribute to the residents of Jasper, victims of the wildfires, some of whom tragically lost their homes and belongings. The entire community was forced to evacuate in the face of this disaster.

The damage was extensive. One third of the town was burned, with 800 home units lost. Out of a population of 5,000 people, 2,000 lost their homes. Entire neighbourhoods were destroyed, and the material losses from the fires are estimated at $283 million. A total of 358 structures, including homes and businesses, were destroyed. Insurance companies are expected to pay out $880 million to cover the losses caused by the fires.

As Senator Sorensen did, I would like to also honour the firefighter who tragically lost his life in this disaster. Morgan Kitchen, a 24-year-old young man, gave his life fighting the fire. I would like to share what his mother said about him:

He wanted nothing more than to be in community with other courageous and committed people doing meaningful work. We are grateful to his crew for their care following his injury and for the support of the entire Alberta Wildfire community. We are comforted knowing he brought joy and laughter to the many people who called him a friend.

These events, colleagues, remind us of the courage and dedication of our firefighters, who wake up every day willing to risk their lives for others. Their bravery and commitment in the face of danger inspire deep gratitude in all of us.

Before diving into the core subject at hand today, allow me to talk a little bit about the town of Jasper. Jasper is a small community, as I said, of 5,000 residents in Alberta, located within Jasper National Park, very close to the British Columbia border. It lies at the heart of the beautiful Canadian Rockies, more specifically in the Athabasca Valley between Mount Edith Cavell and Pyramid Mountain. The nearest large city is Edmonton, which is situated almost at the same latitude as Jasper.

For those who have never visited, I encourage you to take a look at the stunning images available online of the town of Jasper and the breathtaking landscapes offered by Jasper National Park. The town is also known for its ski activities, mountain hiking and climbing.

Jasper is home to a national historic site, established in 1813, known as Jasper House. Jasper House was a fur-trading post that served as a hub for the fur trade and a vital stop for travellers crossing the Yellowhead and Athabasca passes. It was a significant strategic point used by the Hudson’s Bay Company.

Jasper House had two locations throughout its history and ceased operations in 1857. It was later declared a national historic site in 1924.

The town and park drew their names from Jasper Haws, the post’s steward, who had been a paddler for the North West Company for many years between Montreal and Fort William and then to the Red River. Jasper Haws continued his career with the company for 20 years, which eventually led him to the Athabasca River district. He was later appointed the steward of the post that now bears his name.

In 1907, the Government of Canada, known at the time as “the Dominion,” established Jasper Park Forest Reserve, which later became Jasper National Park in 1930. In 1911, a train station was established in Jasper by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, known as Fitzhugh. Thanks to this new railway line and, later, the road linking Jasper to Edmonton, the town’s development and activities accelerated.

I would like to remind everyone that Jasper National Park is classified as a UNESCO World Heritage Site under the Canadian Rocky Mountains Parks category. It is the second-largest dark sky preserve in the world and the largest national park in the Rockies. The park receives more than 2 million visitors each year.

I felt it was essential to share the history of this town and park so we are fully aware that these wildfires, which burned 36,000 hectares, devastated a cultural and historical gem that is part of Canada’s national heritage.

Honourable senators, I would now like to address the measures in Bill C-76 and discuss the current status of the town of Jasper. As I mentioned earlier, Jasper National Park was created in 1907, and the town lies within the park, which is subject to strict regulations from Parks Canada. Parks Canada manages and preserves the surrounding protected lands under the Canada National Parks Act.

Parks Canada is also responsible for land management, meaning it makes decisions regarding urban planning and development, including where construction is permitted, the types of construction allowed and how land is used.

(1520)

On April 1, 1945, the Government of Alberta established Improvement District No. 12, which corresponds to the geographical perimeter of Jasper National Park. An improvement district is a structure set up by the Alberta government to manage sparsely populated areas where the provincial government directly administers municipal taxes, regulations and services.

In August 1995, a second improvement district was created, called the Jasper Improvement District, to facilitate the transition to a specialized municipality.

It wasn’t until later, in 2001, that an agreement was signed to establish local governance in collaboration with Parks Canada. This agreement, titled “Agreement for the Establishment of Local Government in the Town of Jasper,” allowed, by provincial decree, for the creation of the specialized municipality of Jasper.

This municipality holds the same powers as any other city under the Alberta Municipal Government Act, except regarding land management and development, which remain under the jurisdiction of Parks Canada.

Due to the unique location of Jasper within a national park, the agreement I just referenced allows for the exclusion of Part 17 of Alberta’s Municipal Government Act, which typically grants municipalities authority over land use and development.

The bill before us seeks to grant the local government in Jasper autonomy and the authority to manage land use and development within the town’s limits.

The bill also exempts the town from certain regulations, which I will cite from the bill:

(a) the Town of Jasper Zoning Regulations;

(b) the National Parks Building Regulations;

(d) any regulation made under this Act that repeals the regulations referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c).

The federal government has chosen to prioritize this bill in the legislative agenda to facilitate the swift reconstruction of Jasper.

By granting the town these powers without having to go through Parks Canada, it will be able to expedite the process of rebuilding without needing approval for building permits, land subdivision, zoning and community planning, while addressing the immediate needs of residents and businesses affected by the fires.

This bill is, therefore, necessary and urgent to pass, colleagues, to allow the town of Jasper to rebuild as quickly as possible and help the victims of the fires.

I remind you that Jasper hosts many visitors each year, and it is essential for the town to rebuild rapidly to continue welcoming tourists and prevent the loss of significant economic revenue generated by tourism.

However, I would like to emphasize one important point: These new powers requested by Jasper were also the result of a process that began before the terrible wildfires. In fact, as early as 2022, Jasper had requested these powers from Parks Canada.

Parks Canada subsequently held public consultations in March 2023 at the local, provincial and national levels, as well as consultations with Indigenous peoples, to determine how to address the request without compromising the park’s ecological integrity.

The consultations ended on April 19, 2023, and the What We Heard Report was later published. In this report, Parks Canada noted:

Following extensive outreach, there does not appear to be a strong desire to immediately begin the process to amend the Canada National Parks Act, regulations, and Establishment Agreement for Local Government in the Town of Jasper (2001). Instead, participants overwhelmingly felt that the underlying concerns should be addressed first before pursuing potentially lengthy governance changes.

Honourable colleagues, it is clear that the wildfires in Jasper changed Parks Canada’s perspective on this matter. It is now urgent to grant these powers to the Jasper community so they can quickly and safely rebuild.

However, where I raise concerns is regarding the responsibility of Parks Canada and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in this tragedy. This is a sensitive subject, where we must avoid partisanship, as many people have endured extremely painful situations over the past few months.

However, as parliamentarians acting on behalf of citizens we serve, we have a duty to examine what went wrong and how we can improve to prevent future disasters of this magnitude.

We have a responsibility to question the federal government and its agencies where there are signs or evidence of failure in their mandates or negligence in their duties. It is our role to ensure the government is held accountable.

There were clear warnings over the past few years that a disaster was looming in Jasper. Two scientists and researchers, Emile Begin and Ken Hodges, had already alerted Parks Canada officials to the impending catastrophe and the lack of necessary preparedness and prevention measures.

Here’s what Hodges told the CBC about this in 2018:

You have fire suppression that has occurred for many years — therefore, you get a lot of dead fuel that would have been consumed by a natural process. The mountain pine beetle adds even more fuel to the situation. . . . You’ve got a major catastrophe on your hands if you get a match thrown into that. If you do not reduce the fuel, then you’re leaving a fire that might burn similar to what happened in Waterton.

The researchers felt that Parks Canada was not adequately prepared and, even worse, was not able to provide the researchers with their emergency preparedness plans.

Of course, Parks Canada held a different view on the matter. Here’s what Alan Fehr, the Superintendent of Jasper National Park, said at the time:

Jasper is located in a forested environment and wildfires are always a concern to us. We’re quite comfortable with where we are with our own emergency planning and evacuation planning.

Honourable senators, we could go further back, to June 2017, when Jasper’s mayor had already sounded the alarm about the risk of a major fire in Jasper. I would, therefore, like to share with you what he said to the CBC in 2017:

If a fire starts in the Miette River valley in dry conditions with a bunch of dead standing trees, the intensity of that fire could just be enormous.

This issue was even raised in the House of Commons by Conservative MP Jim Eglinski, who questioned the Liberal government on its plan to address this risk. Here’s what the then-Minister of Environment replied:

Our government is absolutely committed to the ecological integrity of our national parks. That is my first priority as a minister. I look forward to talking to the member further about this and seeing how we can move forward.

I ask a simple question: Why did this catastrophe eventually happen when the government seemed so confident in its ability to act in the event of wildfires?

Colleagues, this is not all.

In 2022, a report was published on the implementation of an action plan launched in 2017 to protect certain endangered species in Jasper National Park. One of these species highlighted in the report was the whitebark pine. The whitebark pine has been severely impacted in recent years by the mountain pine beetle, a North American pest that targets mature trees, particularly various species of pines.

Years of fire suppression have led to a significant increase in the number of old pines, creating ideal conditions for the proliferation of the mountain pine beetle in the Southern Rockies’ forests. This, in turn, has led to more dead trees, increasing the amount of combustible material in these forests.

To give you an idea of the scale of the damage caused by this pest, I would like to quote from a fact sheet from Natural Resources Canada about the mountain pine beetle:

An ongoing outbreak of mountain pine beetle that started in British Columbia in the early 1990s has affected more than 18 million hectares of forest. . . .

Since the early 1990s, the beetle has attacked 50% of the total volume of commercial lodgepole pine in British Columbia.

By 2017, the total cumulative loss of pine that could have been sold was estimated at 752 million cubic metres (58% of sellable pine volume).

Honourable senators, in the 2022 report on the status of the 2017 action plan’s implementation, we can find a detailed summary of the progress made on the whitebark pine population and habitat restoration in Appendix A. Over six years, there was only a 3.5% increase in the number of restored or newly created habitat hectares. I would like to share a passage from that report on this subject:

We planted over 18,000 seedlings Since 2017, over 18,000 seedlings have been planted and more than 160,000 seeds collected. Based on recent restoration plans for similar areas, it is likely that 520,000 seedlings may be required to meet long-term objectives.

Further along in the report, there is another interesting section that discusses another method of promoting whitebark pine regeneration:

Fire has not yet been applied for Whitebark Pine restoration. Mechanical thinning has been completed in 1.6 hectares which is a small area relative to the amount of Whitebark Pine habitat.

Honourable senators, prescribed burns can play a role in whitebark pine regeneration because they create conditions favourable for seed germination and young tree growth by reducing mountain pine beetle populations and limiting the accumulation of combustible material. The absence of prescribed burns coupled with slow progress in habitat restoration contributed to a buildup of combustible material in these forests. Whitebark pines play a critical role in the forest ecosystem’s resilience, and without their regeneration, the forests have become more vulnerable to uncontrollable wildfires.

(1530)

It is precisely this inadequate management that exacerbated the intensity of the recent wildfire disaster in Jasper. The accumulation of dead wood and fuel, combined with the lack of large-scale treatments, created the perfect conditions for a fire of such magnitude.

Colleagues, was the minister aware of this?

The answer is yes. We can find this information in the 2022 Jasper National Park Management Plan. Here’s what the report says:

A mountain pine beetle infestation has brought significant change to forests in Alberta, including Jasper National Park, with consequences for wildfire risk, public safety, infrastructure management and long-term forest succession. White pine blister rust and invasive plants are already threatening terrestrial species and ecosystems in the park . . .

Honourable senators, there were clear signs and evidence pointing to the risk of a major wildfire in Jasper National Park. It is undeniable that since 2017 — seven years ago — ministers in the current government were aware of this risk and, in my view, demonstrated negligence. The report I just cited shows the slow pace of Parks Canada’s response.

It is high time the Minister of Environment and Climate Change stopped focusing solely on ideological rhetoric and started taking real responsibility for the management of our parks and forests. This government should take concrete action to ensure that effective initiatives, like the regeneration of whitebark pine, are properly implemented. The slow progress in forest conservation projects, such as Parks Canada’s poor results in reforestation and the lack of prescribed burns in Jasper, is unacceptable.

They were told then, and we know it now: This lack of action on the ground puts our forests and communities at risk. It is time for the minister to focus on his responsibilities here at home.

I was also surprised by the minister’s attempt to dodge accountability during the last meeting of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on September 25 regarding the factors that led to the recent fires in Jasper National Park. At no point did the minister acknowledge his responsibility for what could have been better managed or what went wrong. Instead, he simply praised his government’s action and his department’s investments while claiming that Jasper was one of the best-prepared towns for wildfires — despite the fact that one third of the town burned down.

So I ask this question: According to this government’s wildfire preparedness plan, does a town where one third has burned down now meet the new federal standards?

I remind the minister and the Leader of the Government here today that 2,000 people lost their homes, that this is a tragedy for this community, that a quarter of the town is gone and that a firefighter has died. There are people who have lost everything and will have to face the consequences of this disaster. This government must seriously reassess its preparedness and ability to prevent wildfires near communities.

Colleagues, I would like to conclude my speech by reiterating my sympathy for and solidarity with the residents of Jasper, who have been deeply affected by this tragedy. I ask my honourable colleagues to pass this bill to help them rebuild their community. Hopefully, this can happen quickly so they can regain the peace, calm and beauty they deserve.

For the future, I remind you of what Ken Hodges said in 2018 about the risk of a major wildfire in Jasper. He said, “The potential that’s out there is actually scary. Hopefully, we’re wrong.” Unfortunately, they were right. And this is a failure we cannot afford to repeat.

Honourable senators, it is imperative that we learn every lesson from this catastrophe. We must demand concrete and immediate actions to protect our communities and national parks before the next disaster strikes. This is not an option; it is our duty. Thank you.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time.)

(Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on September 25, 2024, the bill was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.)

Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act
Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act

Bill to Amend—Third Reading

Hon. Iris G. Petten moved third reading of Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading about Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Today, Canada finds itself in a unique position. Around the world and in the context of the transition from fossil fuels that is occurring, major investment is flowing toward renewable energy projects. This is creating jobs and economic opportunity, and this is particularly true for the offshore wind industry.

With the longest coastlines in the world and wind speeds rivalled only by those of the North Sea, where this industry began, there is every reason why Canada should benefit from this investment.

In my province, with its portfolio of offshore oil and gas projects, prospective projects and onshore hydroelectric resources, the 2019 Premier’s Economic Recovery Team, of which I was proud to be a member, identified the potential for wind energy projects to assist in green energy self-sufficiency. The report concluded that this would drive investment and employment in low-carbon and green manufacturing and processing industries, including in the hydrogen space.

Five years later, I am proud to say that onshore wind projects are now proceeding through the provincial regulatory process. If these projects are approved and sanctioned, they will help my province achieve green energy self-sufficiency, benefit the economy and improve the livelihoods of families and communities across the province.

Colleagues, I am urging you to support Bill C-49 so the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and the rest of Canada can capitalize on the enormous economic opportunities that will come from offshore wind, an industry that will soon be worth $1 trillion worldwide. This important legislation will establish the necessary frameworks to enable the development of offshore wind energy projects to proceed in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

Colleagues, the pace of wind energy development is increasing. The U.K. has set its intention to bring forward new offshore wind developments that have the potential to deliver up to 20 to 30 gigawatts of extra offshore wind seabed leases to the market by 2030. The U.K.’s most recent auction to allocate contracts for clean energy projects concluded earlier this month and has been its most successful to date, with nearly five gigawatts of capacity expected to come from offshore wind.

Many countries are eager to seize their share of this trillion-dollar opportunity. Recently, New Zealand had a particularly dry summer, which triggered lower-than-usual hydroelectricity production and record power prices, mobilizing efforts to get the country’s offshore wind sector off the ground. Australia handed out feasibility licences to six offshore wind projects in April of 2024. In the United States, the Biden administration set an offshore wind target of 30 gigawatts by 2030. Last month, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced plans to hold an offshore wind energy lease sale this October for two areas off the coast of southern Oregon. These two new areas, if fully developed, could together power approximately one million homes.

(1540)

In total, the U.S., the EU and the U.K. have over 340 projects already in development, and it is estimated that China possesses nearly half of the world’s offshore wind capacity today.

An analysis by the International Energy Agency confirms the surge in the offshore wind energy industry over the last decade. According to their analysis, it now produces almost twenty times the energy in 2021 that was being produced in 2010. It also predicts the offshore wind industry will be worth $1 trillion by 2040.

Offshore wind will also help power the burgeoning hydrogen sector, which is projected to be worth almost $12 trillion by 2050. This is a massive economic opportunity for Canada, for coastal provinces, for our highly skilled workers and for our planet.

Atlantic Canada is ready to join the world in moving forward with offshore wind energy, creating a strong and profitable offshore wind and hydrogen sector that will drive jobs, economic opportunity and help us to assist our European partners in decarbonizing and improving energy security. The first step is to pass Bill C-49 at third reading.

Bill C-49 is the product of years of collaboration and negotiation between the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and the federal government, a true example of cooperative federalism at its best. In fact, Nova Scotia has already passed their own mirror legislation, and Newfoundland and Labrador must pass their own to bring these joint management measures into effect.

This legislation is the next step in a joint commitment made between the federal government and these two provinces in the 1980s when each province signed an accord with the Government of Canada, pledging to work together in managing the offshore oil and gas sectors of each province.

They also created two joint federal-provincial bodies to manage offshore oil and gas development, which are the regulators in established and mature regulatory regimes.

As you’ve heard before, Bill C-49 would broaden their mandates by authorizing them to regulate offshore renewable energy. These agreements provide equal authority to the provinces and the federal government over the management of offshore energy resources — a proven joint management system that is almost 40 years old — with the principal beneficiaries being the two coastal provinces. In the same spirit of those two pieces of historic legislation, the Government of Canada has developed Bill C-49 hand in hand with these two provinces.

Nova Scotia has already passed its mirror legislation and stated its intention to launch a competition next year for offshore land leases, with the hope of putting enough turbines in place to produce five gigawatts of power — enough for roughly 1.5 million homes, three times the number of households in the entire province.

Tory Rushton, Nova Scotia’s Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables was clear when he spoke to the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources in June 2024, calling offshore wind and green hydrogen, “. . . game changers for Nova Scotia.”

The Honourable Andrew Parsons, Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, has every confidence in Newfoundland and Labrador’s workforce being able to thrive in the offshore wind industry. In June 2024, he told the Senate standing committee where to look for examples of a strong and capable workforce:

Look no further than every major resource project in our province, which have all been built by a highly skilled workforce, strengthened by a world-class supply and service sector and supported by our internationally recognized offshore education and training. We can take an abundant renewable resource like our wind resource and build a new sector that will both create jobs and reduce carbon emissions.

Honourable colleagues, with our world-class offshore wind resources, the future for the offshore wind energy industry in Canada has arrived.

Colleagues, according to the Public Policy Forum, the installation of 15 gigawatts of offshore wind generation would create an average of approximately 30,000 direct jobs annually. Net Zero Atlantic estimates 5,000 jobs will be created at the onset of this industry.

Investors have already shown intense interest in being a part of this industry, many of whom are focusing on potential opportunities on Canada’s East Coast. This bill will help secure those investment dollars that are coming to Canada.

Both provinces have received the attention of EverWind Fuels. In summer 2023, the company announced a Nova Scotia project that would produce green ammonia in partnership with Indigenous groups. The project plans to use onshore wind to supply its power in the second phase of the project and then switch to offshore wind for phase three.

Local communities are already reaping the rewards. Paqtnkek First Nation, Potlotek First Nation and Membertou First Nation have all partnered on the project. More than $100 million was invested by EverWind into the region to support the project last year.

And it will be one of the largest employers along the Strait of Canso, employing more than 100 skilled workers. The company is also working to develop training programs and a green hydrogen educational curriculum at local education centres.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, EverWind is also pursuing a green hydrogen project, partly influenced by their successful experience in Nova Scotia. This newer initiative would be considered a sister project, located on the Burin Peninsula.

Four potential projects in the province have been given the go-ahead to apply to use Crown land for their onshore wind projects. To put the potential of offshore wind projects in context, it’s expected that if all four are successful, the total capital that could be spent on these projects could be as high as $66 billion. Collectively, they could add $206 billion to the GDP and create provincial revenues of almost $1 billion. During the busy construction phases, job opportunities will top out at over 11,000 full-time equivalent positions.

While this legislation will create new economic opportunities, this bill ensures it is done so in a way that consults Indigenous peoples, protects the livelihoods of fishers and protects the environment.

The duty to consult on any matter that affects the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples throughout the life cycle of offshore renewable energy projects is one that is taken seriously.

Consultation and engagement will be required in the regional assessments; the wind energy area identification processes; call for information processes; impact assessments and Accord Act assessments for specific projects; regulatory authorizations and permitting decisions; and in the development of regulations and other tools.

Bill C-49 allows the offshore energy regulators to establish participant funding programs for Indigenous groups. This gives the regulators further ability to engage and consult with Indigenous groups, as well as build meaningful relationships with Indigenous groups whose rights may be affected by offshore energy projects.

(1550)

As someone who began her career in the fishing industry and was raised in Port de Grave — a vibrant fishing community — protecting this vital industry and those who work in it is personal to me. The Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador are both staunch advocates and defenders of the fishing industry, as they stated in their testimony to our Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

Clause 28 and clause 137 provide the federal and provincial ministers, together, with tools to protect fishers and important ecosystems. Additional clauses include specific considerations for fishers in the submerged land licence process, establish a compensation regime and ensure that fishers are engaged throughout environmental and regional assessment processes.

Additionally, the offshore regulators in both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have long-established relationships with fishers built through their collaborative work in the offshore petroleum sector. Nova Scotia’s regulator has established a Fisheries Advisory Committee for this very purpose. These relationships will continue as they have for the past 30 years.

Fishing activities have successfully coexisted alongside offshore energy development in Canada for decades. In the United Kingdom, fishing activities continue to occur within offshore wind project areas. There is no reason these two ocean industries cannot coexist here with the stable and mature regulatory regimes we already have in place.

I’d like to confirm that Bill C-49 will ensure that marine protection and conservation are important considerations in this bill. The elements of the bill related to marine conservation have received support from many organizations, including SeaBlue Canada, which is a collaborative organization that includes several of Canada’s most active and well-respected non‑governmental organizations, with the united goal of holding Canada’s government accountable for equitable, impactful and ambitious marine protection.

Of course, pursuing wind energy isn’t at the expense of the oil and gas industry. Newfoundland and Labrador will continue to produce the low-carbon petroleum that the world needs as long as global demand exists. But this important energy sector is looking to diversify to include wind energy, clean hydrogen and other renewable energy sources as the economy continues to shift to green technologies.

Honourable colleagues, Bill C-49 is transformational. It will align the regulation of offshore renewable energy and non‑renewable energy resources under a mature and established regulatory scheme, and it will help enable us to decarbonize our electricity industry, shift us toward electrical power, build our hydrogen sector and create thousands of new sustainable employment opportunities for Canadians.

If Canada is to fulfill its promise to attain net-zero emissions by 2050, offshore wind energy has a crucial role to play while providing a significant economic opportunity that Canadians can capitalize on along the longest coastline in the world. The opportunity before us, represented in Bill C-49, is of national and global significance. As Tory Rushton, the Nova Scotia Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables, testified at the Senate committee hearing, it offers Atlantic Canada the “. . . greatest economic opportunity since the age of sail.”

In closing, I urge each of my honourable colleagues to support the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia — and all Canadians — and vote to adopt Bill C-49. Thank you.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, as an independent senator representing Nova Scotia, I thought it important to add my voice to the third reading debate on Bill C-49. This bill seeks to achieve outcomes that are hugely important for my province as well as Newfoundland and Labrador and, in fact, our entire country.

Bill C-49 helps us in our fight against climate change and in stimulating economic growth. It is about investing in new technology and about directly addressing our energy needs in a sustainable manner. It is also helping us to adhere to agreements with some of our closest trading partners around the world. For all of these reasons, I support Bill C-49. I do, however, have to raise a concern as it relates to the omission of meaningful consultation between this government and all stakeholders.

I commend my colleague and fellow Nova Scotian Senator Prosper for his deep engagement on this bill. I appreciate his ensuring that our colleagues on the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee become aware of this failure to consult fully as it relates to Bill C-49. Specifically, the provincial and federal governments had ample opportunity to raise Bill C-49 in discussions with the Mi’kmaq, but they have failed to do so with all groups. The Crown’s duty to consult flows from section 35 of the Constitution, and this duty to consult was reaffirmed with the tabling and passing of government legislation adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples reinforces the government’s duty to consult Indigenous communities by requiring free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative measures that may affect them. I find it hard to believe that this duty to consult was unintentionally overlooked by a government that has rightly prioritized both reconciliation and the passing of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson sent the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee a list of all the Indigenous groups who had been consulted; however, Senator White identified that 12 communities had not been consulted.

The Government of Canada needs to do better, especially in light of the fact that, for 17 years, the Mi’kmaq, Nova Scotia and the federal government have successfully and consistently followed a defined consultation framework — a framework that was ignored in this circumstance.

Additionally, in a brief to the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, the Fisheries Council of Canada identified that Bill C-49 unintentionally weakens spatial protections around Sable Island and Georges Bank because the spatial protections in the Accords acts have not been updated for renewable energy projects. It is my hope that the government will address this issue in subsequent legislation or, if possible, in the regulatory process because the people of Nova Scotia need to have confidence that our fishery will remain protected.

Colleagues, the black box approach to law-making in Ottawa, and regulation-making as well — where meaningful consultation does not occur — has to change, not just where it is constitutionally required, but elsewhere as well. I will absolutely vote in favour of this legislation but expect this government, and any future government, to do a much better job fulfilling its obligations to consult.

Colleagues, achieving a clean energy grid absolutely requires renewables to be part of the mix. Offshore wind power is an underutilized piece of the puzzle, and there is a global race for investment. Most days, there’s not much you can do to predict the weather in Nova Scotia, except for the reliability of the wind. Believe me, I live on the ocean.

With existing technology, we can easily have the ability to not only meet our own need for renewable power but also generate sufficient excess power that we can use to scale our green hydrogen industry for export. Bill C-49 is crucial if we’re to attract the global investment required for our two provinces to benefit from this enormous opportunity.

To this end, in August 2022, Canada and Germany signed a joint declaration establishing a hydrogen alliance and creating a transatlantic supply chain for hydrogen before 2030, with first deliveries aimed for 2025. All Nova Scotians will benefit from enabling these investments. Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston stated:

Bill C-49 is a necessary first step in unlocking our energy potential. There will be many steps along the road but we are hopeful that Bill C-49 passes so we can get started.

(1600)

I share that sentiment entirely with our premier. We rarely see legislation that is perfect. However, at some point we need to stop accepting grievous oversights in process. The tenuous nature of this Parliament and the crucial synchronization with mirror legislation at the provincial level provides all the confirmation that I need to proceed confidently with passing this important legislation. Thank you, colleagues.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Judy A. White: Senator Deacon, will you take a question to set the record straight?

Senator C. Deacon: Certainly, thank you.

Senator White: Thank you. Was it, in fact, Senator White who referenced 12 communities not being consulted, or perhaps it was Senator Prosper in Nova Scotia?

Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Senator White. I expect perhaps that may be the case, and I misstated it. My apologies.

Senator White: It’s very important to my community. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Réjean Aucoin: Honourable senators, I wish to express my support for Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

In 2021, Nova Scotia passed the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act.

This statute legislates a number of climate change targets for the next decade, including phasing out coal-fired electricity generation and generating 80% of electricity from renewables by 2030. In 2023, Nova Scotia Power generated 42.5% of its electricity from renewables.

I listened carefully to the questions and concerns raised by Senator Prosper in committee, particularly about section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Like many of my colleagues, I agree that consultations with Indigenous communities should always be mandatory.

Since I come from a coastal community where fishing is very important, I want to share some of the concerns expressed by commercial fishers. This industry is a major economic driver in Nova Scotia. It generates almost $2 billion in revenue and provides tens of thousands of jobs. According to the Nova Scotia finance department, $2.5 billion in seafood products were exported in 2022.

Nova Scotia has also set a target for offshore wind energy production of up to five gigawatts by 2030. That’s enough energy to power 3.75 million homes.

In fact, there are already more than 300 commercial wind turbines generating electricity in Nova Scotia, with an estimated production capacity of 603 megawatts.

Given Canada’s goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, it is vital that we increase our green energy projects. Offshore wind energy is a key part of that. Bill C-49 is part of a wider international movement to adopt safer, carbon-neutral energy sources.

In conclusion, I will be voting in favour of Bill C-49.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[English]

Hon. Krista Ross: Honourable senators, today I rise to speak to Bill C-49, the An Act to amend the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, not as a Nova Scotian, a Newfoundlander or Labradorian, but as a New Brunswicker. Many of you may ask what New Brunswick has to do with this bill. I see the economic benefits of this bill as more far-reaching than for just those two provinces. I see the impact it will have on Atlantic Canada as a whole.

I will begin my remarks by stating that I support this bill and intend to vote in favour of it. As many have already stated in this chamber and in committee, this bill is critical to the development of offshore wind energy and renewables in Atlantic Canada and will provide enormous economic opportunities in our region.

For example, six months after Newfoundland and Labrador lifted its 15-year moratorium on the development of wind power, 31 submissions for land-based wind energy projects were received. Now imagine what this would look like if expanded to offshore projects.

Some organizations predict that global offshore wind energy capacity may increase fifteenfold, but, despite having one of the longest coastlines in the world, Canada has no offshore wind infrastructure currently in operation. We have to start somewhere, and businesses stand at the ready to invest in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and contribute to a greener energy future in Canada.

This bill truly has the ability to change the energy landscape. From labour needs and supply chain resources to business innovation and renewables, these future projects will have an impact on all of us. I commend Senator Petten and others for their hard work on this bill. This can also serve as an inspiration or a path forward for other coastal provinces and communities when advocating to move into the space of offshore wind energy.

However, I have concerns about the process of this bill. It has been stated by the government that they enjoy support from Indigenous communities, which is true. There are communities in support of it, and I don’t want to downplay their support and the work they’ve done. However, this isn’t about individual projects or bands giving support or not giving support; this is about a consultation process that we must go through.

Throughout the development of this bill, the government and the minister have been careful to say they engaged with Indigenous communities. Colleagues, “engagement” has no legal definition and no duty associated with it. What has been absent throughout this entire process is true consultation. In fact, even our own Energy Committee struggled to include Indigenous consultation throughout the study. I commend my colleague Senator Prosper, who could not be here today, for recognizing the need for Indigenous witnesses and highlighting the blind spots in this bill when it comes to consultation.

What consultation would look like is the federal government participating in the already-established Terms of Reference for a Mi’kmaq-Nova Scotia-Canada Consultation Process, also known as the Made-in-Nova Scotia Process.

What engagement looked like was two letters from Natural Resources Canada dated September 7, 2022, and May 26, 2023. Engagement and consultation are two different things. Words matter, and, colleagues, in reviewing legislation that impacts Canadians, we are in the business of language.

It concerns me that we hear time and time again from federal governments, “trust us,” “we promise,” “you have my personal commitment,” and that whatever legislation is before us is too important to slow down. But when is it enough?

In asserting their treaty rights, the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs have been placed in a position where they are deemed to be delaying important legislation, pitting economic prosperity for Nova Scotians against Mi’kmaw in their fight to assert their rights.

Colleagues, while I will definitely be voting in favour of this bill, the government needs to do better. Consultation isn’t something that’s nice to do, but something we must do. “Trust us” and promises aren’t good enough.

Thank you, woliwon.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, I rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Aside from the Terms of Union when Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949, the Atlantic Accord is the most consequential piece of legislation for my province. Bill C-49 fundamentally changes the Accord Acts, the accords that this bill seeks to amend. Those accords, as one of the witnesses at committee described them, are “the most important piece of legislation enacted in the last four decades for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.”

Former prime minister Brian Mulroney, who signed the Atlantic Accord, wrote in his memoirs:

I fulfilled a pledge I’d made eight months before as opposition leader when I told the people of —

— Newfoundland and Labrador —

— that I believed that both the federal government and provincial government should play equal roles in the management of offshore resources.

(1610)

This was no small matter. At the stroke of a pen, my have-not province earned the chance for economic viability and would add another resource with which we could build our future. The Atlantic Accords are an example of federal legislation having an enormous impact on provincial matters, and any federal bill, like Bill C-49, that tries to modify those accords needs the full attention of all those who live in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Today, the offshore industry that sprung from the Atlantic Accords directly accounts for more than 4,000 jobs in my province and thousands more indirectly — and not just in my province: For every direct job in the offshore petroleum industry, 1.8 jobs are created in the rest of Canada.

It is also a significant contributor to our provincial treasury. In 2023 alone, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was expected to receive $1.2 billion in royalties from offshore oil production. That amounts to approximately 15% of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador’s budget and far more from taxes to individuals and companies.

Offshore operators spent an estimated $1.6 billion in capital investment in the region. It plays an important role in our provincial economy, accounting for 25% of our GDP and the export of over $9 billion in oil and refined petroleum products. In fact, oil and gas together make up 41% of Newfoundland and Labrador’s exports.

It plays an important role in Canada’s economy. We are the third-largest oil producer in the country, and St. John’s, our capital, is the centre of the oil and gas industry in Eastern Canada and one of 19 World Energy Cities.

As I mentioned, for every direct job in the offshore oil and gas industry, 1.8 jobs are created in the rest of Canada.

I want you to think about this next fact, honourable colleagues: Newfoundland’s offshore oil and gas industry and the Atlantic Accords that brought it into being directly led to Newfoundland and Labrador being a net payer into the Canadian interprovincial transfer system for the first time ever in 2008. That fulfilled a vision of then-citizen Brian Mulroney, who, in 1981, in a speech to Memorial University, said:

There is an industrial base here that one day soon will be the envy of many; hydro power, oil and gas, fisheries, mining, pulp and paper, tourism — you have it all.

And he was right. We have a lot to thank for to Mr. Mulroney in having given us the accords, and we have a lot to thank for to former premier Brian Peckford, the only remaining living signatory of the document. I have quoted you the words of Mr. Mulroney, who would have applauded adding renewables to the Atlantic Accords but, I think, would have been appalled at the inclusion of clause 28 as being contrary to the spirit of the original accords.

We don’t have to guess how Mr. Peckford would have felt. I quoted his letter to MPs when I spoke at the report stage last week, and I don’t need to repeat them. They are in the record, and they are clear. He sees a betrayal of our province by our representatives who support the dismantling of a robust investment in our most economically important industry.

I also outlined both in committee and here in the chamber why I think the Senate should have supported the bill as amended by the committee. I won’t repeat those arguments at length here other than to say that the bill unamended will create enough uncertainty for investors in the oil and gas industry to consider the risk in Canada’s offshore unacceptable. That was clearly the design of the clause and had nothing to do with renewable energy.

Honourable colleagues, we imperil the spirit of the Atlantic Accords — and, with it, the astounding economic viability of Newfoundland and Labrador — at our own and at the country’s risk. What is most surprising is that we do it so unnecessarily. We could have modernized the accords to include renewables — something everyone, including me, supports — without at the same time slipping in a clause, through stealth, that damages our offshore oil and gas industry, an industry that is going to be vital to our energy needs for decades to come. Whether we like it or not, it also happens to be vital to Canada’s economic well-being, not to mention many other resource-rich countries that will be more than happy to supply the world’s needs when we don’t.

There is no doubt there is a global consensus on transition, but we need to do so methodically, purposefully and thoughtfully. Whatever you say about the petroleum industry, as an energy supply, it is effective, efficient and established. It is a proven source of abundant energy that supplies the world. The same cannot be said for renewables at this stage. We are in the exploratory phase, still figuring things out. The most effective, promising source of clean energy for the future, nuclear power, is verboten among climate activists. We cannot abandon the former while transitioning to the latter. That is hardly a radical or extreme position; it is simply prudent policy.

Those who spoke against the report last week assured us that there was nothing to see here. Clause 28 does not, they argued, give the federal minister unilateral power to cancel licences on a whim. As Senator Petten, sponsor of the bill, put it when arguing against the report:

At committee, it was indicated that with respect to the Atlantic Accords, there wasn’t a joint management decision, and the minister could cancel. This was untrue, not understanding that it has to be a joint decision. . . .

You’ll have to excuse me if I am not overly convinced by all of this. The Trudeau government has been an environmentally activist government from the day it took office, introducing bills like Bill C-48, the oil tanker ban, and Bill C-69, enacting the Impact Assessment Act, also known as the “no more pipelines act,” casting aside legitimate objections to both of those bills as if they didn’t exist only to find that many of the objections were valid, particularly in the case of Bill C-69, the constitutionality of which was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. Yet, Bill C-49, the bill before us, references the Impact Assessment Act 73 times.

Those bills were direct attacks on Canada’s oil and gas industry, and it is surely no coincidence that the current federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change is a card-carrying environmental activist whose activities prior to entering politics included being charged for his activism — like those today, arrested for throwing paint on priceless works of art because they believe it will advance their cause.

So you’ll have to excuse me if I am not convinced by those who argued against the amended report last week; it is quite the opposite. I found it curious that some of those who told us there is nothing to see in clause 28 to upset the oil and gas industry, in the same breath, used it as an opportunity to fan the flames of climate alarmism. Senator Kutcher characterized my prudent position as “drill, baby, drill” — twice. That is neither an accurate nor a thoughtful portrayal of my objections to clause 28. And for someone who is telling me I have nothing to worry about, it reveals to me an underlying motive that indicates I have everything to worry about.

Senator Petten also used her argument against my amendment to ring the climate alarm bells, even as she assured us there was nothing to worry about in clause 28 and even though I have voiced my full-throated support for including renewable energy in the Atlantic Accords and my support for Bill C-49, generally.

She said:

Canada is warming two times faster than the rest of the world. The wildfires just last year blanketed Canada with smoke, burned over 18 billion hectares and displaced 200 communities and 232,000 Canadians.

The cost of natural disasters has ballooned by over 1,200% since the 1970s. . . .

Colleagues, you just heard me speak on Bill C-76, the actual cause of many wildfires in Canada.

We all thought that Bill C-49 was about renewables. I thought it was interesting that Senator Petten used 1970 as her benchmark. Steven Pinker, the author of Enlightenment Now, whom Prime Minister Trudeau called one of the world’s clearest and most vital thinkers, also uses 1970 in his seminal book to identify the dawn of “greenism,” which he calls “a quasi‑religious ideology.”

I came across a report from National Public Radio, which, as many of you know, is not actually a conservative organization; it is one of the most progressive media outlets in the United States today. That report is called “How The Smokey Bear Effect Led To Raging Wildfires.” It concludes, in a nutshell, that it is not climate change that is mostly responsible for the large forest fires we see today; it is bad decision making and bad policy. Forest fires were once natural and small, but once the U.S. Forest Service was formed around 1900, its marching orders were “no fires.” As the article on the report states:

. . . it was the experts who approved the all-out ban on fires in the Southwest. They got it wrong. . . .

“The irony here is that the argument for setting these areas aside as national forests and parks was, to a large extent, to protect them from fire . . . . Instead, over time they became the major habitat for free-burning fire.”

Again, colleagues, we have seen that over the last number of years. The article continues:

So instead of a few dozen trees per acre, the Southwestern mountains of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Utah are now choked with trees of all sizes, and grass and shrubs. Essentially, it’s fuel.

And now fires are burning bigger and hotter. They’re not just damaging forests — they’re wiping them out. Last year, more than 74,000 wildfires burned over 8.7 million acres in the U.S.

(1620)

I’m not arguing that climate change does not play a role, but the reasons for some things are far more complex than the climate alarmists are willing to acknowledge. We need to be prudent going forward on our policy approach fully aware of the unintended and sometimes intended side effects of that policy.

Steven Pinker champions an approach called eco-modernism, which begins with the realization that some degree of pollution is an inescapable consequence of the second law of thermodynamics, meaning that no form of energy will avoid causing pollution, whether it be hydrogen power, electric power, wind power or oil and gas. We saw that with the various witnesses who came before our committee worried about what wind power would mean for our fisheries and bird population, and, of course, how to get rid of turbines at their end-of-life point. What we need to do is minimize that.

When it comes to oil and gas, our offshore industry remains the cleanest in the business. There is very little refining and in some cases no refining, no separation from sand, no pipelines or rail needed, modest and regulated flaring for safety purposes. I could go on, and I sometimes do.

In conclusion, colleagues, I want to be on the record saying that as we transition to new forms of energy, if we abandon the old too soon or too precipitously, we do so at our peril. Thank you.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Scott Tannas: I move the adjournment of the debate in the name of Senator Prosper.

Senator D. M. Wells: I have a point of order. I thought a speech was delivered on behalf of Senator Prosper, and therefore, an adjournment by the same senator would be out of order.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Prosper has the right to speak. He hasn’t spoken, and I don’t think there was a speech in the name of Senator Prosper.

Senator D. M. Wells: I was under the impression that Senator Deacon of Nova Scotia spoke on his behalf. No? Thank you. Sorry.

The Hon. the Speaker: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Tannas and seconded by the Honourable Senator Deacon Nova Scotia that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate.

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

Some Hon. Senators: No.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

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

Income Tax Act

Bill to Amend—Third Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Martin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Plett, for the third reading of Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of travel expenses for tradespersons).

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

Criminal Code

Bill to Amend—Twenty-seventh Report of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cotter, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean, for the adoption of the twenty-seventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill S-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures), with an amendment and observations), presented in the Senate on September 24, 2024.

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the report on Bill S-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures).

I also rise today to speak as an Albertan. Normally when I say that, I am speaking with pride, but not today, because today I want to start by telling you about one of the darkest chapters in Alberta’s history.

In 1928, the government of Alberta passed the Sexual Sterilization Act, which allowed the province to sterilize those with serious mental illness. It thus became the first and only jurisdiction in what was then called the British Empire to pass and aggressively pursue a policy of eugenics.

From our vantage point a hundred years later, it may seem hard to believe, but in the 1920s, eugenics was in many ways a progressive social idea, embraced by avid social engineers who thought they were doing the best thing for society and for those they deemed unqualified to bear and raise healthy families. Tommy Douglas, one of the founders of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, or CCF, was an enthusiast for eugenics. So was Dr. Elizabeth Bagshaw, a crusading feminist doctor lauded for her work as a pioneer of birth control. So too were the Famous Five, the pioneering Alberta feminists who led the fight to establish that women were legal persons, and whose statues we pass every day as we enter the Senate.

(1630)

In 1928, Alberta was governed by the United Farmers of Alberta, or UFA, a party of populist progressives, many of them proponents of the social gospel. Irene Parlby, one of the Famous Five, was a member of the UFA cabinet — in fact, she was the first woman to serve as a cabinet minister in Alberta’s history.

And it was the United Farmers who established the Eugenics Board, which decided the fate of the patients who came before it. The board was headed by one John M. MacEachran, who was the founder of the Department of Philosophy and Psychology at the University of Alberta and the university’s first provost. MacEachran, a Canadian with two PhDs, had studied with some of the leading philosophers and psychologists of the day in Berlin, Leipzig and Paris. His professors and mentors included Alfred Binet, the originator of the intelligence quotient, or IQ, test. MacEachran had been convinced to give up his academic life in Europe to come to Edmonton, to help establish a new university in a new province.

In speeches and articles, MacEachran loved to cite his favourite Greek philosopher, Plato, arguing that restricting the right to bear children was a way to move toward the perfectibility of the human race — the true Platonic ideal. He said in a 1932 lecture:

We should endeavour to get away from a very costly form of sentiment and give more attention to raising and safeguarding the purity of the race. We allow men and women of defective intelligence or of criminal tendencies to have children.... There is one remedy for such eventualities and we fortunately have begun to make use of it in Alberta — although not yet nearly extensively enough. This is the Alberta Sterilization Act. Since the state must assume most of the load of responsibility in connection with defective children, it surely is justified in adopting reasonable measures to protect itself against their multiplication.

Initially, the ostensible goal of the Sexual Sterilization Act was to make it easier to release people suffering from mental illness from asylums — including World War I veterans suffering from “shell shock,” or what we’d now call PTSD.

The premise was that you could discharge patients:

. . . if the danger of procreation with its attendant risk of multiplication of the evil by transmission of the disability to progeny were eliminated.

And initially, all sterilizations were to be voluntary — although the promise of being able to leave the asylum might have tainted just how voluntary those agreements were. Still, in its first year, the board only carried out three sterilization procedures.

Things changed, though, after the Social Credit government of William “Bible Bill” Aberhart took power in Alberta. In 1937, Aberhart’s quasi-fascistic government broadened the scope of the Sexual Sterilization Act to include people it described as “mental defectives,” and added that since those people were mentally defective, their consent was clearly no longer required.

In 1942, people with epilepsy, syphilis and Huntington’s disease were added to the list. At the same time that Hitler’s Nazis were consolidating power and implementing their own eugenics regime, in Alberta, 300 to 400 people a year were being sterilized under the act — with Professor MacEachran, that “noble” philosopher king and respected academic serenely presiding.

In fact, while the Nazi regime sterilized more people over a shorter period of time, Alberta had actually sterilized about the same percentage of its population over the life of the program.

Over time, Alberta’s Eugenics Board paid less and less attention to the validity of the evidence of disability, hearing each case in about 10 minutes. As rates of procedures climbed, a disproportionate number of those who were sterilized were new immigrants or Indigenous people, some of whom “failed” their IQ tests simply because they didn’t speak or read English.

Indigenous patients comprised 6% of all sterilization files brought before the board, even though they made up only about 3% of the population.

There were other notable demographic shifts. By the 1940s, case files involving women began to outnumber those involving men. Of the 2,832 sterilizations that were performed over the life of the Sexual Sterilization Act, 58% were performed on women.

By 1959, the number of cases had tapered off. Still, that year, the board examined 95 patients and authorized sterilization for 94 of them.

Dr. MacEachran chaired the board for 37 years and didn’t retire until 1965, when he was 88 years old — a “moral” philosopher who seemingly never doubted the righteousness of his grotesque crusade to “perfect” humanity, demonstrating a kind of intellectual and ethical hubris that takes my breath away.

The Sexual Sterilization Act wasn’t abolished until 1972, the year after Peter Lougheed and his Progressive Conservatives took office. David King, the young cabinet minister who introduced the motion to abolish the act, said at the time, simply:

. . . that the act violates fundamental human rights. We are provided with an act, the basis of which is a presumption that society, or at least the government, knows what kind of people can be allowed children and what kinds of people cannot … It is our view that this is a reprehensible and intolerable philosophy and program for this province and this government.

And that was how the story was told. That was what I learned: that the forced or involuntary sexual sterilization of vulnerable people ended in 1972. It was a rude and disturbing shock to me to realize — thanks to the tireless, crusading work of our colleague Senator Yvonne Boyer and of the Senate Human Rights Committee — that this was not so, and that the practice had simply gone underground. It was equally disquieting to realize that some doctors in the here and now, 100 years later, were still channelling the prejudices and arrogance of John M. MacEachran — performing involuntary sterilizations out of a patronizing belief, informed by racism, classism and misogyny, that they alone knew what was best for their patients.

Yet I must tell you that when Senator Boyer first proposed Bill S-250, in its original form, I was deeply concerned by the legislation. In its earliest incarnation, the bill might have effectively made all sterilizations — hysterectomies, tubal ligations and vasectomies — illegal, and any doctor who performed them liable to criminal prosecution unless a very specific rubric was followed to ensure informed consent. There was no exception made, even for a doctor who needed to perform an emergency surgery to save someone’s life.

I feared that such a law would leave Canadian women in the same position as so many American women find themselves today — unable to control their own bodies and exercise their own reproductive choice. I worried about a chilling effect, about doctors who would simply refuse to perform any sterilization procedures out of fear of prosecution. Also, I worried that women might bleed to death on the operating table while their surgeons worried about how to follow the law.

I was concerned, too, that trans people might not be able to access gender-affirming surgical procedures because doctors might shy away from the risk of criminal liability.

The original Bill S-250 would also have made it a crime to try to convince or counsel someone to have a sterilization procedure, which I feared would chill necessary conversations with doctors, nurses and social workers — or, indeed, between married partners, since even a wife who tried to persuade her husband to get a vasectomy might find herself in legal jeopardy.

The original draft was wholly well intentioned and a reflection of Senator Boyer’s passionate commitment to protect vulnerable women, particularly Indigenous women, from grievous bodily harm and assaults on their bodily autonomy. Yet in trying to stop one kind of human rights abuse, I feared the original Bill S-250 created the potential for all kinds of other human rights abuses.

So I am relieved and grateful to say that the bill before us now does none of those things. For months now, Senator Boyer has been working hard to redraft and recraft her bill, to find a way that protects vulnerable people from exploitation and high-handed medical arrogance while still ensuring that people seeking vasectomies, hysterectomies, orchiectomies and tubal ligations can receive the care they want and need without onerous delays.

It has not been an easy task, and I want to applaud Senator Boyer for her courage, commitment, and willingness to listen carefully and respectfully to her critics and work both with Senate colleagues and Department of Justice officials to come up with a bill that makes it clear that forced sterilization is a serious form of assault — without running the risk of criminalizing necessary and wanted medical care.

The version of Bill S-250 that stands before us now represents the best kind of compromise and is a tribute to the thoughtful work of Senator Boyer and the entire Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. All its members gave the bill such thorough, respectful consideration and debate. Sometimes, even in this chamber of sober second thought, politics and partisanship can get the better of us. But in this case, the committee rose above all that and adopted, unanimously, a legally elegant solution that fits neatly into the Criminal Code. I hope now that the bill will move quickly through the report stage and on to third reading so that we can send it to the House in a timely manner.

(1640)

This collaboration took a kind of humility and compassion which Professor John M. MacEachran — that Platonic monster, intent on engineering his perfect world — could never have imagined.

The story of the eugenics movement in Alberta, and in Canada, is a reminder of the dangers of embracing righteousness and purity at the expense of common humanity. Eugenics was championed by people on the left and the right, by partisans so blinded by moral idealism and moral superiority that they could no longer see the very real people whose autonomy they were stealing away.

A reminder, perhaps, to each and every one of us in this chamber, as we shape the laws that shape the lives of our fellow Canadians, not to let hubris and sanctimony cloud our vision.

Thank you and hiy hiy.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Criminal Code

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman, for the second reading of Bill S-255, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (murder of an intimate partner, one’s own child or an intimate partner’s child).

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Honourable senators, I note that this item is at day 15, and I am not ready to speak at this time. Therefore, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 4-14 (3), I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my time.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Debate adjourned.)

[English]

Criminal Code

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ataullahjan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Martin, for the second reading of Bill S-267, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (aggravating circumstance — evacuation order or emergency).

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, I note that this item is at day 15. Therefore, I move the adjournment of the debate in my name for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Ataullahjan, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

National Immigration Month Bill

Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gerba, seconded by the Honourable Senator White, for the second reading of Bill S-286, An Act respecting National Immigration Month.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Bill S-286, introduced by my colleague, Senator Amina Gerba, to create a national immigration month in Canada.

It’s often said that Canada is a country of immigrants, and that’s certainly true when you look at the diversity of our population from coast to coast to coast.

Creating a national immigration month would highlight the important contributions made by immigrants to our history, both in the past and more recently.

However, I would also like this celebration to become a time for reflection on the issues at stake. Immigration is a crucial issue today. A century ago, when our country was very young, one couldn’t set off from Mexico City or Casablanca and land a few hours later in Montreal or Toronto. A century ago, no one was talking about climate refugees, narco-states or the systematic violence suffered by women in many countries.

Immigration to Canada has often come in waves: British, Chinese, Japanese and Italian, for example. However, these waves were often accompanied by high and low tides. At high tide, we accepted a lot of Chinese immigrants because we needed labourers, but if we thought there were too many, we imposed astronomical immigration costs on them. Chinese immigrants were shamefully discriminated against.

Many Jews wanted to flee Germany or Austria just before the Second World War, but the ships that were carrying them were refused permission to dock in our ports. That is also shameful.

On the other hand, when Russia invaded Hungary, we opened our doors to the Hungarians. When the Vietnamese boat people were condemned to hell, we welcomed them. For the past two years, we’ve been welcoming thousands of Ukrainians.

Since Canada’s inception, there have always been people who believed that there were too many or too few immigrants. In Quebec, we’ve had a slightly different history.

Between 1840 and 1930, a million francophones, the vast majority from Quebec, emigrated to the United States, mainly to New England. At first, they were farmers who could no longer survive, but at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, Americans were coming to Quebec to recruit labour for their textile industry. They needed workers.

That didn’t stop the Ku Klux Klan from opposing the immigration of these Catholic francophones. Thousands of KKK members went so far as to go to Washington, wearing hoods and carrying torches, to protest against the so-called “Chinese of the Eastern States.” Today, it is estimated that there are more descendants of these Franco-Americans in the United States than there are francophones in Quebec.

Let’s come back to today. The current Quebec government feels that there are too many immigrants, asylum seekers and international students. In short, there are too many foreigners on its territory. Unfortunately, these newcomers have become scapegoats for all of the province’s problems.

The Quebec government’s ceaseless, aggressive rhetoric about the evils of immigration troubles me deeply. Might it reduce Quebecers’ openness to newcomers? Are immigrants really responsible, as is so often repeated, for the housing crisis and the overburdened social and health services? They are undoubtedly one factor, but they are not the only factor.

Yes, the federal government has set immigration thresholds too high, but Quebec also controls some aspects, including temporary immigration. Le Devoir editorialist Marie-Andrée Chouinard believes that there is some degree of bad faith in the CAQ government’s rhetoric. I quote:

Quebec can call this a national emergency and blame newcomers for many ills, but you don’t have to look very far back in time to see that Quebec itself contributed to the problem, then knowingly chose to ignore its impact.

The use of identity-based arguments is even more harmful. They say asylum seekers and temporary immigrants are a threat to the French language in Quebec. Are they really? Do they have any numbers to back up this claim? Does anyone really believe that the thousands of temporary workers who make up the agricultural workforce harvesting crops on Quebec farms are a threat to our language?

Isn’t one of the most obvious threats to young francophones the omnipresence of the internet, of social media, of a very English-speaking virtual world?

(1650)

Don’t get me wrong, I think our language needs constant, positive promotion, but not at the expense of newcomers, who are already living in precarious, dislocated conditions.

Quebec nationalism hasn’t always been a vehicle for divisive speech about immigration. I still have vivid memories of the outstretched hand that PQ member Gérald Godin held out to the cultural communities of the 1970s. He met with them. He was inclusive and attentive. He helped shape the Parti Québécois’s vision at the time.

Let’s face it: It’s clear that in Quebec, like elsewhere in Canada, we need immigrants and temporary workers. Quebec’s two major newspapers, the Journal de Montreal and La Presse, ran articles in August on Latin Americans who, in several small towns in Quebec, are ensuring the survival of businesses, starting up new businesses themselves and providing a much-needed demographic boost. It’s true, Quebec women aren’t having a lot of children. Thetford Mines, which is not a large city, now has an international soccer league. The players are temporary workers who play on Saturday for their home country, either Colombia, Mexico, Guatemala, Senegal or Cameroon. These are wonderful integration success stories.

If our handling of newcomers’ files were quicker and more efficient, whether by federal and provincial officials or by commissioners, we might not be where we are today. In short, the world is changing rapidly, and our position on immigration must evolve just as quickly, not according to the ideologies of political parties, but rather with great pragmatism. I also believe that this delicate debate calls for tact, moderation and kindness, all of which are sorely lacking.

I’m among those who believe that Canada must remain a generous country. We must never forget that an Iranian, an Afghan, a Sudanese or a Colombian must first and foremost be regarded as a human being who wants to come and settle here to improve their situation or that of their family. We have to ask ourselves this question: What would we do if we had a family and there were no future for them in our country, either because of poverty, desertification or other untenable conditions? That should be our compass in this debate. Thank you.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Ataullahjan, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Canada Elections Act

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued

Leave having been given to revert to Other Business, Senate Public Bills, Second Reading, Order No. 25:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dasko, seconded by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc, for the second reading of Bill S-283, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (demographic information).

Hon. Frances Lankin: Honourable senators, I appreciate this. I did not believe I would be in the chamber when this bill was called. I have little remaining time to weigh in on this important piece of legislation. I will be brief. Bill S-283, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (demographic information), is sponsored by Senator Dasko.

I would like to thank Senator Dasko for her work on bringing this bill forward, her important knowledge of data collection and analytics and the value she realized that this bill would bring to our electoral system, particularly with respect to the election of more candidates from diverse backgrounds.

Late in the 1980s, I had the opportunity to be an active member for a number of years in a group called the Committee for ’94. That was in reference to 1994. The goal of our group was to reach 50% representation by women in the House of Commons. This bill deals with broader categories than women, but that was back in the day. You can tell by looking at the numbers today that we failed. We didn’t make the 1994 deadline. In fact, as I indicated, I participated for a number of years on that committee. Senator Dasko, toward the end of that time, joined the committee as well. It was made up of women across the political ideological spectrum and non‑partisan women.

We came together — women activists within political parties and community organizations, journalists and columnists — with a goal to do something to spark the work of political parties in reaching out and drawing in more women candidates to run in winnable ridings. There had been a certain effort by parties to present a more acceptable set of statistics in terms of the number of women candidates they had, but upon analysis, it was clear that although they were carrying the banner and delivering messages of importance on the various platforms to the electorate in their constituencies, they were subject to unforeseen possibilities and were running in what were known to be unwinnable ridings.

This bill now widens the category of diversity from looking at women to looking at Indigenous candidates, candidates from various minority populations and also from disability communities. It is an important bill.

There are two important things the bill attempts to achieve. The first is to allow for Elections Canada to collect data on the diversity of candidates so that there is a report card that we can all see. As I indicated, in analyzing them, we can see if we are making progress, not just in the sheer numbers of individuals from diverse backgrounds who are elected, but in the process of recruitment, nomination and electoral presentation of more diverse candidates in all the political parties in all the ridings.

In our efforts, we understood that there was a reality regarding political parties, what they face in terms of incumbencies their party may hold where they support the candidates in their bids for re-election. There are certainly local democratic processes of nomination that need to be respected, but we believed there were steps forward that we could take. In the political party of which I was a part at the time — and I ran and was elected in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario — we put in procedures that, like this bill, did not require quotas. It didn’t require specific end results, but it sought to increase the opportunities and challenges, and that measure was that in recruiting for nomination races, the riding associations needed to make an effort to reach out and include, in the day, women, but now it could be members of various diversity and inclusion communities.

That, in and of itself, helped boost the numbers. In fact, when I was elected in Ontario and became a member of the cabinet of Ontario, we had the highest number of women in cabinet at any time up to the efforts by the current federal government and the Prime Minister, who declared, “Because it’s 2015,” in answering why he populated his cabinet with 50% women and 50% men.

These efforts were not only happening in political parties. This was also happening in organizations. It was happening, for example, as a member of the Ontario Federation of Labour Women’s Committee, we had developed a proposal and policy on how to bring more women onto the board of the Ontario Federation of Labour. We advocated for that. We brought forward resolutions to the Ontario Federation of Labour convention, and we were ultimately successful. That was the first stage of changing the map, as you would say, and the data results have only increased since then.

(1700)

Organizations like the Maytree Foundation — where our colleague Senator Omidvar was the executive director and CEO for many years — brought about efforts throughout the charitable and voluntary sector in Toronto and beyond. Most notably, I interacted in Toronto. It not only helped develop the skills and the tools for organizations to do good outreach and work for their boards and staff, but also to really highlight it by a celebration. I was honoured once to receive — on behalf of the organization that I was with, which was United Way of Toronto at the time — an award from Maytree presented by Senator Omidvar. It was many years before we both arrived in this chamber.

This is a long history. It was before 1994, but the period leading up to that was a concerted effort, and one that failed.

I am also incredibly proud to be here in this chamber at a time when we have surpassed 50% of the membership of the Senate being women. By looking around, we can see that the efforts that all of us have urged have paid off with a much broader diversity in this organization.

This collection of data is important for the ability to analyze and determine if progress is being made, and it is important to allow advocates and practitioners to develop new measures and new approaches to attempt to improve the situation. We know that political parties should put in place processes, like the ones I have mentioned in some political parties at some levels and orders of government, as well as in organizations in the charitable sector and the labour movement. We know that there has been a concerted effort in corporate Canada with respect to their boards of governors to make progress there. But in terms of corporate Canada, that progress has been helped and informed by initiatives right here in this chamber where we debated about the need for corporations to be compelled to disclose their efforts and results. And if they’re not complying with the goal of increasing diversity, they must explain why not. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons, and sometimes the reasons are not legitimate, but that possibility is there.

I only raise that because this is not coercive. This is about arming ourselves, our organizations and our institutions with more information in order to make good decisions about how to move forward with increasing the diversity of representation in decision-making bodies throughout our society. I believe it is a noble goal, and I believe progress is being made. I believe that Senator Dasko’s bill will help us move there.

The second thing that the bill does is direct parties — as I just said, we approve this in this chamber with respect to corporations — that they must disclose their progress and comply or explain. That is a minimal requirement. It is not easy to compel a certain result when you are looking at democratic processes and organizations. This is a goal to give people the information to improve their results and for us to hold those individuals responsible to do everything that is within their power, while recognizing certain limitations.

As I said, several years ago, when I was looking at vacancies and names, I was glad to stumble across the fact that in this chamber — through an appointments process, not an elections process, and the appointments process is a much easier process to control — we had arrived at gender parity. As I have said, the broader diversity that is represented here is truly an important milestone of progress in our democratic processes and institutions.

I don’t need to say more except that I wholeheartedly support Senator Dasko’s bill. I believe that, as a chamber, we live and benefit from the diversity of opinions, views and experiences that are brought to bear as we study legislation and as we consider larger issues through our Senate committee studies. I said I would be brief. I’m not always; today, I am. With thanks to Senator Dasko, I ask and urge my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(Debate adjourned.)

The Senate

Motion Concerning Possible Exit of Alberta from the Canada Pension Plan—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Simons, seconded by the Honourable Senator Greenwood:

That the Senate of Canada:

1.call on the Chief Actuary within the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to publish an actuarial study that reports on:

(a)a possible exit of Alberta from the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), including an analysis of the viability of the CPP after such an exit by Alberta;

(b)a reasonable estimate of an exit cost of Alberta’s share of the Canada Pension Plan fund; and

(c)any other information that the Chief Actuary deems to be relevant in the study of this issue; and

2.call on the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to study a possible exit of Alberta from the CPP, including any fiscal and/or economic impacts of such an exit from the CPP on Canadians.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I note that this item is at day 15, so I will adjourn for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Future of CBC/Radio-Canada

Inquiry—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cardozo, calling the attention of the Senate to the future of the CBC/Radio-Canada.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Cardozo’s inquiry regarding the future of CBC/Radio-Canada. Although I feel as though Radio-Canada better meets my needs because it broadcasts content in French, I have a great deal of respect for the CBC, which is facing much greater challenges in terms of competitiveness and the relevance of its content.

[English]

In 1932, the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, the predecessor of CBC/Radio-Canada, was established. The following year, in 1933, the first radio news bulletin was aired. By 1936, a Crown corporation was formed to manage a national broadcasting system, which was named CBC/Radio-Canada.

(1710)

In 1939, regular broadcasts of the Montreal Canadiens’ hockey games became live, coming from the Montreal Forum. The coverage also started with the outbreak of the Second World War. At the time, radio remained the quickest and most accessible way to follow the news.

The first television station went on the air in 1952 in Montreal and Toronto. Three years later, 66% of the population had access to Canadian television networks. In 1955, the opening of the parliamentary session and the reading of the Speech from the Throne were televised for the first time on the occasion of Queen Elizabeth II’s first trip to Canada as sovereign.

In 1966, in a new technological era, CBC/Radio-Canada began broadcasting in colour. In 1993, the first online services were launched at cbc.ca followed by radio-canada.ca in 1995.

In 2005 came the launch of SiriusXM Canada satellite radio with the channels ICI Radio-Canada Première and CBC Radio One. This would be followed by the online viewing platforms ICI Tou.tv and CBC Gem in 2018, and two mobile applications Radio-Canada OHdio and CBC Listen in 2019.

Today, CBC/Radio-Canada is present on 27 television channels and 88 radio stations. Its content is accessible throughout Canada, even in rural areas. It broadcasts diverse content in English, French and eight Indigenous languages, and it has an international presence.

One of CBC/Radio-Canada’s most important characteristics is the high quality of news and public affairs content. Content is researched, well-documented and supported by factual data, making it a highly qualified broadcaster for our country. At a time when Canadian trust is being severely tested by misinformation and disinformation on social media, it is reassuring to rely on a public broadcaster that respects its audience.

For the 2024-25 financial year, CBC/Radio-Canada will rely on $1.38 billion in federal government subsidies, which accounts for approximately 70% of the budget. The remainder will primarily come from advertising revenues.

[Translation]

In the speech that he gave in this chamber on May 21, Senator Cardozo said the following, and I quote:

An important issue is that the French language Radio-Canada is more popular than its English counterpart and also plays a more important role culturally in Quebec than the Canadian francophone world. The reasons for this are at least twofold.

In the North American content that is primarily anglophone, French programming has a high viewership among francophone viewers, while English CBC faces a massive number of competitors. English-speaking Canadians have a massive amount of choice from Canada and the United States, while there are comparatively fewer French networks that appeal to a Quebec and Canadian audience. Indeed, Radio-Canada is known for the high standard of programming it provides.

Senator Cardozo’s research has revealed the following, and again I quote:

About 21.3 million Canadians use CBC digital services each month. In addition, CBC local radio programs are the most listened to radio programs in 21 out of 30 markets across the country. In the other nine, they are a close second.

I repeat, 21.3 million Canadians use CBC’s digital services every month. That’s more than half the Canadian population.

As you all know, I am a Franco-Ontarian. I was born here in Ottawa and I lived here for 37 years. I’ve been living in Northern Ontario since 1996. I spent six years in Sudbury and I’m starting my 23rd year in North Bay. I come from a francophone family. My mother is a Quebecer, born in the city of Hull — she used to be called a “Hull baby” — and my father is a Franco-Ontarian born in the town of Cochrane, in northeastern Ontario. My family’s connection to the French language and culture runs deep. I was raised and educated entirely in French, whether at home, at school or in my choice of television or radio programs. I had a 38-year career in French in the francophone financial cooperative sector.

I’m sure you can tell that I feel deeply connected to the French language and culture and the legacy that comes with it. If we were to talk about music, I would tell you about Vigneault, Leclerc, Charlebois, Dufresne, Ferland, Ferré, Brassens, Mathieu, Harmonium, la Chicane and the Cowboys fringants. If we were to talk about literature, I would tell you about Beauchemin, Morency, Desbiens, Roy and Laferrière. If we were to talk about television programs, I would tell you that as a youngster I liked “Bobino,” “La Boîte à surprise,” “Moi et l’autre,” “Rue des pignons,” “Les beaux dimanches,” “Rue de l’anse” and “La vie qui bat.”

If we were to talk about radio programs, again from my childhood, I would tell you about “Le chapelet,” broadcast at 7:00 p.m., “Les joyeux troubadours,” broadcast from Monday to Friday at noon, and the tales of “Tante Lucille,” broadcast on Saturdays at 10:00 a.m.

As I mentioned earlier, I live in North Bay, which is four hours northeast of Ottawa. For residents of my greater region, there are very few French-language radio stations, and in North Bay, there is only one station accessible on a free network. That station, as you may have guessed, is Radio-Canada

Ici Radio-Canada Première is my travelling companion during my commutes between North Bay and Ottawa. I have access to content like “Pénélope,” a program with varied content that tackles some very interesting subjects, “Midi info,” which analyzes the news of the day, “Il restera toujours la culture,” which combines musical and literary information, and “Moteur de recherche,” which provides straightforward explanations of scientific issues. When I’m in the local broadcast zones, I have access to programs from Sudbury and Ottawa. Outside those areas, between Deux Rivières and Deep River, I listen to classical music.

All the programs I listen to on Ici Radio-Canada Première are unique, well-researched, factual, informative and interesting. What more can I say? In my opinion, that’s what sets this public broadcaster apart from all the others and makes it unique, valid and valuable to our country.

I’d like to tell you about another one of my travel companions, one that I enjoy using on my daily walks: the OHdio digital platform.

I discovered this platform during the pandemic. It offers a large number of audiobooks, including biographies, novels and children’s books. The selection is wide-ranging and very interesting. It’s got something for everyone: the great Leonard Cohen, Dr. Stanley Vollant, Stéphane Rousseau’s Famille royale, Paul-Émile Borduas the painter, France Castel, Renée Claude, Édith Butler and coach Pierre Gervais. The stories I listen to are fascinating, the narrations are interesting and the sound production is exceptional.

The OHdio site contains a treasure trove of information about Quebec’s Quiet Revolution and the October Crisis, along with news stories, old broadcasts and countless podcasts.

It has everything from major police investigations, history, arts and culture to biology, science and humour. Since I started using this site, I’ve spent at least fifteen hours a week listening to it.

There’s also the ici.tou.tv website. I’m not a big fan of television programs, as my schedule doesn’t allow me to be captive to a fixed broadcast schedule. I watch only a few programs, mostly on demand. I sometimes watch segments of Tout le monde en parle and Infoman.

(1720)

During the Paris Olympic Games, I followed the highlights on the tou.tv platform. I really enjoyed the summaries that were presented. It was far too beautiful outside to watch the Olympics non‑stop for hours. I like having access to the French-language films available in the repertoire and watching certain programmes on Ici Explora.

What about CBC? This network keeps me informed. I watch to “The National” every day to get news from Canada and abroad. If I can’t catch the newscast, I watch it later. I particularly enjoy the “At Issue” segment on Thursdays, with journalists Rosemary Barton, Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj. Their analyses are always interesting and insightful, and the experience they have gained from their long careers in political circles makes their discussions very enlightening and informative.

I also appreciate the “About That” segment, which offers carefully researched explanations of stories that affect us every day. It’s not about sensationalism; it’s about facts. It encourages viewers to think about the complex problems facing our society and offers some interesting insights.

Based on the information we received from Senator Cardozo, CBC/Radio-Canada services cost $33 per Canadian. I think that is a very small price to pay for fair, superior quality, reliable content. In my opinion, as a francophone with limited access to French content in my home region, Radio-Canada is not only a vitally important option, but a top-quality option as well.

I wish to thank CBC/Radio-Canada. You see Canadians for what they are: intelligent people with a thirst for knowledge and information. It is in our best interest to preserve this national treasure.

Thank you for your attention.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator White, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Business of the Senate

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-13(2), I move:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(At 5:24 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Appendix—Senators List

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

1st Session, 44th ParliamentVolume 153, Issue 223

Tuesday, October 1, 2024The Honourable Raymonde Gagné, Speaker

THE SENATE

Tuesday, October 1, 2024

SENATORS’ STATEMENTS

Importance of Dialogue Between Governments and Socio-economic Partners

National Seniors Day

Visitors in the Gallery

China—Human Rights

Visitors in the Gallery

ResearchNB

Creative Solutions Through Collaboration

Visitors in the Gallery

Homage to Demasduit

Visitors in the Gallery

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Canada National Parks Act

Bill to Amend—First Reading

Banking, Commerce and the Economy

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Canada’s Monetary Policy Framework

QUESTION PERIOD

Finance

Cost of Living

Appointment of Financial Adviser

Indigenous Services

Support for Indigenous Communities

Global Affairs

Conflict in Gaza Strip

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

North American Aerospace Defense Command

Public Services and Procurement

Indigenous Self-Determination

Indigenous Services

Opioid Crisis

Prime Minister’s Office

Confidence in Prime Minister

Transport

Transportation of Grain

Employment and Social Development

Temporary Foreign Workers

International Trade

Export Development Canada

Answers to Order Paper Questions Tabled

Finance—Dividends Paid to the Government

Housing and Diversity and Inclusion—Dividends Paid to the Government

Housing, Infrastructure and Communities—Shared Equity Mortgage Providers Fund

Public Safety—Foreign Interference

Finance—Trans Mountain Corporation

National Defence—Royal Canadian Air Force

Health—ArriveCAN Application

Privy Council Office—ArriveCAN Application

Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs—ArriveCAN Application

Public Services and Procurement—ArriveCAN Application

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Canada National Parks Act

Bill to Amend—Second Reading

Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation ActCanada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act

Bill to Amend—Third Reading

Income Tax Act

Bill to Amend—Third Reading—Debate Continued

Criminal Code

Bill to Amend—Twenty-seventh Report of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee—Debate Continued

Criminal Code

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued

Criminal Code

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued

National Immigration Month Bill

Second Reading—Debate Continued

Canada Elections Act

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued

The Senate

Motion Concerning Possible Exit of Alberta from the Canada Pension Plan—Debate Continued

Future of CBC/Radio-Canada

Inquiry—Debate Continued

Business of the Senate

1st Session, 44th Parliament
Volume 153, Issue 223

Tuesday, October 1, 2024
The Honourable Raymonde Gagné, Speaker

Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act
Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act