Previous Sittings

Order Paper and Notice Paper

Previous Sittings

Journals of the Senate

Previous Sittings

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Download as PDF

1st Session, 42nd Parliament
Volume 150, Issue 156

Tuesday, November 7, 2017
The Honourable George J. Furey, Speaker

Victims of Tragedy
- Sutherland Springs—Silent Tribute

SENATORS’ STATEMENTS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
QUESTION PERIOD
ORDERS OF THE DAY
- Indian Act
  - Bill to Amend—Amendments from Commons—Motion to Concur in First and Third Amendments and Amend Second Amendment—Debate
QUESTION PERIOD
- Business of the Senate
- Ministry of Environment and Climate Change
ORDERS OF THE DAY

THE SENATE

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

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

Prayers.

[Translation]

Victims of Tragedy

Sutherland Springs—Silent Tribute

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge a senseless act of violence committed Sunday in Sutherland Springs, Texas.

[English]

The lives of 26 people, including a number of children, were tragically taken and at least 20 people were injured.

I now invite honourable senators to rise for a moment of silence in memory of the victims.

(Honourable senators then stood in silent tribute.)

SENATORS’ STATEMENTS

The Senate

One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of First Sitting

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, Canada’s sesquicentennial provides an opportunity and an important landmark to look back and consider how well Parliament has, over 150 years, abided by the principles of peace, order and good government — the very ideals at the foundation of our Confederation. Many may say very well indeed.

The panoramic view of Canada shows a country with strong democratic roots peacefully growing stronger. But if one looks more closely, one can see that democracy has always been a work in progress. Consider our Founding Fathers. However well-meaning their intentions, they were, as their name suggests, a rather exclusive group. But they did create a framework for a nation where change could take place.

In the last 150 years, we can see many changes that have made Canada more inclusive and democratic. But that transition was — and still is — not easy.

[Translation]

Every day, as we enter this chamber, we pass the busts of James Gladstone, the first aboriginal senator, Marianna Jodoin, the first francophone woman appointed to the Senate, and Cairine Wilson, the first female senator. Their position near the entrance to the Senate is no coincidence. These busts are placed there to remind us that the Senate’s role in Canada’s Parliament is to fight for justice, inclusion, and minority representation.

Back in 1867, minority representation primarily meant representing sparsely populated regions. Over the years, our vision of the notion has expanded to encompass people who are excluded based on gender, language, religion, ethnicity, or gender identity or expression.

[English]

Canada’s democracy has been strengthened by a Senate that, with a strong voice, calls the attention of the elected house and all Canadians to issues or consequences of legislation that sober second reflection has brought to light. The nature of the Senate also means that we can strengthen democracy by complementing the work of the other place by taking a longer view, unhindered by shorter-term electoral priorities.

Senators, over my career I’ve often been inspired by the words of Karl Reinhold Niebhur, an American-German theologian who wrote:

Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.

On this very special day, let us celebrate the capacity of all Canadians, women and men, for justice. Let us be proud as parliamentarians of a democracy that evolves in the service of Canadians and in the service of justice. For the arc of history is long, but it does bend towards justice.

[Translation]

Hon. Larry W. Smith (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, thanks to this chamber, Canada is internationally renowned for its excellent system of government, commonly referred to as “stable government.” The fact that we have maintained this reputation for 150 years shows that when it comes to change, it is best to err on the side of caution.

[English]

Since 2015, there has been continuous pressure to change the system, with the creation of new constructs, groups, titles and a fundamental disregard for the traditions that have served our country well for 150 years.

I want to take time to pay special tribute to the key personnel who have worked in the Senate for decades over the last 150 years and for those who today carry the institutional knowledge to guide our deliberations. I respect that our Clerk of the Senate, principal clerk, committee clerks and table officers, together with our legal counsel and Black Rod, have worked diligently during this time of constant pressure to forge new rules and change conventions.

After spending nearly seven years in the chamber, I am profoundly grateful for the pride and honour which I have seen in the administration of the Senate as they strive to impart the deeply held traditions of Parliament. We need to take this day to reflect on how the rules and procedures preserve the democracy that this great country enjoys today. We need to congratulate the keepers of our institutional knowledge and encourage them to be firm in the insistence that traditions remain.

The future of our system is no longer certain, and I would caution those who press to have the Rules changed under the guise of modernization. There has been pressure to remove the process of adjourning debate to move to a committee that would pre-decide on the schedule of debate. I would argue that this is an affront to democracy that removes the privilege of the public to interact with parliamentarians, where hearing debate they have the opportunity to reach out and comment on debate and change the timelines of such debate. Equally, it removes the privilege of parliamentarians to join a debate spontaneously and embark on further research — a privilege which our current system protects.

(1410)

Debate in Parliament is fundamental to our democracy. An effective legislative process requires equal parts promotion and opposition. Every piece of legislation is improved by the process of review and criticism; when we adequately challenge the bills that come before us, I am certain you would all agree, our chamber puts forth better legislation. Our Westminster system is structured to ensure that the rules of debate deliver the sober second thought we strive for in the service of all Canadians.

We celebrate the 150 years that this Westminster system in Canada represents, and we salute its next 150 years.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Honourable colleagues, I rise today to commemorate the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the first sitting of the Senate of Canada. This anniversary is a timely reminder of the role that the upper chamber played in forging Canada’s nationhood, as well as an opportunity to underscore the continued importance of the institution for generations to come.

Unlike the House of Commons, the very foundation of the Senate is built on a notion of independence. Our core mandate, which is the critical review of legislation and the study of issues of national importance, is made possible by insulating our deliberations from the short-term calculation of electoral politics that are inherent in the lower chamber. As former Senator Arthur Roebuck said in 1951:

We are a judicial body, and in my humble judgment we have lived up to that role with a fair degree of continuity throughout the years, viewing measures before us in an independent and more or less detached way, the one big thought in our minds being the effect of the proposed legislation upon the Canada of which we are proud to be citizens.

The creation of the Senate was of course a key enabler of Confederation. As we well know, the Senate sought to give greater representation to those regions of Canada which, due to their smaller population at that time, held fewer seats in the House of Commons. In my own province of British Columbia, the Senate’s work to finalize the agreement for the creation of the Canadian Pacific Railway was the reason B.C. joined Confederation in 1871. The railway, and British Columbia’s membership in Confederation, is the reason for our country’s motto, “from sea to sea.” But the railway was also about connecting Canada to the Pacific Ocean and to the countries in Asia, such as Japan, China and other parts of the region.

Indeed, Canada’s connections with Asia are as old as Confederation itself, and the flow of people from across the Pacific has been a defining feature of this country for more than 150 years. I am proud to be part of an institution that resisted the worst of government policies to discriminate against Asian Canadians. From the 1880s on, there were spirited debates in Parliament on actions to discriminate against Chinese Canadians and Chinese migrants, leading up to the notorious 1923 Chinese exclusion act.

Colleagues, it was here in the Senate that independence of thought and the defence of minorities held strong. Many senators spoke out against and were outraged by the restrictions put on Chinese immigration and repressive measures such as the head tax. As former Senator James Dever stated:

We, who pride ourselves on the freedom of our institutions, and the abolition of slavery in the United States, and who fancy we are going over the world with our lamp in our hand shedding light and lustre wherever we go — that we should become slave-drivers, and prohibit strangers from coming to our hospitable shore because they are of a different colour and have a different language and habits from ourselves, in deference to the feelings of a few people from British Columbia, is a thing I cannot understand.

As senator 942 in our chamber’s 150-year history, I am humbled and honoured to follow in the footsteps of so many of our forebears who have upheld the fundamental importance of an independent Senate, standing up for minorities and representing the regions we hail from, and acting in the long-term interests of the country. The best is yet to come.

[Translation]

Hon. Serge Joyal: Honourable senators, it is a privilege to rise today to mark the 150th anniversary of the first sitting of the Senate, which took place on November 6, 1867.

The Canada of today is much different than the Canada of 150 years ago. It is a country that knows no equal in the western world. We owe that to our founders’ spirit of compromise and to the special role that the Senate played in our country’s evolution. That is what I would like to talk to you about and celebrate with you all today.

In 1864, Canada’s founders were seeking to build one large country, while respecting the rights of the two major linguistic communities and each region’s desire to continue to grow based on its own unique identity. They agreed to form a federation where issues of common interest would be dealt with centrally but where each province would retain its ability to grow by making some of its own decisions and maintaining its own regional identity.

[English]

Canada was born not out of an ideology or a grand scheme or a war or civil strife. It was essentially the result of a pragmatic approach to resolve the unification of two linguistic communities and of different regions with various levels of wealth and aspiration to create a larger country.

It is the Senate that was entrusted with the responsibility of having regional voices heard at the centre of government and with speaking on behalf of its minorities so that they would not be swamped under the weight of the majorities. In other words, it is in the Senate that the federal principle was enshrined, and it is for this reason that it was given legislative power equal to that of the House of Commons in the enactment of legislation.

The Senate has played a core role in the building of Canada. On two separate occasions, in 1980 and in 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed and underlined the unique role of our chamber in our system of government.

Honourable senators, we should never forget the oath of office that each of us subscribed to before taking our seat, that is, speaking on behalf of its region and the linguistic and cultural minorities that characterize our national social fabric. This responsibility was widened and confirmed in 1982 with the adoption of the Charter of Rights.

Rights and freedoms of Canadians and of Aboriginal peoples are always better guaranteed when the Senate uses its independent thinking to evaluate the impact of government legislation on those who have lower voices or lower capacities to have their interests and expectations valued by the majority.

As long as the Senate fulfills its constitutional duty, Canada will continue to thrive and remain a beacon of liberty and equal dignity for all.

This is what the medal, issued on the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Senate, is intended to celebrate, that is, the essential link of the Senate to the success of Canada as a federal country.

May this anniversary be one among many more to come on the path of a more humanistic and democratic world.

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of François Caron-Melançon and Rebecca Gasarabwe. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Gold.

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

ENSEMBLE for the respect of diversity

Hon. Marc Gold: Honourable senators, Canada is not defined by its geography alone, even though it has been instrumental in making us who we are today. Canada is also defined by the principle and values that are an integral part of its legal and political institutions, namely, equality, pluralism, and respect for diversity.

We should be proud, rather, I should say that we should feel privileged to live in a country that gives priority to these values and is guided by these great principles in dealing with past injustices and those that still haunt us today. This is particularly important in the current context as we witness the rise of antidemocratic values and the erosion of the principles that we hold dear around the world and ever closer to home.

(1420)

The global situation reminds us that our democratic values and principles are fragile and must not be taken for granted. In fact, what keeps our democratic institutions strong is the people’s desire and ability to participate in the activities of those institutions.

That is why kindling young people’s interest in civic affairs is essential. We have to listen to them, give them opportunities to express themselves, and help them acquire the tools they need to live in an increasingly diverse and demanding world. We also have to work with them to help them understand the consequences of their actions — and their inaction — as citizens and to teach them about the political and legal institutions at the heart of Canada’s constitutional system.

[English]

I want to take these few minutes to introduce you to a wonderful organization with which I’ve had the privilege of working for almost 20 years, and indeed of chairing for 10 years in the past, l’ENSEMBLE pour le respect de la diversité, for what I described to you earlier about our obligation to ourselves and to our youth is exactly what ENSEMBLE does and is about.

It was founded in Montreal in 1996 and then known as The Tolerance Foundation. It became its work in the French-language high schools of Quebec, putting on interactive, multimedia workshops addressing issues of prejudice, discrimination and indeed genocide.

As it grew, it began to work in the English-language network and added additional workshops in both French and English on bullying, as well as specialized programs on sexism, homophobia, racism and colonialism, and most recently on the subject of deradicalization.

I am especially proud of the work that ENSEMBLE is doing with indigenous communities. Starting with the Atikamekw community in Manawan, Quebec some years ago, ENSEMBLE will be doing workshops in a number of Cree, Innu and Algonquin communities during this current school year.

ENSEMBLE has also expanded its reach beyond Quebec. Thanks to both public and private support, it now offers workshops and programs across the country, often though not exclusively in partnership with the French-language school systems in the provinces. For example, this year our teams of animators are working with students in Nova Scotia —

The Hon. the Speaker: Sorry, Senator Gold. You have 10 seconds to wind up. You are well over your time.

Senator Gold: I am very proud. I invite you all to join me and meet some of the animators today, here in Centre Block, room 238-S, at 5 p.m.

Senate Commemorative Medal

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, I rise to honour history and hard work. Yesterday at the National Press Theatre, I and our colleagues the Honourable Senators Joyal, P.C., Bovey and Unger were pleased to announce the Senate 150th Commemorative Medal. The Senate had decided to strike a Senate medal after the federal government decided not to create a sesquicentennial medal of its own. Many senators felt strongly to recognize selfless individuals from coast to coast to coast who continually strive to make our communities and nation better. The medal is also meant to recognize the Senate’s 150 years of service as a chamber of sober second thought and a catalyst of ideas and legislative review.

The Senate unites a diverse group of accomplished Canadians in service to their country. However, today and over the next year senators will be awarding commemorative medals to many extraordinary Canadians. We are using the occasion of Canada’s one hundred and fiftieth birthday, its sesquicentennial, to recognize the incredible Canadians whose contributions, volunteer efforts and dedication to their local communities help to make our country a better place.

Choosing recipients was not an easy task as so many Canadians are deeply involved in their communities and who, through generosity, dedication, volunteerism and hard work, make their hometown, community, region, province or territory a better place. I echo the words of Senator Unger at yesterday’s press conference when she said she would like to be able to present this award to all of her province’s volunteers.

When I reached out to my nominees, some were brought to tears and all were genuinely surprised that they were chosen to receive such an honour. My nominees come from different walks of life but all have made significant contributions to their communities. I will highlight three.

Patrick Hickey is an undergrad student who has been a champion for mental health since he was in high school. First organizing a school-wide event on mental wellness, he later founded the Metro Youth Mental Health Committee, a student group with representatives from all 13 high schools in the St. John’s area. He has served on advisory committees for Kids Help Phone, Movember Foundation, as well as the Minister of Health and Community Services Advisory Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. Mr. Hickey told me the first step is simply being an everyday mental health champion.

Sam and Pearl King of Deer Lake saw the need to feed the hungry of their community. They first started by feeding the children of Elwood Elementary through the school breakfast program. In 1996, they began operation of a food bank from their basement. They did this for 15 years.

They later moved into a building with volunteers and a volunteer board of directors and continue feeding those in need in their communities. Now in their eighties, their greatest legacy is what they have built and others will continue.

Brenda Jeddore is a teacher from the south coast of Newfoundland in the First Nations community of Conne River. Ms. Jeddore accepted her first teaching position there, teaching Grade 1 and music. Throughout her many years in Conne River she has been involved in the traditional ceremonies, especially with respect to drumming and chanting. She has learned the Mi’kmaq language from community elders and today works with Mi’kmaq linguists to ensure the Mi’kmaq language is utilized in the music program she began.

Honourable senators, although there are countless worthy Canadians, I am happy that the Senate has chosen to honour the many deserving Canadians and all their efforts to make our communities and our country great.

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a group of fourteen African Nova Scotian women called the Young Women of Excellence from East Preston United Baptist Church, led by Pastor LeQuita Porter. They are accompanied by George Bernard, husband of Senator Bernard, and are the guests of the Honourable Senator Bernard.

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Nova Scotia

East Preston United Baptist Church—Young Women of Excellence

Hon. Wanda Thomas Bernard: I’m sure that you all know, my colleagues, the place of Nova Scotia in Canadian history. But, honourable senators, I rise today to tell you a bit about the Black community of East Preston.

Settled as one of the segregated communities in the 1700s and 1800s, East Preston is a community that has been marginalized by systemic racism through history, but I am privileged today to have with me a group of the Young Women of Excellence of the East Preston United Baptist Church. Led by their Pastor, LeQuita Porter, East Preston United Baptist Church celebrated 175 years just this past September. Given our 150 years in Parliament, for this group to be the first group of Black Nova Scotians to claim their space here in the Senate of Canada gives me a sense of pride that’s hard to even articulate. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak their names into the records of this great institution.

The Young Women of Excellence are — and I will ask them to stand as I call their names — Adrionna Brooks, Tanamya Brooks, Jalisa Colley, Senai Colley, Hailey Diggs, Marguerite Dunkley, Janaysha Hum, Nylita Grant, Rokeesha Grant, Santia Grant, Kahlyn McIntyre, Beyonca Payne, Andrea Thomas and Kendra Slawter.

(1430)

They are supported by a wonderful group of chaperones, whom I call mentors, who are here with them: Melinda Diggs, Margaret Fraser, Maxine Maxwell, Reverend Dr. Joyce Ross, Tamara Thomas and their organizer, Pastor LeQuita Porter.

And the one man in the group, my personal paparazzi, George Bernard, who has come along to take photographs for us as a volunteer.

Thank you for this opportunity. Thank you for such a warm welcome to the Young Women of Excellence from East Preston here celebrating history with us. Thank you.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Parliamentary Budget Officer

Supplementary Estimates (B), 2017-18—Report Tabled

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer entitled Supplementary Estimates (B), 2017-18, pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, sbs. 79.2(2).

[Translation]

Indian Act

An Assessment of the Population Impacts of Select Hypothetical Amendments to Section 6 of the Indian Act—Document Tabled

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a document entitled “An Assessment of the Population Impacts of Select Hypothetical Amendments to Section 6 of the Indian Act”.

National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman

2016-17 Annual Report Tabled

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2016-17 Annual Report for the Office of the Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces.

[English]

ParlAmericas

Gathering of the Parliamentary Network on Climate Change, August 3-4, 2017—Report Tabled

Hon. Tobias C. Enverga, Jr.: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas respecting its participation at the 2nd gathering of the Parliamentary Network on Climate change, held in Panama City, Panama, from August 3 and 4, 2017.

QUESTION PERIOD

Business of the Senate

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, pursuant to the motion adopted in this chamber Thursday, November 2, 2017, Question Period will take place at 3:30 p.m.

[Translation]

Answer to Order Paper Question Tabled

Justice—Online Public Opinion Research Survey on the Penal Justice System

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): tabled the reply to Question No. 56, dated October 3, 2017, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, respecting a poll conducted on behalf of the Department of Justice.

[English]

Delayed Answers to Oral Questions

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answers to the following oral questions: the response to the oral question of September 20, 2017, by the Honourable Senator Downe, concerning public safety and cybersecurity; the response to the oral question of September 21, 2017, by the Honourable Senator Kenny, concerning national defence and the military judicial process; the response to the oral question of October 5, 2017, by the Honourable Senator Wallin, concerning health and advance directives; and the response to the oral question of October 19, 2017, by the Honourable Senator Dyck, concerning indigenous and northern affairs and amendments to the Indian Act.

Public Safety

Cybersecurity

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Percy E. Downe on September 20, 2017)

• The Government of Canada takes the issues of Canadians’ privacy and protecting their private information very seriously and is taking action.

• The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) is responsible for Personal Information Protection and Electronic Document Act (PIPEDA), Canada’s privacy law for private sector organizations.

• Private sector organizations operating in Canada are subject to PIPEDA and are responsible for protecting personal information that is in their custody regardless of its physical location.

• ISED recently published amendments to PIPEDA that look to empower consumers and encourage businesses to have better security practices.

• Once in force, these regulations will impose new legal requirements on companies to proactively disclose any material breaches.

• They are based on internationally recognized principles, such as the need for meaningful consent, transparency, and accountability.

• With regard the recent data security breach at Equifax, Equifax Canada confirmed a cyberattack that resulted in data security breach may have also included Canadian consumers.

• They have publically communicated that they will be notifying impacted consumers via mail directly, and working with the Privacy Commissioner.

• The Government understands, the Privacy Commissioner has asked Equifax Canada to provide a full report on its security breach, including details on how Canadians were affected.

• ISED is closely monitoring the situation.

National Defence

Military Judicial Process

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Colin Kenny on September 21, 2017)

Canada’s military justice system is a separate and parallel system of justice that forms an integral part of Canada’s legal mosaic. It shares many of the same underlying principles with the civilian criminal justice system, and is subject to the same constitutional framework including the Charter. The Supreme Court directly addressed the importance of a separate and distinct military justice system to meet the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces on various occasions.

Operational effectiveness depends on the ability of its leadership to instill and maintain discipline. The particular need for discipline is a key part the system’s raison d’être. Summary trials allow for less serious service offences to be tried quickly and efficiently at the unit level.

The Honourable Patrick LeSage, former Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court, was appointed by the Minister of National Defence to conduct an independent review of the National Defence Act. This review followed the work of two former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, Brian Dickson and Antonio Lamer. In his review, Chief Justice LeSage stated, “the summary trial system is vital to the maintenance of discipline at the unit level and therefore essential to the life and death work the military performs on a daily basis”.

Health

Advance Directives

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Pamela Wallin on October 5, 2017)

In December 2016, the Government initiated independent reviews on medical assistance in dying (MAID) in three complex circumstances: requests by mature minors, advance requests and requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition. The Council of Canadian Academies (CCA), an independent, not-for-profit organization that undertakes evidence-based, expert assessments to support and inform public policy development in Canada, was engaged to conduct these reviews.

The CCA created an Expert Panel comprised of 44 individuals with expertise in law, medicine, ethics, social sciences, and health sciences, among other disciplines. The Panel’s three Working Groups have all met at least once and will meet again in November 2017. They will review the existing evidence and identify where additional evidence or information needs to be collected to inform the final reports.

The Expert Panel also invited written submissions from Canadian groups that have been impacted by the issues under review, with October 6, 2017, being the closing date for submissions.

Final reports will be made available to Parliamentarians and the public by December 2018. The reports will summarize the evidence and information found during the reviews, providing a basis for an informed dialogue among Canadians and decision-makers.

Additional information about the CCA and its Expert Panel on Medical Assistance in Dying can be found at: http://www.scienceadvice.ca/en/assessments/in-progress/medical-assistance-dying.aspx.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

Amendments to Indian Act

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Lillian Eva Dyck on October 19, 2017)

The government has received a revised demographic analysis from Mr. Clatworthy, which includes data for a number of potential scenarios. The total cost of the contract is $23,049.60.

The report includes data from the Indian Register and the 2011 National Household Survey, which both have their limitations. As the Indian Register was originally compiled from treaty or band lists following the 1951 Indian Act, many individuals who had been removed from these lists prior to that time (and their descendants) cannot be identified from the Indian Register. The 2011 National Household Survey’s data on First Nations ancestry is the best option to provide an order of magnitude of the potential scenarios. However, it remains imprecise because it is subject to shifts in self-declaration over time.

On October 25, 2017, Statistics Canada released the 2016 Census data on Aboriginal peoples. Mr. Clatworthy was contracted by the government to update his demographic analyses using data from the 2016 Census. The total cost of this contract is $4,592.00.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Indian Act

Bill to Amend—Amendments from Commons—Motion to Concur in First and Third Amendments and Amend Second Amendment—Debate

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the amendments by the House of Commons to Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration):

1.Long title, page 1: Replace the long title with the following:

“An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général)”

2.Clause 2, page 2: delete lines 5 to 16

3.Clause 11, page 9: Replace line 31 with the following:

“ter of Rights and Freedoms, of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and, if applicable, of”

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate) moved:

That the Senate concur in the amendments 1 and 3 made by the House of Commons to Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration);

That, in lieu of amendment 2, Bill S-3 be amended

(a)on page 2, in clause 2, by deleting lines 5 to 16;

(b)on page 5, by adding after line 40 the following:

“2.1 (1) Paragraphs 6(1)(c.01) to (c.2) of the Act are repealed.

(2) Paragraphs 6(1)(c.4) to (c.6) of the Act are repealed.

(3) Paragraph 6(1)(c) of the Act is renumbered as paragraph (a.1) and is repositioned accordingly.

(4) Paragraph 6(1)(c.3) of the Act is renumbered as paragraph (a.2) and is repositioned accordingly.

(5) Subsection 6(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a.2):

(a.3) that person is a direct descendant of a person who is, was or would have been entitled to be registered under paragraph (a.1) or (a.2) and

(i) they were born before April 17, 1985, whether or not their parents were married to each other at the time of the birth, or

(ii) they were born after April 16, 1985 and their parents were married to each other at any time before April 17, 1985;

(6) The portion of subsection 6(3) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(3) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(a.3) and (f) and subsection (2),

(7) Paragraph 6(3)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) a person who is described in paragraph (1)(a.1), (d), (e) or (f) or subsection (2) and who was no longer living on April 17, 1985 is deemed to be entitled to be registered under that paragraph or subsection; and

(8) Paragraph 6(3)(c) of the Act is repealed.

(9) Paragraph 6(3)(d) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(d) a person who is described in paragraph (1)(a.2) or (a.3) and who was no longer living on the day on which that paragraph came into force is deemed to be entitled to be registered under that paragraph.”;

(c)on page 7,

(i)by adding after line 26 the following:

“3.1 (1) Paragraph 11(1)(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(c) that person is entitled to be registered under paragraph 6(1)(a.1) and ceased to be a member of that band by reason of the circumstances set out in that paragraph; or

(2) Paragraphs 11(3)(a) and (a.1) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(a) a person whose name was omitted or deleted from the Indian Register or a Band List in the circumstances set out in paragraph 6(1)(a.1), (d) or (e) and who was no longer living on the first day on which the person would otherwise be entitled to have the person’s name entered in the Band List of the band of which the person ceased to be a member is deemed to be entitled to have the person’s name so entered;

(a.1) a person who would have been entitled to be registered under paragraph 6(1)(a.2) or (a.3), had they been living on the day on which that paragraph came into force, and who would otherwise have been entitled, on that day, to have their name entered in a Band List, is deemed to be entitled to have their name so entered; and

(3) Paragraphs 11(3.1)(a) to (i) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(a) they are entitled to be registered under paragraph 6(1)(a.2) and their father is entitled to have his name entered in the Band List or, if their father is no longer living, was so entitled at the time of death; or

(b) they are entitled to be registered under paragraph 6(1)(a.3) and one of their parents, grandparents or other ancestors

(i) ceased to be entitled to be a member of that band by reason of the circumstances set out in paragraph 6(1)(a.1), or

(ii) was not entitled to be a member of that band immediately before April 17, 1985.

3.2 Subsections 64.1(1) and (2) of the Act are replaced by the following:

64.1 (1) A person who has received an amount that exceeds $1,000 under paragraph 15(1)(a), as it read immediately before April 17, 1985, or under any former provision of this Act relating to the same subject matter as that paragraph, by reason of ceasing to be a member of a band in the circumstances set out in paragraph 6(1)(a.1), (d) or (e) is not entitled to receive an amount under paragraph 64(1)(a) until such time as the aggregate of all amounts that the person would, but for this subsection, have received under paragraph 64(1)(a) is equal to the amount by which the amount that the person received under paragraph 15(1)(a), as it read immediately before April 17, 1985, or under any former provision of this Act relating to the same subject matter as that paragraph, exceeds $1,000, together with any interest.

(2) If the council of a band makes a by-law under paragraph 81(1)(p.4) bringing this subsection into effect, a person who has received an amount that exceeds $1,000 under paragraph 15(1)(a), as it read immediately before April 17, 1985, or under any former provision of this Act relating to the same subject matter as that paragraph, by reason of ceasing to be a member of the band in the circumstances set out in paragraph 6(1)(a.1), (d) or (e) is not entitled to receive any benefit afforded to members of the band as individuals as a result of the expenditure of Indian moneys under paragraphs 64(1)(b) to (k), subsection 66(1) or subsection 69(1) until the amount by which the amount so received exceeds $1,000, together with any interest, has been repaid to the band.”,

(ii)in clause 4, by replacing line 34 with the following:

“10.1 have the same meaning as in the Indian Act.”, and

(iii)in clause 5, by replacing lines 37 and 38 with the following:

“order referred to in subsection 15(1) is made.”;

(d)on page 8, in clause 7, by replacing lines 13 and 14 with the following:

“which the order referred to in subsection 15(1) is made, recognize any entitle-”;

(e)on page 9,

(i)in clause 10, by replacing line 3 with the following:

“ly before the day on which this section comes into”, and

(ii)by adding after line 8 the following:

“10.1 For greater certainty, no person or body has a right to claim or receive any compensation, damages or indemnity from Her Majesty in right of Canada, any employee or agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada, or a council of a band, for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the exercise of their powers or the performance of their duties, only because

(a) a person was not registered, or did not have their name entered in a Band List, immediately before the day on which this section comes into force; and

(b) that person or one of the person’s parents, grandparents or other ancestors is entitled to be registered under paragraph 6(1)(a.1), (a.2) or (a.3) of the Indian Act.”; and

(f)on page 11, in clause 15,

(i)by replacing line 26 with the following:

“15 (1) This Act, other than sections 2.1, 3.1, 3.2 and 10.1, comes into force or is deemed to”, and

(ii)by adding after line 30 the following:

“(2) Sections 2.1, 3.1, 3.2 and 10.1 come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council, but that day must be after the day fixed under subsection (1).”; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to move a motion in response to the message from the other place in relation to Bill S-3.

(1440)

At the outset, I would like to thank senators for their patience in this matter.

I would also like to thank the senators, and particularly the indigenous leaders in this chamber, whose commitment to both principle and constructive engagement with government has resulted in today’s motion.

I am pleased to announce that the motion before the chamber would enshrine in law the removal of all gender discrimination in the Indian Act.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Harder: At the same time, the government will meet its commitment to consult on implementation by bringing into force the clause dealing with the 1951 cut-off after the conclusion of consultations co-designed with indigenous groups and affected individuals. These consultations will begin early next year as part of a comprehensive plan for the implementation, and I will share with you some details of the plan in a moment.

[Translation]

As Government Representative in the Senate, I would like to say that this motion reflects a government that listens to Canadians and is committed to truth and reconciliation. This motion is also the result of the work done by this chamber, which fulfilled its parliamentary duties of complementarity, representing minorities, and protecting Charter values.

[English]

How did we get here? In considering the motion before us, it might be useful to review the events that brought us here.

Last fall, in direct response to the decision of the Superior Court of Quebec in the case of Descheneaux et al., the government introduced Bill S-3 here in the Senate. The purpose of this bill was to both remedy the Charter violations found by the court with respect to the plaintiffs’ situations as well as address other known sex-based Indian Act registration inequities beyond those found in the specific decision.

As honourable senators are aware, this was done in the context of a court-imposed deadline of February 3, 2017, to deal with the specific sex-based Charter violations found in the Descheneaux case.

Given the government’s commitment that changes affecting First Nations would be made in partnership and through consultations, and in context of the court-imposed time constraints, alleged non-sex based registration inequities and broader registration and membership reform were to be addressed through broad-based consultations after the passage of Bill S-3.

At the urging of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, the government sought and received an extension of the court deadline to July 3 to allow for further engagement on whether additional amendments were needed to address other sex-based inequities in Indian Act registration.

[Translation]

Thanks to the hard work of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, other senators in this chamber and the witnesses who appeared before the committee, and with the support and cooperation of the government, many improvements were made to Bill S-3.

Several groups that have been affected by gender-based inequality that we were unfamiliar with, were identified by the witnesses at this Senate committee. They were included in the bill thereafter.

[English]

The government worked with senators to address the issue of unstated paternity by enshrining additional procedural protections in law through Bill S-3. The bill was also amended to require the government to report back to Parliament on a number of occasions and in a number of ways to update all parliamentarians — and all Canadians — on its progress toward broader Indian Act registration and membership reform.

All of these amendments were welcomed and supported by the government.

The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples also added an amendment to Bill S-3 with the intent of implementing what has become known as the “6(1)(a) all the way approach.” The intent of this amendment was to provide entitlement to 6(1)(a) Indian status to all those who had lost status back in 1869 and to all their descendants born prior to 1985.

The amended bill was passed by the Senate with strong support from all sides of this chamber, including the “6(1)(a) all the way” amendment, and referred to the other place.

(1450)

We received a message from the other place last spring accepting the vast majority of Senate amendments. However, the Senate amendment seeking to implement the 6(1)(a) all the way approach was removed.

In response to ongoing concerns of senators and some other indigenous voices that without that amendment Bill S-3 would still not remove all sex-based inequities in the Indian Act registration, I did not bring the message forward for debate in June.

The government instead sought a further court extension to provide additional time to work with legislators, First Nations and other affected parties to pass the bill in a form that senators could be assured would result in the removal of all sex-based inequities from the registration provisions of the Indian Act.

While the Superior Court of Quebec rejected that application, the Court of Appeal of Quebec granted a further extension until December 22 of this year. The Court of Appeal of Quebec has also strongly suggested this would be the last extension granted.

Last summer, the government also commissioned a demographic analysis regarding various scenarios for a number of potential amendments to Bill S-3.

[Translation]

On October 19, I promised in this chamber to share with all senators a demographic analysis prepared to foster the most thorough debates possible. During the course of its study, the government updated the demographic analysis to include 2016 census data on indigenous peoples, which were published on October 25, 2017. I forwarded this updated information to senators yesterday, and it has now been tabled in the Senate.

With today’s motion, I have the great pleasure of announcing that the government is committed to working with parliamentarians, First Nations, impacted individuals, and experts to ensure that any gender inequality is removed from the registration provisions of the Indian Act.

[English]

With regard to the 1951 cut-off, the government’s position has been and continues to be that the current state of the law does not require extending Charter remedies for sex-based Indian Act registration issues back before 1951, which is the year the modern registry came into effect. This reflects the ruling of the B.C. Court of Appeal in the McIvor decision and has become commonly known as the 1951 cut-off.

However, the government also believes Charter compliance is the floor, not the ceiling, for action. The government has always acknowledged that there were significant historical Indian Act registration issues which flowed from non-sex-based inequities as well as inequities that related to sex which predated 1951.

In keeping with its commitment to making changes affecting First Nations in partnership, these issues were to be addressed through broad-based consultations on registration and membership issues beginning early next year.

The government also recognizes the understandable and justified skepticism and mistrust of First Nations, particularly First Nation women and parliamentarians, about decades of inaction by governments of all political stripes on these issues, and in particular the 1951 cut-off.

[Translation]

Nevertheless, while indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians work to achieve reconciliation, today’s motion represents a big step in the right direction. It represents progress with respect to the principle it enshrines in law and the dialogue it facilitated, as well as the implementation plan and other reconciliation efforts.

As Senator Christmas and Minister Wilson-Raybould recently said in this chamber, we have much work to do as a country. Senators can and must show leadership, as they most certainly did when developing this bill.

[English]

Honourable senators, with respect to Bill S-3, the government has listened to the arguments put forward by the Senate, as well as some other indigenous voices, and it is now proposing to amend the current bill to deal with the 1951 cut-off.

I am confident that the government-supported amendment to the message will ensure Bill S-3 removes all sex-based inequities from the registration provisions of the Indian Act. The proposed clause would provide 6(1)(a) status to all women who lost status through sex-based inequities and to their descendants born prior to 1985. This includes circumstances prior to 1951 and in fact remedies sex-based inequities back to 1869.

The government is also committed to ensuring this measure is implemented in the right way, in terms of both First Nation communities and individuals who will become entitled to registration.

[Translation]

The government made it clear that consultation and partnership are essential prerequisites for any major changes involving First Nations. By proposing the changes in this motion, I think the government has shown that listening is good, but listening and taking action is better.

[English]

This approach is in keeping with its commitment to a renewed, respectful relationship, a partnership based on the recognition of rights and to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Implementation of the 1951 cut-off clause will still require extensive consultations with communities, affected individuals and experts to make sure we get this right.

However, I would emphasize that the government has a clear plan to move forward on implementation.

While the balance of Bill S-3 will be brought into force immediately after Royal Assent, the clause dealing with the 1951 cut-off will be brought into force after the conclusion of co-designed consultations to begin early next year and once a comprehensive plan to address identified issues is developed in partnership to be implemented simultaneously.

Colleagues, let me be clear: These consultations are about how to remove the 1951 cut-off, not whether to do it. Consultations will be focused on identifying additional measures or resources required to do this right and working in partnership to develop a comprehensive implementation plan.

Given the limited value of Indian Register data for individuals who lost status before 1951 and their descendants, census data is the best available information to estimate the potential effects of the proposed amendment.

However, it only provides an indicator of how many people self-reported indigenous ancestry who could potentially apply for Indian registration and is not necessarily reflective of how many would ultimately be found eligible for Indian status.

All senators now have Mr. Clatworthy’s updated demographic analysis, which was commissioned by the government. Current estimates of people who could potentially apply for status under these changes range from approximately 750,000 to 1.3 million individuals.

The government is making this demographic data public in the interest of transparency, but it does not believe it is a reliable way to estimate potential effects. It is the government’s view that these numbers significantly overestimate the number of individuals who would successfully obtain Indian status.

The limitations of the current demographic projections, even with the additional independent work commissioned over the summer, further underscores the need for meaningful consultation on the best possible implementation plan.

The government will continue to work on further refining current demographic estimates and looks forward to the broad-based consultations on Indian Act registration and membership to begin in early 2018 to assist in this process.

This amendment is a clear and unequivocal statement of the government’s commitment to remove the 1951 cut-off regarding sex-based inequities in the Indian Act. Furthermore, the bill contains numerous clauses holding the government accountable to Parliament regarding implementation of this legislation.

The bill requires consultations on implementation of the clause in question as well as a broader Indian Act registration and membership reform to commence within six months of Royal Assent.

I understand those consultations are actually expected to commence in early 2018, and the co-design of those consultations with the First Nations is already under way.

Within five months of Royal Assent, the government is required to report to Parliament on the design of the consultations and how they are progressing and to provide a further update to Parliament within 12 months of Royal Assent. There is also now a three-year review clause in the bill.

(1500)

Parliament will have numerous enshrined opportunities to hold the government to account on its progress toward removing the 1951 cut-off.

This is a different approach from the Senate “6(1)(a) all the way” amendment as, in keeping with the intended scope of the bill, it is focused exclusively on issues of sex-based inequities in the Indian Act registration. The intent of the previous “6(1)(a) all the way” amendment would have focused on other issues of lost status in addition to sex-based inequities.

In keeping with its commitment to making changes affecting First Nations in partnership and through consultation, other alleged Indian Act registration inequities flowing from non-sex-based circumstances will be addressed through broad-based consultations on registration and membership issues beginning early next year.

In addition to the scope of the “6(1)(a) all the way” amendment, independent legal experts have raised concerns about its drafting, which created significant ambiguity as to its actual effect. The government amendment contemplates and eliminates other contradictory sections of the Indian Act to remove that ambiguity. The government believes this amendment to the message is the best way to enshrine in law the stated principle of Bill S-3 — the elimination of all sex-based inequities in the registration provisions in the Indian Act.

I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight the timelines we face as legislators. The government has made every effort to bring this amended legislation forward as expeditiously as possible, while doing its due diligence in developing the proposed path forward. If we do not have legislation passed before December 22, which addresses the Descheneaux decision, the sections struck down by the court will be inoperative in Quebec. Based on the most recent extension decision of the Court of Appeal of Quebec, the government does not believe we should expect the courts to grant a further extension.

The registrar has stated she would not be in a position to register people under provisions found to be non-Charter compliant in Quebec and would also not register individuals under those provisions in the rest of Canada.

Ninety per cent of status Indians are registered under the provisions struck down by the Descheneaux decision. We must not lose sight of the thousands of individuals who will not be able to register if the court deadline passes and the provisions noted above become inoperative.

To conclude, I believe the government has listened to the concerns expressed by many senators and of the witnesses at the Senate committee. The amended message, which includes the government’s proposed amendment to remove the 1951 cut-off, addresses those concerns and presents us with a bill that lives up to its stated goal, which is the elimination of all sex-based inequities in the registration provisions of the Indian Act.

I again thank all senators whose leadership has contributed to the motion before us, and I urge all senators to support the amended legislation. I urge its adoption before we rise this week.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Brazeau, did you have a question or did you wish to speak?

Hon. Patrick Brazeau: I have a question for Senator Harder, please.

Thank you, Senator Harder, for bringing the motion. Obviously, it’s a good day for Canada having this government move beyond their original stance with respect to Bill S-3.

You mentioned the census and stats. At the end of the day, I don’t think that economic factors should be a justification or an excuse for sex discrimination in the Indian Act.

In terms of implementation, you mentioned a three-year consultation period. Once this bill receives Royal Assent, there will be a consultation period to look at all the sex-based discrimination provisions in the Indian Act. Am I correct to say that that time period is three years?

Senator Harder: It is certainly the hope of the government that it will not take three years.

First of all, large provisions of the bill come into force on the day of Royal Assent. The provision awaiting further consultation is the particular 1951 cut-off. Those consultations begin immediately. There are reporting requirements by the government to report to Parliament at 5 months and at 12 months. So there is ample opportunity for parliamentarians to be aware of the plan and its stated implementation, phasing, et cetera.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge and endorse what you said with respect to these rights, that they ought not be governed by the cost implications, which is why I, in particular, referenced the context of the demographic data. It is not a reliable guide, number one; and number two, I make the commitment on behalf of the government that it is not whether but how to implement. Obviously, the government is making these commitments with the recognition that there are costs involved.

Senator Brazeau: Within the next two years we’ll have another federal election. We don’t know what will happen with that, if the current government will remain intact or there will be a change in government. Having said that, I’d like to speak to a bit of caution.

When Bill C-31 came into effect in 1985, we were told by the government at that time that there would be a consultation period. That consultation period lasted 25 years, up until 2010.

After the McIvor decision in 2010, the former government said we were going to have a consultation period, and it is now seven years later.

It is my personal hope that this could be done before the next federal election. If there’s a way for the government to indicate and make clear that it can do so, that would be a great thing.

Senator Harder: Let me simply assure the honourable senator that unlike previous occasions, this bill, this potential act when Royal Assent is granted, requires not only the consultation but also the report back to Parliament at regular intervals.

It is certainly the intention and hope of the government that parliamentarians will remain vigilant to assure the absolute expeditious implementation of this, recognizing that there is appropriate consultation required.

Hon. Serge Joyal: Would the honourable senator entertain another question? My question is a follow-up to Senator Brazeau’s question.

First of all, I would like to thank the government for moving ahead and accepting the principle of removing all discrimination, in principle, from the Indian Act. But my concern is twofold.

The government, in this amendment, doesn’t commit itself to proclaim on such a date. There is no date, no time limit, per se. The government is committed to consult and report, but the government is not compelled to proclaim.

Why does the government not want to commit to proclaim after, for instance, a period of time of two years, if that is what the government contemplates as being the involvement and the economic and band implications? We all understand that. But if the government is moving forward in good faith, why rely on the role of parliamentarians to push the government instead of the government taking upon itself the responsibility to proclaim?

Senator Harder: It is the government’s view that its obligation to consult the affected communities and the Aboriginal people involved in the implementation is best situated in the context of good faith and goodwill, while in the law providing for the assurance that the plan is both public and that parliamentarians, at regular intervals, are given the opportunity to review the performance of the government in the negotiations, as well as other parties. That is the approach being taken by the government, and it’s one that I hope finds favour with all senators and members of the other chamber.

Senator Joyal: I will act as a lawyer. If my customer cannot be assured that he or she will get the results that he or she is entitled to in the legislation, then what is the recourse of that customer to compel the government to deliver on this?

Would the honourable senator be of the opinion that then an Indian band would have recourse in court to compel the government to proclaim the legislation since the step taken essentially links to a report to Parliament? Once the lapsing time for reporting is over, do you entertain the conclusion that a band would have the right to go to court and compel the government to act according to the non-discrimination clause recognized in the bill?

(1510)

Senator Harder: Senator Joyal, unlike you, I’m not a lawyer, so it would be hazardous for me to comment on the legal obligations or legal opportunities.

Let me again repeat that this amendment that I bring forward is not about whether this discrimination ought to end but how we ought to implement. It is in the spirit of moving forward as expeditiously as possible, in full faith and recognizing the consultations that the government is committed to, that the government moves the amendments that I have had the pleasure of bringing forward today.

Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the motion tabled by Senator Harder. As you heard as he was reading out the motion, it’s a five-page-long motion that’s highly technical and complex. I thank Senator Harder for sharing the motion with me earlier so that I could delve into it and be ready to speak to it today.

I don’t intend to discuss in detail the technical aspects of the proposed amendments, though I did analyze them carefully with respect to the “6(1)(a) all the way” amendment and its intentions, and I will discuss this aspect briefly.

But before I discuss today’s motion, I want to put it into context much like Senator Harder did but in a briefer form.

With respect to the very recent context, as you know, the House of Commons’ message essentially asked for an agreement by the Senate to revert back to a version of Bill S-3 that was tabled by the government in May 2017. The Senate “6(1)(a) all the way” amendment was removed by the House of Commons in June 2017. This was the amendment drafted by Sharon McIvor and her group and tabled by our colleague Senator McPhedran.

The “6(1)(a) all the way” amendment was the amendment which would have removed all female sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act, including persons affected before 1951, and thus it was, in our consideration, a key amendment.

Today, the motion before us essentially undoes what the House of Commons did to Bill S-3 and puts it back in a form very close to what the Senate passed on June 1, 2017. The motion today legislates the intentions of the “6(1)(a) all the way” but in a different manner than the McIvor amendment. The end result is the same and the legislative mechanism proposed can actually be seen as an improvement over the McIvor amendment. If we pass Bill S-3 as amended by today’s motion, all of the female sex-based discrimination will be eliminated in the Indian Act.

Those who lost status before September 4, 1951, will also be able to gain it back, but at a later date, to be fixed by an order-in-council. This group, the pre-1951s, was a major sticking point for the government. The government initially was concerned about the possibility of anywhere from 80,000 to 1 or 2 million new Indians being eligible to be added to the registry. As we received the data from the Clatworthy report, we see that we cannot get a reliable estimate. So we have to proceed, because we don’t know what the actual numbers will be. But I’m happy that the government decided that they will move ahead regardless of not knowing the exact number.

The motion today puts into the legislation the clauses which allows those who were born before 1951 to regain their Indian status at a later date. This is a major accomplishment. They will actually be part of the legislation.

Let’s review what the Senate “6(1)(a) all the way” amendment was intended to do versus what the amendments in Senator Harder’s motion intends to do. Basically, both approaches accomplish the same goal. The intentions of the “6(1)(a) all the way” and the proposed amendments today are the same. First of all, this intention is to eliminate all discrimination against Indian women to transmit their status to their descendants because of the provisions in paragraph 6(1)(c) of the Indian Act. That is the problematic paragraph. It favours Indian men by allowing them to regain status because of the double mother rule. And it allowed Indian women who lost their status for three different reasons to regain status: one, an Indian woman who married a non-status man; two, an illegitimate female child of an Indian woman; and three, an Indian woman enfranchised because her husband lost his status.

Now you might think that would have fixed everything, but unfortunately there were problems with the 6(1)(c) amendment and we found a series of exceptions. That’s why we’re in the pickle that we’re in.

The intention of the 6(1)(c) amendment and today’s amendment was to fix this problem identified and validated in many court cases such as the Descheneaux case, the Sharon McIvor case, and so on. If we pass today’s motion, we will fix the sex-based discrimination in 6(1)(c) by December 22. We will not fix the pre-1951 group until after that date, but the clauses that refer to that are actually in the amendment. So the legislation will be enshrined but will be enacted or legislated at a different date.

Essentially, there will be no legal difference in the rights of persons under the new 6(1)(c) and its long array of subclauses compared to the rights of persons with clauses under 6(1)(a). This was one of the cruxes of the McIvor group’s criticisms of the bill, namely that the rights of 6(1)(a) were superior to those who were included under 6(1)(c). That will no longer happen if we pass the bill, as amended, today.

In other words, honourable senators, we will get rid of the second class inferior category of 6(1)(c) persons. They are in effect 6(1)(a) persons. When we pass the final clause that deals with the pre-1951 cut-off, then we will actually amend the bill even more to take out pages and pages of subclauses under 6(1)(c), simplify it and move it up to 6(1)(a), which is exactly what the Sharon McIvor group wanted.

To recap, this is what the Sharon McIvor group wanted. They termed it as “getting rid of the subcategories.” In their amendment, they amended clause 6(1)(a) by adding two subsections, 6(1)(a)(i) and 6(1)(a)(ii), to accomplish this.

Second, with regard to these two amendments, the intentions of the “6(1)(a) all the way” amendment and the amendment in today’s motions both are intended to grant status to those who were cut off because they were born prior to 1951. That’s important to remember. As I said before, that was a major sticking point. While the “6(1)(a) all the way” amendment regarding the pre-1951 amendment was intended to come into force at the same time as the amendments related to clause 6(1)(c), the motion today stipulates that these clauses meant to include the pre-1951 group will come into force at a later date. When these amendments come into force, the subcategories of 6(1)(c) will be able to be simplified and added into the 6(1)(a) category instead, as I said a few moments ago. I hope I’ve made this clear because it’s not the easiest piece of legislation to make clear as you read the various technicalities.

Should we be concerned about the deferred date of the implementation of the pre-1951 group? The coming-into-force provision, a specific date, has not been identified. Of course we worry about that and I as an individual worry about that. But we have to counter that with the legislative mechanism to include the pre-1951 group that is actually included in the bill. This is a major milestone in regaining the rights to status as registered Indians. This has never happened before.

(1520)

By convention, governments do not put into law any provisions they do not support in implementation regardless of the coming-into-force date. This is a clear statement of the government’s intention. This is much better than the vague promises in the past to conduct consultations. As we know, as Senator Brazeau pointed out, in the past with Bill C-31 and Bill C-3 on the same topic, consultations were promised, consultations occurred, and nothing happened. This is a much greater response because it actually has the clause enshrined in the bill. With the reporting and consultations in the bill, the Senate can play a very firm role in ensuring that this happens.

What we have today is far superior to past promises of conducting consultations to determine whether the pre-1951 group should even be given the right to regain their status. That bears repeating because I think we need to really get that into our brains. We’ve been trying to get this for so many decades. It’s hard to believe that we actually have it. When I listened to you, Senator Harder, I almost broke down and cried because so many women — not myself, necessarily, but many many women — have been pushing for this for so long, and to hear you say it was a pivotal moment for me.

The pre-1951 group has been granted this right in today’s proposed amendments to Bill S-3. The follow-up discussion with First Nations on Bill S-3, as you said, Senator Harder, will not be on whether the pre-1951 group should be in the legislation. It will be on how they are going to implement this. How is this going to affect your community? Because we do know there are some communities who do not support this bill. There was a group from the Kahnawá:ke nation who appeared in the House of Commons. Quite simply, their stand is marry out, get out. I don’t think the vast majority of First Nations take that view, but we have to recognize that not every band is in support of this major improvement.

With respect to consultations, if we look at section 11 of the bill on consultations and reporting, do we accept this motion today, or do we attempt to force the government to implement the pre-1951 provisions in the bill by amending Senator Harder’s rule? Do we attempt to put in a fixed date? We could do that, but I honestly don’t think that would get us anywhere.

We are on the threshold of a major victory, and I think we have the power as senators, as individual senators — Senator Lovelace Nicholas and I on the committee as indigenous women, Senator Patterson as the deputy chair of the committee, the Aboriginal Peoples Committee have pushed this, and, believe me, we will continue to push this. We will continue to monitor it. This is as good as you can get. You can’t get any better.

Realistically, when the message came from the House, we had very little. This is a major improvement over what we had. As I said, and I’ll repeat myself, the Senate can continue to play an active role and act as a watchdog on government implementation of this new amendment. Because this amendment will be actually enshrined in law, regardless of the composition of any future government if we do have an election and we don’t have a Liberal government, or if we don’t have a majority government, the Senate can continue to press the government of the day to bring this clause into force and can continue to hold the government accountable to eliminate all sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act based on the 1951 cut-off date.

I think this highlights the importance of the Senate. We have worked together in a non-partisan way, collectively, to get to this point, and we will continue, I am sure, to work collectively together to ensure that what is promised in this bill is actually implemented.

In the end, today’s motion is a good move by the government. I see it as a big step forward, especially compared to the message which I said essentially was cutting out the pre-1951 group, which more than likely will be a large group, but they deserve to be recognized, and they deserve to be part of this bill. It is a major improvement over the version of Bill S-3 returned to us by the House of Commons. I think it’s a giant leap forward for First Nation women and their descendants. I see it as a giant leap forward.

The government, in an October 31 letter from the minister, is now talking about the nation-to-nation discussions that will be ongoing. I would say that any non-status Indian whose mother, grandmother or great-grandmother lost their status due to marriage to a non-status male or those women who lost their status because they were born out of wedlock should be part of those tables. That was the intention, to include people who aren’t in the registry now. They should be part of those discussions. They are in the legislation, so they should be at this table, and I encourage them to do so. We will certainly try to contact them to make sure that happens.

I would like to acknowledge the role of the Aboriginal Peoples Committee which suspended study of this bill 11 months ago, on December 6, 2016. It was our committee that added the “6(1)(a) all the way” amendment tabled by our colleague Senator McPhedran and passed by the Senate as a whole in June. I would also like to acknowledge that Senator Patterson, Senator Sinclair and I sent a letter saying we wanted to work with the minister and that we did not want to start the discussion in the Senate chamber right away. We wanted to allow time for there to be research and analysis done to come up with a better bill.

The Aboriginal Peoples Committee has played a pivotal role. We did an in-depth study of the initial bill. It was decisive but cooperative. This initial move was possible only because of the support of our Conservative colleagues because they were the majority of the committee.

Could I have five more minutes, please?

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Dyck: I would like to thank our Conservative colleagues for that, because at that time the Liberals were a minority and at that time there were only two independents on the committee. They could have done as they pleased, but they took a non-partisan approach and did what they thought was best.

I would also like to thank the witnesses Sharon McIvor and Pamela Palmater whose clear, compelling testimony encouraged us to include the “6(1)(a) all the way” amendment tabled by our colleague Senator McPhedran. The government version is shorter, cleaner, and most importantly it removes the clause at 6(1)(c.4), which is the cause of the 1951 cut-off. In the “6(1)(a) all the way” amendment tabled by Senator McPhedran, that clause would have remained in the bill and would have created a conflict. So it wasn’t necessarily the best route. Also, that amendment did not contain any coordinating amendments. So it created confusion. In fact, when Clatworthy looked at it, you can see where Clatworthy had difficulty understanding exactly what it meant as well. What we have tabled here today is a different route to the same destination. It serves the same purpose.

I would also like to mention that the Native Women’s Association and the Ontario Native Women’s Association and FAFIA, the Feminist Alliance for International Action, support a “6(1)(a) all the way” type of amendment. The Ontario Native Women’s Association has a petition that was signed by over 700 people. The FAFIA petition that went out a week ago has been overwhelmed with responses from Canadians who see this as important and as an act of reconciliation. There are 900 organizations and 300 to 400 individuals who have signed the letter to the Prime Minister. There are 14 pages of signatures on this petition. That shows us how important this is to Canadians and how we have signed on to reconciliation.

I think the government and the officials and the bureaucrats have found an acceptable solution which avoids a standoff between the Senate and the House of Commons. Such a standoff would have had serious consequences — shutting down the registry and loss of the tremendous gains for First Nation women contained in today’s motion. I urge all honourable senators to pass Senator Harder’s motion by the end of this week. I fully support the motion. Let’s move it and urge the members in the other place to concur.

To conclude, let me share this story with you. When I woke up this morning, the classic line from the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, was prominent in my mind. It goes like this:

Something is going to happen. . . . Something wonderful.

Colleagues, if we pass today’s motion, something wonderful will happen, something that First Nation women have been waiting for, for nearly 150 years.

(1530)

Finally, Indian women will be recognized in law as having equal rights as Indian men to transmit their status as registered Indians and all that goes with it — your language, your culture, your connection to your family, your connection to your community. And with that, the many First Nation women like Mary Two-Axe Earley, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Yvonne Bédard, Sharon McIvor, Lynn Gehl and Senator Sandra Lovelace Nicholas can breathe a sigh of relief. I know I will. Thank you.

Senator Patterson: I would like to move the adjournment.

Senator Lankin: I’ve been on the list to speak today.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, we will need to revert anyway; it’s 3:30 now and the minister is here. We’ll come back to it after Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Business of the Senate

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on December 10, 2015, to receive a Minister of the Crown, the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, appeared before honourable senators during Question Period.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, today we have with us for Question Period the Honourable Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Minister, on behalf of all senators, welcome.

Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank—Pipeline Projects and Standards

Hon. Larry W. Smith (Leader of the Opposition): Minister, welcome. I’d like to ask a question on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

Minister, your government’s omnibus budget bill provides the authority for Canada to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and to transfer up to $500 million to this bank. Last year, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank approved a loan of US$600 million towards the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Azerbaijan to Turkey. This pipeline has been described as Europe’s biggest fossil fuel project.

Minister, a domestic equivalent to this project would likely not have received support from your government due to your requirement of including upstream and downstream GHG emissions in project assessments. How do you justify funnelling Canadian taxpayer dollars to support foreign pipelines not subject to upstream and downstream tests while subjecting Canadian pipelines to upstream and downstream tests? Why the double standard?

Hon. Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you, honourable senator. Hello to everyone. It’s always a pleasure to be back in the Senate.

[Translation]

I am very pleased to be here.

[English]

Our government understands that the environment and the economy go together and that we need to be moving to a low carbon future. This transition takes time. It will not happen overnight. I was really pleased when we had the Prime Minister standing with the premiers from across the country, and with indigenous leaders, talking about and standing up for the made-in-Canada climate plan. When it comes to looking at environmental assessments, we’re working very hard to rebuild trust and also to bring people together around good projects.

That’s why we announced interim principles that look outward. Yes, we need to consider our greenhouse gas emissions when it comes to mutual projects. We also need to look at the impacts and how we’re doing better in terms of partnering with indigenous people, also making sure they make decisions based on science and evidence; but, equally important, making sure we have a robust system with clear rules, with a clear regulatory process that ensures good projects go ahead in a timely fashion. That’s a commitment of our government and I’m very pleased that we’re moving forward on it.

Senator Smith: Minister, with all due respect, the question I asked was about investing money in an Asian infrastructure bank. So it’s money going into a foreign bank, which is investing in a foreign land, and in that foreign land we’re accepting terms and conditions in terms of measurements that are inconsistent with the measurements we have in Canada. For the Energy East project, we had stronger regulations that ended up assisting in the prohibition of the actual project, but we put US$500 million into an Asian bank that goes into a project that doesn’t have the same standards as we have.

I understand your answer is basically a pre-described answer to any question, but how can we invest in a bank dealing with foreign assets when we don’t have the same rules? For the money we put in, we expect a return that we have for our own country.

Another example is Keystone XL. Your government applies upstream and downstream emissions to test domestic energy projects but, again, supports Canadian projects in the U.S. that do not meet the same tests. So we have two examples of projects where we’re not asking for the same level of regulation as the investment in these projects offshore. How does it make investment in Canada attractive? How can we do this?

Ms. McKenna: Thank you to the honourable senator. I think your question is whether we believe that we need major infrastructure projects going ahead, including pipelines, and we do.

Just to be very clear about Energy East, that was a market decision. The market decides the price. We don’t control the price of oil at $50. That’s not something we can decide. We’ve approved two pipelines. The previous government was not able to get any pipelines to tidewater. The reason we were able to do that is we understand that the environment and the economy go together. We need to be looking at how we’re reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. We need to be doing that because climate change is real and it’s having serious impacts. The costs right now to the Canadian government are over $2 billion every year for extreme weather events. We need to also be taking advantage of the $30 trillion opportunity of green growth.

Last month I was with Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, with major institutions including BlackRock and Lloyd’s of London, major insurance companies. We were all talking about how we ensure that the trillions of dollars that need to flow to clean growth to create good opportunities and good jobs start flowing. That’s what we’re working extremely hard to do, and I’m very pleased Canada is a leader in this regard.

Carbon Pricing in Nunavut

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Welcome, minister. I’d like to ask about the Arctic.

Over the past month, evidence shows that international interest in Arctic oil is mounting. Meanwhile, Canada has imposed an oil and gas moratorium in the Arctic and now seeks to enable the federal minister to designate an interim marine protected area without consultation, thereby prohibiting certain classes of activity that they see fit to prohibit through Bill C-55.

These are moves that just last week, N.W.T. Premier Bob McLeod, who is indigenous, described as a colonial attack on the territory, issues that the Premier of Nunavut also raised when the moratorium was first announced in December 2016, to the surprise of Premier Taptuna, who is also indigenous — surprise, Minister McKenna, resulting from a total lack of consultation.

We’ve heard even from the Prime Minister that there is indeed no relationship as important to the government as their relationship with indigenous people. Why does the government continue to impose this moratorium that, at a quick count, contravenes two devolution agreements, one devolution agreement in principle and two comprehensive land claim agreements with Inuit?

Hon. Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: I’d like to thank the honourable senator for his question. There is no relationship more important than our relationship with indigenous peoples. I was extremely proud this summer to be in the High Arctic to make the announcement with the Inuit communities about Tallurutiup Imanga. That’s Inuktitut for Lancaster Sound, where we protected 2 per cent of our oceans working hand in glove with the Inuit peoples, and that’s the way forward.

We are working with the Gwich’in to make it clear to the United States government that we do not support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I certainly agree we need to be working in partnership. We also need to be making sure that there are economic opportunities for indigenous peoples. Once again, the environment and the economy go together. I’m pleased that I will be at COP23 in Bonn in a few days working with indigenous leaders from across the country. We were able to successfully get recognition of indigenous rights and traditional knowledge in the Paris Agreement, and we’re working very hard to announce an indigenous peoples platform to bring countries around the world around the importance of working in true partnership with indigenous peoples.

(1540)

Climate Change Commitments

Hon. Serge Joyal: Welcome, minister. In the last 30 years, Canada, at four different levels on the international scene, has accepted a very specific target to control climate change. It accepted a target in Rio in 1992, in Quito in 2005, in Copenhagen in 2012, and, of course, in Paris in 2015. According to the environment commissioner, Canada has failed to meet those targets in the last 30 years. Canada lags behind by 230 million tonnes.

How can you explain to us that, under your leadership and the present government, we will be able to catch up, because the government continues to authorize the exploitation of natural resources that continue to add to our lagging behind? Which initiative will you take to face the commitment of Canada internationally and our capacity to meet those targets?

Hon. Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you very much, honourable senator. I absolutely agree. There’s no point in having a target unless you’re going to make it. That’s exactly what we announced last year.

I was very proud to have the Prime Minister standing with the premiers and saying, “Here’s our plan.”

We can’t do it alone. We need to be working with the provinces and territories. I’ll name a few of the initiatives that we have to meet our target.

One, putting a price on pollution. We know that polluters have to pay. That will not only reduce emissions but foster the innovation we desperately need.

Two, phasing out coal. We understand coal is not only a huge contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, it’s also terrible for human health.

Three, historic investments in public transit and green infrastructure. In the city of Ottawa, the funding for the second phase of light rail transit will result in the largest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the city’s history.

Four, investments in clean technologies. There’s a great Nova Scotia company called CarbonCure that we’ve supported. This is a company that takes pollution from industry and injects it into cement to make it stronger. I was in California with this company at a cement factory where they were using this technology that’s now being exported around the world.

We are taking concrete actions. We have a plan. We’re working with the provinces and territories and we’re going to deliver.

Climate Change—Infrastructure

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Minister McKenna, the 2017 full report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development found that Environment and Climate Change Canada did not provide adequate leadership and guidance to other departments to set priorities to develop an adaptation plan in the context of climate change risk.

While the government has recently allocated funding to a variety of programs to support climate change adaptation programs, these programs have yet to be implemented. Extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and so is their cost. The Insurance Bureau of Canada showed that insured catastrophic losses have increased significantly in the past two decades to $5 billion in 2016, and they project a trend of increasing costs in the coming years.

Building from the plan laid out in the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, what tangible, concrete action is the government taking to increase Canada’s resilience to the very real risk associated with climate change and extreme weather events? Could harmonization and improving standards in the National Building Code protect infrastructure from climate risk and reduce costs of catastrophic loss to Canadians?

Hon. Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you very much, honourable senator, for your question. I could not agree more. It’s not just about reducing our emissions and mitigating the impacts of climate change. Climate change is already here. It’s happening. We see extreme weather events across our country. That’s from Prince Edward Island, which is receding by 43 centimetres per year, to the floods we have seen in Ottawa and Quebec, to massive forest fires in the West. We really need to be taking action.

I was very pleased that Budget 2017 provided $2 billion for disaster mitigation and adaptation funding. This is to help support infrastructure required to deal with the impacts of climate change.

There were also announcements in the budget of $260 million over five years to implement our pan-Canadian framework commitments on adaptation and climate resilience. Included in this is a Canadian centre for climate services. We need to be supporting municipalities and provinces so they can make good decisions about how they build things.

I could not agree more that you cannot build houses and buildings if you aren’t considering the impacts of climate change in the next year, 5 years, 10 years or 20 years. We are certainly aware of the need for very good modelling and science behind this so we do everything we can to protect Canadians and their houses.

Climate Change Commitments

Hon. Diane F. Griffin: Minister McKenna, thank you for being here today.

My question relates to Target 1 of the 2020 Biodiversity Goals and Targets for Canada which states that by 2020, 17 per cent of terrestrial areas and inland water will be conserved through networks of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures.

According to the Conservation Area’s Reporting and Tracking System database, as of last December, only 10.57 per cent of terrestrial areas are protected, with the federal government directly protecting 52 million hectares of that.

What specific steps is the government taking to commit funding to ensure that nature is protected on the ground and that the 2020 goals are attainable?

Hon. Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you very much, honourable senator. No one cares more about protecting our iconic places and our national heritage than me. I love parks and protected areas, but more importantly so do Canadians.

This year national parks and historic sites were free, and we had historic attendance. We know that Canadians identify with nature. They want to be out in nature, and they want to protect it.

The target of 17 per cent is certainly ambitious, but I have a national committee that’s supporting me. I’m working directly with my co-chair, the Minister of Environment and Parks and the Minister Responsible for the Climate Change Office in Alberta , to map out the pathway to the target of 17 per cent. We also have a committee of indigenous peoples helping us. One of the ways we will be able to do this, I believe, is through indigenous protected areas.

Last month I was really pleased to be in South Okanagan with the Syilx and Okanagan Nation as well as the Government of B.C. announcing that we are finally moving forward on creating a new national park in South Okanagan.

I think we need to be taking practical steps. I’m looking forward to the report from my national committee so we can map out exactly how we’re going to do this. Protected areas are important for climate change mitigation. They act as carbon sinks. They’re important because we need more Canadians to get out and enjoy nature. They’re important to our ecosystem and biodiversity. We have many species at risk. Connected areas are very important to the survival of many species. This is something we’re committed to doing. We need to be doing it with provinces and territories, municipalities and indigenous peoples.

Tanker Traffic Moratorium

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Minister, we all value the natural beauty and the resources we have in our country, but I also know that, realistically, without a strong economy and without having jobs for Canadians, we cannot do the first without doing the other. We need to take that balanced approach.

My question for you concerns another moratorium — your government’s moratorium on tanker traffic along British Columbia’s north coast, as set out in Bill C-48. This traffic supports jobs in British Columbia and right across our country. By instituting this ban on crude oil tankers, your government is destroying economic development in that area and undermining Canada’s ability to export our natural resources.

(1550)

Minister, you keep saying the economy and the environment go together. How do you expect to grow the economy and create jobs when you are simultaneously putting up roadblocks to prevent resource exports and denying opportunities for investment?

Hon. Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you very much, honourable senator.

I really welcome this opportunity to talk about the strong economic growth in our country. We’re at 4.5 per cent this year. That’s more than double any other country in the G7 other than the United States. It’s 100 per cent more than the United States. We added 400,000 good jobs last year. This is critical. We need to be making sure that we do grow the economy, but we’ve done this at the same time while taking action to protect our environment.

Let me tell you that there’s a value to our environment. Canadians understand that. They want us to protect our environment. That’s what we’re going to continue to do. We’re going to continue working with the provinces. I was very pleased just last week to be with the Minister of the Environment for British Columbia, George Heyman, talking about what more we can be doing in partnership with the Government of British Columbia to protect the environment there but also grow the economy.

Energy Efficient Housing

Hon. Nancy Greene Raine: Minister McKenna, my question is about proposed changes to the National Building Code of Canada.

Recent witnesses before the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources indicated that the National Research Council is working on increasingly stringent energy codes in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While this may be a laudable goal, a new model code or guideline for existing homes is to be completed by 2022.

Minister, I trust your department is involved in these discussions. If so, what analysis has been done on the potential costs that will be imposed on homeowners as a result of the revision of the code?

Hon. Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you very much, honourable senator.

Once again, this is an example where the environment and the economy go together. We know that we can build better houses and better buildings which are more energy efficient. What does that mean? That means you save money over the lifecycle cost. It makes much more sense to be building homes that are more resilient to the impacts of climate change but also are more energy efficient. That will save Canadians money.

I had the opportunity when I was in Edmonton to visit a company called Landmark Homes. It is a great local company that builds houses that look exactly like any house in the suburbs, going for around the same price. But you know what? Those houses allow the homeowners to put energy onto the grid. They actually make money. This is the way we should be building our houses.

We know emissions from the built environment and homes from buildings are 20 per cent of our emissions. We can do better. When we do, we will be the suppliers of the materials to do that. We will be able to export, create good jobs and grow our economy.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Raine, I’m sorry. If you have a supplementary, I’ll put you on a list for the next round.

Senator Raine: She didn’t answer any question at all. I said existing homes.

National Parks

Hon. Joseph A. Day (Leader of the Senate Liberals): Minister, thank you very much for being here. My question relates to Parks Canada.

This year marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Fundy Trail. In my province of New Brunswick, we’re particularly proud of the magnificent Fundy Trail which leads into Fundy National Park. The trail is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. We can boast of the beauty of Fundy National Park with some of the highest tides in the world.

Most recently, the park hosted a series of outings where Canadians swam with salmon in the Bay of Fundy, snorkelling with a team of biologists to learn more about the Atlantic salmon population. That is certainly an area that we need a lot of further information in relation to.

My question relates more to Parks Canada. For our one hundred fiftieth anniversary, you indicated an increase in the number of visitors because admission was free this year. What have we learned about the impact of the additional people to our parks? Canadians love our outdoors and our parks. What initiatives do you plan to make parks more accessible for them?

Hon. Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you very much, senator.

I had the opportunity to visit Fundy National Park with my kids. I didn’t have the chance to swim with salmon. As a swimmer, that is a great disappointment to me, but I did see the incredible research Parks Canada is doing with a local indigenous community, looking at innovative ways to bring back salmon.

It’s amazing to see what our parks’ biologists do. I am very committed to science and promoting the great people we have at Parks Canada. I hope everyone has made it to some of our national parks this year. They are still free for the rest of the year.

In terms of what we’ve learned, I think we’re still learning from the experience this year. It really has been incredible to see how many people got out to our national parks, but I think we need to make it easier.

I was excited to work with Senator Eggleton on the expansion of Rouge National Urban Park. There are parks which are easily accessible for Canadians; some are much harder. There is a park bus that provides free transport for anyone from downtown Toronto up to the Rouge Park. There are initiatives like that that make it easier, especially for low-income Canadians who have less opportunity to get to parks. Rouge Park is great because it’s one hour by public transit, but I think we need to make parks more accessible.

Starting next year parks will be free for children under 18 years old and new Canadians. We’re working with Citizenship and Immigration Canada where, as part of a citizenship package, immigrants would receive a park pass and get information about parks as an encouragement to go. We want to make sure we have new Canadians.

We’re learning more about how people visit parks. Often Canadians are going for a day. They aren’t going for long trips to the parks. We need to make sure that they’re accessible for day trips.

There are some parks that we’ve seen high visitation which has potentially impacted the park. In those parks, protecting ecological integrity is the priority. We need to be making sure we do everything to protect them. Overall it was an incredible story.

We’re also looking at the economic numbers. It’s really important we talk about parks; not just about gate fees, but about the benefits to local communities. We know local communities have benefited significantly from the number of tourists going through them to access parks. There’s a lot more we can be doing.

My focus again is on the environment and economy and how to support small businesses. Sometimes they have indigenous experiences in parks. We have local artists. There’s a lot more we can do in partnerships so we can really ensure there’s a maximum benefit for communities around the parks.

National Portrait Gallery

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Thank you for being here today, minister.

I know you’re well aware of the tremendous interest across this country from artists and audiences alike for a national portrait gallery here in the National Capital Region. People relate to people. We all have photo albums. Many pictures are taken in our parks. We have files of digital images of family and friends. Portraits tell stories, being an important window to our history and our place.

A national portrait gallery becomes a portrait of the nation, portraying the society’s multi-dimensions, diversities and building national pride. People want to see depictions of heroes, leaders, the known, the unknown, friends and colleagues.

The Prime Minister wrote last summer, “We look forward to continuing the conversation on the establishment of a national portrait gallery in the National Capital Region.”

As a minister from this region, when and where we might see this need realized?

Hon. Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you very much, honourable senator.

I certainly heard a lot of interest. I know from you but many other senators as well as from many members in the National Capital Region about the importance of a portrait gallery. I could not agree more that it’s important that we talk about and share our history; old portraits or digital portraits. There are ways of doing that.

There was some interest in doing a portrait gallery at 100 Wellington. A decision was taken ultimately to make an indigenous centre to celebrate our indigenous peoples, which I think is also an extremely worthy initiative. But I’m happy to continue to look at opportunities. We unfortunately have so much of our history, so many of our artifacts mothballed in places like Gatineau. I would certainly do everything I can to make sure that we can display them.

(1600)

That’s not just in the National Capital Region. Archives, for example, with Parks Canada, we show the different things that are in our archives across the country.

Certainly I think we should be doing more. We need to celebrate our history. It’s really important that Canadians know it and that we share it.

[Translation]

Climate Change Commitments

Hon. Paul J. Massicotte: Madam Minister, I will make the same comment as some of my colleagues. The fight against climate change has not yet been lost, but we are off to a bad start and time is of the essence.

According to an alarming report published by the UN last week, even if all the Paris signatories meet their targets, the earth’s temperature will rise by at least three degrees Celsius by 2100.

What is more, two years after the agreement was signed, the UN has said, and I quote:

There is a “catastrophic” gap between national pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the actions needed to respect the Paris agreement.

[English]

While countries like Brazil, China, India and Russia seem to be on track to achieve their 2030 goals with currently implemented policies, Canada — as well as most G7 countries — will not be able to meet its targets under its current policies. It’s become obvious that further and urgent action is required from Canada.

[Translation]

Madam Minister, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP23, began yesterday in Germany. I imagine that you are planning to go. What message will you share, given the rather discouraging findings regarding Canada’s commitments? Will Canada participate in the 2018 discussions among signatories provided for in the Paris agreement and increase its commitment?

Hon. Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you, Senator Massicotte. First, it must be said that the Paris agreement is a historic agreement. Before it was signed, there had never been an agreement in which every country in the world decided to work together. That is important, but it is not all. We also know that, even if every country meets their targets, we will not be able to keep the global average temperature increase to below two degrees Celsius. That is why the Paris agreement has a mechanism that allows every country to do more. That is what we are going to do.

I will definitely be in Germany. It is really important for Canada to play a leadership role at a time when the United States has indicated that they are backing out, that they will not support the Paris agreement. For our part, we will work with the American states, cities, and companies that know that we must all do our part to reduce our emissions.

I am also pleased that, together with the United Kingdom, with other countries, provinces, nations, and companies, we will be setting up an agreement to eliminate coal. We know this must be done. We will form an alliance that we will announce in Germany. We know that coal is not only very bad for health, but also a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. This alliance will make a big difference and I will do everything I can to establish Canadian leadership. I will be happy to be there with my counterparts from other parties and with aboriginal leaders from the provinces and territories. The U.S. administration may be backing out, but we are taking a stand and moving forward.

[English]

Carbon Tax

Hon. Denise Batters: Minister McKenna, you came to Senate Question Period in December 2016. I asked you for the details of the national carbon tax that your Liberal government plans to impose on Saskatchewan. Eleven months later, Saskatchewan still has no answers. Now, almost a year later, I’ll give you another opportunity to answer those questions.

Minister McKenna, it is now crystal clear that Saskatchewan will not enact a carbon tax. Under your plan, this means that the Trudeau government will be imposing a carbon tax on Saskatchewan.

Minister, could you please outline the details of the national carbon tax that will be enacted in Saskatchewan. Exactly what items will this carbon tax be applied to, and exactly what exemptions will there be in areas like agriculture? Could you please also provide us with a written outline of the Trudeau government’s carbon tax plan as it will apply in Saskatchewan?

Minister, here’s your chance to finally answer these critical questions for the province of Saskatchewan: What is your plan? When will you impose your carbon tax scheme on Saskatchewan? And what will its effective date be?

Hon. Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you, honourable senator, for your question.

Hope springs eternal. I’m still hoping that Saskatchewan will do what it should do: develop a made-in-Saskatchewan plan.

We know we need to reduce our emissions. We know there’s a trillion-dollar opportunity. We know there’s clean innovation.

I was in Saskatchewan. I’ve seen the innovation first-hand. Whether it’s carbon capture and storage, whether it’s zero-till agriculture or climate-resilient crops, there are amazing things going on in Saskatchewan.

I’m also pleased to say that the rest of the country has stepped up. Ninety-seven per cent of Canadians will live in a jurisdiction where there is a price on pollution. Polluting is not free. We’re seeing the impacts from extreme weather events across the country, including droughts in Saskatchewan.

It is very concerning that the Saskatchewan government doesn’t understand that the environment and the economy go together, but I’m hoping that under a new administration and new leadership there will be an opportunity to move forward.

My goal is to work with everyone. I was elected to represent everyone, and I am committed to working with everyone. We’ve been clear that where provinces do not step up, do not put a price on pollution, we do have a backstop. I’m happy to provide the details. The details were outlined in our Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. We will be providing more details shortly.

It’s quite clear that every province and territory has to have a broad-based price on pollution. In fact, in Saskatchewan it’s on the books, a price for heavy emitters. That is part of the solution. Unfortunately, the government hasn’t moved forward.

I am committed, and I recommit myself right here in this chamber, to working with the Government of Saskatchewan, to working with the new administration. I know the people of Saskatchewan are feeling the impacts of climate change, that they want to benefit from the economic opportunity. I think that Saskatchewan is best placed to determine what a made-in-Saskatchewan plan is, and I’m happy to support that.

Tanker Traffic Moratorium

Hon. Tobias C. Enverga, Jr.: Minister, your mandate letter from the Prime Minister directs you to “ensure that decisions are based on science, facts, and evidence . . . .”

With that in mind, minister, could you please explain why your government is seeking to put in place a ban on crude oil tankers off British Columbia’s northern coast while no other coastline in Canada has a similar ban in place? Can you share the scientific analysis that led to this ban, and does your government have any intention of imposing a tanker ban on our East Coast as you’re seeking to do on the West Coast with Bill C-48?

Hon. Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: I’d like to thank the honourable senator for the question. I’d also like to take the opportunity to talk about how we do believe that we need to make decisions based on science and evidence. That is why we are redoing our environmental assessments to rebuild the trust of Canadians that was lost under the previous government when decisions were not made based on robust science and evidence. There wasn’t proper engagement with indigenous peoples. There wasn’t a consideration of greenhouse gas emissions. It didn’t get anything built.

We are committed to working and bringing people together. We understand that that is the right thing to do, that it is what Canadians expect, and we will continue to do that.

I’m extraordinarily proud of the scientists in our government. We are very fortunate that at Environment and Climate Change Canada we have extraordinary scientists. I’ve seen them across government and at Fisheries and Oceans.

I was happy to be in British Columbia just a few weeks ago where we did an oceans round table. We had experts across Canada, scientists. We had our first-ever outing for our new science adviser talking about the science around oceans, talking about the impacts of climate change on the oceans, about the importance of protecting —

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, order, please. The minister has the floor.

You have time for a short question, Senator Raine.

Energy Efficient Housing

Hon. Nancy Greene Raine: Minister McKenna, you didn’t answer my question. I very specifically said I want to know about the new model code for existing homes, not ones that are being built. I think it was lovely you told us about Landmark Homes. No problem. But I really want to know, what about the cost of these codes imposed on existing homeowners as a result of the revision of the code? Can you guarantee that your government will not impose any additional costs on Canadians when they sell their homes?

(1610)

Hon. Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Once again, I’m very pleased that we understand the environment and the economy go together. How we build our homes is critical. Right now we have extremely energy-inefficient homes, and when I go door knocking — and I do a lot of door knocking — I hear from people saying, “We want to pay less, we want to do a better job with our homes, we want to have better insulation, we want to make sure we have better windows, we want support.”

We’re actually working with the provinces and territories through our Low Carbon Economy Fund to help with energy efficiency measures to save people money. Building better saves people money. We’re working with organizations like the Green Building Council because at the end of the day we want people to pay less.

I’m extraordinarily proud that with social housing we’re making sure that we have the most energy-efficient social housing. Why? Because people that have less money should pay less in their bills at the end of every month rather than more.

So we are going to continue doing this. We’re going to continue moving forward looking at how we reduce costs for Canadians, how we ensure that we’re growing the economy, creating good jobs with companies like Landmark Homes and also reducing our emissions.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Patterson, we have time for a very brief question if you want an answer, because we have a little less than a minute left.

Carbon Pricing in Nunavut

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Thank you. Minister, I asked you before about the difficult situation of Nunavut, where your government agreed to work with the territories to study the impacts of carbon pricing. We have no alternative energy systems in place, unfortunately.

I’m wondering, with 2018 ahead, whether you would support slowing down the implementation of carbon pricing in Nunavut until we complete that work that was promised, that joint work on the impacts on our already sky-high cost of living.

Hon. Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change: Thank you, honourable senator, for the question.

I agree with you. I agree that we need to be looking at the cost of putting a price on pollution in Nunavut. I think it’s really important that we not make people that have no alternatives pay more.

We are committed to working with the Government of Nunavut. I have met many times with my counterpart.

Also we need to do more to help these communities get off diesel. Diesel, once again, back to the impacts of pollution — pollution is not just something that creates climate change. It has direct health impacts. We believe that investments that we’re making, including $220 million to reduce reliance on diesel in remote communities, will have a real impact.

I also want to make sure that we’re working with the communities so that through these opportunities we create good jobs. The environment and the economy go together. That is what I say, but that is also what we do as a government.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the time for Question Period has expired. I’m sure all honourable senators will wish to join me in thanking Minister McKenna for being with us today.

Thank you, minister, and we look forward to seeing you again in the future.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Indian Act

Bill to Amend—Amendments from Commons—Motion to Concur in First and Third Amendments and Amend Second Amendment—Debate Adjourned

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Bellemare: