Hon. Percy E. Downe: Thank you for your speech, senator. Like you, I support the bill. I think it’s much needed.

I am, however, concerned whenever there’s unanimous legislation from the House of Commons. Unfortunately, I base that on years of experience of what I call their manic behaviour. We had the recent pension bill here that, for years, the House of Commons refused to support and then it’s suddenly unanimous.

As you know, it’s not our job to delay this legislation but to make sure that it’s fundamentally sound in the implementation. I mentioned the Veterans Charter when I was first appointed. The House of Commons spent two and a half minutes in total on the legislation. They sent it to us. We sent it to the Department of Finance; we did not send it to the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee. Who doesn’t want to assist the men and women who serve our country? We passed it only to find out years later from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that it shortchanged our veterans by millions and millions of dollars they would have received if it had not been changed.

So, further to the question recently asked, the Guaranteed Income Supplement is an excellent example of a valid program, but in terms of its implementation — many of us worked on it for years. You had to file income tax or, if you don’t owe any taxes, you don’t have to file income taxes. In my home province, hundreds of low-income seniors were not getting a benefit they were entitled to because they didn’t want to pay somebody $50 to file their income tax when they didn’t have the skill set to do so.

Would you share my concern that, notwithstanding the many people saying to pass this, it’s very important that the Senate committee will do the work the House of Commons committees often do not and make sure we have a superb program, with all the wrinkles out of it, before we pass this legislation?

Senator Cotter: I agree entirely with the sentiment you have expressed, Senator Downe. The challenge is to put that together in an organized way.

But in this context, the bill proposes that be done through regulation, so we will not be able to get a very significant parliamentary oversight of that process. It’s intended to be done in as transparent a way as possible, but the construction of it will reside in regulations, I think.

This is my last observation: The result is that we may be comfortable and satisfied — and this is our job — that the markers are right in this bill. I think they’re pretty good. You may identify some that could be better. But it is consciously intended to be a framework. To be frank about it, that places a significant degree of trust in the ministry and the officials to put it together. There’s quite a bit trust that I’m prepared to repose there.

The nice additional thing is the commitment that the disability community will be engaged with that process every step of the way.

[Translation]

Hon. Marty Klyne: Senator Cotter, I have to hearken back to the days of COVID and monies going out in CERB payments, top-ups to social assistance and such. There was a significant problem in some provinces and territories where they did claw back on the social income assistance side of things, which was tragic. I want to support this bill. I’d like to see it go to the people who are eligible for it and not to help the provinces and territories balance their books.

One of the problems the last time was that it took a while for someone of authority, whether it was the minister responsible or the Prime Minister himself, to tell the provinces and territories that this is intended for people with a disability and not for any other purpose. It is not for clawing back. They need to get some agreement in that place so that it is not clawed back. Otherwise, we’re going to be providing false hope. Just by citing this bill in consideration, it’s providing hope. Let’s make sure it’s not false hope.

Senator Cotter: Thank you, Senator Klyne. I took this out of my speech, so maybe I’ll shove it back in to answer you, if I may.

I worked as a deputy minister in a provincial government for a dozen years, and when Ottawa steps forward and provides support for a program or initiative, it’s a natural consequence that provincial departments look for ways they can generate savings for themselves. Provincial ministries of finance have that expectation. It’s almost like the law of gravity, in a way.

For a bill like this, that seems to be bad faith, if I can put it that way. This initiative is to try to help those who are among the most in need in our country, so I’m fully supportive of the minister’s message. I don’t know every little trick that provinces tend to do, and it’s not exactly illegitimate in general terms; provinces have financial obligations to their people, and rightly so, to us, in our own provincial worlds. In this case, I think it would be dishonourable, and it’s important to minimize, and ideally eliminate, that happening in every respect. To the extent I can be helpful regarding that, I’ve indicated a willingness to talk with people and examine the programs that we can ensure stay in place at the provincial level.

I entirely agree with the modest degree of anxiety you’ve identified.

Senator Downe: Thank you, Senator Cotter, for taking so many questions. I think the number of questions is a reflection of the passion senators have to get this legislation absolutely correct.

You talked in response to my earlier question about the framework and the regulations. I think it’s very important and I’m wondering if you share my view that at the committee, that senators on that committee are able to nail down officials from the various government departments on exactly how they intend to proceed.

It has been my experience that the more we have on the record, the more we can pursue after the fact if they’re not doing what they said they would do. Like you, I have a lot of trust that this is going to proceed, but, as accountants like to say, I like to trust and verify and I think that is a way to do that. I hope, given your background, you would be well suited to do that on the committee as well. Are you thinking along those lines as opposed to generic, general questions when it gets to committee?

Senator Cotter: I agree with your observations, Senator Downe. I’m really honoured to be connected with this bill in a meaningful way and I want to be as fully participatory as I can and help to see it produce the best result. Thank you.

Senator Pate: As you’re no doubt aware, along with Senator Petitclerc, I was one of the initiators of the letter that went out from 50 senators, in large part because the government was not acting as they had promised and as had been indicated in the previous budget.

I have no doubt in the faith and the intention of the minister in this respect. I do have significant concerns, however. One of the main issues raised by disability groups initially — and then, in my understanding, they were pushed off and, some would say, pressured to be silent — is on the issue of adequacy. Legal experts also say a key issue not in the bill is adequacy.

While there was a Royal Recommendation on adequacy, when that was raised in the other place, it was deemed out of scope. As Senator Downe and others have said, that seems a little odd when the focus is on bringing people out of poverty and, as you’ve indicated, trying to ensure that people with disabilities not only have enough but that they have an opportunity to thrive in this country.

I’m curious about how you see us best able to support this process, given all of these issues, given the many questions you’ve already been asked around clawbacks, adequacy and access. How do you see us addressing that particular issue when it’s very clear that legal experts seem to agree that our failure to include adequacy could be one of the keys? And many courts have said that, unfortunately, we keep asking people with the least to keep dragging the government back to court to enforce actions. What can we do best to ensure that that’s in there, given the limitations on our ability with respect to fiscal challenges?

Senator Cotter: Beyond trust, which I have quite a reservoir for with respect to this bill, I accept your point, and I would have been probably happier if an amendment had occurred in the other place that made that a little bit stronger. I think it will still get delivered on.

On the question of it being ruled out of scope, I am again out of my depth. Senator Seidman, who is the critic of the bill, and I have talked about the significance and meaning of that. I think that’s deserving of exploration. I just hope it gets done in a timely way and that the question of whether there is a need for the bill to be strengthened along those lines and how that can be done gets meaningful consideration at committee. I am happy with the bill in its present form, but, of course, that’s a call for all senators to make.

[Translation]

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Congratulations on your speech and this bill. This initiative is a credit to you and also to the government. However, my question is the following. Since the bill will be implemented through regulations, how will people with disabilities be assured of receiving a sufficient income? All the bill’s parameters are vague. Why didn’t we decide to create a cost-shared program with the provinces, for example, to ensure that the benefits are adequate?

[English]

Senator Cotter: I don’t have a complete answer on that, Senator Bellemare. On the question of negotiating shared-cost initiatives, those are complex, as you know. My guess is that there is a time for that. My experience in a provincial government was that there are times when the Government of Canada wants to move — let me say unilaterally — to do a good thing, and direct payments are often a model that is embraced in that respect. There are days in the province when I would have liked a different approach, but this seems to be an attractive and more immediate response.

It does require work to make sure that the provinces don’t take advantage of the initiative, because we are talking about, I don’t know how much, but a lot of money that will make its way to people with disabilities. It will actually infuse provincial economies because people with disabilities are disproportionately in the lower areas of the income status and stratosphere of Canada and they tend to spend the money not on trips to Hawaii or Palm Springs, but to pay for rent and food, to support their families and try to make ends meet. There will be benefits out there, and I think the idea is to try to get them quickly, and shared-cost programs would have been a bit of a challenge.

It’s also a bit more complicated here because it wouldn’t be a greenfield that you would start with, but a situation where the provinces have their own and some disparate — in fact, no two are the same. Each one of those would require a careful and lengthy dialogue. It’s going to be challenging enough as it is.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

On December 2, 2022, Natan Obed, the President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the national Inuit organization, which does represent Inuit in all regions of Canada, stated in an interview with Nunatsiaq News that the bill was not co-developed and, as such, is not endorsed by Inuit beneficiary organizations across Inuit Nunangat.

During a press conference on Parliament Hill, President Obed clearly stated that:

The processes that the Government of Canada has used to come to the space where they had the first iteration of the bill were not co-developed with Inuit.

Colleagues, this is an important statement that concerns me that we need to look closer at. Whenever we hear it said in relation to government legislation, and I would say especially legislation which affects Indigenous peoples, we need to pay attention to the alarms that it raises. The Inuit-Crown Co‑development Principles were released by the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee, or ICPC, one of three permanent bilateral mechanisms created by the Government of Canada to facilitate government-to-government relationships between the federal government and representatives of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

These permanent bilateral mechanisms, or PBMs — yet another acronym — as they are commonly referred to, are meant to tackle the unique priorities of Canada’s different groups of Indigenous peoples. First Nation priorities will not necessarily be the same as Inuit priorities, and the same can be said of Métis priorities.

The actions that result from the various PBMs are meant to be significant steps in furthering Canada’s reconciliation agenda, as they are driven by Indigenous peoples and are undertaken with a whole-of-government approach. So I think it is significant that these co-development principles, which were released in November of 2022 after months of negotiation around the Inuit-Crown Partnership table, bore the logos of ITK, the various regional Inuit beneficiary organizations and the Government of Canada. It showed the commitment that all the represented parties were making to move forward on legislative policy and other efforts related to Inuit in a truly collaborative manner.

The document opens with this paragraph:

The Co-Development Principles outlined in this document provide guidance for collaborative work undertaken by Inuit and federal partners, including but not restricted to the work of the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee, as well as co‑development undertaken pursuant to the Inuit Nunangat Policy. This includes the development of content for federal legislation, regulations, policies, programs, services, and initiatives, and monitoring and evaluation criteria (collectively referred to as “initiatives” or “processes” below). These principles shall be read together with the guiding principles of the Inuit Nunangat Policy.

The principles highlight the importance of good faith negotiations and state that, “Co-development is substantive and maximizes collaboration.”

It also highlights the need for joint design and delivery and respect for governance and decision making. The latter is described as:

Co-development processes improve Inuit and federal decision-making by providing accurate and transparent information to leaders prior to a decision being made. . . .

So the argument that President Obed has made via his press conferences and subsequent interviews on this bill is that it fails to meet the basic minimum standards of co-development that are included in this document. Given the fact that it bears the government’s logo, this important point cannot be overlooked.

The engagement leading up to the first draft, according to information provided during the consideration of the bill in the other place, was conducted by the interim board and transitional committee of the TRC’s council.

Senators, while this work is welcome, it cannot and should not count as the type of engagement required by these co-development principles I have just referred to, and under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Even the TRC’s Call to Action 53, which has led us to this bill, was also explicit that the legislation to establish this council should occur “. . . in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal peoples . . . .”

Has Canada truly delivered on this Call to Action in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal peoples by punting the duty to consult on this bill to the interim board and transition committee?

It is the sole responsibility of the Government of Canada to conduct the engagement on legislation that meets the co‑development principles as laid out in the ICPC document, and it is also Canada’s responsibility to meet the threshold of obtaining free, prior and informed consent on legislative initiatives that impact Indigenous peoples as outlined under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

May I ask you to pay careful attention with me to the exact words and high expectations clearly laid out in Article 19 of UNDRIP with respect to legislation:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

Honourable senators, this is a very clear, high standard which Canada has committed to in Bill C-15. I submit that this bill, Bill C-29, is clearly a legislative measure which affects the Inuit in my region and the other regions Inuit live in Canada.

How shall we deal with what the respected national leader of the Inuit in Canada, an organization which clearly represents Inuit in Canada, says was not co-developed as envisioned by UNDRIP and Bill C-15, and not followed as set out clearly in the principles for co-development agreed to by the Inuit in Canada? Shall we overlook this disrespect for co-development in a bill which, ironically, is aimed at advancing reconciliation? Or shall we insist that our federal government start again, but this time undertake a true co-development process for this reconciliation bill?

It is the federal government that has the resources to engage with Indigenous peoples properly, and the federal government needs to ensure that we are engaging with all Indigenous peoples.

We have heard time and time again that the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, does not represent all First Nations people in this country. By only engaging with the three national Indigenous organizations, we are leaving out people such as traditional treaty holders who do not feel represented by the AFN. We are leaving out some modern treaty holders and folks who live off-reserve. When we’re talking about something as important as reconciliation, we cannot afford to keep leaving people out of the conversation.

So on principle I have some concerns about this bill. After speaking with President Obed directly, I believe that it is not entirely clear whether this bill supports or supplants the Inuit-Crown Partnership process. I have been assured by officials — and I should thank Senator LaBoucane-Benson for facilitating a discussion with officials on this very point — that it simply supports and complements the process by reporting on progress made with regard to reconciliation generally.

However, I’ve also been told that it will be up to the first board of this proposed council to set their mandate and that they will have flexibility in determining the depth, breadth and scope of their work. To my mind, unless we are more explicit on the expected role of the council as complementary to the permanent bilateral mechanisms, it would be possible for the board to set their agenda in a way that could directly or indirectly interfere with the important work of these important tables, and that would be an unnecessary complication to a process that, at least for the Inuit, has clearly found its rhythm over the past seven years. They have done important work with tangible results.

I would also like to point out, honourable colleagues, that the timing of this bill is of concern to me. I recognize that it responds to a TRC Call to Action. However, let us look at the political landscape at the time the recommendation was made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The federal government did not have in place an explicit policy of government-to-government interactions with Indigenous communities, instead relying on the relationship as defined in the Indian Act, the Constitution and various other pieces of legislation. There were no permanent bilateral mechanisms and no formalized process for advancing Indigenous-led initiatives and priorities. While I understand the government’s desire to address the low-hanging fruit and continue to make progress on implementing all 94 Calls to Action, as they promised to do eight years ago, the fact of the matter is that the establishment of the council, I would submit, now makes less sense than it did in 2015.

I also feel the timing is wrong given the expected report on Bill C-15’s implementation. As you know, the UNDRIP implementation consultations are legislated to end this year, and both houses are to receive a copy of what should be a co‑developed action plan.

I feel it would have been more prudent to wait for that plan, as there may be other mechanisms that are better suited to monitoring the overall progress of this government’s reconciliation agenda brought forward by Indigenous partners.

For instance, during the proceedings on Bill C-15, the Inuit repeatedly brought up the need for an Indigenous human rights tribunal and accountability measures led by Indigenous people. At the ICPC table — the Inuit-Crown table — the need for an Indigenous human rights tribunal and a new, modern treaty review commission have been on the ICPC agenda since 2017 and 2015 respectively. These would seem to be more concrete and targeted ways of addressing issues surrounding reconciliation efforts than the proposed non-profit entity in this bill and an annual report to Parliament. We do not need more reports. We need tangible action and rigorous accountability mechanisms.

I also believe that we need to ensure that we take the time, during the committee study of this bill, to look at the question of who is included and who is represented. This is also going to be controversial. As I said earlier, we are leaving a lot of people out of important conversations. When we constitute the board, certain Indigenous groups and organizations are given specific seats that they can nominate a board member to, while other legitimate and representative organizations are not. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, who represent urban, off-reserve and unregistered First Nations, were given a seat when the committee in the other place amended the bill, but that amendment was removed when the bill was again considered by that chamber. Given the known issues around registration under the Indian Act, senators should carefully consider whether we should put them back in.

While the Native Women’s Association of Canada was granted a seat, giving an important voice to First Nations women, the voices of Inuit women were not included with Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada left unrecognized in the bill.

Colleagues, in speaking to this bill on second reading, it is my hope that we can give this bill the due consideration it needs in committee. I think we should hear from as many partners and stakeholders as possible. If the committee decides to proceed with this somewhat problematic bill, I trust that the minister was sincere when he told Nunatsiaq News in their December 2, 2022, article on this bill that he was “. . . open to any reasonable amendments in the Senate.”

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

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

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, we owe a debt of gratitude to Senator Boniface for introducing Bill S-232, the health-centred approach to substance use act. This legislation aims to make a significant and crucial change to Canada’s approach to drug policy.

As some of you know, my appointment to the Senate was announced on the same day as that of Senator Boniface. Newspapers described us as a “top cop” and a “prisoners’ advocate,” presumptively characterizing us as representing opposite sides of the criminal legal system. However, our very different backgrounds have given us nuanced but similar perspectives and extensive understanding of the limitations of so‑called law and order approaches to drug policy.

Like others of you, our respective lives and work have left us all too familiar with the consequences of the current eviscerated social, economic and health care systems, combined with punitive and mandatory drug laws. People have for too long, especially during these last three years, been abandoned to the streets, the criminal, legal and prison systems, and far too many have died for reasons that are wholly preventable.

Senator Boniface and many other advocates have provided extensive evidence that fighting the so-called war on drugs with zero-tolerance criminal law policies has failed. This approach does not deter drug use nor make communities safer. In fact, it makes communities less safe by stigmatizing and marginalizing individuals and increasing their risk of harm by reducing their access to health, social and community services. Zero-tolerance policies push people in need into the margins, onto the streets and into prisons.

Support for decriminalizing drug possession comes from many experts and advocates. More than 50 groups urged the federal government in 2020 and again in 2021 to halt criminal charges for simple drug possession. They were particularly concerned about the spike in overdose deaths associated with COVID-19. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supports the decriminalization of drug possession as an effective way to both improve public safety and reduce the health harms of substance use. They endorse the use of approaches that reduce drug use recidivism and related criminal activity, while simultaneously improving health outcomes.

Calls have come from across Canada for us to deal with this issue now. B.C. and Vancouver have called on the federal government to create an exemption from criminal penalties for people who possess illicit drugs for personal use. There was a 66% increase in opioid deaths during the pandemic, with a reported average of 20 opioid overdose deaths each and every day in 2021. Over the past two years alone, B.C. faced an average of six deaths every day due to toxic drugs, and 15% of those who overdosed were Indigenous. First Nations people are dying at five times the rate of other B.C. residents. For Indigenous women, it’s even higher.

In Ontario, the deaths among First Nations alone increased by 132%, and the death rate increased by 68% overall in the province. Following the overdose deaths of four young people, as many of you will know, very recently the Ontario Provincial Police, or OPP, warned the public of the arrival of a potent and increasingly lethal strain of opioids here, in central Ontario.

New Brunswick had four times more deaths from overdose than from COVID-19 in 2020. In short, colleagues, at the height of the pandemic, opioid-related deaths exceeded COVID-related deaths. Worse yet, these deaths are preventable.

Ontario’s Big City Mayors group, a coalition with representation from Ontario’s 29 largest cities, along with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health as well as the Canadian Mental Health Association and the Toronto Board of Health, all propose the decriminalization of drugs.

Many provinces want change and are waiting for the federal government to take the lead. After all, criminal law is federal responsibility. In 2021, both the NDP and Green Party included decriminalization in their election platforms, and the NDP has since introduced a private member’s bill, Bill C-216. To their credit, the government also appointed a new Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, who says that she is listening to those doing this work.

Bill C-5 urged that substance use issues should be treated with health-based interventions rather than criminalization. All of this suggests that there might be cross-party political willingness to act on this matter now.

Canada’s current punitive approach to drug policy entrenches racism and inequality and contributes to the mass incarceration of the most marginalized. Current legislation disproportionally criminalizes women, those who live below the poverty line, those who are homeless, Black Canadians and Indigenous peoples. B.C.’s public health officer reminds us that the consequences are particularly stark for women, who are often mothers and whose incarceration may lead to family breakdowns, community fractures and intergenerational trauma.

Drug-related charges significantly contribute to the jailing of far too many. For racialized communities, particularly Indigenous communities, this further perpetuates colonial policies and the irreparable harms of the forced state removal of children.

The historical racist criminalization of drugs continues to exacerbate the mass incarceration of all racialized people. For instance, prior to decriminalization of cannabis in Nova Scotia, Canadians of African descent were five times more likely than others to be arrested for possession. In Regina, Indigenous peoples were nine times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession. These statistics are in no way surprising when we know that racialized neighbourhoods are also more heavily policed. Meanwhile, they have far fewer supports and resources to enable meaningful and timely treatment.

The relationship between socio-economic status and the link with past trauma, health and addiction is well demonstrated by data that associates homelessness and unemployment with overdoses.

Another awful reality is that overdoses increase exponentially post-incarceration. For too many women, both criminalization and substance use are linked to experiences of violence. Nine in ten Indigenous women in federal penitentiaries have histories of physical and/or sexual abuse and indicate they use drugs to numb themselves to their past experiences of violence and related trauma.

Lack of vital health, social and economic supports means that many women who are victimized are isolated. They are told they are responsible for their situation and are essentially abandoned and deputized to protect themselves. Those who are forced to act, provide for and defend themselves or others in their care too often find themselves charged, criminalized and subject to a range of convictions and punitive sentences.

Colleagues, prisons are not treatment centres. On the contrary, they both exacerbate and create health, mental health and addiction issues.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the Parliamentary Black Caucus rightly demand more robust and proactive measures. Bill S-232 aims to prevent people from being criminalized for using drugs and thereby also ensures that people do not carry the burden and stigma of criminal records as a result of simple possession. Criminal records push or near permanently relegate far too many people to poverty and marginalization as barriers to gainful employment, housing, education, volunteer opportunities and even to mental health and elder care.

Despite positive government intentions such as cannabis decriminalization and Bill C-93 provisions to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis, shockingly few people have obtained such relief from historical criminal records. In fact, only 484 marijuana pardons have been granted since the program started in 2019.

This last point further demonstrates an urgent need for the relief that companion Bill S-212 could provide to alleviate those needless barriers and harms experienced by far too many of the most marginalized in Canada. We must also act urgently on additional reforms to complement the vital goals of decriminalization, decarceration and decolonization that this legislation has the potential to advance.

Bill S-232 is an important step forward. It calls on us to ensure that Canada’s drug policy reflects these values by centring health and well-being and by abandoning punitive criminal law approaches that have long proved not merely ineffective but contrary to public good.

There is ample evidence that decriminalization works. Countries such as Portugal have responded to drug crises with decriminalization policies similar to Bill S-232. The result? They have decriminalized and reallocated resources to improved access to treatment and other supportive health care, housing and economic well-being, while also reducing incarceration, all without increases in crime, costs or illicit drug use.

It is time for Canada to show similar leadership. Instead of criminalization, it is time for us to promote equitable and meaningful access to health, social, housing and economic supports for all Canadians — supports that will increase the likelihood of a healthier and safer Canada for all.

Thank you once again, Senator Boniface, for your oversight and for your leadership. To all of you, colleagues, I look forward to working with you to act now in order to move this important bill forward.

Meegwetch. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, for Senator Campbell, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kutcher, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the second reading of Bill S-251, An Act to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 6).

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Thank you, Senator Cotter, for your very interesting speech.

I read the bill carefully in preparation for your speech. You said one word that struck me. You said that it was a framework to move forward toward something. I also noted that the legislation is scheduled to come into force no more than 12 months after the bill is passed. I noted that the government must report on the consultations six months after the legislation comes into force and that the government must table a report on the proposed regulations in both chambers within one year of the legislation coming into force. That already means a delay of perhaps two years.

In the briefings you had with the department, was there any discussion of a realistic time frame for the first cheques or benefits to reach recipients? I suspect there could be an election within the next two years.

[English]

Senator Cotter: In one respect, if I may say, Senator Dalphond, the occurrence of an election will be rendered somewhat irrelevant, because the framework will be in place and the department will carry on putting the program together. I hate to use a golf analogy, but I’m a 30 handicap at predicting elections, so I’m happy that it’s off to the side.

The message I keep hearing, which is informal and nobody is prepared to make an absolute commitment, is that it will be possible to do the negotiations and put the regulations in place in 12 months, hopefully. Once that happens, I think benefits can begin to flow.

There will be an application process as the bill is presently constructed, so it does mean that people will have to apply. However, the language people talk about is a 12-month period, and I hope that’s correct; I hope that’s the longest it is.

Senator Downe is right that we have an important job to do. We need to do it in as timely a way as possible, because my feeling is that each month that goes by pushes the time by a month, and that means tens of thousands of Canadians remain in poverty for one more month. It’s really important for them for us to do the best we can do.