Hon. Raymonde Gagné (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, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, February 14, 2023, at 2 p.m.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Kwame McKenzie. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Omidvar.

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

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Mayor Corrie DiManno, Town of Banff and Mr. Kelly Gibson, Town Manager. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Sorensen.

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

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Ms. Kerline Joseph. She is the guest of the Honourable Senator Mégie.

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

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Michel Wong and Suzanne Wong. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Gerba.

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

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Hon. Claude Carignan: Honourable senators, the first ministers’ meeting on health care took place yesterday. Prime Minister Trudeau had announced that he would make a substantial offer to premiers with respect to increasing health transfers in light of current needs. He offered $4.6 billion a year over 10 years. That’s only 16% of what the provinces and territories were asking for. That falls far short of being a substantial offer and is nowhere near the type of funding that would help support health systems and address the issues they’ve been having.

Leader, I understand that in a negotiation some strategists may decide to start off with a low or ridiculous offer, but that is rarely met with success. Don’t you believe that the federal government, by offering 16% of the funding requested, is sending a message to the provinces and territories that 84% of what they requested isn’t needed to maintain and improve health care?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Anne Laberge, Senator Dawson’s wife; Cindy Dawson, his daughter; Julian Dawson, his son; Don Dawson, his brother; and Doris Dawson, his sister. They are accompanied by other family and friends.

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

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

If I understood one aspect of the question, allow me to correct the record. The contract to which you refer, Senator Plett, which is going to be “sunsetting,” as you said, in 77 years, or something like that, is not a contract at all; it’s a supply arrangement. It doesn’t guarantee any monetary arrangement. It is simply a pre‑selection of supply. Hundreds of suppliers have arrangements of that kind. It’s a long-standing government practice that aims to expedite the procurement process.

I could go on, but I’ll turn to the other aspects of your question.

Indeed, lots of contracts with McKinsey and others have been undertaken by this government. Such services are used to complement the services of our very able and professional public service. They meet unexpected fluctuations in human resources and workload or, as is often the case, where special expertise is required, and it would be imprudent to bring on new full-time employees for work that has a more fixed timeline.

As we know, colleagues, the Prime Minister has asked Minister Jaczek and Minister Fortier to review the matter, take a closer look into the numbers and look into the circumstances of all those contracts. The government is looking at this matter to make sure that everything was done in the right way.

I understand that the focus of the Treasury Board rests on the policy underlying the granting of such consultancy contracts, while PSPC — Public Services and Procurement Canada — will focus on the circumstances surrounding those contracts. The government looks forward to the results of those inquiries and to sharing that with the public.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, I want to return to a topic I raised briefly yesterday, which is the McKinsey consulting firm issue. McKinsey has long-standing and extensive ties to the Liberal Party of Canada.

Leader, McKinsey has received contracts worth at least $120 million from the Trudeau government. At least 18 contracts were sole-sourced, and one of the contracts given to McKinsey for IT services doesn’t sunset until the year 2100 — 77 years from now.

All of that has occurred at the same time that this government has greatly increased the size and the cost of public service.

Leader, the Prime Minister said his government would look into those contracts — he has had several weeks now to look into them. Why will he not tell Canadians the total amount his government gave his friends at McKinsey? Will McKinsey keep raking in taxpayer dollars for work of lesser quality than the work Canada’s public service could do?

Hon. Robert Black: On Wednesdays, the Canadian Senators Group directs questions to committee chairs. Therefore, my question today is for my honourable colleague Senator Omidvar, the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.

Senator Omidvar, I and many Canadians are interested in your committee’s study on suicide prevention and how it might benefit rural areas and the first responders that continue to serve and protect our smaller communities. As we know, mental health challenges affect people of all ages, education, income levels and cultures. In any given year, one in five Canadians will personally experience a mental health problem or illness.

We also know that rural communities often have issues accessing many services, including the health sector. Witnesses have come forward in your committee study that continue to drive this narrative. In many cases, mental health-related services and supports in rural communities are less comprehensive, available and accessible than in urban areas.

What is your committee hearing from witnesses that will help address the difficulties rural first responders face in mental health resource access Canada-wide, and how will your committee continue to support rural first responders for the benefit of all Canadians? Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(j), I move:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules or usual practice, for today’s sitting, tributes to our colleague the Honourable Senator Dawson be of 40 minutes, not including the time for his response, followed by an additional statement.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): The answer is no, senator.

First, I do not want to engage in partisanship, but it is important to point out that your leader, Mr. Poilievre, did not say anything while waiting for the meeting to begin. He very quickly said, “We are going to honour it”, which is what Mr. Harper also did the last time. That is a good political move and I commend him for that.

However, as you well know, the fact that the provinces asked for a certain amount of money, while completely ignoring the tax points transfer, does not necessarily mean that the amount they requested was appropriate. It also does not mean that the provinces expected to get everything they asked for. As you said, there are ways of negotiating, and that is true on both sides.

The federal government’s response is meaningful and responsible. More money will be transferred to the provinces. As I mentioned before, for the first time, $2 billion will be allocated to address challenges uniquely faced by Indigenous peoples. Given the context in Canada and around the world and given that we have an economy that has just come through a pandemic, this is also a very fiscally responsible decision.

The Government of Canada showed that it has been accountable to Canadians in regard to health care. It has been equally accountable to the provinces, which have exclusive jurisdiction over the management of the health care system, meaning that they ensure that the reforms work for their citizens. For the first time, thanks to the data sharing approved by Premier Legault, Premier Ford and others, we will be able to exchange information and know where the money given to the provinces is going. If we give $1 billion to the provinces, it doesn’t mean they’re going to spend it on health care. That game has been played for a long time by the provinces, and the money with no strings attached often ends up in the general revenues.

For the first time, through data sharing and bilateral agreements, we will have the means to follow the money to see if it’s actually having an impact. This is a step in the right direction.

[English]

Hon. Brian Francis: Senator Gold, yesterday, it was announced that the federal government will provide $2 billion over 10 years to:

. . . address the unique challenges Indigenous Peoples face when it comes to fair and equitable access to quality and culturally safe health care services.

In light of the criticisms from Indigenous leaders, who were excluded from discussions on health care funding, could you please provide us with a detailed list of all the “Indigenous partners” your government plans to work with to prioritize investments, as well as with a detailed breakdown of how — and how much of — this funding will be disbursed directly to First Nations, Inuit and Métis across all provinces and territories?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you. What is happening for the individuals in these countries is a tragedy. Whatever one thinks of the actions of governments or groups that are in control of territory, people are suffering. I’m glad our country has responded. Thank you for acknowledging that, and I’ll pass that on.

I know the government is looking at ways in which to continue to assist. The challenge, as you properly mentioned, in Syria, as it is in Afghanistan, has to do with the natures of the regimes and the odious things that they do to their citizens and, indeed, beyond. The government will continue to do what it can to assist those who want to assist the people of Syria and Turkey.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Well, I have nothing to add to my reply, because it is sort of Legislation 101 or Constitutional Law 101 that the Charter has pre-eminent force over all pieces of legislation.

But, Senator Housakos, this bill, which, respectfully, you have continued to mischaracterize as a censorship bill, is nothing of the sort, no matter how many times it’s repeated. History teaches us, alas, that one can continue to repeat things that are not true, and people may come to believe them, but it doesn’t make them any more true.

The fact is that there is a great deal of disinformation, misinformation and misleading information being circulated for purposes that have nothing to do with the bill, but only with political and partisan considerations.

The Charter of Rights governs all of our actions in this chamber and the interpretation and application of the law by all public officials, as it should.

Senator Gold: You were not invited. It wasn’t me who extended the invitation, Senator Plett.

But what I’m saying is that those who were there I think can attest to the fact that the government is committed to working in a serious partnership way with the communities, and it’s going to take some time to develop those plans and make sure that the assistance the money can provide meets the needs of the individual communities.

I’ll make some inquiries. I don’t think I’ll have an answer quickly. Thank you.

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, it is with mixed feelings that I stand here today as we say goodbye to our colleague and my friend and our friend Senator Dennis Dawson.

Although your time with us in this chamber is coming to an end, this is not the end of the road, just simply a turn in it. I will miss your presence here on the Hill, and especially in the Progressive Senate Group, or PSG, but I am happy that you will now be able to spend more time with your family, particularly your new granddaughter.

Dennis, it was great to be at your retirement event last evening at the Métropolitain, with hundreds of your closest friends celebrating your political life as an MP, a political organizer and, of course, a senator. Now, I’m not saying that you spent a lot of time at the Métropolitain, but last night, the owners did present you with a bar stool with a plaque that had your name on it.

Colleagues, Senator Dawson began his career in public life when he was elected as a trustee on the Commission des écoles catholiques de Québec in the early 1970s, a position he held for five years, until he was inspired to take a run at the vacant federal seat which was open in his riding. In a by-election in 1977 — a few years ago — Senator Dawson was elected to the House of Commons to represent the riding of Louis-Hébert under the leadership of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, and he is now retiring under another Prime Minister Trudeau. He was subsequently re-elected in the following two general elections.

This was all before Dennis even turned 30 years old — quite an achievement and commitment to serving the people of Canada at such a young age. I imagine it all must feel like a lifetime ago to you, Dennis.

Honourable senators, Dennis and I have been caucus colleagues for the last 17 years. We have seen and experienced quite a bit of change in the Senate over those years. When we started here, we were part of the government caucus with a significant majority. We then became the official opposition and then the official opposition but with a minority government.

The biggest change came in 2014, with a parting of the ways from our colleagues on the other side, which ultimately led to the formation of the Progressive Senate Group. Well, “parting of the ways” is a nice way to put it. We were actually kicked out of the Liberal Party. I guess that makes us part of an exclusive club, Dennis.

Through all the changes, Dennis has been instrumental in our restructuring, and without him, the Progressive Senate Group may not be as it is today. While Dennis and I both joined an already well-established system when we first started in the Senate, it has been exciting to be part of building a new group from the ground up with our wonderful PSG colleagues.

When I agreed to take on the leadership role of the PSG after Senator Day’s departure, I could do so comfortably, knowing that Dennis would be a solid teammate and part of the leadership team.

Colleagues, those early months were a steep learning curve for us as our group continued to find our footing. Senator Dawson has always been there as a strong support, with sound advice and, most importantly, a sense of humour. I have to credit him with helping to foster the supportive, collaborative and collegial team that we have today.

Senator Dawson, after 46 years since first being elected to the House of Commons, you deserve to spend more time with your family.

Through it all, Dennis, it has been a pleasure to work alongside you for the last 17 years, and I have valued without measure your counsel and friendship.

Dennis, I wish you all the best in your well-deserved retirement. I will miss you. Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!