Previous Sittings

Order Paper and Notice Paper

Previous Sittings

Journals of the Senate

Previous Sittings

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Download as PDF

1st Session, 44th Parliament
Volume 153, Issue 203

Thursday, May 23, 2024
The Honourable Raymonde Gagné, Speaker

SENATORS’ STATEMENTS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
QUESTION PERIOD
ORDERS OF THE DAY

THE SENATE

Thursday, May 23, 2024

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

Prayers.

SENATORS’ STATEMENTS

The Honourable Murray Sinclair, C.C.

Congratulations on Investiture to the Order of Manitoba

Hon. David M. Arnot: Honourable senators, today I rise to honour an exceptional individual whose life’s work has profoundly impacted the lives of many, and has paved the way for a more just and equitable Canadian society. It has recently been announced that our former colleague the Honourable Murray Sinclair will receive the prestigious Order of Manitoba in July.

Murray Sinclair’s remarkable career began with his work as a lawyer, focusing on civil and criminal litigation, Indigenous law and human rights. He broke ground by becoming the first Indigenous judge in Manitoba and the associate chief judge of the Provincial Court of Manitoba, and he co-chaired the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, producing nearly 300 recommendations to reform the justice system.

Under his guidance, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada documented the traumatic experiences of residential school survivors, issuing 94 Calls to Action designed to foster reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians, and illuminating the truth about the residential school system’s impact. He stated:

We have described for you a mountain, we have shown you the path to the top. We call upon you to do the climbing.

Appointed to the Senate in 2016, Sinclair continued his tireless advocacy for Indigenous rights and legal reforms, serving on several Senate committees and addressing critical issues such as systemic racism in policing.

Investiture into the Order of Manitoba is an honour that recognizes Murray Sinclair’s lifelong dedication to truth, justice and the rights of Indigenous peoples, as well as the importance of mutual respect and understanding on the path to reconciliation.

He said that reconciliation is not as complicated as we tend to make it, and that it is fundamentally about creating a relationship based on trust and friendship.

His vision for a more inclusive and just society must motivate all of us to act.

Congratulations, Murray Sinclair, on this well-deserved recognition. Your journey and achievements are a beacon of hope and a call to action for all of us. You cut a path in the snow. Thank you for leaving a remarkable legacy.

Colleagues, let us recognize Murray Sinclair’s extraordinary contributions, and for leading us toward a more respectful Canada. Thank you.

Indigenous Self-Determination

Hon. Paul J. Prosper: Honourable senators, Friday, May 17, 2024, marked the passing of Mi’kmaw elder Bob Pictou.

Throughout his 85 years, he created a close and extended Mi’kmaw family network in several Mi’kmaw communities. Bob spoke Mi’kmaw fluently despite attending the Shubenacadie Indian Residential School and the Indian day school systems. As elders do, he would often share stories of his past. This would help guide and create new approaches to many of life’s pressing issues.

Bob was born to a non-Indigenous family. At a young age, he was dropped off at the household of a Mi’kmaw family, who adopted him on the spot. I will also add that my great-grandfather Tom Kennedy was also born to a non-Indigenous family. He, like Bob, was dropped off at the local reserve. Both Bob and Tom later refused to go back and live with their biological families. They believed they were Mi’kmaw and were, in fact, accepted in their community as Mi’kmaw.

Colleagues, as I finish up my tour throughout Mi’kma’ki, I am constantly reminded of the need for the Mi’kmaq to define who they are as a people — as a nation. Mi’kmaq, like most First Nations communities, are constantly changing, and we must break the shackles of an outdated colonial structure called the Indian Act.

This act recognizes First Nations persons based on status. The Indian Act provides a second-generation cut-off for status Indians who have children through a union with a non-status person. These provisions effectively legislate Mi’kmaw and all First Nations people out of existence.

The result is that there are many persons who live and are accepted as Mi’kmaw, but do not have Indian status. This effectively creates a different class of persons in each community since many federal programs and services are allocated to status persons only.

Colleagues, the path to reconciliation takes many forms. Often it involves an intimate understanding of some of the pressing realities that First Nations communities face each day.

Every First Nation knows the people — its citizens — that form their community. Let us walk this path together with true wisdom, understanding and compassion for the benefit of all our future generations.

Wela’lioq. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Danielle Ouimet, a Quebec actor and television host, who is accompanied by Mr. André Lepage. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Dagenais.

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

(1410)

Danielle Ouimet

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Honourable senators, I’d like to take a few minutes today to draw your attention to the presence of Danielle Ouimet, an actress and radio and television host from Quebec.

I wouldn’t claim that she’s a friend or long-time acquaintance. Far from it.

I met Ms. Ouimet just recently at a military dinner with the Fusiliers de Sherbrooke, when she was inducted as an honorary member of the organization.

Danielle Ouimet has been part of the media landscape for over 50 years. She started her career as a model before becoming a television host for La Poule aux œufs d’or in the 1960s.

But it was the big screen that made her a star. She acted in several movies, most famously Valérie. Despite causing controversy because of its nude scenes, the movie was distributed in more than 40 countries.

After that first film, which some described as sensual and daring, Danielle Ouimet went on to play other major roles in film productions both here in Canada and in Europe.

It would be fair to say that she was part of the advent of popular cinema in Quebec and Canada.

She then turned her talent to the small screen. In 1973, Danielle Ouimet participated in Radio-Canada’s Bye Bye, and went on to act in a number of French-language television series produced in the 1970s and 1980s.

In addition to her film and television roles, Ms. Ouimet also worked as a radio host. Quebeckers were able to hear her warm, cheerful voice on the CFGL and CKAC radio stations.

Thanks to her great interviewing skills, in 1993, Ms. Ouimet was given her own television show, Bla bla bla, a variety show on TVA that she hosted for over seven years.

In the years that followed, she worked as a co-host with many of the big names in Quebec show business.

Danielle Ouimet is turning 77 in a few weeks, but make no mistake: This military brat is not done yet. She is working on a brand new project that is set to begin filming soon, an original series called Avant de partir, or before leaving, which she will host with actor Gildor Roy.

The concept for this show is a rather bold one. It involves interviews with 50 Quebec celebrities that will be kept and aired only after the celebrities have passed away.

Through this ambitious, government-supported project, Danielle Ouimet hopes to preserve the memory of the show’s guests and their personal and professional legacy.

Guess what? I invited Ms. Ouimet to the Senate today to pay tribute to her for her long career, but also and especially because I find it reassuring, as I am about to turn 75, to see people like her who still have all kinds of plans in mind.

Thank you for visiting us, Ms. Ouimet, and good luck.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[English]

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, and Deborah Lyons, Canada’s Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Dalphond.

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

Amira Elghawaby
Deborah Lyons

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, today I rise to honour the leadership of Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, and Deborah Lyons, Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism.

Like all of you, I’m very concerned about the recent rise in hate speech, threats and violence against Jewish, Arab and Muslim Canadians.

No Jewish child should be afraid to go to school; no Muslim woman should be spit on for wearing a head scarf; no synagogue should be vandalized with Nazi symbols; and no mosque should have to incur exorbitant costs to keep worshippers safe.

[English]

Ms. Elghawaby and Ms. Lyons have shown leadership to bridge divides and build understanding. In April, they met with Governor General Mary Simon to discuss their shared belief that Canada should be free of hate and to talk about ways to encourage dialogue.

In a joint interview, Ms. Lyons said:

Amira and I work very closely together, and I think it’s important that we demonstrate to Canadians that, even during a time of fracture and pain, we as Canadians come together — based on our Canadian values — compassionately, respectfully, to work together, even when we disagree, but to work together toward the kind of Canada we want to have.

Ms. Elghawaby said:

. . . we have to find a way forward here in Canada on how are we going to heal, how are we going to ensure that people have the freedom to share their pain, they are able to demonstrate who they are, what they believe and what they want to see from their governments, all while respecting social unity, all while respecting what it means to be Canadian in a very difficult and fraught moment like this one.

Senators, these messages are a powerful reminder of what makes us one of the best countries in the world: an ability to engage in respectful dialogue rather than adopting confrontational positions.

Thank you. Shalom. As-salamu alaykum.

Visitor in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Abdulrahman Hamid Al-Hussaini, Ambassador of the Republic of Iraq to Canada. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Ataullahjan.

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

National Golf Day

Hon. Victor Oh: Honourable senators, I rise today to recognize National Golf Day, a day dedicated to celebrating one of Canada’s most cherished and impactful sports. Golf is more than just a game. It is a significant contributor to our nation’s economy, environment and public health.

The economic impact of golf is profound. This sport contributes an astounding $23.2 billion to our GDP, including over $3 billion in tourism and golf-related travel, supporting communities across the country. This substantial economic activity is generated by over 2,300 golf course operators, who collectively manage more than 175,000 hectares of green space, contributing to Canada’s environmental preservation and sustainability.

Golf also promotes a healthy lifestyle. On average, a golfer can burn up to 2,000 calories and take more than 10,000 steps during a typical round. Walking 18 holes is akin to a 15-kilometre walk, making golf a great way to stay active and fit.

Moreover, the golf industry is a major employer in Canada, supporting more than 240,000 jobs, of which 45,000 are student jobs. These jobs span a wide range of roles from golf course maintenance and hospitality to professional coaching and equipment manufacturing, highlighting the diverse employment opportunities generated by this sport.

Golf is the number one participation sport in Canada, with 6 million golfers playing 74 million rounds in 2023, and growing.

(1420)

It is clear that golf holds a special place in the heart of many Canadians from all backgrounds. This widespread participation underscores the sport’s accessibility and role in fostering community and connection across our country. On this note, I would like to highlight the golf tournament hosted by the Senate Corporate Security Directorate on June 27. I look forward to participating in this fundraiser as we celebrate National Golf Day. Let us acknowledge the substantial economic, environmental, health and social benefits that golf brings to Canada.

To all golfers, enjoy a round today. Senators, this will be my last swing in the chamber.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

The Estimates, 2024-25

Supplementary Estimates (A) Tabled

Justice

Charter Statement in Relation to Bill C-20—Document Tabled

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a Charter Statement prepared by the Minister of Justice in relation to Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments, pursuant to the Department of Justice Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. J-2, sbs. 4.2(1).

Charter Statement in Relation to Bill C-49—Document Tabled

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a Charter Statement prepared by the Minister of Justice in relation to Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada‑Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, pursuant to the Department of Justice Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. J-2, sbs. 4.2(1).

Charter Statement in Relation to Bill C-50—Document Tabled

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a Charter Statement prepared by the Minister of Justice in relation to Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy, pursuant to the Department of Justice Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. J-2, sbs. 4.2(1).

Charter Statement in Relation to Bill C-59—Document Tabled

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a Charter Statement prepared by the Minister of Justice in relation to Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, pursuant to the Department of Justice Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. J-2, sbs. 4.2(1).

Study on Seal Populations

Eighth Report of Fisheries and Oceans Committee Deposited with Clerk During Adjournment of the Senate

Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that pursuant to the orders adopted by the Senate on October 4, 2022, and March 19, 2024, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on May 23, 2024, its eighth report entitled Sealing the Future: A Call to Action and I move that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

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

The Estimates, 2024-25

Notice of Motion to Authorize National Finance Committee to Study Supplementary Estimates (A)

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025;

That, for the purpose of this study, the committee have the power to meet, even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, and that rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) be suspended in relation thereto; and

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

National Framework on Heart Failure Bill

First Reading

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) introduced Bill S-284, An Act to establish a National Framework on Heart Failure.

(Bill read first time.)

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

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

[Translation]

Canada Business Corporations Act

Bill to Amend—First Reading

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne introduced Bill S-285, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act (purpose of a corporation).

(Bill read first time.)

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

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

[English]

The Senate

Notice of Motion Concerning Bills with a “Notwithstanding Clause”

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

That the Senate express the view that it should not adopt any bill that contains a declaration pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, commonly known as the “notwithstanding clause.”

Notice of Motion to Condemn Islamophobia and Anti-Arab Racism

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Senate take note:

(a)that Islamophobia includes racism, stereotypes, prejudice, systemic racism, fear or acts of hostility directed towards individual Muslims or followers of Islam in general;

(b)that hatred and discrimination have no place in Canada;

(c)that on November 30, 2023, the Senate unanimously adopted the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, including 13 recommendations, entitled Combatting Hate: Islamophobia and its impact on Muslims in Canada;

(d)that despite their rich and varied contributions to Canadian society, Muslims are often unfairly vilified and marginalized;

(e)that Islamophobia has motivated violent attacks on Muslim communities in recent years in Edmonton, Saskatoon, Mississauga, London, Quebec City and Toronto;

(f)that the National Council of Canadian Muslims reports a disturbing increase in the number of hate incidents since October 2023; and

(g)that in addition to Islamophobia, incidents of anti‑Arab racism have been reported to the police and other public institutions;

That the Senate condemn Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism, reaffirm the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms value of equality, and the recommendations of the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, and denounce discrimination based on religion and other Charter-protected grounds; and

That the Senate call on the Government of Canada to fulfill its commitments made in its response, tabled in the Senate on April 26, 2024, to the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights and to consider convening, when appropriate, a second national summit to combat Islamophobia, in consultation with Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia.

(1430)

QUESTION PERIOD

Privy Council Office

Liberal Party of Canada

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, in my speech on Tuesday, I mentioned that more and more Liberals are running away from Justin Trudeau. I gave you the example of how the B.C. Liberal Party is changing its name to delete the word “Liberal.”

In the Senate, for the first time since Confederation, we no longer have senators who dare call themselves Liberals. We have a leader of the Liberal government who does not want to be seen as leading and does not want anyone to believe he is a member of the Liberal Party.

Today we learned that the Liberal candidate in a provincial by‑election in Newfoundland and Labrador is, in fact, a federal Conservative Party member. He says openly that Trudeau has to go. That sounds like common sense to me. What does it sound like to you, leader?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. I’m going to take the time I have to answer to make sure that I’m being parliamentary.

It sounds like a colossal waste of the Senate’s time to ask questions like this. The democratic process, which is fundamental to our liberal democracy, allows individuals who present themselves for public office — to their credit — to identify themselves as they wish and to express their opinions as they wish. I think that is something to be championed.

I do wonder sometimes as to what some colleagues in this chamber believe is a proper use of Senate time when this has nothing to do with Senate business, legislative business or the priorities of the government. This has nothing more to add except to feed social media posts.

Senator Plett: A colossal waste of time is your non-answers that we constantly get in this Senate chamber — constantly. That is a colossal waste of time. You, leader, and your answers are a colossal waste of time.

This is the situation for the last Liberal premier in Canada. He has to run anti-Trudeau, common-sense Conservative candidates to hope to win a riding for the Liberals. Senator Gold, should Liberals be included on the list of endangered species in Canada?

Senator Housakos: They are. In the Senate.

Senator Gold: I stand by my answer to your previous question.

Environment and Climate Change

Carbon Tax

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, Food Banks Canada’s 2024 report card shows that almost 50% of Canadians feel financially worse off compared to last year while 25% of Canadians are experiencing food insecurity. In addition, Food Banks Canada reported that the cost of living has become so high that food banks have seen a 50% increase in visits since 2021. As a result of all of this, Food Banks Canada downgraded the Trudeau government’s rating of D to D minus in 2024.

Senator Gold, listening to your answer to Senator Plett’s similar question yesterday, it’s clear that the Trudeau government is getting their poverty statistics from Westmount and Club Med because after nine years of Justin Trudeau, millions of Canadians are struggling to keep their heads above water. So what does Justin Trudeau do, colleagues? He hikes the carbon tax again — this time by 23% — driving up the cost of food and gas.

Senator Gold, why doesn’t the Trudeau government do some common-sense, Conservative-suggested policies and put a pause this summer on the carbon tax? Give Canadians a break.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. When the Conservative Party starts putting forward responsible, credible policies to address the climate or the changing economic circumstances and, frankly, affordability — a serious problem that all Canadians are facing, including food insecurity — then I think any sensible government in power would be willing to listen. Until then, however, these are empty, rhetorical, partisan points and are, again, a waste of our time in this chamber.

Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, we give suggestions. We give you the path forward and you refuse to take it. Cut the carbon tax. Give Canadians a break on gasoline and food prices. It will bring down the cost of living and reduce poverty. Try it. It’s very simple. We’ve been talking about it to everybody willing to listen.

Food Banks Canada wrote in their report that as poverty and food insecurity worsens in every corner of the country, most governments are not responding with the urgency that is needed.

Again, I will be plain and simple: Will your government cut the carbon tax and give Canadians a break at the pumps and at the grocery store so they can have affordable —

Senator Gold: The government does not have any intention of cutting the carbon tax or the price on pollution. It will continue to provide and offer serious responses to the dilemmas and challenges that Canadians are facing, and it will continue to do so for as long as it’s in the position of government.

Employment and Social Development

Canada Disability Benefit

Hon. Mary Coyle: Senator Gold, the Center for Justice and Social Compassion estimates that 45% of people experiencing homelessness are disabled or diagnosed with a mental illness. A recent report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that despite the government’s commitment to end chronic homelessness by 2030, evidence suggests homelessness has increased and this target will not be met.

The Canada disability benefit was touted as a major step towards addressing chronic poverty and homelessness experienced by Canadians with disabilities. However, despite pre-budget optimism, the $200 per month benefit announced was met with universal shock. People feel betrayed.

During Tuesday’s Question Period, you told Senator Forest that the government understands that people are disappointed but this is just the beginning of a historic process and the government will do better. Senator Gold, if this is just the beginning, what are the government’s next steps in getting the Canada disability benefit right?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and, again, thank you for your continued advocacy on this issue.

It is correct to say that, like the other progressive measures that this government has delivered and put into place, it now needs to be adapted, enhanced and expanded. This was indicated, as you know, colleagues, in the budget.

As to your question with regard to next steps, the government is now proceeding with the extensive and intense work behind the scenes that’s needed to deliver the benefit, including the next step in developing regulations, building the internal infrastructure and support systems necessary to deliver the program and allowing the provinces and territories to adjust their policies, regulations and legislation to ensure that there are no unintended clawbacks.

Senator Coyle: Thank you, Senator Gold. Will the government renew its commitment to operate according to the principle of “nothing about us without us” and sit down with Canadians from the disabilities community to address this serious problem and see a more realistic and substantial investment in the Canada disability benefit in the Fall Economic Statement at the very latest?

Senator Gold: Colleagues, as you know, I really cannot speculate on what may or may not be in the next Fall Economic Statement. However, I can share with you that my understanding is that in the spirit of “nothing without us,” the minister will continue to listen to and engage with the disability communities in the next phase of delivering this historic benefit as the government works, as I said earlier, on the regulatory process.

Transport

Zero-Emission Vehicles

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Senator Gold, my question is on zero‑emission vehicles.

The federal government is all in on reducing the number of greenhouse gas-emitting vehicles on our roads with an ambitious zero-emitting vehicle, or ZEV, mandate. The goal is to have 100% ZEV sales by 2035 for light-duty vehicles.

We know that Canada is investing heavily in the electric vehicle supply chain, but what analysis has the government conducted to assess the projected gap between demand and supply of ZEVs and the likelihood of possible market disruptions in the sector?

A recent paper from the C.D. Howe Institute suggested that there is a slim chance we meet the target of 1.5 million ZEV sales in 2035. Would the government consider adjusting its plan to include hybrid or lower-emitting options and not exclusively ZEVs?

(1440)

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

Colleagues, as you are aware, under the new Electric Vehicle Availability Standard, auto manufacturers and importers must meet annual zero-emission vehicle, or ZEV, regulated sales targets. Targets begin for the 2026 model year, with the requirement that at least 20% of new light-duty vehicles offered for sale in that year be ZEVs. The requirements increase annually to 60% by 2030 and 100% for 2035. Given the average age of a vehicle is 15 years, putting into place a 100% ZEV sales target by 2035 will help end the use of polluting light-duty vehicles by 2050.

To your question, senator, I’m not aware of any plans to change these requirements.

Senator Loffreda: Thank you.

Senator Gold, Canadians support the need to reduce emissions, especially those from the transportation sector, which represents about 25% of all emissions in Canada. Beyond all the investments and announcements, what comprehensive, full picture assessment has the government done to estimate the complete cost associated with its ZEV mandate? We need to invest in the supply chain, in a cross-country charging station system and on and on — billions of dollars.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. Though I don’t have a comprehensive cost estimate for you at this time, what we do know is that the cost of not acting to reduce our emissions and combat climate change is very real. Climate change has already absorbed a significant financial cost, with over 73% of the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements funds being spent in the last decade. That amounts to billions of dollars.

Public Safety

Indigenous Community Corrections Initiative

Hon. Paul J. Prosper: Senator Gold, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action 50 to 52, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Call for Justice 5.13, and Measure 28 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan all point to justice as being integral to preserving the well-being and dignity of Indigenous peoples.

The Mi’kmaw Legal Support Network, or MLSN, is a not-for-profit organization that seeks to ensure fair treatment of all Mi’kmaq and Indigenous people in the justice system. However, they are severely underfunded.

Senator Gold, MLSN is not legal aid. They fall under the umbrella of restorative justice. They are beholden to a patchwork of proposal-based funding that severely drains their already limited resources. Would your government be open to a sectoral agreement that would provide long-term, stable funding for MLSN?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, colleague, for your question and for your continued advocacy on this important matter.

It’s my understanding that the government currently has the Community-Based Justice Fund, which supports community-based justice programs in partnership with Indigenous communities. These programs are cost-shared with provincial and territorial governments. They’re designed to reflect the culture and values of the communities in which they are situated. This fund has several objectives, including to allow Indigenous people the opportunity to assume greater responsibility for the administration of justice in their communities, and to foster improved responsiveness, fairness, inclusiveness and effectiveness of the justice system with respect to justice and its administration so as to meet the needs and aspirations of Indigenous people.

Additionally, I might conclude that programs can fall at any point along the justice continuum, including prevention, pre-charge, post-charge and reintegration.

Senator Prosper: Senator Gold, according to MLSN Executive Director Paula Marshall, access to bail is one of the biggest factors in sentencing. As of March, MLSN has lost all government funding for their bail release program. They had applied to the Indigenous Community Corrections Initiative, and were told that they could expect a response in December 2023. It is May, and there is no further communication.

Can you advise on the status of this application, or use your office to solicit a response from Public Safety Canada?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. I’m not aware of the status of the application, but I will certainly bring it to the minister’s attention.

Employment and Social Development

Canada Disability Benefit

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: My question is for the Government Representative, and it is regarding the disability benefit. You may be aware that on May 1, Senator Pate, Senator Petitclerc, Senator Coyle and I wrote to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Social Development, and we asked them to reconsider the announcement that had been made in the budget a couple of weeks earlier.

I was at the briefing this morning by Food Banks Canada on their annual report, where they indicate that levels of poverty are growing drastically. Federal and provincial governments were given poor grades in terms of what they are doing in response.

A significant number of people — and a growing number of people with disabilities — are using food banks. Will the government reconsider its approach and bring in the benefit earlier, such as October of this year instead of October of next year?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you again for your question, and for the continued and legitimate attention that many senators are bringing to this important issue. I’m aware of the letter that you and our colleagues in this chamber sent. I’m aware that you are still awaiting a reply. In that regard, I will certainly bring it to the attention of the minister as quickly as I can.

With regard to your question, I’m not in a position to announce, much less predict, what steps the government might take going forward, except to repeat that much work is being done, and still needs to be done, at the federal level in terms of the regulatory process, and also in terms of the work that is ongoing with the provinces and territories — to say nothing of the ongoing discussions with members of the disability community.

Senator Cardozo: Thank you.

My supplementary question builds on the question that Senator Coyle asked a few minutes ago.

Would the government consider a consultation with disability groups to discuss and evaluate the amount that is being put forward? Certainly $200 a month doesn’t make that much of a difference. One of the key messages we received this morning at the briefing by Food Banks Canada is that this issue is extremely urgent.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. There are ongoing discussions between the minister and department officials, and there will continue to be ongoing discussions with members of the disability community. The government is very aware of the concerns and preoccupations, and will continue to be responsive to them.

Finance

Cost of Living

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Leader, the ongoing affordability crisis is hurting seniors in my province of British Columbia. Last year, United Way British Columbia released a report that stated almost one in five senior‑led renter households were spending 50% or more of their income on housing, meaning their housing was precarious.

The report showed an increasing number of these seniors had worked all their lives, yet now they found themselves homeless or on the verge of homelessness for the first time.

Leader, given there are many housing photo ops in B.C., how many homes that seniors can afford has the Trudeau government built in the province so far this year?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, it’s not only in your province of British Columbia that Canadians — seniors and others in different age cohorts — are finding it challenging, with a tight rental market and with rents that are difficult for people to manage.

I don’t have the answer to your question in terms of houses actually being built in British Columbia, but I will repeat that the measures this government has taken in terms of the accelerator funds, as well as with the work it is doing with the provinces and municipalities to encourage them and incentivize them — quite frankly — with funds to streamline their processes, will bear fruit. The government is committed to continuing on that path.

Senator Martin: I do agree with you that this is a national crisis, not just in B.C. But according to the Food Banks Canada report released on Wednesday, the poverty rate among B.C. seniors who live alone is 14.3%. The report describes this as very worrying.

Leader, if the Trudeau government has a plan that’s working — as you say — then why are so many seniors in my province unable to afford groceries or housing?

(1450)

Senator Gold: To be clear, senator, I said that the plan and the actions that the government is taking within its jurisdiction, including massive investments through its spending power, are going to bear fruit because this is what the government is able to do. It is doing this in partnership with the provinces, territories and municipalities that have the primary responsibility, whether it’s for housing or other measures dealing with affordability issues concerning all Canadians.

Justice

Genetic Non-Discrimination Act

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, let me see if this question is worthy of your time here in the Senate.

In September, I submitted written questions about the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, which passed in May 2017 despite opposition from the Trudeau government. The bill was brought forward by former Liberal senator Jim Cowan. It prohibits requiring an individual to undergo or disclose the results of genetic tests, including for employers and insurance companies.

A written answer I recently received indicates the Trudeau government spent over half a million dollars in legal costs to argue against this legislation in court proceedings.

Leader, how do you justify this? What role did insurance lobbyists play in your government’s decision to fight this legislation by the Parliament of Canada?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Well, it is perfectly legitimate for you to ask questions about legislation that this chamber is involved with. That is not a waste of any of our time. My time is your time.

I have no knowledge of what role, if any, insurance companies played in that. However, though my memory of the details is not fulsome, several legitimate policy issues surrounding that bill were raised. I don’t think it’s inappropriate for a government to take time to ensure that bills, especially non-government bills, are properly reviewed in all aspects.

Senator Plett: The Trudeau government fought tooth and nail against this legislation despite the will of Parliament, leader. It’s therefore no surprise the written response indicates they’ve done absolutely nothing over the last seven years to promote awareness of this law among Canadians.

Leader, you spent money on everything under the sun except making Canadians aware of their rights under this law. What role did the insurance lobby have in this decision?

Senator Gold: As I answered, Senator Plett — and I hope you don’t think I’m wasting your time by repeating what I just said — I don’t have any knowledge of what role, if any, they played.

[Translation]

Fisheries and Oceans

Closure of Fisheries

Hon. René Cormier: Senator Gold, my region, the Acadian Peninsula in northeastern New Brunswick, is currently facing a “major crisis” due to the closure of an important lobster fishing area. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans made that decision in accordance with the North Atlantic right whale protection measures, but without consultation. Given that the fishery is one of the key economic drivers of the Acadian Peninsula, this decision is having a devastating impact on that region.

Senator Gold, how does the federal government intend to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the endangered right whale, respecting its obligations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and protecting the interests of the workers and commercial fishers in my region who contribute to the development of our communities?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. The Government of Canada understands very well the difficulties fishers experience when the presence of endangered whales triggers demanding protocols, such as the removal or relocation of fishing gear. This is a serious problem, and the government is well aware of it. Colleague, the minister responsible will probably appear before the Senate for a ministerial Question Period in the coming weeks. I’ll be sure to draw the minister’s attention to this point, so that she can answer the question in full.

Senator Cormier: Thank you, Senator Gold. The fishers themselves opted to move their gear. We learned that the minister decided to call an emergency meeting with industry representatives today to help manage the situation. But fishers have been criticizing her for not reaching out to them since the closure was announced.

To avoid the kind of tensions that arose in my region in 1996 and 2003, what will the federal government and the minister do to improve dialogue in the future and improve consultation with the fishers affected by these kinds of decisions?

Senator Gold: The minister’s officials are in contact with local leaders and fishing industry representatives, and they are discussing how to proceed. The government will keep looking for a way to strike the right balance between protecting right whales and pursuing fishing activities that are crucial to the economy and coastal communities.

[English]

Public Services and Procurement

Acquisition of Fighter Jets

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: My question is directed to Senator Gold.

In 2015, this government vowed not to go through with the previous government’s plan to purchase new F-35 fighter jets to replace aging CF-18s at the cost of $9 billion. But in 2022, this government announced that it would be purchasing 88 F-35s for $19 billion. Experts question whether F-35s and similar manned aircraft are now the right fit for handling current military conflicts — and whether the Royal Canadian Air Force has enough pilots trained to fly them.

Further, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reports that aircraft are being delivered with multiple known deficiencies requiring retrofit repairs, all at additional cost.

Is this government confident that the procurement of those F-35 fighter jets is still the right choice?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. It is my understanding that the government continues to believe that the procurement of 88 F-35 fighter jets is appropriate and necessary to give our Armed Forces the planes they need to ensure our national security and defence, and so Canada can play its role with its partners in defending our northern sovereignty and the North more generally.

The costs are huge, but the need is huge as well, and the government remains confident that this was the right decision for our Armed Forces and our country.

Senator McPhedran: The 2024 budget did not mention funding for the new F-35s. The Parliamentary Budget Officer previously noted that these jets will cost an extra $53.8 billion for operation and sustainment. How much has this government allotted to the lifetime of these jets, including operations, staffing, recruiting and retraining Canadian Armed Forces, or CAF, pilots?

Senator Gold: I don’t have the figures at all on hand. Our defence budget has grown year over year since this government took office. It has made and will continue to make significant investments, which will include all aspects — not only the hardware but also the training and support necessary to make it effective.

Health

Decriminalization of Drugs

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, I want to follow up on Senator Miville-Dechêne’s question from yesterday and mine from a few weeks ago regarding the increase in opioid use in our hometown of Montreal.

Over nine years of Justin Trudeau’s leadership, 42,000 Canadians have died from drug overdoses. Canada has experienced a 166% increase in deaths since the Liberals formed government.

In British Columbia, where Justin Trudeau carried out his reckless legalization experiment, there has been a nearly 400% increase in drug overdose deaths. In the first year alone, 2,500 Canadians died from overdoses.

Senator Gold, it’s very clear that the Trudeau experiment of legalizing hard drugs has been a catastrophe. Why, then, won’t your government rule out the legalization of hard drugs in other Canadian cities, including in our hometown of Montreal?

(1500)

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): The Government of Canada considers responses from the provinces, which have responsibility over the health and treatment of its citizens and residents who fall victim to drug use and who are stricken in their health and well-being, not only by the use of drugs but by the use of unsafe drugs in unsafe places under unsafe circumstances.

In that regard, I think it is a responsible thing for the Canadian government and, I would hope, any government to listen carefully to provincial counterparts when they make requests, as the government did with British Columbia, and to listen carefully when the provinces say that changes need to be made. The government will continue to be attentive and mindful of its provincial partners.

Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, I hear no leadership in that answer.

Of all hydromorphone seizures, 50% were diverted from taxpayer-funded hard drugs that Trudeau dishes out. This means that your government, using our money, is directly responsible for these drugs ending up in the hands of organized crime and being sold in schoolyards across the country, with discarded needles being left behind for little kids to pick up.

Why can’t you admit that this Trudeau experiment has failed and must stop?

Senator Gold: The position of this government remains that it is necessary to be responsive to the health needs and requests of the provinces in areas like this. The Government of Canada is carefully evaluating those requests and working with the provinces that are responsible, largely if not exclusively, for the health of their citizens.

Answers to Order Paper Questions Tabled

Privy Council Office—Appointments to Senate in 2021

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 131, dated February 8, 2022, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding appointments to the Senate of Canada in 2021.

Privy Council Office—Participation in Blockade of Parliament Hill

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 135, dated February 23, 2022, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Pate, regarding participation in the blockade of Parliament Hill.

Privy Council Office—Office of the Governor General

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 144, dated March 30, 2022, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Housakos, regarding the Office of the Governor General of Canada.

Privy Council Office—Appointments to Senate in 2022

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 210, dated February 2, 2023, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding appointments to the Senate of Canada in 2022.

National Defence—Canadian Armed Forces

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 214, dated March 8, 2023, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding the Canadian Armed Forces.

Canadian Heritage—Telefilm

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 306, dated February 6, 2024, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding Telefilm Canada.

Agriculture and Agri-food—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (including the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency), Canadian Grain Commission and Farm Products Council of Canada.

Veterans Affairs—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Veterans Affairs Canada and Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency—Government Spending

Foreign Affairs—Government Spending

National Revenue—Government Spending

Privy Council Office—Government Spending

Emergency Preparedness—Public Service Commission—Transportation Safety Board—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Public Service Commission of Canada and Transportation Safety Board of Canada.

Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs—Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat—Government Spending

Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency—Government Spending

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec—Government Spending

National Defence—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — National Defence and Communications Security Establishment.

Environment and Climate Change—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Environment and Climate Change Canada, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and Parks Canada.

Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Employment and Social Development Canada, Accessibility Standards Canada and Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.

Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario.

Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario.

Women and Gender Equality and Youth—Government Spending

Finance—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Department of Finance Canada and Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

Crown-Indigenous Relations—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.

Housing, Infrastructure and Communities—Government Spending

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

Innovation, Science and Industry—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, including special operating agencies, Copyright Board of Canada, Canadian Space Agency and National Research Council Canada.

Justice and Attorney General—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Department of Justice, Canadian Human Rights Commission and Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada.

Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Fisheries and Oceans Canada, including the Canadian Coast Guard.

Energy and Natural Resources—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Natural Resources Canada, Canada Energy Regulator, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Northern Pipeline Agency.

Pacific Economic Development Agency—Government Spending

Canadian Heritage—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Canadian Heritage, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Library and Archives Canada, National Battlefields Commission and National Film Board of Canada.

Justice and Attorney General—Public Prosecution Service—Government Spending

Prairies Economic Development—Government Spending

Indigenous Services—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Indigenous Services Canada, including Indian Oil and Gas Canada.

Health—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Health Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Patented Medicine Prices Review Board.

Treasury Board—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and Canada School of Public Service.

Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Public Safety Canada, Canada Border Services Agency, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Correctional Service of Canada, Parole Board of Canada and Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Public Services and Procurement—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Public Services and Procurement Canada and Shared Services Canada.

Transport—Government Spending

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 81, dated November 23, 2021, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding government spending — Transport Canada and Canadian Transportation Agency.

Agriculture and Agri-food—Privacy Rights

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 126, dated February 8, 2022, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding the privacy rights of Canadians — Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (including the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency), Canadian Grain Commission and Farm Products Council of Canada.

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency—Privacy Rights

Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency—Privacy Rights

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec—Privacy Rights

National Revenue—Privacy Rights

Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard—Privacy Rights

National Defence—Privacy Rights

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 126, dated February 8, 2022, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding the privacy rights of Canadians — National Defence, Canadian Armed Forces, Military Grievances External Review Committee, Military Police Complaints Commission, Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman and Communications Security Establishment.

Environment and Climate Change—Privacy Rights

Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages—Privacy Rights

Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario—Privacy Rights

Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario—Privacy Rights

Finance—Privacy Rights

Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development—Privacy Rights

Health—Privacy Rights

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 126, dated February 8, 2022, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding the privacy rights of Canadians — Health Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Patented Medicine Prices Review Board.

Crown Indigenous Relations—Privacy Rights

Indigenous Services—Privacy Rights

Housing, Infrastructure and Communities—Privacy Rights

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship—Privacy Rights

Innovation, Science and Industry—Privacy Rights

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 126, dated February 8, 2022, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding the privacy rights of Canadians — Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Communications Research Centre Canada, Copyright Board of Canada, Canadian Space Agency, National Research Council Canada, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and Statistics Canada.

Justice and Attorney General—Privacy Rights

Energy and Natural Resources—Privacy Rights

Pacific Economic Development Agency—Privacy Rights

Canadian Heritage—Privacy Rights

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 126, dated February 8, 2022, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding the privacy rights of Canadians — Canadian Heritage, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Library and Archives Canada, National Battlefields Commission, National Film Board of Canada, Canadian Conservation Institute and Canadian Heritage Information Network.

Privy Council Office—Privacy Rights

Justice and Attorney General—Public Prosecution Service—Privacy Rights

Prairies Economic Development—Privacy Rights

Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs—Privacy Rights

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the response to Question No. 126, dated February 8, 2022, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding the privacy rights of Canadians — Public Safety Canada, Canada Border Services Agency, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Correctional Service of Canada, Parole Board of Canada and Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Public Services and Procurement—Privacy Rights

Women and Gender Equality and Youth—Privacy Rights

Treasury Board—Privacy Rights

Transport—Privacy Rights

Emergency Preparedness—Public Service Commission—Transportation Safety Board—Privacy Rights

Veterans Affairs—Privacy Rights

(1510)

Delayed Answers to Oral Questions

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answers to the following oral questions:

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on December 13, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, regarding consecutive sentencing.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 18, 2023, by the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., regarding the Prime Minister’s travel.

Justice

Human Trafficking—Consecutive Sentences

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu on December 13, 2022)

Department of Justice

The Criminal Code contains six human trafficking offences, which carry serious penalties of up to life imprisonment, including mandatory minimum penalties. In 2019, the Government strengthened the criminal justice system’s response to human trafficking by bringing into force two reforms proposed by former Private Member’s Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons), which received Royal Assent in 2015. These reforms —originally proposed by former Bill C-38 and then included in former Bill C-75 —are intended to assist prosecutors in proving trafficking offences (sections 279.01 and 279.011) and in seizing the related proceeds of crime.

The Criminal Code directs courts to consider ordering that terms of imprisonment imposed at the same time for multiple offences be served consecutively (paragraph 718.3(4)(b)). The Criminal Code’s totality principle (paragraph 718.2(c)) directs courts to ensure that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the global sentence is not unduly long or harsh and remains proportionate to the degree of responsibility of the offender and the seriousness of the offences.

Foreign Affairs

Prime Minister’s Travel

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Claude Carignan on April 18, 2023)

The Prime Minister and his family were staying with family friends at no cost. As per standard practice, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner was consulted on these details prior to the travel to ensure that the rules were followed.

The Prime Minister continues to reimburse the equivalent of a commercial airline ticket for his personal travel and that of his family.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Business of the Senate

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-12(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: second reading of Bill C-50, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Bill

Second Reading

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Yussuff, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pate, for the second reading of Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy.

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, I rise today at second reading as critic of Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy.

After reading that wordy title, it is worth noting that it includes the words “transparency” and “accountability” prominently, because the bill is nothing of the sort. This bill’s design is the tail end of the government’s mission to drive another nail into the coffin of Canada’s oil and gas industry and communities in our country, especially in Newfoundland and Labrador and rural areas across Canada, where alternate opportunities are limited.

Honourable senators, fortunately, Bill C-50 has a shorter title, which is the “Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act.” It puts in place the following three structures, which Senator Yussuff, the sponsor, described recently.

First, tabling a sustainable jobs action plan every five years, with the first one no later than December 31, 2025, a few months after the election.

Second, establishing a sustainable jobs partnership council.

Third, establishing a sustainable jobs secretariat to support the implementation of the bill and the council’s work.

This is all part of what we know as the Just Transition.

On July 20, 2021, then-Minister of Natural Resources Seamus O’Regan — who, incidentally, is the regional minister for Newfoundland and Labrador — launched an engagement process asking Canadians how the Government of Canada can ensure a just and equitable transition to a low-carbon future for workers and their communities. There would be a Just Transition advisory board, but then it changed. The term “Just Transition” wasn’t well received, so the government — as it did with the carbon tax — rebranded it, and the Canadian sustainable jobs act was born.

The name change is window dressing, of course. The objectives remain the same — transitioning away from sustainable jobs in one proven industry to uncertainty in some other. In fact, on Tuesday, Senator Coyle told us that the primary delivery instrument for this new sustainable jobs act is the Employment Insurance program.

Colleagues, this does not make sense. The targeted Canadians are currently working in a well-regulated industry for which there is abundant raw material, a clear market demand and a long-term market horizon. It is one we should support. And remember, our biggest resource competitors are warmongers, dictators and despots. They are the principal beneficiaries of this government’s anti-petroleum policy.

Not considered is responsible resource development in a well-paying and necessary industry that employs thousands of Canadians and keeps alive hundreds of communities — and, as I said, in regions where alternate employment is not readily available.

To better understand how we got here, we need to put Bill C-50 into context. A few months after the 2015 election, Prime Minister Trudeau addressed the Davos World Economic Forum, and toward the end of his remarks, he declared, “My predecessor wanted you to know Canada for its resources. I want you to know Canadians for our resourcefulness.”

While it was among the first of many clichés that Canadians would become accustomed to, it indicated the beginning of a clear shift for Canada’s energy sector, specifically for the oil and gas sector. A period of more uncertainty and red tape led to a decline in confidence and investment in the energy sector, and that was the objective. The government ensured energy projects, even ones that benefited Canadians, would either fail or be mired in the negativity that the Prime Minister and his cabinet constantly spoke about and continue to speak about.

You’ll recall Energy East, which was to bring Western gas to the Irving refinery in New Brunswick, the Prime Minister gleefully saying that it had nothing to do with the government but was a business decision by the company. Again, just last year, when Prime Minister of Germany Olaf Scholz came to Canada — in fact, to Newfoundland and Labrador — to sign contracts for natural gas to supplant their Russian gas dependence, Prime Minister Trudeau sang the same tune and said there was no business case for natural gas.

Of course, he was wrong. And, of course, he angered Canadian energy workers in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and my home province, as there could never be a better business case for natural gas: a massive known supply, a proven process, private investment, a ready workforce, professionally regulated industry and a pleading market. The Japanese Prime Minister came to British Columbia only months later with the same request and, of course, received the same answer. Canada was open for business — just not that business.

In fact, in the Newfoundland Offshore Area, there are capped reservoirs of natural gas. We know how much is there, no pipelines or rail are needed and it’s as close to the European market as you could possibly get from the North American supply. In fact, colleagues, when oil is produced offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador, the oil is pumped up. It actually comes up by pressure, so there is not a lot of pumping, but it comes up with the gas with it. The gas and the oil are separated. The gas is then reinjected back into the reservoir through the wellhead and then it is capped. We know exactly where it is and exactly how much is there, and the wellheads are in place.

There has never been a better business case. Natural gas powers Europe and will for generations to come. Within months, Prime Minister Scholz signed a long-term, multi-billion-dollar deal for natural gas with Qatar. Colleagues, what fools we are.

Since 2015, the value of Canada’s inventory of major projects under construction or planned has shrunk from $711 billion to $572 billion, with the oil and gas sector suffering the greatest decline, from $546 billion in 2015 to $319 billion in 2023, a 43% drop. Although the Prime Minister said in 2017 that no country would find 173 billion barrels in the ground and leave it there, the Prime Minister is intent on doing just that.

Colleagues, the Trudeau government has been intent on killing the oil and gas sector from its first day in government. Allow me to list some of the initiatives from this government to shut it down: Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act; Bill C-48, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act; the moratorium on offshore Arctic oil and gas licensing; the carbon tax; the rejection of the Northern Gateway pipeline; and the cancellation of the Energy East pipeline caused by deliberate uncertainty and framed by the government as a business decision by the company.

It is no wonder that investors’ confidence in Canada’s energy sector is at its lowest. According to the Fraser Institute, which surveyed oil and gas investors on the attractiveness of 17 energy jurisdictions in Canada and the United States, 68% of respondents were deterred by the uncertainty concerning environmental regulations in Canada, compared to 41% in the United States. Also, 100% of the respondents regarding Newfoundland and Labrador, 93% regarding British Columbia and 50% regarding Alberta indicated uncertainty concerning environmental regulations — 100% regarding my province. All Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, especially the representatives in this chamber, should take that personally.

Bill C-50 is no more nor less than the continuation of this government’s heavy-handed approach to the energy sector in Canada. Instead of an invisible hand steering the economy, the government is engineering the changes it wants to see. That heavy-handedness has led to families across the country scrambling to make ends meet. It has led to the decimation of communities when people leave because work for which they are trained and skilled, in an industry they chose, has ceased. And it has led to private investment leaving and avoiding our country. Bill C-50, by design, will continue this effort.

Bill C-50 is the final step in the government’s plan to kill the oil and gas sector. It is a top-down approach centralized in Ottawa. It will dictate to sectors of the economy and provinces how workers will be retrained for a net-zero economy. For industries and provinces that have already invested significant resources in greening their economy and greening the oil and gas sector, Bill C-50 will discourage them from further investing in the green-tech industry in Canada.

Let’s be clear: Since 2015, the Liberal government has been putting all obstacles possible in the path of creating jobs in the oil and gas sector. The reality is that Canadians still heavily rely on it. It remains the biggest private sector investor and the top exporter. It provides over $26 billion a year in taxes to all levels of government and directly employs over 188,000 Canadians, with salaries double the national average. And now the Liberal government is coming up with a plan to kill this and have Canadians pay for it.

(1520)

Those 188,000 Canadians employed in the energy sector — as of December 2022 — are down from a high of 241,000 in 2014 under Prime Minister Harper. For every job created in the oil and gas sector, two indirect jobs and three induced jobs are created.

In Atlantic Canada, we are talking about almost 8,000 jobs and thousands more who rely on the sector, not to mention their families. It is crucial to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. It makes up 25% of our GDP and accounts for over 41% of our exports over the past 20 years.

Prior to my appointment to the Senate, I was deputy CEO of the offshore petroleum regulator, and that included all environmental aspects of the offshore. The royalties from the offshore petroleum sector made up 35% of the revenue for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is at the centre of the economy in my province. It is what pays for the roads, schools and hospitals. Make no mistake, colleagues; these workers won’t stick around hoping for the retraining funds proposed by this legislation. They will leave, just as thousands left in the early 1990s when the groundfish fishery collapsed.

What will Bill C-50 and the just transition cost? As the Associate Finance Minister at the time, the Honourable Randy Boissonnault, said, the just transition would cost $120 billion to $125 billion a year, at least until 2050. That is over $3.25 trillion. Governments don’t have their own money. They have our money.

When Canada emits 1.5% of global emissions, how does this expenditure make any sense? That’s the question I asked Minister Seamus O’Regan in February 2023 here in this chamber. As regional minister for Newfoundland and Labrador, Minister O’Regan talked about the progress made in Alberta instead of our home province, the lowest-emitting petroleum extracting jurisdiction in the world.

As a Newfoundlander, I find it disappointing that Minister O’Regan did not defend our clean oil and gas industry, our low-cost extraction sector and our massive reserves of natural gas fields, but instead followed the ideology of the government to eliminate oil and gas jobs here in Canada.

Minister O’Regan needs to be reminded of the low-carbon footprint of Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore oil and gas sector. It is amongst the lowest in the world, given you don’t have to remove the oil from the sand. It is also done at a low cost of approximately $15 a barrel, only slightly higher than the cost of extracting oil in Saudi Arabia and less than 25% of what it costs in the oil sands.

The government says it is doing this in partnership with the provinces through round tables. However, not all provinces are part of these round tables. How can the federal government be serious in its just transition when neither Alberta nor Saskatchewan, Quebec or Nunavut are participating? Again, colleagues, it is symptomatic of a government that puts ideology before practicality or economy.

What’s the result? Apparently, it will be programs or action plans to retrain workers for the next phase of the energy sector or some other sector in Canada. Well, honourable senators, Newfoundland and Labrador has experience with governmental retraining programs — none of it good.

Following the 1992 moratorium in the groundfish industry in my province, about 30,000 fish harvesters and plant workers were put out of work. The government announced an aid package known as the Northern Cod Adjustment and Rehabilitation Program, or NCARP, as it was called locally. It provided a weekly cash payment to out-of-work fish harvesters and plant workers while requiring their enrolment in training programs for work in other areas or accepting early retirement packages.

NCARP was then replaced by The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, known as TAGS, which tried to have fewer people reliant on the fishing industry.

Both programs remain etched in the memories of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and not in a good way. The retraining programs were inadequate, and many were demeaning. Some fish harvesters and plant workers did not have the classroom skills required to operate and benefit from this retraining. The training on offer often had no relevance to any work available in rural Newfoundland or Labrador or to the ages or relevant skill sets or interests. Any plan to offer training to a 50-year-old fisherman or a fish packer to be a software developer in a burgeoning IT sector or a hairdresser in rural Newfoundland or on the coast of Labrador isn’t worth a serious conversation.

And there were hundreds of people, in some cases thousands, who worked at individual fish plants throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. These were highly skilled people who were dedicated to their craft. Now they were being forced to retrain so they would qualify for a government handout. NCARP and TAGS — these are triggering words in Newfoundland and Labrador.

And now we are here again. Only this time, the decline of the targeted industry is due to government policy, not ecological or biomass-related effects. For too many of those who finished these programs, there were no practical uses for the retraining. The reason is simple: Even if the government invests in all the retraining in the world, if the jobs are not available to absorb the workforce, it is the worker and the community who pay the price.

Those communities that benefit from the well-paying jobs will also lose because people will not stick around for the next IT or hairdresser job. They will leave and go to where the work is. It has been like that for hundreds of years.

With Bill C-50, the government is embarking the whole country down the same path. We don’t know how many jobs will be available in a post-fossil-fuel economy. We don’t know when they will be available. We don’t know where they will be located. Colleagues, we are talking about people’s livelihoods here and the vitality of our communities. We don’t stay when there is nothing to do.

The failure to properly retrain workers following the cod moratorium of 1992 should serve as a warning to Canadians and a lesson for the federal government, a lesson the government is ignoring.

You need to have available jobs waiting on the other side of the training of workers, at the same wage and in the same community. With our oil and gas sector located outside of major urban centres, it could very well signal a migration of Canadians away from our rural communities in Atlantic Canada and Western Canada.

Just as important are the Indigenous communities who want to play a role in resource development. We have been told loudly and clearly that this is a critical part of true reconciliation, and I agree.

With well-paid jobs near Indigenous communities, the industry employs close to 14,000 Indigenous people directly in Canada’s oil and gas industry. This is in addition to ownership in the oil and gas service and supply sector, particularly in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. According to the 2021 census, the extractive resources sector and the oil and natural gas sector specifically provided the highest-paying average wages for Indigenous workers in Canada. Bill C-50 proposes to establish structures via the Employment Insurance program to remove these hard-fought and well-deserved gains. The petroleum industry has invested $1.4 billion in Indigenous construction businesses, $992 million for equipment services and maintenance and millions more in training that actually leads to the well-paying jobs that the sustainable jobs act wishes to eliminate.

Just two years ago, colleagues, 23 First Nations and Métis communities invested $1.1 billion to become part owners of seven Enbridge oil sands pipelines. It is the largest energy-related Indigenous partnership transaction in North America, with the potential to bring major changes to these communities. The words of Frog Lake First Nation Chief Greg Desjarlais described it clearly:

It’s going to allow us to send our kids to school. It’s going to allow us to send our people to treatment. It’s going to allow us to deal with the mental [health] crisis that we have in our communities, the anxiety of the young people. It’s going to allow us to improve the quality of life.

A year later, the new partnership is already bearing fruit. It gave the communities the freedom to invest how they see fit. According to Justin Bourque, President of Athabasca Indigenous Investments, some have used the funds to pay for more teachers and build social infrastructure in their communities. But more importantly, he sees it as a model for bringing Indigenous communities in as investment partners as the new standard across the country.

Well, guess what? Bill C-50 wants to stop that effort in its tracks. Like I have said publicly before, the Trudeau government needs to say yes to First Nations when they say they want to be a part of resource development. In fact, I wrote an article, published last week, on just that. Partnerships with the oil and gas sector have allowed Indigenous communities like Frog Lake First Nation and many others to improve their community while being stewards of the land. They have shown how a balance can be struck in protecting the land and giving back to their community and culture.

Bill C-50 threatens these newly formed partnerships and blocks future investment. Public dollars to retrain workers do not go as far as private dollars invested in our economy. They don’t even scratch the surface. The federal government needs to show the same level of respect to Indigenous communities who want to participate in resource development as to those who don’t. With Bill C-50, the scale gets tipped once again — and intentionally — on the side of those who don’t.

(1530)

Colleagues, I recognize the threat and the reality of climate change. It’s not the first time you’ve heard me say that. The challenge is generational and global. All levels of government in our society will need to work together to meet these challenges for the betterment of Canada and for our long-term prosperity. In my quest to find an answer about the cost of the just transition to a net-zero economy, Minister Guilbeault’s officials told me in the Energy and Environment Committee — during another study we were doing — that it would cost $4 trillion. They later corrected this to $2 trillion but, really, any number in that stratosphere is the same.

Using this estimate, we would need to quadruple our current spending to cut emissions by 75% from current levels. A bill like Bill C-50 is designed to have the effect of scaring off private sector investments crucial to our emission reduction efforts. This is the track record of this government.

It’s also important to note that these projections only achieve 75% of the government’s goal to cut emissions to net zero. The author of the $2-trillion estimate study, RBC, says new technologies can bridge the gap. Who would invest in these new technologies? It would be predominantly the private sector, as it already does and will continue to do in the right economic environment.

Bill C-50 has the potential to deter these investments that we need for jobs but also the investments we need to move toward a net-zero economy.

Colleagues, the industry is committed to investing to protect the environment and to reduce GHGs. Canada is a leader in this field — not Russia, not Venezuela, not Nigeria and not Iran. Exactly the same can be said for workers’ rights and environmental mitigation and protection: Canada is the world leader.

To summarize, colleagues, I do not support Bill C-50 and the just transition ideology. The top-down approach and central planning of Bill C-50 will ultimately fail Canadians, as they did for Newfoundland and Labrador after the cod moratorium. It won’t be simply a moment of failure; it will be felt for generations in Canada while not having one iota of effect on global emissions.

Colleagues, this bill does nothing for the environment, nothing for workers, nothing for Canada’s communities and nothing for our friends and allies who desperately want and need our energy resources today. Let’s send this bill to the appropriate committees for further study, and let’s hear from the executive branch on how this ideology and path backward make any sense at any cost. Thank you, colleagues.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

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

(Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on May 22, 2024, the bill was deemed referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, and the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources was authorized to examine and report on the subject matter of the bill.)

Public Complaints and Review Commission Bill

Bill to Amend—Motion to Authorize National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee to Study Subject Matter—Debate

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That, in accordance with rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs be authorized to examine the subject matter of Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments, introduced in the House of Commons on May 19, 2022, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate;

That, for the purposes of this study, the committee be authorized to meet even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, with the application of rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto;

That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than June 13, 2024; and

That the committee be authorized to deposit its report with the Clerk of the Senate if the Senate is not then sitting, provided that it then be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting following the one on which the depositing is recorded in the Journals of the Senate.

Hon. Peter Harder: Honourable senators, I just want to say a few words on the motion before us with respect to pre-study.

Pre-study has been used in this chamber appropriately, in my view, and this is not a bill I would instinctively oppose. However, I think it’s worth reflecting on the nature of our relationship with the other place in terms of dealing with legislation. I, for one, am of the view that we should emphasize our second reading reflection on bills that come to us from the other chamber. I believe that reflection is best done, in most cases, by waiting for the bill to arrive here in full.

I believe pre-study is entirely appropriate for supply, for budgets and for bills that reflect a judicial time frame by which Parliament must act. Those bills are unique in their relationship with the other place and, in the case of judicial time frames, with the courts themselves.

I would encourage restraint in broadening pre-study to bills that are, in the normal course of matters, being dealt with in the other place or are coming here for reflection.

Let’s face it: The bill before us has had a five-year pace. It arrived here five years ago almost to the day and was caught up and not dealt with because, at that point, it was not a priority of the government. It has been reintroduced in two parliaments and is in the other place. I would encourage us to exercise restraint, to encourage a dialogue with the other chamber with respect to legislation we get and preserve pre-study for that which is necessary. If we go too far, I’m afraid we will erode our capacity for pre-study when it is appropriate.

On a related matter — I’ll take the opportunity of being on the floor — I would encourage restraint on Senate bills as well. Senate bills are a useful tool for legislation that is, in a sense, non-controversial in its origin, and it can be useful to use the time in the Senate to advance a bill for consideration in a bicameral parliament. However, I would not encourage Senate bills that are in themselves somewhat controversial as we would forego the opportunity to provide sober second thought because we have, in a sense, exercised our first thoughts.

With those comments, I would urge you to reflect and consider this broader context as to whether to adopt this motion.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Senator Harder, for those comments. I would echo some of them for sure.

I would also like to just say a few words on Senator Gold’s motion on the pre-study of Bill C-20.

I’m going to start by quoting from the late senator Elaine McCoy’s 2017 article:

Senate delays are just another urban myth

Instead of focusing on the myth that the Senate routinely delays government legislation, we should look at how it performs its constitutional duties.

She goes on to say:

In other words, the Senate does not delay passage of government legislation. It’s the other way around: the government delays passage of its own Bills, since it’s the government that enjoys near-total control of the House of Commons most of the time. It sits on Bills for months on end in its own chamber. . . .

What’s more, it turns out that the government has been broadcasting this myth for as long as we’ve had a Senate. In the very first session of Canada’s Parliament 150 years ago, senators complained about ministers pushing them to pass legislation at the speed of light toward the end of the parliamentary session. Senators were expected to shuffle Bills “in one door and out the other,” one senator complained in the chamber during a session shortly after Confederation. A Senate committee formally reviewed the allegation of delay in 1868 and found it to be unfounded. Instead, the culprit was the government itself, which was holding legislation back.

All these years later, the rhetoric stays the same. It’s a convenient cover story when the government wants to divert attention from its own foot-dragging on numerous files.

(1540)

Bill C-20 sits squarely within the parameters of Senator McCoy’s allegations. Senator Harder has already referred to some of this. It was introduced in the House of Commons on May 19, 2022 — a full two years ago. This bill then spent six months at second reading. It was then sent to committee, where it languished a full seven months before the committee started its study.

The committee held 13 meetings. Then the government waited seven months before putting the report up for debate, and we still have no idea when the report will be debated in the House, and certainly not when the bill will be debated at third reading. It hasn’t even been debated at report stage yet.

In fairness, Senator Gold has no idea when this bill will be here. It could be next week. It could be next fall. But it is coming with the proviso that it is urgent, so the Senate must move it through committee quickly.

Does this Liberal government take us for fools? Do they not know that every senator has access to LEGISinfo and that we can see the slow creep of this bill through the House of Commons?

We can also see that 35 government bills have received Royal Assent before this bill. This government deemed 35 bills more important than Bill C-20, yet we are to believe that it has now risen to the level of urgent and must be passed as soon as possible.

No matter what Senator Gold tells us, it is clear that for the government Bill C-20 is not urgent, and the Senate committees do not do pre-studies on bills that are not urgent. In fact, almost all pre-studies are reserved for budget implementation acts, which we know we will receive very late. They are large, and the Senate is usually shy in amending them.

The other category of bills that are pre-studied are those that follow a court-imposed deadline and for which, therefore, the Senate does not have the latitude to set the schedule.

You will note that Senator Gold did not include a deadline for the committee to report on Bill C-20. Here’s what Senator Fraser, another good Liberal senator, said in 2014:

What’s the deadline going to be for this pre-study? There is none in the main motion to conduct the pre-study. So we have to rush up the motion to conduct the pre-study, but who knows how long that will take.

However, I note that Senator Runciman’s motion in amendment does suggest a possible rush for the pre-study, too, in that it suggests that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee would sit while the Senate is sitting or adjourned. That’s usually done only when there is pressure to achieve a rapid committee result.

Now, as you know, I often quote ghosts from the Liberals’ past in the Senate, but here is what a sitting senator said when she was in opposition. I am speaking about our own Senator Jane Cordy, back in 2014:

Honourable senators, if I believed a pre-study would make a difference, I would be the first in line to promote it; but I do not believe that it would make a difference. If I believed that the voices of Canadians would be listened to in a pre-study, I would be first in line to promote the pre-study; but I don’t believe that a pre-study would do this. If I believed that the committee doing the pre-study would use the time to travel to the regions of Canada to let Canadians talk to them, I would promote the pre-study; but in light of Senator Carignan’s comments to me last Thursday, I do not believe that this will happen.

Senator Grant Mitchell, who was a member of the Government Representative Office, said when he was in opposition:

Pre-studies have become, in effect, a kind of veneer used by this government to try to cover up the damage it has done to the very foundation of our parliamentary democracy.

The last Liberal leader in the Senate, Senator Joe Day, was not a fan of pre-studies for bills other than budget bills. Here is what he had to say on November 23, 2017:

I am generally cautious about pre-study. I know it’s in the Rules. I know it can be a useful tool from time to time. But in my view, it takes us away from being a chamber of sober second thought. It puts us into a concurrent role with the House of Commons, and that has always caused me concern. I’ve spoken about that in the past.

Also, as he said on December 10, 2014, “. . . pre-studies of legislation . . . distracts from the role we traditionally have of providing sober second thought . . . .”

Again, in November 2017, Senator Day said:

The House of Commons should not take for granted that we will bypass or circumvent our normal and traditional practices in order to compensate its own failings in managing its agenda.

Finally, here is a quote from May 8, 2017:

Successive governments have brought forward complex legislation on different topics and then told us it was urgent and that a pre-study in the Senate would help move it along. But, colleagues, that is not our role here in the Senate. Our role is to consider legislation after it has been reviewed and passed by the other place. We are a chamber of sober second thought. Pre-studies fly in the face of that role that the Senate was intended to fulfill in our parliamentary democracy. And too often, a pre-study is then used by the government of the day to justify pressure on us to rush through the real job, and that is examining the bill when it does arrive here, as amended or otherwise.

I leave the final quote to my very good friend Terry Mercer. Terry Mercer was always someone who mostly replied softly when we wanted something done; you could just hear him quietly say, “No.” The Speaker always heard him when he said that. He was quiet. Our Speaker has a harder time hearing me, and I’m much louder, but he just said “no” when we asked for something. I’m sorry, Your Honour, you do hear me.

Terry Mercer said:

Honourable senators, Senator Harder today said what pre‑study will do, the Senate would do if it had the actual bill. Well, this would happen if the House of Commons would actually get off their butts and get the job done and get the bill through the House of Commons.

This is still Senator Mercer talking:

Senator Harder went on to talk about us having work to do. He is absolutely right. But so does the House of Commons. . . .

This pre-study will continue to allow the House of Commons to treat the Senate with little or no respect. This pre-study will continue to allow the House of Commons to be lazy and too lazy to get their work done in a timely fashion. Canadians expect better than that. Voters expect better than that. . . .

I have a message for the House of Commons: Stop wasting our time and get off your butts and do your job. Public expectation is that the House of Commons will do its job. We expect the House of Commons to do its job because everyone knows we’re ready to do ours and I will not be supporting a pre-study.

I think if Senator Mercer were here today, he would call this a colossal waste of time.

Also, I would like to trot out the well-worn mantra that committees are masters of their own domains. Therefore, if the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs wishes to study the subject matter of Bill C-20 as a separate matter, they can certainly do so, and said study might aid them in their future study of Bill C-20. Even if this bill were to justify a pre-study, it does not justify ramming it through committee and forcing the committee to sit while the Senate is sitting.

(1550)

We are in the last few weeks of sitting. Senator Gold has given us the government’s list of bills that it wishes to be passed by the end of June. All of these bills must be fully debated at second reading and third reading in the chamber, and all senators should be allowed to participate fully in those debates. They need to be in the chamber.

Taking senators away from the chamber sittings to study a bill in committee that is two years old is absurd. This bill should be given full and thorough study, as warrants its subject. The committee should be allowed to take its time and proceed in its regular time slot. This will allow members of the committee to take part in the study, yet be able to be present in the chamber during the sittings.

We already have a pre-study on the budget bill that will necessitate committees to meet while the Senate is sitting. This will mean that senators will already miss some sittings. This has to stop, colleagues. There is simply no reason to have a pre-study take place while the Senate is sitting.

Colleagues, I do not support a pre‑study. If, at the end, a pre‑study is necessitated, it has to be done in a way that does not prevent us from being in this chamber. As I’ve said, if the chair and the steering committee of the Defence Committee see fit, they can simply start studying the subject matter, as they are, indeed, masters of their own destiny. But it has to be done in their regular time slot.

Motion in Amendment—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended by deleting the second paragraph.

Hon. Peter Harder: Senator Plett, would you take a question?

Can you confirm to us that the bills for which you quoted comments by Senator Cordy and Senator Joan Fraser were bills where you encouraged a pre-study?

Senator Plett: No, I will not confirm that. I will confirm that it was a Conservative government in power, and that I was a backbencher.

However, Senator Harder, as I mentioned, you were debating — as the Leader of the Government in the Senate — that we should have a pre-study that Senator Terry Mercer objected to.

I think those would be the correct facts.

Senator Harder: To take this one more round, you did reference Senator Carignan, who would, I’m sure, confirm that it was a bill with a pre-study of which he was encouraging, as your leader.

And for my colleagues, it’s hard to imagine the Honourable Senator Plett as a backbencher.

Senator Plett: Let me first of all say, again, Senator Harder, that I would never say these types of questions are a colossal waste of time. I think they add something to the debate.

Yes, Senator Carignan was my leader at the time while I was sitting in the back corner.

(On motion of Senator Moncion, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Adjournment

Motion Adopted

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of May 22, 2024, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, May 28, 2024, at 2 p.m.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

[English]

National Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice Bill

Third Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Al Zaibak, for the third reading of Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-226, which seeks to establish a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism while advancing environmental justice in Canada.

The goal and intent of what this legislation will accomplish cannot be overstated. Environmental racism may not be a well‑known concept, but it is a profoundly damaging reality that many Canadians face with little acknowledgment or redress.

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources heard from a number of witnesses of varied backgrounds representing First Nations, Inuit, Black and other racialized communities. They also heard from renowned academics and legal experts. In essence, the possibilities presented by this legislation amount to a new lease on life for many of the most marginalized individuals, peoples and communities that are often tucked away in rural and remote regions across Canada.

This is an important note to highlight. Environmental racism, by virtue of it being a type of racism, impacts upon already marginalized peoples and communities. This, colleagues, is the exact segment of the population in Canada to which senators are supposed to be most responsible.

As set out explicitly in the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2014 ruling on the Senate reference:

Over time, the Senate also came to represent various groups that were under-represented in the House of Commons. It served as a forum for ethnic, gender, religious, linguistic, and Aboriginal groups that did not always have a meaningful opportunity to present their views through the popular democratic process . . . .

Colleagues, is there a better example of a bill that responds more directly to this obligation to represent the voiceless than the bill before us now? Bill C-226 seeks to offer tangible remedies to racialized Canadians who continuously struggle against the juggernaut that is the resource extractive industry.

Bill C-226 is truly a life-and-death proposition for many communities. This bill deals with premature deaths and premature morbidities — scientifically and empirically proven causality related to resource extractive activities.

This is not a frivolous or abstract bill. It has been a long time coming, and it has gone through all the necessary steps of review. Other countries around the world have already understood and adopted the concept of environmental justice, with Canada now close to catching up to those forward-thinking and just-minded societies. The opportunity is before us. After lengthy due diligence by senators, today is the time for us to vote on this opportunity.

(1600)

Regrettably, a final vote has now been jeopardized because of a highly politicized process from which the bill’s sponsor, Senator McCallum, has been excluded.

Colleagues, Bill C-226 has had a long journey to where we are today — first introduced in a previous Parliament in February 2020, only to languish and die upon dissolution of that Parliament.

In February 2022, the leader of the Green Party in Parliament, MP Elizabeth May, introduced an enhanced version of the bill. It is before us after passage in the other place, without amendment.

Bill C-226 has been thoroughly reviewed by the Senate’s Energy Committee. Unanimously, without suggestion or discussion of amendment, it has returned to us.

Honourable colleagues, after ample due diligence, this bill has been closely examined. Its virtues and benefits have been well‑established to the satisfaction of a range of senators, paying close attention to their responsibility to carefully and thoughtfully examine all dimensions of a bill brought to this chamber and to committee, now returned to all of us to follow proper, established procedures.

Today, I stand before you because, in discussion with Senator McCallum — the sponsor of Bill C-226 here — I have come to share her disappointment with some of the senatorial actions that have gone on behind the scenes.

Honourable senators, please keep in mind that Senator McCallum took this on as an unaffiliated senator, without the favour of a leader, liaison or scroll representative — in other words, without the support and privileges reserved only for caucused senators.

It has been incumbent on Senator McCallum and her office to shepherd this bill through the Senate of their own volition. I hope we can agree that “Team McCallum” has done well, that our colleague Senator McCallum has sponsored this bill with grace and tenacity at every turn.

Senators, I invite you to recall that, last spring, Senator McCallum had to fight to bring Bill C-226 to a second reading vote, which was delayed for many months until October 2023. Essentially alone, she acted with tremendous patience, restraint and — as hard as it may have been — even some deference to the “wink, wink, that’s the way things work here,” which resulted in a suite of agreed-upon bills passing before Bill C-226, that is, bills that belonged to caucused senators thereby ensuring that those bills now have priority at committee. Unfortunately, it is looking like Senator McCallum may be facing similar tactics this time around, awaiting a third reading vote.

Senator McCallum disclosed to me that in April she met with and communicated with group and caucus leadership to advocate for a fairly paced third reading vote, and that a consensus was reached to include her Bill C-226 in the recent suite of C-bills originating from the other place in the leader-brokered process that saw multiple bills expedited through this chamber.

In light of Government Motion No. 167 and the current discussion around the discriminatory realities facing unaffiliated senators, this agreement for expedition was welcome, excellent news. It is not every day that unaffiliated senators are considered favourably in such high-level discussions.

But was this predictably, sadly, short-lived fairness?

I’m advised that Senator McCallum was informed yesterday evening that, due to leaders being unable to agree to the passage of a further suite of bills, Bill C-226 has been dropped and now its final vote is excluded from the deal. It was suggested that perhaps a vote could be held at some nebulous point in the fall.

Honourable senators, I thank you again for your attention to my speech this week setting out the daily discrimination experienced by unaffiliated senators under the Senate’s practice of Aristotelian equality, where those of us who are different are treated differently and unfairly.

Please allow me to reiterate and underscore a critically important point here. Unaffiliated senators do not have the same leverage or equal opportunity to advocate for our items to progress through the legislative process. We have no bargaining chips of our own. We are excluded from discussions that produce decisions. We have no representative or champion within these discussions. We are shut out and shut down.

Being advised after the fact that a previous verbal agreement to have Bill C-226 receive its final vote will now not be honoured is disheartening. The long-standing and normalized process of horse-trading bills or paring off bills is a practice that is oppositional to the tenets of modernization.

Should not bills be considered and weighed on merit through careful consideration at committee with ample opportunity for senators to speak at readings? How does it make sense that a bill lives or dies based on the timelines and favours accorded to other unrelated legislation? We have just seen some bills advance to committee without a single senator speaking at second reading, for example, Bill C-275.

Let’s be honest about the impact on bills such as Bill C-226. This favouritism, this truncated due diligence, impedes the fair, final disposition of bills such as Bill C-226 that has succeeded at every stage of comprehensive review in both houses. How can this disparate treatment be viewed as acceptable?

Honourable colleagues, I stand before you today to call upon each of us to act responsively out of respect for our own careful, thoughtful standards on legislative review. Supporting this bill respects our standards and a primary purpose of the Senate: giving vulnerable minorities from coast to coast to coast a lifeline by which they can begin to improve their lives, health and environments.

Colleagues, I urge you to support our colleague Senator McCallum. Support Bill C-226 and support the voiceless and underrepresented Canadians to whom the Senate has a particular duty of care.

In conclusion, Your Honour, I call for the question on Bill C-226. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Thank you, Senator McPhedran, for your speech and passion, and certainly to Senator McCallum for having introduced this. As you mentioned, this has passed the House of Commons. This is a piece of legislation we should be taking seriously.

These problems of environmental racism go back a long time in history. Indeed, Indigenous peoples have borne the brunt of most of it. We certainly know about Africville in Nova Scotia. I note May 8 there was a spill just up the river. I will read one sentence:

A month ago, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), the company that operates the Chalk River nuclear research facility, notified Kebaowek First Nation that there was an issue with toxic effluent, but they were assured it was being taken care of . . . .

Of course, as you read through the story, it wasn’t.

I want to ask you to highlight whether this is a historical question which is over with or whether we still have issues of environmental racism that are current in Canadian society today?

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Thank you for the question, Senator Cardozo.

I think even a quick scan of major media today answers your question. For those of you who noticed, there was more coverage about Grassy Narrows and the mercury poisoning — which we had been assured a number of times was being dealt with — and we now have a current media report on the fact that that is not true and that the Indigenous community of Grassy Narrows continues, on a daily basis, to suffer terrible health consequences. By no means are we talking about history. We are talking about the combination of history that has not stopped and is the current reality as well.

(1610)

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I would like to take the adjournment of the debate.

The Hon. the Speaker: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Martin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman, that further debate be adjourned until the —

An Hon. Senator: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: I’m sorry?

An Hon. Senator: — the question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Martin has moved the adjournment. I will read the motion.

It is moved by the Honourable Senator Martin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman, that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the “yeas” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker: I see two senators rising. Is there an agreement on the bell?

An Hon. Senator: One hour.

The Hon. the Speaker: The vote will take place at 5:11.

Senator Martin: Your Honour, did you say the “yeas” have it or the “nays”?

The Hon. the Speaker: I said the “yeas” have it.

Senator Martin: We heard “nay.”

The Hon. the Speaker: I saw two senators rising.

The vote will take place at 5:12. Call in the senators.

(1710)

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS
The Honourable Senators

Arnot	Kutcher
Ataullahjan	Lankin
Batters	Loffreda
Bellemare	MacAdam
Bernard	MacDonald
Boehm	Manning
Boniface	Martin
Busson	McBean
Clement	McNair
Cormier	Mégie
Cotter	Miville-Dechêne
Dalphond	Moncion
Deacon (Ontario)	Oh
Duncan	Omidvar
Forest	Oudar
Gerba	Plett
Gold	Ravalia
Harder	Saint-Germain
Hartling	Seidman
Housakos	Wells
Jaffer	White
Kingston	Woo
Klyne	Yussuff—46

NAYS
The Honourable Senators

Al Zaibak	Osler
Burey	Prosper
Cardozo	Quinn
Coyle	Richards
Downe	Robinson
McCallum	Simons
McPhedran	Sorensen—14

ABSTENTIONS
The Honourable Senators

Brazeau	Greene
Dagenais	Pate—4

Telecommunications Act

Bill to Amend—Third Reading—Debate

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) moved third reading of Bill C-288, An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act (transparent and accurate broadband services information).

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition) moved:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to, on division.)

(At 5:19 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate earlier this day, the Senate adjourned until Tuesday, May 28, 2024, at 2 p.m.)

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

1st Session, 44th ParliamentVolume 153, Issue 203

Thursday, May 23, 2024The Honourable Raymonde Gagné, Speaker

THE SENATE

Thursday, May 23, 2024

SENATORS’ STATEMENTS

The Honourable Murray Sinclair, C.C.

Congratulations on Investiture to the Order of Manitoba

Indigenous Self-Determination

Visitors in the Gallery

Danielle Ouimet

Visitors in the Gallery

Amira ElghawabyDeborah Lyons

Visitor in the Gallery

National Golf Day

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

The Estimates, 2024-25

Supplementary Estimates (A) Tabled

Justice

Charter Statement in Relation to Bill C-20—Document Tabled

Charter Statement in Relation to Bill C-49—Document Tabled

Charter Statement in Relation to Bill C-50—Document Tabled

Charter Statement in Relation to Bill C-59—Document Tabled

Study on Seal Populations

Eighth Report of Fisheries and Oceans Committee Deposited with Clerk During Adjournment of the Senate

The Estimates, 2024-25

Notice of Motion to Authorize National Finance Committee to Study Supplementary Estimates (A)

National Framework on Heart Failure Bill

First Reading

Canada Business Corporations Act

Bill to Amend—First Reading

The Senate

Notice of Motion Concerning Bills with a “Notwithstanding Clause”

Notice of Motion to Condemn Islamophobia and Anti-Arab Racism

QUESTION PERIOD

Privy Council Office

Liberal Party of Canada

Environment and Climate Change

Carbon Tax

Employment and Social Development

Canada Disability Benefit

Transport

Zero-Emission Vehicles

Public Safety

Indigenous Community Corrections Initiative

Employment and Social Development

Canada Disability Benefit

Finance

Cost of Living

Justice

Genetic Non-Discrimination Act

Fisheries and Oceans

Closure of Fisheries

Public Services and Procurement

Acquisition of Fighter Jets

Health

Decriminalization of Drugs

Answers to Order Paper Questions Tabled

Privy Council Office—Appointments to Senate in 2021

Privy Council Office—Participation in Blockade of Parliament Hill

Privy Council Office—Office of the Governor General

Privy Council Office—Appointments to Senate in 2022

National Defence—Canadian Armed Forces

Canadian Heritage—Telefilm

Agriculture and Agri-food—Government Spending

Veterans Affairs—Government Spending

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency—Government Spending

Foreign Affairs—Government Spending

National Revenue—Government Spending

Privy Council Office—Government Spending

Emergency Preparedness—Public Service Commission—Transportation Safety Board—Government Spending

Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs—Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat—Government Spending

Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency—Government Spending

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec—Government Spending

National Defence—Government Spending

Environment and Climate Change—Government Spending

Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages—Government Spending

Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario—Government Spending

Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario—Government Spending

Women and Gender Equality and Youth—Government Spending

1st Session, 44th Parliament
Volume 153, Issue 203

Thursday, May 23, 2024
The Honourable Raymonde Gagné, Speaker

Amira Elghawaby
Deborah Lyons