Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Gold, the opposition’s question made me think of the debate on medical assistance in dying. I had serious reservations about expanding eligibility to medical assistance in dying to people suffering from mental illness only.

In the past few weeks and days, people have been speaking out against this change, which is set to take effect in mid-March. Some are saying that we are not ready, and it’s not just anybody.

[English]

It includes the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, which includes the heads of psychiatry departments at all 17 medical schools.

[Translation]

Are you going to postpone the implementation of this change?

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, as some of you know, I had a fabulous time at university. Clearly, you remember. It was so fabulous, in fact, that at the end of my first year the dean of agricultural science at the University of Guelph encouraged me to reassess my commitment. I did, and I soon found that I was far better-suited to the practical challenges of the working world.

However, not having a post-secondary degree increasingly required that I create my own employment; that’s how I stumbled onto the path of entrepreneurship. Learning how to turn ideas into businesses — and discovering the countless potholes on the road to success — have taught me the importance of tenacity, risk taking, creativity and resilience.

Entrepreneurship demands that you reflexively turn your problems into opportunities. We live in a world where this characteristic has increasingly become an essential skill. That is why I love learning about programs that train the next generation of entrepreneurs, programs that prove to teenagers that they are capable of creating exciting opportunities and teaching them how to avoid the many potholes that I always seemed to hit.

Take Shad Canada, for example, a national entrepreneurship program for Grade 10 and Grade 11 students that operates at 22 post-secondary institutions across Canada. Shad empowers participants to focus on a real problem, a problem that they’ve seen in their lives or on the news. The Shad staff coach each team of students as they devise innovative real-life solutions with the support of subject-matter experts. There’s nothing hypothetical here.

Bethany Deshpande, a Shad alum who is now the Halifax-based CEO of an ag-tech company called SomaDetect, told me about her experiences at Shad and how they continue to guide her and shape the corporate culture, innovation and success of her company. Bethany powerfully reflected on her experience at Shad saying, “I don’t know who I would be if I hadn’t gone.”

Another example is Outward Bound, a program that equips youth for the future through adventures in nature, testing them physically and mentally. The program empowers students to accomplish things they would never have thought possible, and it does so at a critical age. It creates confidence that enables youth to become a powerful force in the world.

Colleagues, as a consequence of climate change, our generation is delivering an unprecedented challenge to future generations. Investing in programs that strengthen the entrepreneurial culture in Canada will help produce many more creative problem solvers who embrace risk, challenge the status quo and think outside the box.

Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Honourable senators, climate change is dramatic and devastating — the East Coast hurricane; B.C.’s heat dome and floods; the North’s faster-than-predicted ice and permafrost melt. COP 27 and COP 15’s panels and discussions have illuminated — and will continue to illuminate — the resulting humanitarian crises.

UNESCO world heritage sites are in peril or already damaged by drought, acid rain, fire and floods — Egypt’s pyramids, Easter Island’s monolith statues, Peru’s Machu Picchu and our own national historic sites such as the Fortress of Louisbourg, Prince of Wales Fort in northern Manitoba and Dawson City in Yukon.

Artists have raised the alarms for decades. Look at Ed Burtynsky’s and Roberta Bondar’s works in our own foyer, or Emily Carr’s 1930s paintings of British Columbia clear-cuts. So what role can culture play in addressing this crisis? Colleagues, museums have a responsibility with their collections and education mandates and exhibitions to expand awareness. They can for climate change too. Remember, families go to museums together; they do not go to school together.

I think, too, that institutions can easily reduce their footprints. Some already have. Discussions are now under way as to what positive effects may be achieved by slight relaxations of required gallery temperature and humidity levels.

I believe scientists and artists have been 20 years ahead of society in collaborations on a number of issues from health to education to engineering and more, so why not for climate change solutions?

At the end of COP 27, culture and heritage finally was able to meet on site. Held at the Egyptian Pavilion to a full house and chaired by Princess Dana of Jordan, ministers from Jordan, Egypt, Tonga and the U.K.’s National Trust all participated. It was electric and really well received.

Colleagues, this issue affects us all — our cultures, heritages, traditions and livelihoods — but it is beyond us alone to deal with it. Culture has not been at the table. Culture must be in and at the table, and be part of the brainstorming and solutions. Their creative approaches will contribute to solutions to this global crisis. If they can’t be at the table, they won’t be at the table if they continue to be allowed to be isolated in their silos.

To us all, culture and wider society, I say, please, let’s look for creative solutions. Thank you.

Hon. Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia: Honourable senators, I rise today to recognize the outstanding career of Craig Pollett, CEO of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, as he is set to retire at the end of December.

Formed in 1951, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, or MNL, represents the interests of the growing number of municipal councils in the province, representing nearly 90% of the provincial population.

Throughout Craig’s 21 years of service, MNL has supported small town and urban constituencies to further enable them to respond to the ever-evolving issues raised by residents.

With the support of the hundreds of municipal leaders, including the board of directors of MNL, Craig has enriched the landscape of municipal governance. He has developed MNL into a leading organization for research and advocacy. MNL engages directly with municipalities, including by facilitating workshops and hosting an annual symposium to explore the pressing issues that communities are faced with, such as changing climate and an aging population.

Craig has taken steps to strengthen the municipal legislative framework to give councils more and clearer authority to respond to residents’ concerns. He has strategized how to achieve long‑term sustainability for the province by exploring regionalization. He continues to advocate for governments to amend their waste water systems effluent regulations to allow hundreds of communities to come into compliance. Honourable senators, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, has recognized MNL’s regional economic development work as a best practice.

Craig gives his deepest thanks to his family for their support, specifically his parents, Earl and Ruth Pollett, his partner, Gail, and his children, Grace and Abby.

Colleagues, healthy and sustainable communities are the building blocks of a prosperous province and country. Please join me in thanking Craig for his tremendous accomplishments, and for directly helping to support our vibrant communities that we all know and love on our beautiful rock of Newfoundland and Labrador. We wish you all the best in your next chapter, sir.

Thank you, wela’lioq.

Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, may I please present Chapter 68 of “Telling Our Story.”

In today’s modern world full of every type of technology one can think of, where nearly everyone owns a smartphone with built-in Google Maps support combined with a GPS in their vehicle, it is difficult to imagine how someone would become totally lost and have no idea where they are at any given moment.

With that said, it is nearly downright impossible for us to imagine what it must be like to be adrift on the Atlantic Ocean for 48 days with no way of communicating with your family and friends. Well, this is a story of exactly that, which took place in 1929.

Job Barbour was born in the fishing community of Newtown in 1898. He began sailing as a boy, and at the very young age of 21, he became master of a vessel for the first time. For many years, he sailed the treacherous waters off Newfoundland’s northeast coast, carrying provisions from St. John’s to many isolated outports dotting our rugged coastline.

In the late fall of 1929, aboard his three-masted schooner, the Neptune II, Captain Barbour and his crew delivered a load of salt cod and cod oil to the city of St. John’s. On November 29, they began their return journey with a load of cargo that included apples, oranges and raisins for the general store in Newtown, Bonavista Bay. Captain Barbour was very familiar with the 100‑mile route, which under normal circumstances would usually take just a couple of days, but Mother Nature had other plans. By early the next morning on November 30, the winds had reached hurricane strength and the Neptune II, her crew and passengers were driven off course — way off course. They were about to cross the Atlantic Ocean.

In a 1979 CBC interview, at the age of 81, Captain Barbour said:

Like living demons hungry for our lives the seas rushed over our bulwarks and swept the deck fore and aft. They fascinated you almost as they approached. The water seemed to be all colours of the rainbow when coming on in its mad and crested cumulus. I never thought till then that seas could run so high. They looked like huge icebergs that had suddenly been liquefied and driven by some demon of the sea to rush on and crush us to death.

And he went on to say:

. . . I could see the look of anguish that covered Mrs. Humphries’ face. No doubt she thought that it would be her last moment of life.

During the voyage, the high winds and rough seas battered the schooner and left, among other things, crew members injured and passenger Mrs. Humphries incredibly ill to the point that conversations were had of what would be done if she passed away at sea. Water casks were tainted with salt water, leaving it unfit for drinking. The wheelhouse was washed overboard, and the binnacle was smashed to pieces. With the rough seas, the crew was unable to reach the supplies that were lashed down in the hull of the schooner. To add to all that, the compass light went out. These were just some of the issues that the captain and crew had to deal with, but as Captain Barbour once said:

Newfoundland seamen are noted for their ingenuity and when the real thing is gone or won’t work they try to make something that will do.

It was this ingenuity, coupled with their resilience and bravery, that allowed the Neptune II to remain afloat. On January 16, 1930, 48 days after departing the harbour in St. John’s, Newfoundland, the battered vessel was spotted off the coast of Scotland. A steamer, the Hesperus, attached a tow line and brought the schooner and her crew to safety.

Back home, the families had begun to accept the fact that they may never see their loved ones again, so it must have been quite the sense of relief when Captain Barbour’s mother received a telegram which read, “Arrived safely Tobermory, Scotland. All well. Job K. Barbour.”

Captain Job Barbour committed his story to paper in 1932 when Forty-Eight Days Adrift was published in London, England. Newfoundland’s own Breakwater Books revived the story and published it in 1981 and again in 1983, with a reprinting in 2001. It remains a very popular book, which continues to tell the incredible story of Newfoundlanders’ courage, resilience and humanity and their ability to beat the odds.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I think this government and all governments, provincial and territorial, recognize the importance of modernizing our regulatory framework and making it more efficient and effective for businesses to do their business, to grow and emerge while at the same time making sure that the measures in place to save Canadians, whether it is in the areas of fraud or consumer products, remain vigorous and in place. This government, in its areas of jurisdiction, has embarked upon — and we had an example of it in this chamber not that long ago — measures to modernize regulatory frameworks within many areas of legislation.

Of course, the regulation of businesses is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, and each province has its responsibility as well to ease the regulatory burden where appropriate on individuals and businesses.

Hon. Marc Gold (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-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, pursuant to the Department of Justice Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. J-2, sbs. 4.2(1).

Hon. Marty Deacon: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate, and it concerns the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Senator Gold, yesterday the Auditor General released two important reports on the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, one on vaccine procurement and the other on COVID-19 benefits. These are two important snapshots of the government response that are part of a much larger picture.

Throughout the pandemic, I often heard that, through no fault of anybody’s, the government’s response to the pandemic was like building an airplane in mid-flight. There are lessons to be learned here that we cannot forget. We need a blueprint for the next big pandemic or whatever the next big thing is.

As we’ve been reminded through the daily work of Justice Rouleau, a commission of inquiry is incredibly effective at working through events in a transparent and systematic way.

Does the government intend to establish a commission of inquiry into the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and if so, when can we expect this to occur?

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

The government knows that it is very important for us to take stock of the lessons that we learned during this pandemic and prepare for future health emergencies and, indeed, any kind of emergency.

I’m advised that some on this work is, in fact, already under way, colleagues, through internal reviews by the Public Health Agency of Canada in addition to external, independent reviews by the Global Public Health Intelligence Network and by the Auditor General.

Now, the government knows, as well, that more can be done, and that is why I’m advised that the government will, in fact, have a COVID-19 response review in a format yet to be determined that will be announced when the details are finalized. In the meantime, I’m assured that the government will keep working with provinces and territories to improve our healthcare system to keep Canadians safe.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.

I’m hopeful that these processes and the number of examples that you’ve described this afternoon do keep us on that path to transparency and a picture that is as clear, open and honest as possible. Thank you.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Thank you for your question.

The committee had 20 meetings totalling over 36 hours. We have heard from 111 witnesses. We travelled to Vancouver; Edmonton; Quebec City, where we visited the mosque where the terrorist attack took place, and Toronto.

We hear the same thing in practically every city we visit. We heard heartbreaking testimony from Muslim Canadians who continue to struggle to feel accepted and safe in their communities. The trauma that many have experienced through physical and verbal assault, hurtful stereotypes in the media — the role the media plays kept coming up — racial profiling and discrimination are also passed down through younger generations as multi-generational trauma.

I would like to add that women, particularly Black Muslim women, experience greater discrimination and harassment, especially if they choose to wear the hijab.

We still have a lot more witnesses to hear from. We are asking the media to appear. Hopefully, by spring of next year, we should finish the study. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (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 June 15, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Lankin, P.C., concerning female genital mutilation.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on October 26, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Saint-Germain, concerning the Canadian Thalidomide Survivors Support Program.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Frances Lankin on June 15, 2022)

Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) constitutes a serious threat to the health of women and girls. The Department of Justice is not aware of any charges or prosecutions in relation to this conduct. The provinces are responsible for enforcing Criminal Code offences within their respective jurisdictions, and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada prosecutes criminal offences in the territories.

The Federal government’s approach to addressing FGM/C domestically includes supporting community-based work. Through Canada’s Strategy to Prevent and Address Gender‑Based Violence, Women and Gender Equality Canada (WAGE) is working to prevent and address all forms of gender-based violence, including FGM/C. Currently, WAGE is providing funding to the End FGM Network to address knowledge gaps in medical, education, and child protection areas; Women’s Health in Women’s Hands Community Health Centre to develop a tool kit for survivors, health care and community service providers with regards to FGM/C; and, the Centre d’établissement des Nouveaux Immigrants de Peel to increase advocacy against FGM/C.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Raymonde Saint-Germain on October 26, 2022)

The federal government is committed to supporting Canadian thalidomide survivors. This includes providing a fair and compassionate approach for assessing unconfirmed individuals that apply to the Canadian Thalidomide Survivors Support Program.

Epiq Class Action Services Canada, a well-established service provider, is the independent third-party administrator responsible for delivering the program and brings expertise and impartiality to the process. Epiq has established a reconsideration process to ensure that applicants denied at any step of the assessment process are given an opportunity to submit additional information in support of their application, without the need to reapply.

At the last step of the assessment process, the multidisciplinary committee of medical and legal experts will consider all information available before making a recommendation to the program administrator on whether the applicant should be eligible under the Program. Applicants denied at this last step will have the opportunity to request reconsideration in writing, via virtual meeting or in person. For details on the options for reconsideration at Step 3, applicants are encouraged to contact the administrator directly. All individuals are treated with respect and compassion.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(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: consideration of Motion No. 72, followed by second reading of Bill S-11, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gagné, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That, pursuant to section 3 of the Statutes Repeal Act, S.C. 2008, c. 20, the Senate resolve that the Act and the provisions of the other Acts listed below, which have not come into force in the period since their adoption, not be repealed:

1.Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, R.S., c. 33 (2^nd Supp.):

-Part II;

2.Contraventions Act, S.C. 1992, c. 47:

-paragraph 8(1)(d), sections 9, 10 and 12 to 16, subsections 17(1) to (3), sections 18 and 19, subsection 21(1) and sections 22, 23, 25, 26, 28 to 38, 40, 41, 44 to 47, 50 to 53, 56, 57, 60 to 62, 84 (in respect of the following sections of the schedule: 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 7.1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 16) and 85;

3.Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, S.C. 1998, c. 32;

4.Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, S.C. 1999, c. 34:

-sections 155, 157, 158 and 160, subsections 161(1) and (4) and section 168;

5.Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, S.C. 2000, c. 12:

-subsections 107(1) and (3) and section 109;

6.Yukon Act, S.C. 2002, c. 7:

-sections 70 to 75 and 77, subsection 117(2) and sections 167, 168, 210, 211, 221, 227, 233 and 283;

7.An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2003, c. 26:

-sections 4 and 5, subsection 13(3), section 21, subsections 26(1) to (3) and sections 30, 32, 34, 36 (with respect to section 81 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act), 42 and 43;

8. Budget Implementation Act, 2005, S.C. 2005, c. 30:

-Part 18 other than section 125;

9.An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to financial institutions, S.C. 2005, c. 54:

-subsection 27(2), section 102, subsections 239(2), 322(2) and 392(2);

10.Budget Implementation Act, 2009, S.C. 2009, c. 2:

-sections 394, 399 and 401 to 404;

11.Payment Card Networks Act, S.C. 2010, c. 12, s. 1834:

-sections 6 and 7;

12.An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 2010, c. 23:

-sections 47 to 51, 55 and 68, subsection 89(2) and section 90.

13.Financial System Review Act, S.C. 2012, c. 5:

-sections 54 and 56 to 59;

14.An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 2012, c. 7:

-subsections 7(2) and 14(2) to (5);

15.Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, S.C. 2012, c. 17:

-sections 70 to 77;

16.Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, S.C. 2012, c. 19:

-sections 432, 433, 459, 460, 462 and 463; and

17.Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, S.C. 2012, c. 31:

-sections 361 to 364.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(At 3:55 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise today on behalf of my group, the Canadian Senators Group. We have several concerns about the annual Statutes Repeal Act motion, which we believe goes to the heart of our duty as senators to protect the rights of Parliament and keep the government accountable to the legislative branch.

The Statutes Repeal Act began as a Senate initiative led by the late former senator Tommy Banks. Every year, Parliament passes bills that have a coming-into-force date that is left to the government to determine. The reasons for this, as we know, are that sometimes the government needs to draft supporting regulations or complete final consultations with stakeholders. But what happens if a government doesn’t bring an act of Parliament into force, either in whole or in part?

When Parliament enacts a statute, it is not a suggestion. Governments can’t pick and choose which parts of laws to enact or hold back entirely and indefinitely. All bills that receive Royal Assent must eventually come into force or be repealed.

This is exactly what the Statutes Repeal Act is designed to do. It is, we believe, an important accountability mechanism to ensure that the will of Parliament is fulfilled. It ensures that no current or future government can ignore legislation duly passed through our rigorous legislative process. The act requires the government to table a report to Parliament each year, listing all parts of statutes that have not been brought into force after nine years.

This year’s report of the Statutes Repeal Act, which this motion deals with, is the twelfth annual report. We see in it many of the same provisions that were listed in the first annual report, which was tabled over a decade ago. This begs the question: What has the government been doing over the past 12 years to bring these provisions into force? In some cases, decades have gone by and parts of acts of Parliament are still sitting idle. In most cases, we don’t really know what, if anything, the government is doing to bring them into force. When the Statutes Repeal Act motion was brought before this chamber last year, Senator Downe asked Senator Gagné about deferred provisions related to Canadian Armed Forces benefits, which were enacted in 2003. This same provision is before us again this year, but we have no further information about what has been done to complete the necessary regulations.

There are other provisions that we’re being asked to extend for another year that are even older. Part II of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act was enacted in 1985. The government has asked to defer its coming into force once again because it needs to — listen to this carefully — follow “appropriate policy work and consultation with parliamentary stakeholders.” After 37 years, one begins to wonder if this policy work has ever started or if the government is just, dare I say, kicking the ball down the road.

The same could be said for many of the other statutes for which we are being asked to defer a coming-into-force date for another year through this motion. For example, reading through the government’s explanations for the deferrals in this motion, we see that an amendment to the Bank Act, passed by Parliament in 2005, still needs regulations developed before it can be brought into force. An important change to Canada’s anti-spam legislation, passed by Parliament in 2010, apparently needs more consultation with industry stakeholders.

We are concerned that this important accountability exercise will become an automated parliamentary routine unless we exercise a more robust oversight role. If our government is going to continue to not enforce the will of Parliament year after year after year, it needs to provide better explanations.

I note that the Standing Orders of the Australian Senate requires the government to not only table in Parliament which laws have not come into force but to also include “a statement of reasons for their non-proclamation and a timetable for their operation.” In other words, it’s not sufficient for the government to simply say that certain laws have not yet come into force. It must also explain when the will of Parliament will be respected.

Honourable senators, when the Statutes Repeal Act motion comes before us again next year — as it surely will — we will likely see many of the same bills listed in this year’s motion deferred again. I suggest that, before agreeing to it, we take some time to get answers from the government about the status of the consultations or of the regulation drafting. We might want to refer the motion to a committee to get these answers directly. For the Statutes Repeal Act to work as it was intended when it was passed by this chamber, we need to keep tabs on the status of the unenforced laws we agreed to defer year after year.

As our late dear former colleague Senator Tommy Banks said when he introduced the bill:

 . . . Parliament is not a function of the government . . . . When Parliament expresses its will it is a form of instruction . . . to the ministry, to say what it wants the ministry to do and it is the business of the executive to do it.

Honourable senators, going forward, let’s do our due diligence and ensure that the will of Parliament is respected. Thank you.

Hon. Pat Duncan: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Government Motion No. 72, which proposes deferring repeal of statute in accordance with the Statutes Repeal Act.

As we know, this is a yearly exercise, and I want to put a few words on the record, mainly from the sections related to the Yukon. Senators will know that I support the adoption of the motion forthwith, and that my remarks will be brief.

Honourable senators, I am truly grateful to the Government Representative’s legislative deputy for distributing a document including the responsible ministers’ recommendations and explanations as to why the various provisions should be kept as part of the Statutes of Canada, even if not yet in force.

Honourable senators, yesterday I questioned the Government Representative on the modernization of Employment Insurance in Canada. I note that there are three provisions of the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act that are included in this particular matter before us; they have been since 2011. This section deals with expanding the classes of parents who can receive parental benefits through the EI system if legal parentage is denied by a province or territory.

As an aside to that, another area where changes are much needed is for those who are self-employed yet have to pay EI premiums. This affects taxi drivers and hairdressers or barbers who rent chairs in a salon. There have been reports made to me and others of challenges when such self-employed people try to claim EI benefits like parental benefits. Streamlining and clear guidelines must be developed as part of the EI modernization. This is one of many issues that show the urgent need for a complete overhaul of our EI system. Honourable senators, Canadians are anxious, and look forward to the results of the government’s modernization efforts on this important issue.

Honourable senators, turning from the national to the Yukon, there are several sections of various acts in which repeals have to be deferred. Some provisions of the Yukon Act are consequential amendments to other acts which come into force once the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act is repealed and the territory’s legislature enacts its own legislation in its place.

I would like to explain the background on this particular piece of the motion before us. I want to explain why it is still outstanding.

In 1998, Canada; the Yukon; the Council of Yukon First Nations’ Grand Chief, on behalf of 11 of the 14 First Nations in Yukon; and representatives from three First Nations who have not signed a land claims agreement signed the Yukon Devolution Protocol Accord. That accord set out a framework to guide the devolution process and permitted simultaneous negotiations of unresolved claims. On October 29, 2001, that process led to Canada and the Yukon signing the Yukon Northern Affairs Program Devolution Transfer Agreement. My signature is on that document.

I must explain to senators who are not familiar with the devolution process how important that is to the three territories. It is like our constitution. It gave us provincial-like powers over our land and resources. I would stress, again, the emphasis on the consultation accord, and that this document proceeded in consultation and with the full support of Yukon First Nations.

The framework, as I mentioned, was agreed upon in 1998, and it was a consultation process. These consultations are still ongoing, as is the dialogue between Canada, the Yukon and First Nations governments. They will resolve and ensure that the Yukon Surface Rights Board legislation is right.

Honourable senators, the Yukon Act also includes sections on a territorial auditor general. At the moment, the Auditor General of Canada is responsible for auditing all the territorial governments’ spending. The unique skill set needed for an auditor general, as we see in our own colleague Senator Elizabeth Marshall, is hard to come by. The labour pool for someone to perform the daunting task with excellence is shallow, since there are not many Senator Marshalls around. Recruitment is difficult and demands resources as does setting up an entire support structure. It makes much better sense to pool our resources and use the existing Auditor General of Canada rather than separate auditors general for each territory in the North given our small populations and limited resources.

Honourable senators, the Yukon is a good place when it comes to ensuring control over public spending through the Yukon Taxpayer Protection Act. The Act, in part, says — since you’re fond of legislation reading:

3(1) An accumulated deficit must not be created or increased.

(2) An appropriation that would create or increase an accumulated deficit must not be sought from the Legislative Assembly . . . .

(4) A special warrant must not be made if it would create or increase an accumulated deficit.

And the act continues:

6(1) If the non-consolidated public accounts laid before the Legislative Assembly or distributed to its members show that an accumulated deficit has been created or increased . . . the Government Leader must

(a) request before February 1 of the following year that the Assembly be dissolved; and

(b) if dissolution is granted, immediately recommend that writs for a general election be issued.

In other words, honourable senators, should the premier — who is usually also the finance minister — want to go into debt, they would have to go to the polls to get support to do so. This ensures the government’s responsible stewardship of public funds.

The Honourable Sandy Silver, Yukon’s premier, said in his testimony this week before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs that:

We have been providing surplus budgets every year for the last six years . . . .

We have within been recognized from the C.D. Howe Institute for our openness and transparency in Canada for finances. We came in second in the whole country in our budgeting. . . .

“We,” in that quote, is the Yukon.

This reinforces the solid support the Yukon receives from the services of the Auditor General, and reinforces the need to leave it as it is in this legislation. I trust that this reinforces with my colleagues the retention and the motion for the use of the Auditor General of Canada.

Honourable senators, I am, of course, in support of the adoption of this motion. I hope that my explanations about the Yukon-related provisions have provided some background for why they need to remain in the law. I appreciate your understanding and your time and attention, and look forward to the passage of this motion.

Thank you. Mahsi’cho. Gùnáłchîsh.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise today to express my concern regarding this report. I want to make it clear that my concern is not with the work of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples on which I sit.

I feel that, unfortunately, the report is no longer reflective of the entire picture with regard to Subdivisions A and B of Division 3 of Part 4 of Bill C-32. Division 3 deals with proposed changes to the First Nations Land Management Act.

At 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, November 17, this chamber passed an order of reference instructing the Indigenous Peoples Committee to conduct a pre-study of this division and report back on December 5.

We began the work immediately. We identified witnesses and requested their appearance before the committee. We heard from our first two witnesses — organizations who advocated for these changes — on November 22, and heard from Ministers Miller and Hajdu on November 30. We had to finalize drafting instructions right after the ministers’ appearance in order to have the report prepared, drafted and translated by the December 5 report-back date. This gave us a total of 12 business days to complete the study and report-back process.

Unfortunately, two of the First Nations we approached declined the invitation, and four others did not respond. Recognizing that time was tight and factoring in the necessary time for approvals and translation prior to our required tabling date, we did not have time to look for and approach other communities.

On December 1, the day after we finalized drafting instructions in committee, we received word from Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, or MKO, requesting to appear. We knew we didn’t have any time to hear from them as we were due to report the following Monday, but I did insist that we ask for a brief, and we suggested that a brief also be sent to the Senate National Finance Committee.

I know that Senator McCallum is planning to speak to those concerns as well, but I will say that in the brief we received this past Sunday, there was strong language about the gaps in enforcement of bylaws created using the authority granted to First Nations communities by the First Nations Land Management Act. Coordinating amendments to various related legislation was suggested by MKO in an effort to address these major concerns about enforcing the provisions of the new First Nations Land Management Act.

Colleagues, I am using this opportunity to speak to this report today to highlight why our newer approach to examining legislation should be a major concern to all. There has been a trend, I believe, in the last two sessions to rush through legislation. Everything is somehow a priority that always needs to be passed by a certain date, and the use of pre-studies — a tool once reserved for extremely complex legislation and budgets — is now becoming a norm.

There is logic behind the use of consecutive studies of legislation by us and the other place. Namely, concurrent studies lead to major gaps in testimony, and do not maximize the time available for interested stakeholders to appear on pieces of legislation that they may have expertise on.

MKO is not just another First Nations band. MKO represents 26 First Nations communities in northern Manitoba that span some two thirds of the province. The four MKO First Nations with land codes include an original signatory agreement First Nation, and have some of the longest practical experience implementing the First Nations Land Management Act. It is some of that practical experience that informed the brief they submitted. However, due to self-imposed deadlines, we did not have enough time to accommodate them at the Indigenous Peoples Committee. In fact, in speaking with MKO, they had only learned of the study early last week, and they immediately requested to appear before the Senate committee and the committee in the other place that was studying this bill.

Colleagues, it is my hope that the Finance Committee will be able to give some time to MKO’s Grand Chief, who is currently in Ottawa for another event. However, I know that they, too, are short on time.

I rose today because I’m frustrated by the number of times we have had to miss important testimony or cut back our witness lists because we have such tight timelines. While 12 business days may sound like a lot of time to some, those with knowledge of Senate procedures will know it is barely enough time once you start factoring in witness response times and the time required for translation.

Especially when we are dealing with Indigenous or grassroots organizations that often already face capacity issues, we need to give as much notice as possible to prospective witnesses. We need to slow down and make sure we are properly reviewing legislation, taking the time to hear from as many people and as many different perspectives as possible.

It’s time for the Senate to take back control over our schedule and our affairs, instead of being completely beholden to government ministers who are unaware of our procedures, timings and the various priorities we are juggling.

Thank you.

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