Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
1st Session, 45th Parliament
Volume 154, Issue 89
Thursday, October 1, 2026
The Honourable Raymonde Gagné, Speaker
- SENATORS’ STATEMENTS
- COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
- SENATORS’ STATEMENTS
- ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
- QUESTION PERIOD
- ORDERS OF THE DAY
THE SENATE
Thursday, October 1, 2026
The Senate met at 1:30 p.m., the Speaker in the chair.
Prayers.
SENATORS’ STATEMENTS
Twenty-fifth Anniversary of 9/11 Attacks
Hon. Leo Housakos (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to mark a solemn anniversary that passed on September 11. It occurred while this chamber was not yet in session, but it is one I feel duty bound to bring to the floor today.
A few weeks ago, we marked 25 years since September 11, 2001. A quarter-century later, there is now an entire generation of young Canadians who have grown up in the shadow of that day. They have only ever known the world it created.
But what we must ensure is never forgotten is what 9/11 was and what it sought — but failed — to destroy. It was the single worst and deadliest terrorist attack in human history. It was meticulously planned over several years and carried out by cowards on our American neighbours, motivated by a despicable hatred for everything we in the Western world embody: our freedom, our democracy and our way of life.
We lost 24 of our own Canadians that morning, among the nearly 3,000 innocent lives stolen. I will never forget the images of desperate souls forced to jump from the upper floors of the Twin Towers and the unthinkable courage of the first responders who ran up those stairwells.
That attack sought to break the spirit of a free nation. It sought to instill a permanent fear, to make us turn inward and to force open societies to retreat. And that is precisely where it failed, because in the face of absolute darkness, the world saw the unshakable character of free people.
Here in Canada, our response was swift, quiet and profound. When American airspace closed, Canadians in Gander didn’t hesitate to open their homes, their halls and their hearts to nearly 7,000 scared, stranded strangers.
And when the call came to defend our shared democratic values, 158 of our brave service members gave their lives in Afghanistan, standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies.
Honourable colleagues, the hatred that fuelled 9/11 has not vanished from the earth. It has simply changed form.
Today, the fundamental values of the Western world — rule of law, individual liberty, pluralism and free expression — face renewed threats from tyranny, extremism and authoritarianism around the globe. Preserving them requires our continued and uncompromising resolve.
Let us never forget the lives stolen on September 11. Let us reaffirm — to our allies and to enemies alike — that Canada’s defence of our shared values remains as resolute and unshakable as ever before.
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 members of Black-led community land trust, or CLT, organizations: Hogan’s Alley Society, Upper Hammonds Plains CLT, Little Jamaica CLT, Weymouth Falls CLT and the Equitable Land Reform Project. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Clement.
On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Anne Hayes and Steve Ganton. They are accompanied by Gabriel Benson, son of the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, and his partner.
On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
National Day for Truth and Reconciliation
Hon. Brian Francis: Honourable senators, yesterday, some of us attended Remembering the Children, a gathering on Parliament Hill to mark the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. We joined others across Canada to honour the Indigenous children who were forced into residential schools and other institutions and to remember those who never returned home.
While progress has been made over the last decade to deliver on our national commitment to advance reconciliation, much work remains to be done.
Today, I reflect on this reality with a heavy heart but also renewed determination. That is why I wish to echo three clear calls to action that I heard yesterday from Survivors.
First, the Government of Canada must provide sustained and predictable funding for Indigenous-led initiatives that advance truth, justice and healing. This work cannot be achieved through short-term commitments. We need to push for long-term investment and partnership, even amidst competing pressures.
Second, the Government of Canada must explore every available option to prevent the loss of records collected through the Independent Assessment Process, which are scheduled to be destroyed next September. We cannot allow such an invaluable part of our history to be lost. These records can and should be preserved for future generations, while also respecting the confidentiality promised to Survivors.
Third, the Government of Canada must confront denialism. Just last Sunday, individuals associated with a White nationalist group targeted Tk̓emlúps te Secwépemc to inflict harm and spread hate. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Across the country, denialists are increasingly targeting Indigenous communities leading the sacred work to find our missing children.
Before denialism becomes more visible, organized and dangerous, we must work in partnership with Indigenous Peoples to develop and implement meaningful measures that can combat it. This chamber already missed an opportunity to confront this threat. Let us not be remembered for allowing it to continue unchecked.
Colleagues, these are three priorities, among many others, which demand a united and meaningful response from this chamber. So this year, let us challenge each other to learn more and do better not only for the benefit of those living with this legacy today, but also for those who will inherit it tomorrow.
Lastly, I wish to honour the memory of the two beloved Elders from Tsawwassen First Nation killed in a crash during an event to mark September 30. Let us also hold their families and all those injured and affected in our hearts.
Wela’lin. Thank you.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Constable Jeff Smith
Hon. Charles S. Adler: Honourable senators, I’d like to share a personal story dedicated to the medical recovery of Canadian police Constable Jeff Smith.
The story begins in 1944, one year before the end of World War II. Hungary, the land of my birth, is a Nazi puppet. My mother is 10 years old and is being raised by her mother, a young widow.
(1340)
One day there is a knock on the door, and the police arrest her mother for the crime of being a Jew. She is taken to a Nazi concentration camp. On that day, my 10-year-old mother loses her childhood.
I am born 10 years later. Shortly before I turn 10, my mom tells me to grow up in a hurry because she and my dad could be taken away and I’d be on my own. That conversation doesn’t necessarily end my childhood, but it does end my interest in reading books meant for children.
I begin to read about the Holocaust. I need to know how to prepare myself for what feels like the inevitability of danger.
My child’s mind begins to divide the population of this country into two parts: those who would harm me and those who would hide me.
Two weeks ago in Belleville, Ontario, a three-hour drive from where I’m standing, two local police officers rescued a Jewish congregation from a massacre. They stop a man obsessed with Jew-hatred, armed with a loaded rifle, from murdering everyone in that synagogue. Those two police officers, Jeff Smith and Michael McCurdy, are the best of Canada.
The child in me will always see them as Canadians who would hide me from harm. In this chamber, I look Canada in the eye every day. I see all of you as Jeff Smith and Michael McCurdy — Canadians. I love Canada. I love all her representatives. I love every one of you. My message to you from the child in me is thank you for hiding me, protecting me and allowing me to grow up in the greatest country on earth.
Thank you. Meegwetch.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
University of New Brunswick’s Data Science & Artificial Intelligence Research Institute
Picketa Systems
Hon. Joan Kingston: Honourable senators, on October 7, 2026, here on Parliament Hill, the New Brunswick Research and Innovation Showcase will be held. I encourage all honourable senators to attend and celebrate this remarkable work in person.
Today I would like to highlight two Fredericton organizations: the University of New Brunswick’s Data Science & Artificial Intelligence Research Institute, known as DAIR, and Picketa Systems. They are both proof that New Brunswick continues to earn its place as Canada’s innovation sandbox.
DAIR was established to ensure that, as AI reshapes sectors ranging from health care and agriculture to cybersecurity, it is developed and used responsibly and for the benefit of society.
DAIR is helping to position New Brunswick as a leader in this rapidly changing field.
[Translation]
Its work is supported by extensive research and brings together experts from a variety of disciplines, while forging partnerships within the private sector, the public sector and civil society.
[English]
DAIR is now leading the establishment of a pan-Atlantic AI institute, bringing together nine Atlantic Canadian universities to give our region a stronger, unified voice and the ability to scale AI initiatives well beyond what any one institution could achieve alone.
This past June, DAIR hosted the Atlantic AI Summit, bringing leaders from government, industry and academia to Fredericton.
Meanwhile, Picketa Systems is applying that same spirit of innovation directly from the fields of northwestern New Brunswick to success on the national and international stage.
Born in 2020, out of an undergraduate capstone project by four students from the University of New Brunswick’s Faculty of Engineering and supported by the faculty’s technology management and entrepreneurship program, as well as the potato farming industry in the students’ home region of northern New Brunswick, this start-up company developed the Leaf-Evaluated-Nutrient-System, or LENS, a portable device that gives growers nutrient results from real-time tissue analysis in minutes, instead of the days or weeks required by traditional lab testing.
[Translation]
Combined with its FieldBook software, Picketa’s technology enables farmers to make faster, smarter decisions about their crops by converting generations of practical agricultural knowledge into real-time data.
[English]
Honourable senators, one of these organizations works at the frontier of artificial intelligence and the other in farmers’ fields, yet both reflect the same New Brunswick strength: take deep expertise and practical experience and turn it into solutions the world can use.
I am pleased to note that DAIR’s scientific director, Scott Bateman, will be joining us here on Parliament Hill next week.
[Translation]
I also invite all senators to join me in recognizing the DAIR Institute’s and Picketa Systems’ contributions to innovation in New Brunswick.
Thank you.
Business of the Senate
The Hon. the Speaker: Pursuant to the order of September 29, 2026, I leave the chair for the Senate to resolve into a Committee of the Whole on the subject matter of Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (extension of the federal fuel excise tax relief).
Following Senator Downe’s intervention on September 28, 2026, I want to remind senators that the minister is here to answer questions on the subject matter of the bill and to remain within that scope.
The Honourable Senator Cormier will chair the committee.
[English]
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Canadian Fuel Affordability Bill
Consideration of Subject Matter in Committee of the Whole
On the Order:
The Senate in Committee of the Whole in order to receive the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, P.C., M.P., Minister of Finance and National Revenue, accompanied by at most two officials, to examine the subject matter of Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (extension of the federal fuel excise tax relief).
(The sitting of the Senate was suspended and put into Committee of the Whole, the Honourable René Cormier in the chair.)
The Chair: Honourable senators, the Senate is resolved into a Committee of the Whole in order to study the subject matter of Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (extension of the federal fuel excise tax relief).
Honourable senators, in a Committee of the Whole, senators shall address the chair but need not stand. Under the Rules, the speaking time is 10 minutes, including questions and answers, but, as ordered, if a senator does not use all of their time, the balance may be yielded to another senator. The committee will receive the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, P.C., M.P., Minister of Finance and National Revenue.
I would now invite Minister Champagne to enter, accompanied by his officials.
(Pursuant to the order of the Senate, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne and his officials were escorted to seats in the Senate Chamber.)
The Chair: Minister, on behalf of all senators, welcome to the Senate.
As I have informed my colleagues, the question-and-answer period will be divided into 10-minute blocks. These blocks will be shared between two or three senators and will include time for your responses.
I would ask you to make your opening remarks of at most five minutes.
[Translation]
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne, P.C., M.P., Minister of Finance and National Revenue: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s always a privilege and a pleasure to come to the Senate and appear before you. I’d like to take a moment to thank all senators for the excellent work you do on behalf of Canadians.
Let me begin, Mr. Chair, by extending a special welcome to Senator Martel, Senator Pitfield, Senator Ouellette and Senator Tucker. I’d like to thank all of you for your hard work and for being here with us today.
[English]
Over the summer, like all of you, I had the opportunity to meet with Canadians, whether in Charlottetown, Edmonton, Toronto or in my hometown of Shawinigan, and I heard the same thing. I’m sure you had the same opportunity.
Canadians are working hard. They are optimistic about our country’s future, but they are also concerned about the uncertainty we see around us and the impact it can have on the cost of living. Like all of us, they are trying to navigate a rapidly changing world.
For those Canadians, I have a very simple message: We’ll be there for you. Which is why it is an honour for me to participate in today’s debate on the very important Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act.
(1350)
Honourable senators, we are faced with a world that is increasingly complex, increasingly volatile and, for many, more costly and unpredictable. The United States is imposing new tariffs on Canada. Ongoing conflicts and disruptions around the world continue to place pressure on energy markets and supply chains here at home and abroad. Canadians feel the impact of those pressures every time they fill up their vehicles, buy groceries or pay their monthly bills.
We can’t control every decision made beyond our borders, but we can control how we respond. Our government’s response is very clear: We are building a stronger, more independent and more affordable Canada.
[Translation]
Due to economic uncertainty and rising costs, affordability is top of mind for families and businesses across the country.
One of our government’s priorities is to help Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money.
As we work tirelessly to build Canada strong for the long term, we are taking action today to help Canadians with meaningful and immediate measures.
[English]
Our government is diversifying our trade partners abroad, attracting historic levels of foreign direct investment, delivering responsible fiscal management and supporting Canadians who are under pressure from everyday expenses. There is no doubt that Bill C-38 is a key part of this effort. Bill C-38 is just the latest initiative by our government designed to help Canadians cope with elevated costs of living.
You will recall, honourable senators, that in April of this year, we introduced a temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline, aviation gasoline, diesel fuel and aviation fuel. This pause reduced the federal fuel excise tax rates to zero cents per litre, and Canadians felt the impact right away, as they should have.
[Translation]
When the suspension came into effect, the price of fuel went down by 11 cents a litre on day one, which proves that the savings were quickly passed on to consumers.
The suspension was supposed to end after Labour Day. Before the deadline, however, our government announced that it would be extending the suspension of the federal fuel excise tax until January 31. Regular rates will then be reduced to 50% through March 31, 2027.
[English]
The passage of Bill C-38 will ensure that Canadians get this much-needed relief at the pumps. This measure has already brought down everyday costs for Canadians. It has reduced costs for families, farmers and truckers across our nation. It helps workers who depend on their vehicles and also supports businesses in key sectors, like trucking, agriculture, construction and the food and delivery industries.
[Translation]
The estimated additional financial impact of extending the suspension of the federal fuel excise tax is approximately $2.9 billion. This will mean $5.3 billion in estimated total tax relief for Canadians in 2026 and 2027. This is meaningful support for families, workers, and businesses across our country.
[English]
Let me say a few words about Canada’s fiscal responsibility and economic strength. Canada’s economy has remained resilient despite global challenges. Our workers are resilient. Our businesses are resilient. Canada is a resilient country.
As you can appreciate, I have much more to say, but I will conclude by saying that I urge all senators to support the motion that was passed unanimously in the other house and to pass Bill C-38 as quickly as possible.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator Housakos: Thank you, and welcome back to the Senate, minister. It’s always a pleasure.
Mr. Champagne: Thank you, senator.
Senator Housakos: Minister, suspending a fixed excise tax provides a fixed amount of relief per litre, but because GST is calculated as a percentage of the selling price, as you know, the federal tax collected per litre increases when the underlying price rises.
Has your department estimated the additional net GST revenue contributable to higher diesel prices?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you for the question, senator.
If you are asking me about the cost of this measure, the initial suspension we announced in April cost $2.4 billion in 2026-27. The extension of the suspension represents about $2.9 billion. So if you take the measure in its entirety, it is $5.3 billion.
Senator, this is a very meaningful measure because, as you know, with the price of oil fluctuating significantly in the world markets, we had, indeed, additional revenue. I think it’s fair in a country like Canada to use part of that revenue to support Canadians who need it most.
Senator Housakos: Thank you, minister, for the answer, but during a time of crisis, I think what Canadians need is to make sure they have more money in their pockets to be able to support themselves. His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition has proposed removing the GST from diesel for the duration of this emergency.
Can you tell the Senate and the Canadian people watching what that proposal would cost? How much would it save households? Why has the government not copied this very good idea? I understand it will cost revenue, but it will directly save taxpayers in terms of keeping more money in their pockets.
Mr. Champagne: Senator, if you look at the work we have done in Canada and compare that with other G7 countries, Canada is top of the class. The International Monetary Fund, or IMF, has been clear about urging members to have targeted, strategic and time-limited measures. Canada is probably the only country in the G7 that I can think of that has the broadest suite of measures to support affordability.
If you look at the affordability pyramid, as I call it, the basis is the cost of rent — finding an affordable and safe house for your family. The second piece is the cost of food, and that’s why we introduced the Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit. The last one is the price of gas, legislation about which we’re now enacting.
You have to look at this, not as a single measure, but this house should be proud that the members of the other house have recognized that affordability is front and centre in the minds of Canadians and that the government has been acting on all three fronts: not just one, but three very important measures.
In fact, I could go on. We published — you have probably seen it — our spring economic update. If you look at the number of measures relating to affordability, you will find more than 10 measures that the government has put forward to support families. I could go on with the National School Food Program for children, for example. Think about child care. Think about the Canada Workers Benefit, the Canadian Dental Care Plan and the pharmacare plan.
I would urge senators not to look at this measure alone but to look at where we are as a government. We understand what Canadians need, and that’s why we say we’re going to be there to support them. We have a suite of measures. We are making generational investments in housing, and we are already seeing the costs of rent and the prices of homes stabilizing in many markets.
We’re acting on these three levers to support Canadians with the costs they are facing at the end of the month.
Senator Housakos: Minister, the opposition supports extending fuel tax relief completely in the other place and here in the Senate. However, Bill C-38 begins restoring the tax on February 1 and restores it fully on April 1, regardless of fuel prices or supply conditions.
My question to you is the following: Does your department expect the pressure on Canadian fuel costs to completely ease by then?
Mr. Champagne: Senator, you are an experienced member of this house and obviously someone who observes the world with good judgement. The world is facing a period of instability, uncertainty and complexity that we have not seen in generations. Obviously, we have been working with our allies and partners to stabilize the situation in the Strait of Hormuz. We’ve been very much involved with our partners. These are discussions we have at the IMF and at the G7 level. If you look at the price of fuel over the last few months, it has been very volatile.
We just had the G20 conference in Asheville, North Carolina. At that event, I was saying that what is very unique now is the speed of transmission from global events to affordability issues for people, like, for example, in Shawinigan. The Strait of Hormuz has increased the price of gas for people in Moncton, but it has also increased the price of food in many parts of our country and around the world. What started as an energy crisis is translating into affordability issues and food security issues. Canada is not immune to what is happening in the world.
(1400)
Certainly, we have the fiscal capacity to support Canadians. If you compare us to our G7 partners, senators would be proud to see that this government has not only been fiscally responsible but we have also been there for Canadians in times of need. I think that’s what Canadians expect from all of us.
Senator Martin: Minister, your government recognizes through this bill that federal taxes affect fuel affordability, obviously. Conservatives have long called for the removal of the industrial carbon tax and the Clean Fuel Regulations to further ease the price of fuel on Canadians’ pockets. Minister, what is your department’s estimate of the combined effect of these two policies on diesel prices today, and how is that expected to change next year?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you for your question, senator. I can refer you to what we are seeing in the G7. I would be happy for the committee to have these charts. You can see the level of diesel prices in the G7. Canada is not immune but is doing better than many of our G7 partners. Due to what is happening in the Strait of Hormuz, the price and the refining of diesel impacts all our partners. If you compare the change in diesel prices from September 2025 to February 2026, you will see that Canada is in a better position than other countries.
That being said, to your point, we understand that the measures in Bill C-38 will reduce the federal fuel excise tax by four cents on diesel. It is an important measure for farmers, truckers and everyone watching today in Canada. The Government of Canada is doing our part to support farmers and truckers around this country to ensure that we put pressure on the price of diesel to come down by suspending the federal fuel excise tax on diesel.
Senator Martin: We may be doing potentially better than other G7 nations, but, minister, people are struggling and suffering. I heard a listener on the radio; I’m from British Columbia. He says he works and he pays for fuel; that’s all he can do. This is urgent. Minister, will you commit to tabling the underlying analysis distinguishing direct compliance costs from the amount passed on to consumers while accounting for differences between federal and provincial industrial pricing systems?
Mr. Champagne: Senator, I appreciate it, and I am mindful of the story you just mentioned. We are there for citizens like the one whom you mentioned. The Senate can approve this bill as quickly as possible to ensure we enshrine this tax relief in law.
The federal government is happy to do its part to suspend the federal fuel excise tax, but there are other levels of government that can do it with measures as they desire. As you know, there is a tax component on the price of gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel. We are doing our part.
I know senators expect us to be fiscally responsible. You want us to support people. That’s what we are doing. Given that I have previously appeared at Committee of the Whole, senators expect me as the Minister of Finance in our government to be fiscally responsible. For the person whose story you mentioned, this is one affordability measure, but I could go on about more than 10 other affordability measures that help with the price of groceries, rent or owning a home.
Senator Martin: Thank you, minister. I will look at a central problem in your government’s plan that Canada can produce —
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator Loffreda: Minister Champagne, it is always a pleasure to welcome you to the Senate of Canada. Like most Canadians, I welcome Bill C-38 and the government’s proposal to extend the federal fuel excise tax relief on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel. Canadians do need relief from high fuel costs, but my question concerns the impact of the temporary suspension that has been in place since the spring.
At the time of its announcement, the government described this as a responsible measure that would reduce operating costs for truckers and businesses in the food, agriculture, housing, construction and delivery sectors.
Although the measure has been in place for only five months, has the government collected any data on how this tax relief has reduced operating costs for these businesses? Canadians need relief and Parliament needs evidence that this measure is delivering it and reaching businesses and consumers. It is a broad measure. Why was it preferred over a more targeted measure? Has there been any analysis on that and where we could have used the $2.9 billion for more targeted measures that would have reached all Canadians?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you, senator. This is how Canada is seen as part of the G7: At the International Monetary Fund meeting, we are often singled out as one of the countries with the best approaches in terms of targeted measures, which are time-limited, targeted and strategic to support Canadians in their time of need. This measure was initially intended to end around Labour Day.
We need to manage with our heart and mind while understanding global events. The war and conflict that we are seeing in the Middle East have not eased. The pressure on fertilizer, gas and logistics around the world has not eased. Therefore, countries like Canada have fiscal capacity. We entered this period in a position of strength. Canada is one of the very few G7 countries with the fiscal capacity to support its citizens during times of need. This is just one of the measures. We probably have 10 other measures that really support Canadians with affordability. Housing is probably the biggest one. If you think about the generational investments we have made and if you look at the typical family, the average would be 30% of people would invest or have to pay for funding an affordable and safe home. Then on top of that, you put what we have done in terms of groceries, and now you are looking at gas. In the G7, we are probably the country with the most comprehensive suite of measures to support people with the things that really matter to them. Those are pressure points every month and every week, and we want to support them with real measures.
If you look in the Spring Economic Update, senator, you would probably be very pleased and almost proud when you look at that and see the number of people we are touching. If you look at the Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit, we are touching 12 million Canadians. This is significant.
For example, in regard to what we have done on workers’ benefits, that’s 3 million people around the country.
The various measures we have put in place and the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax affects more than 25 million people. We have been able to create a set of measures that are broad-based and also strategic and targeted at a time when we need to be both fiscally responsible and also provide a boost and a bridge for people toward a more stable time in our economy.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for that answer. It is important when you have a preferable comparison to the G7, and it is always great to know how well we are doing, but it is also about how well we could be doing. It’s constantly important to have those targeted measures for all Canadians.
Minister, the bill would restore half the excise tax in February and the full tax in April. What economic assumptions underpin that timetable? If fuel prices remain elevated, what criteria would guide a decision to extend relief again? Families and businesses need predictability. Will you commit to publishing your assessment before the suspension ends so that they can plan for the resulting costs?
Mr. Champagne: No one has a crystal ball for what the world could look like then in terms of the volatility and the transmission of global events into pocketbook issues. This was a real issue at the centre of our discussions when we last met at the G20 meeting. I talk about speed. There is a sense of loss of control for people. Those events seem far away. Then, suddenly, it’s the end of the week or the month, and even though Canadians have done nothing wrong, food and gas prices have impacted them. Therefore, we have been acting.
(1410)
To your point, I think what we’ve done is responsible. We want to be fiscally prudent in how we approach it. The level of volatility and complexity in the world today warrants that, as Minister of Finance of this country, I approach this situation in a prudent fashion and that I look at measures that will make a difference to people.
I want to remind all the senators in this room that this is just one of the many measures we have put forward to support Canadians. You can think about the Canada Child Benefit and the National School Food Program for children. There are a number of measures where you see that families and individuals are saving money. Those who need it the most receive the support that we can give.
I certainly hope that the pressure on the price of fuel and fertilizers will have stabilized by then. That’s certainly the hope and the desire of everyone that I have been in contact with during our interactions with fellow G7 finance ministers.
Senator Loffreda: In April, the government indicated that lower operating costs and stronger financial positions could allow businesses to hire workers and increase their exports to global markets.
I have a three-part question if time permits. First, has the government assessed the extent to which this specific measure has contributed to employment growth or enabled businesses to hire additional workers? Second, has the government evaluated if the measure has helped Canadian businesses expand their international reach and increase their exports of goods and services? Third, has the government made any projections on how the extension will impact employment and Canadian exports?
Mr. Champagne: When you address the cost of energy, you help everyone because energy is a requirement for all the businesses you mentioned, whether you’re talking about farming, trucking or logistics. That’s why this measure, in my view, is one of the best-targeted measures to provide support across the board because, obviously, you are reducing the costs of energy, whether you’re an employee who needs to take your car or truck to work or a person in the logistics business moving goods or farming products across different provinces. If you’re someone in the aviation sector, where we have seen pressures in many ways, that will have an impact on the price of aviation fuel. It is a very broad-based measure. That’s why it needs to be targeted and very focused in the period you can provide that support.
It is good news for workers, it is good news for businesses, and it is good news for consumers across the country, because we know that the price of diesel, in particular, will have a horizontal impact in many sectors of our economy. Therefore, what we have done is, in my view, one of the best-targeted measures. I assure you, in all of the meetings I go to internationally, Canada is often singled out as a country that has been thoughtful in how we approach that to not only support one sector in particular but also have a broad-based measure to support everyone in the Canadian economy.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, minister, for being here so promptly to discuss this bill. Let me ask you this: Did you consider a more targeted approach, such as, say, a reduction just for farmers, or perhaps reducing it by 50% for twice as long? Have you considered the effect of the possible export ban on diesel that President Trump has been talking about?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you, senator. It is a pleasure to be sitting next to you.
Senator Cardozo: The feeling is mutual.
Mr. Champagne: To the first part of your question, I think broad measures are more appropriate in the circumstances. If you look at fuel, which is related to the question that the honourable senator was asking before, you want to support everyone in the country.
We have a number of support packages for specific sectors. You will recall, for example, recently, when we announced countermeasures to the U.S. tariffs, we announced $7.5 billion to provide more liquidity for businesses and support for workers. However, when you look at something like the price of fuel or energy across the nation, different people will be impacted differently, but everyone is impacted. A broad-based measure, at least in my opinion, is better because if you do it for gasoline, aviation fuel and diesel, it has an effect in many sectors of our economy.
Senator, we’ve been in contact with those who produce fuel in our nation. I’m told that they are maximizing their diesel production. We produce more diesel than we can consume in Canada. We are producing at full capacity, but you know as well as I know, senator, that the price is influenced by what’s going on in the world. Therefore, there are things we, you and I, can’t control — for example, what is happening in the Middle East — but we can control how we respond, how we support Canadians and how we create the fiscal space for us to do that. I think Canadians now see the benefit of being fiscally prudent, because when you are fiscally prudent, when events like that, which are not within your control but to which you are not immune, happen, it allows you to respond in a targeted way for those who need it most.
For now, we are looking at what is happening in other jurisdictions, but what we can control is how we respond. The House of Commons was unanimous, and this was a measure applauded by everyone. The suspension, by unanimous consent, received the same kinds of accolades from members of the House.
Senator Cardozo: Can you say anything about the world picture? You’ve talked about the geopolitical nature of this measure. What other geopolitical issues are you watching for around the world that we should all be thinking about?
Mr. Champagne: I often say that the speed, scope and scale of changes are unprecedented. It’s geopolitics, geo-economics and technology. This leaves populations in many countries with a sense of loss of control. All these events are happening at once and very quickly and are so broad-based. That’s why I think the Prime Minister has been judicious and wise in saying, “Let’s focus on what we can control.” What we can control is building one Canadian economy and removing interprovincial trade barriers.
[Translation]
Senator Henkel: Good afternoon, minister. Thank you for joining us today and for coming here regularly to take questions from senators.
You chose to maintain the full suspension of the excise tax until January 31, 2027. As a result, Canadians will see a real difference in the price that they pay. However, business owners and Canadians have been asking me why you chose that specific date. I would like you to tell us why you chose January 31 over any other date and what factors or data you based that decision on.
Mr. Champagne: Thank you, senator. It is always a pleasure and a privilege to appear before the Senate and to talk with senators.
When we first suspended the excise tax, we were thinking about the state of the world and about how quickly things were changing. When we announced the measure in April, some people believed that the tensions in the Middle East would be resolved one way or another and that shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz would get back to normal. However, we now know that this is definitely going to take longer and be more complicated than we thought, particularly because we saw that . . . . I often say that geography doesn’t change very much and neither do people. We are now at the point where we are realizing that there will always be some tension.
Perhaps you heard the executive director of the International Energy Agency say:
[English]
“The global energy architecture is changing, and Canada can be at the centre of it.”
[Translation]
People are starting to realize that . . . . As you know, there are about eight straits in the world that are critically important to shipping and logistics. None of them are in Canada. Canada has access to three oceans, but it has no straits.
(1420)
As I see it, Canada can and must become that reliable energy security partner because what our discussions today show is that there is a direct link between food security, energy security and national security. That is why countries are turning to Canada. When the global energy architecture changes, as Fatih Birol said in Montreal, people start to wonder who they’ll be doing business with for the next 40 or 50 years. Energy security is national security. Take our Asian partners, for example, like Japan or South Korea. They import a lot of their food, but also a lot of their energy.
As for the choice of date, we thought that a solution would be found by then. That’s why we chose it. However, we realize that we are going to need to postpone it to allow for a longer suspension because of the secondary effects.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator Gerba: Welcome to the Senate. I’m going to continue in the same vein as my colleague. I’d like to know why the government opted for broad-based tax relief for all consumers rather than targeted support for the households most affected by rising fuel costs. What was the logic or analysis behind that decision?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you for your question, senator. This relief affects energy costs for various industries, but the impact is being felt by everyone, albeit to varying degrees. I think that, in this case, it is a direct, immediate and targeted measure, because we’re suspending the excise tax on fuels. It’s a quick way to help citizens when they need it.
Energy costs affect different industries, and I think it was important to have a horizontal measure that’s universal. Twelve million Canadians received the Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit. That program was even more targeted because we knew there were people who needed it. We’re trying to make up for the excessive food inflation since the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s why we provided a top-up for one year and then increased the benefits for the next four years. We’re implementing different measures for different issues.
My message to Canadians today, on the subject of housing, the cost of food and the price of gas, is that we’ve taken action on all three of those issues to support Canadians. We’re also taking action in a very targeted way with measures like the National School Food Program. That program helps the children who need it the most.
In terms of energy, it is more of a cross-cutting measure, and one that has been widely welcomed by several countries. They have recognized that Canada is able to offer this support in the current context because it has the fiscal capacity to do so, enabling it to provide immediate relief by suspending the tax.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Gerba: Will the government publish data that can be used to assess the impact the bill has had on gas prices and transport costs?
The Chair: Thank you, senator. I am certain the minister can answer your question at a different time. We will move on to the next block.
[English]
Senator Robinson: Good to see you, minister. As it has been established, the price of diesel is at record highs. I want to focus on how this is impacting primary agriculture and our farmers and ranchers in respect to Bill C-38.
According to Statistics Canada, in 2024, of the 10.2 billion litres of diesel sold in Canada, the agriculture sector was the second-largest buyer, accounting for about 15% of those sales. Planting, tending to, harvesting and marketing crops is a fuel-intensive process.
According to Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, the national average price just last week soared to $2.64 a litre, a 59% increase from earlier this year. And don’t forget the pricing spike we saw in 2022. Both of these spikes are directly the result of geopolitical conflicts.
As I speak right now, in my home province of Prince Edward Island, farmers are in the midst of the potato harvest, one of the most fuel-intensive times of the year on a farm. The government’s current relief measures are a start, but 4 cents a litre, as I’m sure you can appreciate, about 1.5%, is a drop in the bucket when facing $2.60-a-litre diesel. Even if global geopolitical tensions ease tomorrow — dream the dream — diesel prices won’t drop tomorrow, and producers will already have bought and spent the majority of this crop’s fuel at those higher prices.
How are we ensuring we are setting up our primary producers for the potential success that Dominic Barton pointed out in 2017? Canadian agriculture provides $159 billon in GDP now. How does this government plan to substantively address the fragility and unpredictability Canadian farmers and ranchers face? Farmers, as you know, are price-takers. They sell in commoditized markets. They cannot pass along these increased costs, but they must figure out how to absorb them and not go out of business. We are relying on them. Are the measures in Bill C-38 enough, minister?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you very much, senator. I would like to say “hello” to all the people from Prince Edward Island watching us today. Obviously, a great province and great people.
Thank you for your question. It is multi-faceted, so I will try to say a few words to do justice to your question. The answer is not only in Bill C-38, although it is one of the measures that will help with the price of diesel. You have to look at the National Food Security Strategy. I agree with you wholeheartedly. We talk about Canada as an energy superpower. I like to think about Canada as a food security superpower. We have what the world wants and needs in many ways.
For example, I was just with the Minister of Finance of India, the fastest growing economy in the world, which has overtaken Japan now, not only in the fastest growth but in terms of the size of the economy. I think it is the third-largest economy now. Obviously, when you are talking to partners like India and others, Canada comes to mind when you think about the role that we could play in supporting food security around the world.
That’s why the National Food Security Strategy is one step in that direction. The government is recognizing the role that Canada can play. You have seen, like me, in many instances, that we need to grow more at home. The price fluctuation we see in the winter is because we import a significant amount of fresh produce; I think it is 80%. Then we are subject to price and currency fluctuations, droughts and other things. So you will have seen that there are a number of measures in our National Food Security Strategy to support our farmers.
It is one of the great Canadian exports. Canadian products stand for excellence, predictability and traceability. Some of what you are producing in Atlantic Canada, obviously including Prince Edward Island, is the envy of the world. We will be there to support our farmers, our fishers and the hard-working people in Prince Edward Island and beyond.
I am very much one who believes, as I said, that the nexus today between food security, energy security, national security and economic security is all coming into one. It is great because, if you look at the megatrends of the world, whether it is about energy, critical minerals and AI, Canada is well positioned to seize those opportunities. I think food security — and I will stop there, senator — is, more and more, front and centre.
In our last discussions at Asheville, North Carolina, at the G20, the issue of food security was front and centre. We have seen how fragile the world is. One strait is blocked, and, suddenly, you have hundreds of millions of people around the world who could suffer from food insecurity. That’s where a country like Canada can step up and support our allies and partners around the world.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator Gignac: Welcome, minister. I want to thank you for everything your government is doing to address the cost of living crisis and to make the Canadian economy more resilient.
Statistics Canada recently reported that the oil sector’s profits climbed 80% in the second quarter, which coincides with when the excise tax on gasoline was suspended.
(1430)
South of the border, a study carried out by the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington demonstrated that in 2022, when the U.S. temporarily reduced the tax, 60% to 80% of those savings got passed on to consumers.
To address the questions raised by Senator Gerba and Senator Loffreda, in the interest of transparency, are you prepared to release any study undertaken by your department or the Competition Bureau to demonstrate that the totality, or at least the bulk, of the tax rebate went into consumers’ pockets and not those of the oil companies?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you, Senator Gignac. That is an excellent question.
The statistics show that prices dropped by an average of 10 cents across Canada the day after the suspension came into effect. That is a fact. We saw an immediate effect. You’re an economist. Obviously, you understand how this sort of thing works. We were very concerned about making sure that the price drop was passed on to consumers.
Your question is completely valid, as always, senator. We expect the Competition Bureau to keep a very close eye on this. The Competition Bureau has conducted several studies on the price of gas across the country, even back when I was serving as the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. I can tell you that the evidence clearly shows that this measure had a positive impact across the country starting the day after it was implemented. We saw a drop in price of approximately 10 cents. As you said, this is a targeted measure that also had a direct impact on consumers the very next day.
Senator Gignac: I understand that you intend to go a bit further. It’s true that the price went down 10 cents the next day but then prices actually went up. It’s difficult to assess, so if you have more information . . . .
Minister, oil company profits rose by 80% in the second quarter. Is it because they took part of the excise tax or is it because they took advantage of the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz to increase their profit margin? In both cases, motorists are paying the price.
You have the power to appeal to the Competition Bureau, as you did in the matter of grocery stores. I remember discussing this at the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance in 2024. You took action, you met with grocery chain executives, and we saw results. Do you intend to meet with oil company executives so they can explain why their refining margin increased by 80% in the second quarter, according to Statistics Canada?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you, senator. You are correct. As you know, the Competition Bureau is at arm’s length from the government. There are mechanisms in place that allow the minister responsible to ask the Competition Bureau to look into this specifically.
If you look at my comments when the measure was announced, I believe I was very clear about our expectations of the Competition Bureau. Essentially, I was speaking on behalf of Canadians. As minister, I expressed everyone’s expectations of the new tools. You will recall that when I was the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, we expanded the range of tools available. Many people said that the Competition Bureau was doing a good job but lacked the necessary tools and funding, even. We provided both. As you say, people have a right to expect the Competition Bureau to monitor these margins very closely.
Senator Gignac: In the 20 seconds that I have left, I want to say that I hope that you and your colleague, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, can meet with oil and gas executives to clarify why profits jumped by 80% in the second quarter, which coincides with the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz and your tax cut.
Thank you.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Thank you, minister, for being here today. I have a series of questions, not about the merits of the fuel tax suspension policy, which is a welcome relief for Canadians, but rather, about the tools that the department recommended for implementing the fuel tax suspension in the absence of an actual law to do so.
I note that, on September 2, the Department of Finance issued a press release indicating that the fuel tax suspension will be extended on September 8, the day after the suspension was originally scheduled to end. Bill C-38 will legally extend the date of the fuel tax suspension retroactively to September 8, subject to Bill C-38 receiving Royal Assent.
With that, my first question is straightforward: What is the legal authority, at present, to suspend the fuel tax effective September 8, absent a law passed by Parliament with retroactive effect?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you very much for your question, senator. I should have introduced Maude Lavoie, who is with me as well, if you want a more technical answer. However, I will tell you my understanding as a lawyer but also as the Minister of Finance of Canada.
There is a long-established practice at the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, to administer a tax measure before it receives Royal Assent. It is a well-established and long-standing principle in Canadian law.
They are looking at two criteria when the legislative amendment is in its final form and has been announced publicly. Obviously, all senators have seen that Bill C-38 is, I would say, relatively simple. I see senators smiling. It is a piece of legislation which is discreet, in a sense, and is very targeted, and we are amending only a few articles. Senator, we are extending the suspension. So this is already a measure that was in place, but we’re extending the suspension, and it has received unanimous consent from the House.
If you look at the established practice of the CRA, they are very much within the scope of normal practice when a measure is introduced or announced by the finance minister of Canada.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, minister. Rather than using a press release, which gave Canadians the impression that the fuel tax suspension was still in effect, and in the absence of a cabinet remission order, why was Parliament not recalled to pass legislation to give this extension the force of law prior to September 8?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you, senator, for your question. As I said, you will find precedent for how the CRA is applying the suspension. Not only did the initial suspension receive Royal Assent, but this was an extension of a suspension. I think we’re very much within the established practice of the CRA.
I’m trying to understand your concern and how we can best address it. However, I have not heard any legal or tax scholars suggest that what has been administered is outside of normal practice that has been established for decades in this country when it comes to administering tax measures announced by the finance minister of Canada.
Senator Quinn: Just for clarity, can you confirm that the CRA will not commence any enforcement proceedings against fuel retailers for the non-collection of taxes because of the situation? I ask because sometimes in the bureaucracy, there is confusion, and a directive is given to the CRA to ensure that no actions are taken in any remote area of the country or in large urban centres where they are doing their job by collecting that which is not in force.
Mr. Champagne: Senator, I appreciate your question and thank you for your concern. There is some benefit to being the Minister of Finance and National Revenue of Canada, which is that the agency reports to me as well. To address your concern, it is the case, but we’ll ensure that we confirm with the agency that we would expect it to administer the intent of Bill C-38 in order to avoid any possible situation like the one you described.
Senator Quinn: Minister, my questions are really focused on highlighting an ongoing problem in Canada where we do not have a provisional implementation of taxes act. Although tax decreases without parliamentary authorization are not as controversial as tax increases, like the now-abandoned capital gains tax, they highlight a structural problem of how we handle taxation in Canada.
(1440)
In 1985, your own department issued a white paper called The Canadian Budgetary Process: Proposals for Improvement. It highlighted the issue, saying:
. . . during the period until the proposed legislation is enacted by Parliament with retroactive effect, the system is, in effect, voluntary and is not backed by the force of law. In the case of taxes provisionally collected, until the legislation is enacted there is no legal requirement to pay, nor any legal authority to collect, the proposed tax.
My question is this: Should your department, since raising this back in the 1980s, not consider introducing a provisional implementation of taxes bill so that these types of situations we’re discussing today don’t arise?
Mr. Champagne: I thank the honourable senator for the question.
I’m happy for us to look at what you just suggested, and if the Senate wants to study that in more detail, we would certainly look at it. As you said, certainty and predictability are paramount to me. As the Minister of Finance of Canada, I want to provide that kind of stability and predictability.
If the Senate wants to study that question further, senator, we are certainly always willing and open to considering whatever the Senate can suggest to improve the tax code in Canada.
Senator Quinn: Minister, today, you have referred to affordability and the challenges that families face, as well as other issues; you’ve mentioned child care. I want to return to your speech at second reading in the House of Commons, when you spoke to the larger issue of economic uncertainty and the rising cost of living, saying:
. . . affordability is a major concern for families and businesses across Canada. One of our government’s priorities is to help Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money. . . .
I would like to build upon the same themes you have raised by noting there are several income tax credits not subject to automatic indexation under the Income Tax Act. For example, the Child Care Expenses Deduction — valued between $5,000 to $11,000 per child, depending upon circumstances — has not been increased since 2015. With daycare costs increasing, this means that, as of the 2025 tax year, there has been a loss of value of over 36% for a child who is under the age of 7, resulting in a $4,600 shortfall.
Why is the government not introducing legislation to ensure all personal income tax credits are indexed to inflation — especially the Child Care Expenses Deduction — to help make life more affordable for Canadians and to be consistent with the very strong messages, which I agree with, that the government has been articulating to Canadians for the past few months?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you, senator, for reading what I have said. I’m pleased to see that a senator has been reading my remarks in the House.
To your point, tax simplification is top of mind for me as the Minister of Finance. We are looking at a number of things to make it easier. You can think of the automatic enrolment for benefits, which will benefit more than 5 million Canadians. That is one benefit, as I said, to being Minister of Finance and Minister of National Revenue: You can work with the agency as Minister of Finance to push these things through quickly. The automatic benefit enrolment is one example where we are trying to ensure that those who need it most will interact with the CRA in the most efficient way.
To your point, it is always a matter of fiscal policy — which credit, how you address that, what you index and whether it’s refundable or non-refundable. Trust me, senator; a number of Canadians stop me in the street with suggestions about what we should provide. Therefore, we listen. We just completed our very wide pre-budget consultation and received input from people.
You can rest assured that, as Minister of Finance, I am always looking at ways to ensure we simplify things and to ensure our tax system remains fair to all Canadians.
Therefore, to your specific point about which credits should be indexed, that is a matter of fiscal policy that one must look at. However, I hear what you said, senator, and I see your keen interest in helping this government and me regarding tax simplifications, so if you have any —
Senator Quinn: I will.
Senator Pate: Thank you for joining us, minister.
The people I’m speaking with on the street are often literally in the street. With the new measures in Bill C-38, the temporary cutting of the federal fuel excise tax is now expected to cost Canada — and, therefore, Canadian taxpayers — a total of $5.3 billion this year in foregone tax revenue. Economists have highlighted that this was not the only option for relief. Olivier Gervais, a director at Scotiabank, noted that the Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit GST/HST tax credit would be “. . . another lever that would be relatively easy to use.” He noted it would allow the government to take extra money they’re getting from higher oil prices and redistribute that more efficiently to the Canadians struggling the most.
Also, for less than $5.3 billion per year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that we could be implementing a guaranteed livable income, which would be meaningful support that would allow the growing numbers of Canadians who are homeless and hungry to rebound in ways that benefit all of us, our communities and our economies.
The PBO’s April 2026 costing of the initial fuel excise tax suspension indicated that those with the highest incomes would benefit about four times more than those with the lowest incomes.
My question is this: Instead of a plan that would prioritize those most in need, why are the lowest-income taxpayers still footing part of the bill, not only every time Canadians use their cars but every time the wealthiest in this country use their private jets?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you, senator.
Our fuel excise tax suspension is very targeted and time limited. It has been well designed. However, I take your point very seriously, senator. I come from rural Canada and understand that Canadians in many parts of our country need support, but you have to look at it in the spectrum of things we have been doing.
If you look in the Spring Economic Update, we published a number of measures to support Canadians. I will start with the Canada Child Benefit, from which 6 million Canadians would benefit. The National School Food Program would benefit 400,000 kids in our country. The Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit would benefit 12 million Canadians. The early learning and child care system would benefit 900,000 kids. Looking at the Canada Workers Benefit, it would help 3 million people.
I could go on with the list, senator, but I would just say Bill C-38 is one of the measures. However, you have to look at what we have done regarding housing, which is generational: providing affordable and safe homes for Canadians — places they can afford and that are safe.
The grocery benefit is very targeted to those who need it most. The gas measure is one other element. However, if you look at what I call the pyramid of affordability, we have been acting on the three levers, but on the list of things regarding dental care, pharmacare, student loans and workers’ benefits, I think you will have seen that we have been trying to help those who need it most every step of the way. That is very Canadian.
You’re right: We had additional revenues. However, you will see in the Spring Economic Update that a very significant portion of those revenues have been used to support Canadians in a time of need. On the one hand, we have additional revenues, but we have used those to support Canadians.
Again, I appreciate if you are looking individually, you might say the situation is like this, but if you look at the suite of measures we have to support Canadians — automatic benefits and the things we have been putting in place — we’re supporting millions of Canadians, those who need it the most at the time they need it. We’re trying to be targeted and very immediate in our support.
Senator Pate: Thank you, minister.
There is no doubt there are benefits that exist for some of those folks, but we’re talking about Bill C-38 right now. It is one of a number of tax measures this year to move us further away from the goal of a progressive tax system in which everyone, including those most privileged and powerful, contribute their fair share and those most in need are the top priority for support.
As Oxfam Canada recently reported, in these challenging economic times, the wealth gap in Canada is growing, not reducing, and the top 1% — those with a net worth of $7 million or more — now own as much wealth as the 80% of Canadians with the least.
What tax policy measures are you exploring to ensure that billionaires and multi-millionaires are contributing their fair share to Canada?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you, senator, for raising that question.
We are always looking to ensure the tax system in Canada is fair, and that is very Canadian. At a time like that, the thing we need to do is build and support each other. That is why I’m particularly proud of one of these measures.
(1450)
When we made the National School Food Program permanent, I must say this was a great moment of pride for Canadians and for every member of the House — I can tell you — because this is not political. This is about supporting 400,000 kids with a meal in the morning when they come to school. That’s the kind of thing that Canada should do and does do to support Canadians. We’re always looking at ways to support Canadians while ensuring that our tax system is fair.
I can assure you that, just like you, I’m always looking at the situation with my mind but also with my heart, while asking, “How can we help people during a time of need?” The suite of measures that I could go through, which you have seen, is ensuring that for everyone — whether you are a single mom or a young child or a worker who has been impacted by the tariffs or a farmer or a trucker or a fisher — there is something where the message we are sending is: We are there for you in different ways.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much, minister. Does that mean we can expect to see the work that Senator Downe and others have been doing on tax evasion, as well as a wealth tax, emerge in the coming proposals?
Mr. Champagne: We’ll be looking at what is being presented, and we’ll give due consideration, obviously, to all the work that is being done by the Senate and the various committees. We always do that with due consideration to what is being proposed.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, the committee has been sitting for 65 minutes. In conformity with the order of the Senate, I am obliged to interrupt proceedings so that the committee can report to the Senate.
Minister, on behalf of all senators, thank you for joining us today to assist us with our work on the bill. I would also like to thank your officials.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Chair: Honourable senators, is it agreed that the committee rise and I report to the Senate that the witness has been heard?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the sitting of the Senate is resumed.
Report of the Committee of the Whole
Hon. René Cormier: Honourable senators, the Committee of the Whole, which was authorized by the Senate to study the subject matter of Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (extension of the federal fuel excise tax relief), reports that it has heard from the witness.
[English]
SENATORS’ STATEMENTS
National Day for Truth and Reconciliation
Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, yesterday I flew back to Winnipeg to attend Orange Shirt Day with the Southern Chiefs’ Organization, or SCO. And when I spoke to the people attending the healing walk organized by the Southern Chiefs’ Organization, I asked the people, “How do you feed your iskotêw?” Iskotêw is your fire. And this came about because an Elder at a pipe ceremony had talked about feeding our fire as First Nations peoples.
When I look at the history of our First Nations peoples in Canada and the slow violence that occurs through various forms of historic and ongoing acts of genocide, let’s make a decision — this is what I said to them — that whatever our experiences have been, we must remember that it is our sacred duty to ensure we do not remain unrecognizable figures of victimhood.
When I said that, there was a groundswell, and I knew that we had a turning point in our lives.
The acts of violence dampened our fire — our spirit — within. Every day now since the pipe ceremony, I ask myself this question: What feeds my fire and what dampens it? And I act accordingly.
On September 30 — this is now from SCO — we celebrate the strength, determination, wisdom, grace, generosity and courage of our peoples. We uplift the beautiful children whom the Creator has gifted us. We thank the Creator who created us for a special purpose, not for residential school, not for the Sixties Scoop and not for genocide. He placed us on this earth and placed the spark of fire within us all — every person in this room.
My relatives, this is an acknowledgement of all the ways you have authored and will continue to determine your own brilliant becoming.
As we move forward, let September 30 be a day of celebration and reflection. Let’s continue to remember and honour our ancestors and our family who still remain earthside as well as those who experienced the atrocities and those who still feel the effects.
Thank you, senators, for all your support in all that you have done to support us. Thank you. Kinanâskomitin.
[Translation]
Northern Hardwoods Research Institute
Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, I rise today to highlight the work of the Northern Hardwoods Research Institute, or NHRI, based in Edmundston, New Brunswick. It’s one of those organizations that remind us why our province continues to deserve its title as Canada’s innovation playground. Good things come in small packages.
Founded in 2012, NHRI was created to solve a very real problem: How do we transform forest research into decisions that actually benefit our forests and our forestry sector? Since then, it has grown into a trusted knowledge hub, bringing together industry, government and academia to improve the health, resilience and value of our northern hardwood forests.
As a New Brunswicker, I know how closely our province’s identity is linked to its forests. NHRI’s work goes well beyond just trees. Its researchers are using tools like lidar, drones and AI to drive the digital transformation of the forest products sector, while training the next generation of workers through hands-on programs in silviculture and climate-smart forestry. In other words, this is about protecting our maple leaf.
What I find most remarkable, colleagues, is the balance that NHRI manages to maintain between ambition and discipline. Its work is clearly focused on delivering concrete results for forestry SMEs and the major industrial partners that depend on them, while collaborating with governments, universities and research centres throughout Eastern Canada and the northeastern United States. This is what innovation looks like when it takes root in a rural, resource-based economy: practical, collaborative and designed for the long term.
(1500)
Long after this year’s harvest, decisions informed by NHRI will continue to shape our forests and our economy for decades to come. I am delighted to announce that NHRI’s Executive Director, Gaetan Pelletier, will be on Parliament Hill on October 7 for the New Brunswick Research and Innovation Showcase. You’re all invited to attend, dear colleagues.
Thank you very much.
[English]
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Justice
Charter Statement in Relation to Bill C-10—Document Tabled
Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a Charter Statement prepared by the Minister of Justice in relation to Bill C-10, An Act respecting the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation, pursuant to the Department of Justice Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. J-2, sbs. 4.2(1).
Charter Statement in Relation to Bill C-22—Document Tabled
Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a Charter Statement prepared by the Minister of Justice in relation to Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, pursuant to the Department of Justice Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. J-2, sbs. 4.2(1).
Audit and Oversight
Eleventh Report of Committee Presented
Hon. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eleventh report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight, which deals with the funding for the internal audit function.
(For text of report, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 1168.)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?
(On motion of Senator Klyne, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)
The Senate
Notice of Motion to Strike Special Committee to Study Subject Matter of Bill C-39
Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, two days hence, I will move:
That:
1.a Special Senate Committee be appointed to examine the subject matter of Bill C-39, An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate;
2.if and when the bill is received and adopted at second reading, it be deemed referred to this special committee, with rule 12-10(2) being suspended in relation thereto;
3.the committee be composed of fifteen members, including three senators from the Opposition, six senators from the Independent Senators Group, three senators from the Progressive Senate Group, and three senators from the Canadian Senators Group;
4.the chair of the committee be from the Opposition;
5.notwithstanding any provision of the Rules or usual practice, the committee be authorized to elect three deputy chairs, one from the Independent Senators Group, one from the Progressive Senate group and one from the Canadian Senators Group, and if it does so:
(a)the reference to the deputy chair in rule 12-18(2)(c)(ii) be understood as referring to all deputy chairs of the committee acting together; and
(b)any reference to the deputy chair of a committee in any policy or guideline be understood as referring to all deputy chairs acting together, until the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration decides otherwise;
6.the quorum of the committee be four members;
7.the fifteen members of the committee be named by means of a notice signed by their respective leader or facilitator, or their respective designates, and filed with the Clerk of the Senate no later than 5 p.m. on October 7, 2026, failing which the leader or facilitator, the deputy leader or facilitator and the whip or liaison, if appropriate, of any party or group identified in paragraph 3 that has not filed the name of a senator with the Clerk of the Senate shall be deemed to be named to the committee, with the names of the senators named as members being recorded in the Journals of the Senate;
8. the committee’s normal meeting time be on Mondays, and that the committee have the power to meet outside its regular time slot, including during sittings and adjournments of the Senate, with rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto;
9.the committee have the power to:
(a)report from time to time;
(b)send for persons, papers and records;
(c)publish such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee; and
(d)appoint a member of the Government Representative’s Office as a non-voting member to its Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, if it has such a subcommittee, even if that senator is not a member of the committee, with rule 12-12(1) being suspended in relation thereto;
10.notwithstanding rule 5-6(1)(e), one day’s notice be required for any motion to adopt a report of this committee; and
11.following the presentation of its final report on Bill C-39, An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy, or of a report recommending that the Senate not proceed further with the said bill, the committee expire.
(1510)
Bill to Establish a National Strategy to End Energy Poverty
First Reading
Hon. Mary Coyle introduced Bill S-251, An Act to establish a national strategy to end energy poverty.
(Bill read first time.)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?
(On motion of Senator Coyle, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Liquid Biofuels
Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to examine and report on liquid biofuels in Canada, including, but not limited to:
(a)biofuel technology;
(b)Canada’s Clean Fuel Regulations;
(c)Natural Resources Canada’s Biofuels Production Incentive;
(d)the impact of Canadian legislation and regulations on domestic biofuel production;
(e)the impact of legislation in the United States, such as the Inflation Reduction Act and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, on Canadian biofuel producers;
(f)the import of used cooking oil;
(g)the economic potential of the Canadian biofuel industry;
(h)the economic impact of biofuels in Canada’s regions;
(i) export opportunities for Canadian biofuels;
(j)environmental impacts of biofuels; and
(k)issues for industries that are seeking to adopt biofuels, such as shipping and aviation;
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; and
That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than October 31, 2027, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.
The Senate
Notice of Motion to Recognize October 23 of Each Year as Hungarian Heritage Day
Hon. Charles S. Adler: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:
That the Senate of Canada:
1.officially recognize October 23 as Hungarian Heritage Day in Canada; and
2.encourage the Government of Canada and public institutions to recognize this day each year; and
That this recognition be a first step toward officially incorporating this day into the calendar of national days recognized by the Government of Canada.
QUESTION PERIOD
Health
Supervised Consumption Sites
Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, when I asked you in April about the future of supervised consumption sites in British Columbia, you said your government would support provinces through “. . . responsive programs that protect public health and safety.”
Since then, your government has renewed the authorization of the supervised consumption site in Vancouver and improved a new site in Surrey. Are these the responsive programs you referred to, leader: more of the same failed Liberal policies that have fuelled a decade-long public health emergency in British Columbia and have contributed to the loss of more than 18,000 lives to toxic drugs?
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): The situation with toxic drugs is something that is very important for the government. This being said, the government is working with the provinces as far as health is concerned all across Canada.
The Government of Canada is working with the provincial government on that matter. I know that discussions went ahead on this subject. Supervised sites are there to benefit the health of those who are caught in the horrible situation of drug consumption.
Senator Martin: There have been 18,000 deaths, leader. I don’t think your government understands the magnitude of the drug crisis in B.C. This week, the CBC reported that even birds in Prince George are overdosing after consuming toxic drugs left in public spaces. Enough is enough. Will your government commit to rejecting any future applications for supervised consumption sites in British Columbia, a failed policy for B.C.?
Senator Moreau: Senator Martin, I’m sure we would agree that we don’t know what the number would be if there were no supervised drug consumption sites. Do you think it would be lower? I beg to differ because it is a health situation, more importantly. It has nothing to do with the fact that the government lacks responsibility regarding drug consumption, but there are health measures, and, as far as health is concerned, the government will be present.
Justice
Illegal Drugs
Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): It could be redirected for more effective measures.
Government leader, a recent decision by a B.C. Supreme Court justice declared a federal drug-trafficking provision unconstitutional and quashed charges against the co-founders of the so-called compassion club that purchased heroin, cocaine and methamphetamines and distributed those drugs to members. The judge suspended the declaration for six months to give Parliament time to respond.
Canadians are deeply concerned that your government’s permissive approach to hard drugs is contributing to the confusion about the enforcement of our drug laws. Will your government appeal this ruling and reaffirm that trafficking dangerous drugs is a crime, regardless of the label attached to them?
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): The decision to appeal belongs to the Minister of Justice, not to me, as you’re well aware. We will wait for the announcement from the justice minister.
This being said, we are acting very hard on drugs. As a matter of fact, look what we’ve done for the fentanyl crisis. We have increased the budget for border security; we are increasing the number of members of the RCMP; we have made an unprecedented investment in police forces to make sure Canadians feel safe all across the country.
(1520)
That’s the responsibility we have, and that’s the way we are acting.
Senator Martin: This is a responsibility that is federal. These individuals knowingly acquired illegal drugs and distributed them through a membership-based model after being unable to secure a federal exemption. Canadians want treatment and recovery for those struggling with addiction.
Will your government commit to defending the trafficking provisions of the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act?
Senator Moreau: Since you are referring to a case that is in front of the court, I will limit my comments here. The fact is that we will respect the decision of the court, and if the Minister of Justice decides to appeal, it would be for the Court of Appeal to say whether or not the trial judge was right and if the judgment will be maintained.
Employment and Social Development
Support for Seniors
Hon. Tony Loffreda: Senator Moreau, today is National Seniors Day when we recognize the contributions of older Canadians. I have raised this issue before, and I’m once again asking the government to consider a national longevity economy strategy. Such a strategy would bring together healthy aging, housing, retirement security and opportunities for Canadians who choose to work longer. It could improve quality of life, strengthen productivity and help manage long-term fiscal pressures.
Will the government work with provinces and territories, businesses, researchers and seniors’ representatives to develop this strategy and realize the social and economic opportunities of an aging population? Canada now has more than 8 million people aged 65 and older.
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, Senator Loffreda.
The government is continually working with provinces, even though it doesn’t seem to fit the idea of the official opposition. It is important that we recognize — and your question is important — the contribution of seniors to our economy and our society. The prosperity of today was built on their hard work, and they deserve to enjoy old age in dignity and comfort.
The government is actually continuing to support the New Horizons for Seniors Program with a current annual budget of $70 million, which supports projects that improve the quality of life for seniors and promotes their full participation in Canadian society. For example, the program offers up to $25,000 to support projects in local communities, such as new fitness equipment.
The government is currently working on the implementation of the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing, which reports every five years and which mirrors the strategy you raised by concentrating on older people and development, advancing the health and well-being of old age and ensuring enabling support —
[Translation]
The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator Moreau.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for that answer, and it’s good to know that a lot is being done.
Older Canadians bring experience, skills and purchasing power that can support innovation and economic growth. Would the government consider convening a national dialogue on the longevity economy as a first step toward identifying practical priorities and developing an action plan? Including seniors in that discussion would help ensure that this is a success.
Senator Moreau: Thank you, Senator Loffreda.
I will certainly raise your interest with the minister. However, when it comes to research, I would also like to highlight the work led by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Aging that brings together diverse voices and issues on ageism and its impact on the health of Canadians with the goal of combatting ageism.
We’re working on that plan as well. Thank you.
Global Affairs
United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Senator Moreau, I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War this morning. This is an organization that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985.
They asked me about Canada’s position on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, or TPNW. This was adopted by the United Nations in 2021 and is supported by over 100 countries — but not Canada.
Can you find out if the government intends to send an observer to the first Review Conference of the TPNW state parties at the United Nations headquarters in December of this year?
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): You probably understand that I don’t know the answer to this question, but I will certainly ask this question to the minister. I will get back to you with an answer on this.
Senator Woo: I think you know, senator, that it’s not tantamount to joining the treaty, but it at least shows an interest in discussing issues on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.
Still on the existential threat of nuclear weapons, I want to ask you about a resolution that was introduced by Mexico to the United Nations: Resolution 80/23 calls for human control and oversight over the use of artificial intelligence in nuclear command and control systems. There are 118 countries that supported this resolution — but not Canada.
Can you find out why Canada —
The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator Woo.
Senator Moreau: Thank you for the question. I know where you’re going. I will certainly ask why Canada did not support the resolution. I will bring you the answer.
[Translation]
National Defence
Servicewomen’s and Women Veterans’ Health Research
Senator Henkel: Senator Moreau, in 2024, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs recommended that the government fund and implement a structured long-term research program on servicewomen and women veterans. The government accepted that recommendation. Since then, a national research strategy has been developed with women veterans and presented to the relevant authorities and the research community.
However, more than two years after the committee made that recommendation, its implementation has ground to a halt. Can you tell us when that strategy will be made public and fully implemented?
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, senator.
I have checked with the government regarding this matter. It’s vital to note, of course, that the government recognizes the importance of advancing research on the health and well-being of women veterans and current servicewomen.
I can report that, since the government accepted the committee’s recommendations, sustained efforts have been made to identify research priorities and strengthen coordination among researchers. In addition, the government has established the Women Veterans Council following the parliamentary committee’s recommendation. The council helped organize the 2026 Women Veterans Forum, held last June, which you may have attended.
The research strategy aims to create a road map for future research efforts. The government regularly consults with women veterans, researchers and partner organizations to move forward —
The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator Moreau.
Senator Henkel: If the government moves forward with this strategy, how much funding does it intend to allocate to it, and starting in which fiscal year?
Senator Moreau: I cannot predict what expenditures the government will authorize. However, as someone with a keen interest in all matters related to the military and investments, you are no doubt aware that Canada has made an unprecedented investment of $81 billion in the Canadian Armed Forces. The government will probably ensure that a portion of these funds goes toward improving the well-being of women in the Canadian Armed Forces and benefits women veterans as well.
[English]
Health
Blood and Plasma System
Hon. Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler: My question is for the Government Representative.
Following the deaths of two donors at a private, for-profit plasma clinic in October 2025 and January 2026, Health Canada issued a formal notice of the clinic’s non-compliance with federal Blood Regulations, and the clinic halted its operations in August.
While public donation centres restrict the frequency of plasma collection to protect health, federal regulations still permit private, for-profit clinics to extract plasma from a single donor up to twice a week — in other words, up to 104 times a year. This is four times the frequency allowed in the public system and nearly triple the safety threshold recommended by European medical authorities.
Senator Moreau, what independent peer-reviewed clinical safety data did Health Canada rely on to allow private, for-profit clinics to collect plasma at such an unsafe frequency?
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you. It’s a very important question.
I’ve been informed that the clinic you are referring to had its operations suspended following failure to comply with Health Canada standards during a routine and unannounced inspection.
Nonetheless, the government is currently reviewing its reporting and investigation measures to provide more pre-emptive and effective compliance with Canada’s Food and Drugs Act and Health Canada’s Blood Regulations to further prevent a tragedy like the one we saw in October of last year.
(1530)
As a matter of fact, the federal government takes extreme precautions to ensure Canada continues to have one of the safest blood systems in the world for both recipients and donors alike.
Health Canada maintains an extensive compliance system for plasma collection, including strict requirements for donors, screening, staffing and rigorous testing of plasma after collection, supported by scheduled and unannounced inspections, which led to the suspension of the authorization for those clinics.
Senator Osler: Senator Moreau, to be clear, only that one private, for-profit plasma clinic was shut down; the others are still operating.
Over the last decade, no plasma donor deaths have been reported at public donation centres, while all three recorded donor deaths have occurred exclusively at private, for-profit clinics.
Private clinics can collect plasma from donors up to 104 times a year despite almost no independent safety data on the long-term impacts of this extreme frequency.
Will the minister halt the high-frequency collection of plasma until Health Canada conducts a comprehensive health study?
Senator Moreau: I’ll refer the question to the minister, but I’d like to say that Health Canada will continue working closely with Canadian Blood Services, Héma-Québec, provinces, territories and regulated establishments to uphold the high standards of safety and quality for Canada blood and plasma systems. It is imperative that Canadians continue to have access to a safe, secure and reliable blood and plasma supply.
[Translation]
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Border Security
Hon. Leo Housakos (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, allow me to share the most recent example of this government’s ongoing failure.
A 24-year-old man without legal status was allegedly planning an attack on behalf of the Islamic State and trying to make a chemical weapon to poison Canadians. Leader, there has been a revolving door of ministers, and immigration and border security are spiralling out of control.
My question is simple: Why was this man allowed to remain in Canada? Why did our law enforcement agencies have to arrest him at the last minute before the government even realized he was here?
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, Senator Housakos. The fact that law enforcement was able to intervene in time shows that the system has guardrails that are keeping Canadians safe. Thank goodness the attack never took place.
Law enforcement has the resources and the means to respond to situations like this.
Now, your question is whether we tolerate people who shouldn’t be in Canada. Clearly, the answer is no. Dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands, of people have been deported because they had no business being in Canada. All issues involving criminal offences or illegal situations are dealt with by border services on a priority basis: That’s the right thing to do.
This case was not a failure; it was a success, considering that the individual involved was arrested.
Senator Housakos: Senator Moreau, with all due respect, you are not answering my question. There could have been a terrible tragedy caused by someone who should never have been in Canada. We were spared the worst thanks to law enforcement, not your immigration system. Canadians need more than reassuring words. When will the government finally step up to the plate, take our immigration system seriously and enforce the law when it comes to the security of our borders? We cannot let these kinds of people come to Canada.
Senator Moreau: The government is taking this situation very seriously. We passed Bill C-12 earlier this year to strengthen border security. We need to stop seeing these systems as siloed systems that operate independently. Immigration officers are doing an excellent job, the government is strengthening border security, and law enforcement is taking action, conducting investigations and working to keep Canadians safe. The result is that the system is working. Could it be improved? There is always room for improvement, but I think that Canada has done an excellent job so far.
[English]
Industry
Interprovincial Trade
Hon. Leo Housakos: Government leader, earlier this year, the Prime Minister promised Canadians free trade by Canada Day and called the elimination of international trade barriers a top priority of his government. He said he would not rest until it was done.
He himself acknowledged that these barriers cost Canadians roughly $200 billion a year. Canada Day came and went; a second Canada Day came and went. I remind colleagues that Canada Day is on July 1.
Can you tell the Senate Chamber how many internal trade barriers, specifically, this government has fully eliminated, and can you name those trade barriers?
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): I will repeat what Minister LeBlanc said when he came here. With Bill C-5, all federal-interprovincial barriers have been abolished at the federal level. There is a certain number of barriers that exist because of provincial regulation. As I mentioned to your colleague Senator Martin, the federal government is working closely with the provinces and territories to make sure that those barriers will be eliminated.
It’s work that we do in collaboration, and we will continue to have discussions with the provinces, whose elected leaders understand very well that it would be a very good idea to abolish those barriers. However, there are certain local considerations that still have to be discussed.
Senator Housakos: The federal government should be showing leadership, government leader, and they’re not.
First it was the promise of Canada Day, then full-effect services and tradespeople by the end of the year; now it’s model legislation by the end of the fall. Which one of those deadlines is the real one? This government has had 18 months. It’s no longer fresh or new.
How much longer does this government actually need to deliver? Eighteen months? Thirty-six? Sixty? I’m curious.
Senator Moreau: Leadership is about acting the way you said you would, and that’s what the government did by adopting Bill C-5. We abolished everything, and that is leadership.
Based on that leadership, we continue to discuss and work with the provinces to show them that there is benefit to having free trade in our country making sure all Canadians become their own best consumer.
Employment and Social Development
Employment Equity
Hon. Kristopher Wells: Government leader, I rise to ask this question on behalf of the Honourable Senator Bernard.
Last week we marked the fortieth anniversary of the Employment Equity Act, and it has been almost three years since the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force released its final report.
Senator Bernard and I co-hosted the National Employment Equity Council Forum, along with many of our Senate colleagues, MPs and stakeholders, and the resounding message was the following question I will pose to you now: What is preventing the government from modernizing employment equity?
Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): The government takes the question related to employment equity very seriously. I cannot report on the actual level of work that has been done, but I will certainly raise the question with the minister and get back to you with an answer.
Senator K. Wells: The Honourable Jean Augustine is a patron of the National Employment Equity Council. At age 89, she is still strongly engaged in advocacy on the front lines, because modernizing the Employment Equity Act does not seem to be a priority for Canada, yet it is a priority to many people, including unions and stakeholders who care deeply about this legislation.
What can I report back to her and these advocates about a timeline for modernizing the Employment Equity Act?
Senator Moreau: As far as a timeline is concerned, I cannot answer that question on behalf of the government; it’s for the government to decide. However, as I mentioned earlier, I will certainly raise the question with the minister and get back to you with all the relevant information so that you may share it with her.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you.
Senator Moreau: You’re welcome.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Business of the Senate
Question Period with Minister
Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to the order adopted June 4, 2025, I would like to inform the Senate that Question Period with the Honourable Eleanor Olszewski, P.C., M.P., Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience and Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada, will take place on Wednesday, October 7, 2026, at 2:30 p.m.
(1540)
Reordering of Business
Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-12(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: Inquiry No. 3, followed by Motion No. 88, followed by Motion No. 89, followed by Motion No. 90, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.
Residential School Denialism
Inquiry—Debate Continued
Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) rose pursuant to notice of June 18, 2026:
That she will call the attention of the Senate to residential school denialism in Canada and its impacts on survivors and reconciliation.
She said: Honourable senators, it’s with great humility that I open an inquiry into residential school denialism.
I would advise the Indigenous people watching that I will be speaking in detail about the harms caused by residential schools. I would also like to acknowledge that Senator McCallum and Senator Karetak-Lindell attended residential schools, and Senator Brian Francis attended day school.
In 2015, House of Anansi Press published my graphic novel. I wanted to communicate with Canadians what I had learned in over 25 years working in the social justice healing space and my doctoral research. The novel is a work of creative non-fiction about a Cree family living in the inner city of Edmonton and their transformation from lives informed by trauma through the incredibly painful healing process and toward a more hopeful future.
The book got a fair amount of media attention and generated a lot of conversation. At one meeting, a woman pushed a copy of my book back at me and asked, “When do we talk about personal responsibility?” She had not read the book, but she had made a few interesting and false assumptions about my research findings.
In many ways, her question informs my understanding of residential school denialism. Without ever reading the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC, report, without having heard from Survivors and without understanding the breadth of the evidence given by victims of abuse, some Canadians have arrived at the conclusion that residential schools were not all that bad.
Denialism is not refuting that residential schools happened; it is rejecting or misrepresenting basic facts to downplay the harms perpetrated. It is often rooted in the belief that everything European is superior and that Indigenous philosophy, science, spirituality, culture and genetics are inferior. It’s the belief that residential schools lifted Indigenous people from savagery and heathenism into civility and Christianity and that “killing the Indian in the child” was a difficult but necessary government policy.
However, the evidence from decades of legal, social, psychological and economic research by scholars in Canada, New Zealand, Australia and around the colonized globe tells a very different story. Combined with Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s final report, which includes the testimony of thousands of Survivors, the truth should be undeniable.
But what is the truth? For 176 years, First Nations, Métis and Inuit children were forced to attend residential schools with policies based on the Euro-Christian beliefs that Indigenous Peoples were primitive, godless and heathen, childlike and unable to care for themselves. Therefore, the government assumed that Indigenous children would fail to succeed if they remained under the influence of their families. So, residential school policy included three dimensions: First, separate children from family, language, culture and spirituality; second, socialize them into European values and lifestyle; and, third, assimilate them through enfranchisement.
Colleagues, residential schools were severely underfunded, mismanaged and poorly monitored. Unqualified staff instructed children who often did not speak English. There were no useful standards or oversight of the curriculum, residential care or health care. Calling these places schools is a gross misrepresentation. However, this is the wording used in the class action settlements and the TRC report, so we are stuck with it.
Students were told that they were heathens and that their families’ spiritual practices and beliefs were evil. Many were beaten for speaking their first language. Children spent most of their day performing physical labour and reciting prayers. Residential schools were opened with the belief that, through the physical labour of children and underpaid church staff, the schools would not be a burden to the Canadian government. The absence of funding diminished safety and well-being in the buildings, and it limited the quality and quantity of food available for students. Consequently, children were malnourished, which weakened their immune systems.
Underfunding also caused overcrowding because the churches needed as much tuition as possible. As a result, diseases like tuberculosis ran rampant, and many students died at the schools, suffering from insufficient medical care.
The late senator Murray Sinclair, who headed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, told the Toronto Star in 2015 that:
. . . the federal government stopped recording the deaths around 1920, after the chief medical officer at Indian Affairs suggested children were dying at an alarming rate.
“He was fired. . . . The government stopped recording deaths of children in residential schools, we think, probably because the rates were so high.”
Anyone who saw the memorial cloth yesterday knows that there are thousands of children whose names were verified who never returned home.
Senators, it is well documented that there were high rates of abuse perpetrated by staff at these institutions. The Independent Assessment Process was established to resolve claims out of court for physical and sexual abuse suffered by former students. The process required significant painful evidence to be presented at the hearing. Roughly 38,000 applications were received, over 20,000 hearings were held, and over $2.2 billion has been paid out in compensation.
A straight line can be drawn connecting generations of residential school Survivors to generations that have been raised in government care. Survivors of these systems grew up without a nurturing adult who could be trusted. They emerged as adults with no experience of a loving family to draw on. Many Survivors passed on this inability to form trusting relationships to their children.
Indigenous communities, colleagues, were once deeply interconnected social safety nets, mobilized to ensure the protection, education and social development of children who grew into contributing adults.
These schools introduced pervasive intergenerational cycles of family violence in some families. Most children left these institutions poorly educated, with rudimentary skills and feeling isolated from their families and communities, hopeless, helpless and powerless. They, their families and their communities suffered as a result.
Colleagues, this is historical trauma. It refers specifically to the intergenerational impact of Canadian laws and policies on Indigenous Peoples. Although there has been a tremendous amount of healing across what we know as Turtle Island, including the reclamation of language, ceremony and self-determination, we still have a lot of work to do.
Residential school denialism has existed as long as the policy has existed. In the beginning, denialism was created by the government. Very few non-Indigenous Canadians knew what was happening at residential schools, even those who lived close by. It was a secret kept by the government, and Survivors learned that they should not talk about the spiritual, physical and sexual abuse that occurred within those walls.
For many Indigenous individuals, families and communities, the loss of self-determination, ceremony, language, family structure and culture has been devastating. This loss is compounded by the fact that, for decades, Canadians believed the myth that cultural genocide was an act of charity for the betterment of Indigenous Peoples.
And so the natural reaction of grief to this overwhelming loss was denied to Indigenous people. They suffered disenfranchised grief that caused the intensification of anger, guilt, sadness and helplessness, which was passed on to future generations.
In 1996, however, brave Survivors began to reveal the dark truth of their experiences, and denialism took a turn. Canadians who grew up with the sanitized national self-image of Canada combined with negative stereotypes of First Nations people could not believe that churches could be responsible for such abuses. They experience cognitive dissonance, the psychological discomfort that exists between their beliefs and the truth. And, of course, at the same time that Canadians began confronting the reality of these harms, there were people who saw that there was money, notoriety and even university tenure to be gained by exploiting this discomfort and encouraging Canadians to lean into the denial.
However, in 2015, colleagues, you may remember that there was a period of grace. When the TRC’s work was first published, there was a fragile but powerful space where real, transformative dialogue was unfolding. Media began reporting on the testimonies collected by the TRC. We began embedding truthful accounts of Indigenous histories of Canada by Indigenous Canadians into our school curriculums. Canadians began considering how we could reconcile a difficult past into a hopeful future.
Then, the media began reporting that there were potentially unmarked graves outside of the Kamloops Indian Residential School. At that moment, you might even recall how in this chamber it felt like our entire nation held its breath. For many Canadians, it was the first time they heard this information. However, I remind colleagues that we have known that children were buried at these institutions for decades. In 1974 in Saskatchewan, 74 unmarked graves were identified and excavated at the former Battleford Industrial School. In 1992, graves were discovered during construction work at the site of the former Muscowequan Residential School.
(1550)
In 1996, erosion caused by flooding exposed caskets and human remains associated with the former St. Joseph’s Industrial School by High River, Alberta. Those remains were subsequently recovered and reinterred. And in 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued its Calls to Action 71 to 76, for an established national framework for burial records, cemetery identification, family notification and site protection.
After 2021, many nations began processes to not only identify graves, but to figure out whose children were buried there and decide whether disturbing those remains was in the families’ and communities’ best interests. This is still ongoing. Personally, I will note that I have worked very closely with an Elder who was made to dig a grave outside his residential school for a classmate. However, when the 215 potential unmarked graves were given significant media attention — and the government appropriately moved quickly to work with First Nations to figure out how best to move forward — others saw an opportunity. Alt-right groups moved quickly to cast doubt and spread misinformation. Their goals were to foment division and recruit. Online grifters also identified the immense opportunity to make money.
Colleagues, I ask you to personalize this for just one moment. Even if you sent your children away to boarding school willingly, if your child died of tuberculosis, other diseases caused by malnutrition, an accident or abuse, would you consider it appropriate that the church bury your child at the school, rather than returning their body home?
Would your family not need to perform burial rites for your child? It was also well documented that some families were never told if their child was missing or dead, how they died and where their bodies were buried. I know of no family that would not need to grieve. Obviously, harms were caused to families and communities. To deny the harm is to deny their humanity.
As a country, we are beginning to consider real courses of action to address the issue of denialism. Many Indigenous communities and organizations have said that residential school denialism should be criminalized to address harmful denialist conduct and protect Survivors.
Some legal scholars and civil libertarian organizations oppose criminalization. They argue that education, public engagement and evidence-based discussion are preferable responses. They caution that criminalization may inappropriately target some Survivors and create difficulties in distinguishing denialism from legitimate inquiry.
Education is obviously an important tool here. Truth is the sunlight that disinfects the scourge of lies. I am one of the many Indigenous people who have provided training and lectures and produced videos to help Canadians better understand colonization, historic trauma and healing. I have nothing but time and compassion for Canadians who are grappling with a history they were never taught in school.
However, in the age of online misinformation and monetization, Canadians are being deliberately misled for personal and organizational gain. Disingenuous people are causing pain for clicks and clout. It sometimes feels like fighting a losing battle.
However, we as legislators have a responsibility to find meaningful consequences for retraumatizing Survivors, families and communities that have already suffered so much.
The government must consult First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples to determine the appropriate sanctions. That law must reflect their dialogue. Parliamentarians cannot stay silent in the face of untruths. Thus, I offer this inquiry to promote meaningful dialogue and truth-sharing.
Finally, some Canadians might be listening and thinking Canada needs to focus on big things — that we have to stop worrying about feelings and focus on our sovereignty and economy. I would counter that building a resilient economy where all Canadians can flourish begins with respectful dialogue between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.
We cannot focus on building at speeds never seen before without the meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples. Section 35 of our Constitution and our treaties require it, and an appropriately oriented moral compass demands it. Residential school denialism eats away at that relationship. It erodes any trust we have built over the decades. We cannot allow scam artists, grifters and hate-mongers to shape Canada’s narrative, limit our infinite potential and threaten our capacity to remain the true north strong and free. Our sovereignty and survival depend on it. Let me quickly return to the story I opened with. Indeed, we all have personal responsibility. Survivors and their families have a personal responsibility to their healing journeys. No one can heal us; we can only heal ourselves.
Non-Indigenous Canadians have the responsibility to learn the truth about history and walk beside us in that journey with kindness, empathy and respect. And we all have the responsibility to build a society we are proud of. Hiy hiy.
Hon. Judy A. White: Thank you to my colleague and friend, Senator LaBoucane-Benson, for initiating this inquiry.
Honourable senators, I want you to imagine for a moment what it would feel like to sit across from your grandmother as she tells you about the hardest experiences of her life. Imagine hearing her describe the moment she was taken from her family as a child — age 7, 6, 5 or maybe even younger — against her will, possibly by force, and separated from everything she knew and loved.
Imagine listening as she tells you she was punished for speaking her language, the only one she knew.
Imagine when she tells you how she was made to feel ashamed of who she was; how she endured physical abuse and, in some cases, sexual abuse; and how the loneliness, fear and trauma never fully left her.
Then imagine someone standing before her and denying the reality she lived, telling her that her abuse was exaggerated, her suffering overstated and the trauma she carried for a lifetime was somehow remembered incorrectly — not only rejecting her story but rejecting her truth, her pain and her humanity. Imagine what it means to have your truth denied after finding the courage to finally tell it.
Most Canadians would find that unthinkable. Yet that is exactly what residential school denialism does. It tells Survivors that their truth is negotiable and families that their pain is debatable. It tells Indigenous people that, even after finding the courage to speak, they must still fight to be believed. And that is why residential school denialism is so dangerous. It is not only an attack on history; it is an attack on people.
Today, I will speak about residential school denialism, what it is, how it’s manifested, why it threatens reconciliation and why understanding history — including the experiences of Indigenous Peoples in Newfoundland and Labrador — is essential if we’re going to move forward.
Residential school denialism is often misunderstood. Many people assume it refers only to those who claim that residential schools never existed. While outright denial does occur, it is not the most common form. Scholars Sean Carleton and Niigaan Sinclair define residential denialism as:
The rejection, minimization, distortion or misrepresentation of basic facts about residential schooling in ways that undermine public understanding and weaken reconciliation efforts.
But colleagues, in practice, denialism frequently appears in much more subtle forms. It appears when people suggest that residential schools were largely beneficial. It appears when people portray these institutions as well-intended education projects. It appears when Survivor testimony is questioned or dismissed. It appears when documented harms are minimized. And it appears whenever the devastating impacts of residential schools are treated as matters of opinion rather than matters of historical fact.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC, was unequivocal in its findings. Residential schools were not simply educational institutions; they were part of a broader policy aimed at eliminating Indigenous cultures, languages, identities and ways of life. The TRC described this as a cultural genocide. That truth is difficult, but difficult truths do not become less true because they make us uncomfortable. Indeed, a commitment to truth and a commitment to reconciliation are inseparable. If we are unwilling to understand the realities of the colonial violence of residential schooling, we cannot meaningfully address its consequences.
(1600)
As a Mi’kmaw woman, I find the persistence of denialism not only deeply painful but infuriating. Every act of denial reopens old wounds, diminishes the voices of survivors and undermines the very foundations of truth and reconciliation.
Throughout my adult life, I have tried to approach the world through the principle of two-eyed seeing. Colleagues, I know you are all familiar with it now; thank you. One eye sees the evidence: the records, the reports, the testimony of survivors, the findings of commissions and inquiries and the overwhelming historical documentation of what occurred. My other eye sees the human reality: the grief carried by families, the loss of language, the disruption of culture, the trauma passed through generations and the resilience of communities that continue to try to heal.
Looking through both eyes, I can’t reconcile them; I can’t find a place where denialism stands. It is not a difference of opinion; it is a rejection of truth and an insult to those who lived it. It fails the tests of evidence and humanity, and it has no place in our society.
What makes residential school denialism particularly dangerous and what I am most afraid of is that it reflects the same colonial mindset that created residential schools in the first place. It is rooted in the belief that Indigenous voices can be dismissed. It is rooted in the belief that Indigenous experiences are less credible. It is rooted in the belief that someone else can determine what is true about Indigenous lives. It is rooted in the belief that Indigenous Peoples should remain silent if their truths make others uncomfortable.
That mindset did not disappear when the last residential school closed in 1996-97. It survives whenever Indigenous Peoples are told that their lived experiences are open to debate. It survives when survivor testimonies are questioned. It survives whenever people seek to rewrite history in order to protect comfort rather than confront truth.
In recent years, denialism has spread through online platforms and social media. The speed and scale of digital communication allow misinformation to circulate wildly. However, denialism does not remain only online; it has consequences in the real world. When people deny, minimize or distort the harms of residential schools, they contribute to the broader patterns of anti-Indigenous racism and hostility.
Denialism creates an environment in which Indigenous Peoples are once again forced to defend their experiences rather than focus on their healing. We’ve seen many examples. Just recently, as my colleague highlighted, when extremist groups target Indigenous communities, especially communities that have become symbols of truth-telling and reconciliation, we must recognize the wider significance of those actions. Denialism and other forms of anti-Indigenous hatred are connected by a common thread: the belief that some histories matter more than others and that some voices should be trusted, while others should be ignored.
As senators, we must reject these notions entirely.
Colleagues, I want to turn now to the experiences of my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The history of residential schools — boarding schools, as we called them — in Newfoundland and Labrador is not always well understood in the broader Canadian conversation. When my province joined Confederation in 1949, a number of privately operated boarding schools already existed throughout Labrador and northern Newfoundland. Although these institutions were not administered in exactly the same manner as federally funded residential schools elsewhere in Canada, they shared many of the same objectives and many of the same consequences. Those schools were part of the broader efforts to reshape Indigenous lives and cultures. Government policies encouraged Indigenous families to keep children enrolled through various incentive programs. These efforts were connected to larger attempts to settle Indigenous Peoples and disrupt traditional ways of life, particularly among Inuit and Innu communities in Labrador.
The Moravian Church established missions and operated boarding schools in communities, including Nain and Makkovik. Those missions sought to convert Inuit Peoples to Christianity and often discouraged and prohibited traditional cultural practices and their belief systems.
At the same time, the International Grenfell Association operated additional schools throughout Labrador and northern Newfoundland, including in places such as North West River, Cartwright, Mary’s Harbour, Muddy Bay and St. Anthony.
Over generations, thousands of Indigenous children attended these institutions. Like residential schools elsewhere in Canada, these schools separated children from their families and communities, disrupted language transmission, eroded cultural identity and contributed to profound intergenerational trauma. They have left lasting social and economic consequences that continue to affect Inuit and Innu communities today.
When we speak about residential school denialism, we must remember that denialism does not only erase experiences in one part of Canada; it also erases the experiences of Labrador Inuit and Innu. It erases the experiences of families in Newfoundland and Labrador, whose stories were overlooked for decades.
For many survivors in my province, recognition came far too late. They were excluded from the 2008 federal apology that was offered to former students of residential schools. It was not until 2017 that a formal federal apology was delivered to survivors of residential and boarding schools in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was not until 2023 that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador also issued an apology acknowledging the province’s role.
These apologies are important. Now, they do not undo the harm — no way — but they represented an important acknowledgement of truth. They affirmed what survivors have been saying for generations. They recognized that what happened was real. They recognized that the harms were profound. They recognized that reconciliation begins by listening to those who lived those experiences.
Denialism undermines that progress. It asks us to revisit questions that have already been asked and answered. It asks us to question people who have already demonstrated extraordinary courage by telling their stories. It asks us to create doubt when there should be only understanding. In doing so, it slows the work of reconciliation.
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples noted that denialism distracts Canadians from the horrific consequences of residential schools, including the realities surrounding missing children, burials and unmarked graves. That observation is critically important.
If you take anything away from what I have said today, this should be it: Denialism shifts attention away from the harms experienced by Indigenous children and toward debates that should no longer be happening.
The survivors have already done their part. They carried the burden of telling Canada what happened. Now Canada must do its part.
We must reject denialism wherever it appears. We must defend the truth whenever it is challenged. We must continue the work of reconciliation, not because it is politically convenient but because it is the right thing to do. It’s the right thing to do for all those children who never came home. It is the right thing to do for the survivors who found the courage to speak. It is the right thing to do for future generations who deserve a Canada that is not built on myth but on the truth.
Wela’lioq. Thank you.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
(On motion of Senator Kingston, debate adjourned.)
The Senate
Motion to Resolve into Committee of the Whole to Consider Subject Matter of Bill C-39 Adopted
Hon. Iris G. Petten, pursuant to notice of September 28, 2026, moved:
That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice:
1.at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, October 6, 2026, the Senate resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to examine the subject matter of Bill C-39, An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy;
2.the Committee of the Whole receive:
(a) the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, P.C., M.P., President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs, Internal Trade and One Canadian Economy;
(b)the Honourable Steven MacKinnon, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; and
(c)the Honourable Patty Hajdu, P.C., M.P., Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario;
3.the witnesses be accompanied by at most one official each;
4.the committee rise no later than two hours after it begins;
5.the ministers’ introductory remarks be limited to a maximum of five minutes each;
6.if, during the Committee of the Whole, a senator does not use the entire period of 10 minutes for debate provided under rule 12-31(3)(d), including the responses of the witnesses, that senator may yield the balance of time to another senator; and
7.for greater certainty, all witnesses appear in person.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Motion to Affect Proceedings on Bill C-27 Adopted
Hon. Iris G. Petten, pursuant to notice of September 28, 2026, moved:
That, if and when Bill C-27, An Act to give effect to the Final Self-Government Agreement for the Tlegohli Got’ine and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is adopted at second reading, it be deemed referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples; and
That, for the purpose of this study, the committee have the power to meet, even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, and with rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1610)
Adjournment
Motion to Adjourn Until Tuesday, October 6, 2026, Adopted
Hon. Iris G. Petten, pursuant to notice of September 28, 2026, moved:
That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, October 6, 2026, at 2 p.m.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Food and Drugs Act
Bill to Amend—Third Reading—Debate Continued
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Brazeau, seconded by the Honourable Senator MacAdam, for the third reading of Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages).
Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages).
This is legislation to implement health warning labels on alcoholic beverages. These warning labels would have to include a statement to the effect that there is a direct link between alcohol consumption and cancer. I want to thank Senator Patrick Brazeau for sponsoring this important bill, and I would like to be able to say that this is a timely bill, but, really, it is well overdue.
You may be aware that I am the Senate co-chair of the parliamentary cancer caucus, alongside my colleagues in the other place, members of Parliament Dan Albas and Jean Yip. While the caucus has not met to take a position on this bill, I am speaking as an individual senator.
While Canadians generally understand that drinking heavily is unhealthy, there is less awareness of the link between alcohol and cancer. This link is well established scientifically, but according to the Canadian Cancer Society, over 40% of Canadians are not aware that alcohol consumption increases cancer risk.
Importantly, alcohol consumption is linked to seven types of cancer: head and neck, breast, colorectal, esophageal, liver, stomach and pancreatic cancers. This connection between alcohol and cancer is neither shaky nor new. The World Health Organization classified alcohol as a carcinogen some 40 years ago.
We also know that health labelling is an effective means of transmitting this information. In the government’s 2023 Public Awareness of Alcohol-related Harms Survey, they noted that 75% of respondents said that a health warning label would make them think about the harms caused by alcohol. Furthermore, 55% supported health warning labels on alcoholic beverages.
Alcohol is currently an exception. Tobacco and cannabis products already come with health labelling, and, indeed, the same exists for most food labelling. Currently, there is more health information available on a can of peas than on an alcoholic drink. This is a discrepancy that this bill will address.
We know that the alcohol industry, with some exceptions, has been opposing the proposed labelling measure for years. The tobacco industry denied and obfuscated the facts for many years too. In essence, it resisted giving consumers the information that they needed to make informed choices. However, health labelling has now rightly become the standard across a wide variety of products.
[Translation]
I want to be clear on one important point. This bill is not about preventing people from consuming alcohol. It is about enhancing consumer freedom and promoting good health by addressing an information imbalance. The goal is to empower consumers so they can accurately weigh the costs and benefits.
[English]
This bill is about enhancing consumer freedom and good health. Some argue that these minor packaging requirements will be too exacting on the alcohol industry, yet practically every other industry producing non-perishable goods for human consumption seems to get by just fine.
Many other countries already mandate health labelling for alcohol, some on cancer and some on other dangers. People continue to drink. Alcohol producers continue to produce and export their products. Life goes on.
During this debate, it was correctly pointed out that tobacco is responsible for 15% of new cancers, while alcohol is responsible for a comparatively low 3%. Additionally, we should note that there are about twice as many alcohol users as there are tobacco users globally.
Consequently, these two addictive substances call for different approaches that reflect their differing levels of harm and the different ways in which they cause harm. However, the fact remains that alcohol is a leading preventable cause of death, contributing to over 17,000 deaths in Canada each year, both cancer-related and non-cancer-related deaths.
To be more specific, a study in The Lancet Public Health journal, published earlier this year, found that in 2022 there were 9,500 cases of cancer attributable to alcohol and nearly 4,000 deaths in Canada.
Now, what would these labels look like? Colleagues, this afternoon, I have emailed all of you some examples of labels that could be used and that are clear and prominent but not overwhelming. Under this legislation, distinctive branding by alcohol producers will very much continue to exist. The proposed labels would be only a minor part of the packaging.
For those listening to this debate beyond this chamber, I have posted these labels on my LinkedIn page and on my website, senatorcardozo.ca.
The details will be developed by the Department of Health after the passage of this bill.
[Translation]
Colleagues, it is estimated that 40% of cancer cases could be prevented through healthier lifestyles.
(1620)
Public policy should focus on encouraging and facilitating lifestyles that prevent disease and social harm while respecting Canadians’ rightful freedom to live their lives as they see fit.
[English]
By focusing on raising awareness and ensuring Canadians are informed, this bill meets both criteria. Non-intrusive warning labels are at the bottom end of the public health intervention options available to us. Ensuring consumers are equipped with the facts is a proportionate response to the degree of harm that alcohol can cause to its users.
Colleagues, this bill is about promoting good health and reducing cancer. For these reasons, I will be voting in favour of Bill S-202, and I encourage you to consider doing likewise. Thank you.
(On motion of Senator White, debate adjourned.)
Business of the Senate
Hon. Iris G. Petten: 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 pro tempore: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(At 4:22 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, October 6, 2026, at 2 p.m.)