Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, I served as the chair of the admissions committee at Dalhousie University’s law school throughout the 1980s. It was highly competitive to get in. There were 10 applicants for every place. Kim Pate, as she then was, was accepted into the school. George Furey, as he then was, was accepted as well.

Yes, we made mistakes. I take full responsibility.

One, though, that was assuredly not a mistake was the admission of a young first-generation Canadian, Meinhard Doelle, originally from Dortmund, Germany, who came to the law school in 1986. Meinhard went on to earn a law degree, a master’s degree and a doctorate in law and he became an outstanding member of the Faculty of Law at Dalhousie.

Tragically, Professor Doelle died in a car-bicycle accident in September of this year in rural Nova Scotia. He was 58.

Professor Doelle’s specialist area was environmental law. He was a beloved professor, an outstanding scholar and an adviser who was much in demand to local, provincial and national governments, including on the Muskrat Falls Project. He was an adviser to international organizations and a mentor to colleagues around the world. He provided thoughtful, calm, balanced and insightful advice to all who sought him out, and there were many. Tributes have poured in from his local community, from current and former politicians of all stripes and from friends and colleagues around the world.

Perhaps the greatest thing about Meinhard was that he was a wonderful human being, a loving husband to his spouse, Wendy Jardine, and a great father to his three daughters, Klara, Alida and Nikola.

The Doelles also have a special connection with the Senate of Canada. Meinhard’s daughter Alida worked in the Senate for former Senator Day and for present Senator Dalphond. She is close friends with Chasse Helbin and Luis Medina.

Alida shared this message with me about her father:

A side of him that his colleagues may not know is that he was an incredible father. He was always there for us. He made my sisters and me feel special . . . . He really was my best friend.

Meinhard was a marvellous individual as well in the way he lived his values. Committed to a better world, he rode his bike almost everywhere, took mostly cold showers, did his thinking in the dark — some of you probably think that’s what I do, too — and he loved peaceful, rural Nova Scotia.

Whenever I visited the law school over the past 20 years, his door was always open. And no matter what I was interrupting, I had the sense that he had all the time in the world for me.

Meinhard’s family, the environmental law community, Dalhousie and the world are suffering a tragic loss with his untimely death, and I will miss those little chats with a lovely, lovely human being.

Thank you.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, “. . . there still is a place for daring in the Canadian soul.” These are the words of Canada’s eighteenth prime minister, Brian Mulroney, from his speech accepting Pollution Probe’s 2019 Environmental Leadership Award.

This prominent graduate of Antigonish’s St. Francis Xavier University also cited the words carved into the Peace Tower, from the Book of Proverbs, “Where there is no vision, the people perish . . . .”

In 1992, at the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, under the leadership of Prime Minister Mulroney, our country, Canada, demonstrated our daring and vision by being the first industrialized country to step up and sign the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and by helping to bring the U.S. on board in support of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Colleagues, as Canada hosts close to 200 countries at COP 15 on biodiversity in Montreal, in what has been described as one of the most important events for life on Earth, it is time again — 30 years later — for Canada to exhibit that daring and vision in both declaring our own commitments and working with our international partners to encourage ambition in developing a plan to halt the decline of ecosystems, wildlife and the life-supporting services they provide, reinforcing significant nature-based solutions to climate change.

Colleagues, Canada is home to an estimated 80,000 species, and evidence indicates that 20% of those are at some level of risk. Globally, more than a million species are threatened with extinction. Furthermore, most of the world’s GDP depends on nature.

Colleagues, you will hear important calls for 30x30 — agreeing to conserve at least 30% of the earth’s land and water by 2030 for Indigenous conservation leadership and respect for Indigenous rights and knowledge, for recovery of species at risk and restoration of degraded ecosystems, for sustainable management of resource-based industries, for stronger consideration of biodiversity in decision-making, for greater accountability mechanisms and, of course, for allocation of sufficient financial resources.

Honourable colleagues, I encourage every one of us to pay close attention to the important events happening in Montreal, and to heed the earlier quoted speech by Mr. Mulroney where he concluded:

As difficult as the process may be . . . the work cannot be left to the next fellow. The stakes are too high, the risks to our planet and the human species too grave. We are all on the same side, determined to leave a better world and a more pristine environment to all succeeding generations.

Wela’lioq. Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. It is very regrettable that delays are plaguing the system, and that applicants who want to come to Canada to participate in and enrich our life together are being delayed. Any delay is not acceptable, and it is regrettable.

But as the minister said, and as I stated in my answer to you, Senator Plett, these applications are being managed in terms of the stages of their processing, and applicants will be notified when decisions are made.

[Translation]

Hon. René Cormier: Honourable senators, the presence of my niece, Diane Pinet, and her spouse, Sudhir Nagpal, in this place today, thanks to Senator Cotter — thank you, Senator Cotter — has great symbolic meaning for me, my family and my fellow Acadians.

Diane’s grandfather, Médard Léger, and my father, Livin Cormier, were staunch Acadians who seized every opportunity to remind us of the tragedy of the Deportation and its continuing impact on our lives.

The Great Upheaval took place in the 18th century and is an extremely tragic episode in our collective history that remains embedded in our hearts and souls. More than 10,000 Acadians were deported during the Great Upheaval between 1755 and 1763.

Today, on this Acadian Remembrance Day, we commemorate the countless victims of the Great Upheaval, especially those who perished on the Violet, Ruby and Duke William in December 1758. Torn from their land against their will and packed onto British vessels, more than 750 men, women and children drowned or succumbed to illness in the icy waters of the Atlantic Ocean.

These sombre events still live in our collective memory, but also give us the opportunity to move forward with determination into the future, because the Acadian people do not live in the past. They live in the modern world. The Acadian people live through their culture, their French language, their strong institutions and their engaged citizens.

Honourable colleagues, what about the political recognition of the Acadian people at the federal level? This people that landed on the shores of the Atlantic more than four centuries ago has no clear anchor in our constitutional and legislative texts outside a recognition of August 15 as the Acadian national holiday, July 28 as A Day of Commemoration of the Great Upheaval and this tragic day of December 13. Shockingly, the Acadian people have fewer levers of power than municipalities like my home town of Caraquet.

Honourable colleagues, given that the Acadian population of New Brunswick is currently experiencing major challenges with respect to the modernization of the provincial Official Languages Act because of political decisions, while here in Ottawa the modernization of the Official Languages Act has been long awaited, is it not time for this francophone Canadian people to finally be fully recognized in our democratic institutions and be equipped with legislative and policy instruments that would allow it to thrive?

The question remains and deserves our attention. That is what I pledge to do in this place with your support, senators, on this, the 13th day of December, 2022.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish you all a joyful and restful holiday season. I encourage us to continue our work to improve the lot of our nation’s most disadvantaged, and I invite us to be increasingly unified in order to ensure a healthy and safe future for the next generations on a healthy and still habitable planet.

Thank you.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. I don’t want to minimize the harm done to victims. The stark contrast of those two choices is not necessarily the only answer to your important question. The issue of proportionality, constitutionality even, of consecutive sentences is an important issue in our society, but also in our legal system.

The government believes it is important for all sentences to be proportional and constitutional when judges hand them down. The government will keep working to make sure our justice system is fair and upholds the Constitution.

[English]

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Gold.

Senator Gold, let me first start with the good news before I get to my question. Yesterday, The Globe and Mail reported that Minister Sajjan and the government will table amendments to the Criminal Code so that international aid organizations operating in Afghanistan will be exempt from criminal charges under the code. However, as much as I am relieved that the government is listening to all the voices that have been raised on this issue, it concerns me that such an amendment will likely take a few months, at least, before it is passed into Royal Assent. We know that in this chamber. We could be looking at April or May.

Senator Gold, it is winter in Afghanistan now. The people in Afghanistan are freezing now, they are hungry now, they are sick now, and they need our help now. They cannot wait for Canadian due process to receive urgent aid to save their lives. Will the Attorney General then undertake an interim measure to guarantee the non-prosecution of Canadian international aid organizations providing humanitarian aid in good faith until the amendment is given Royal Assent?

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Senator Gold, a pimp previously convicted of sexually exploiting an 18-year-old woman from 2007 to 2014 was re-arrested in Montreal last weekend for the same crimes committed against two victims from October to December.

His record shows that he was guilty of considerable violence towards his victims, causing them significant bodily harm. The purpose of Bill C-452, which received Royal Assent on June 18, 2015, was to combat human trafficking and set out significant consecutive sentences for offenders convicted of both human trafficking and sexual exploitation. This measure in Bill C-452 was repealed by your government, and this regularly leads to cases like the one I just mentioned, where pimps put their victims through hell and often get off with minor sentences.

Senator Gold, why is this measure, which should have been taken by order-in-council after Bill C-75 was adopted, still not in force in Canada?

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, it saddens me rise today to pay tribute to the Honourable Jim Carr, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, who passed away at his home yesterday. According to a statement released by his office, he was surrounded by family and friends.

Jim Carr began his career as a musician. He was an oboist and a trustee with the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra. He then worked in journalism as editorialist and columnist for the Winnipeg Free Press and CBC Radio.

[English]

He was part of a proud lineage of Jewish community leaders in Winnipeg, going back to his grandparents who immigrated from Ukraine in the early 1900s. He was a founding member of Winnipeg’s Arab-Jewish Dialogue.

He entered public life in 1988 when he was elected to represent Fort Rouge in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. Jim Carr was first elected federally in 2015, and again in 2019 and 2021. He held the posts of Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of International Trade Diversification and the government’s Special Representative for the Prairies.

He was last in Ottawa — in the other place — when his private member’s bill, Bill C-235, or the “Building a Green Prairie Economy Act,” passed third reading on December 7. He was given a standing ovation by all colleagues, even those who spoke against the bill.

In an interview Mr. Carr gave on that same day in relation to his bill, he stated:

I’m a Prairie guy. I love the Prairies. As I explained to some of my Bloc friends, it’s the same sense of identity and belonging to a geography and demography.

In his final speech before the third reading vote for Bill C-235, he said he was:

 . . . grateful for the chance to continue to contribute to my country. I said it in my speech yesterday, ’I love every square metre of this country in English, en francais, in Indigenous languages — I wish I spoke more of them . . . .

Jim Carr served his country well with his passion and love — every square metre of it.

[Translation]

I knew Jim Carr for many years, and I will remember his warmth, his intelligence, his insightfulness and his deep desire to make a difference in his community, his city, his province and his country. He always greeted me with a smile, which put a smile on my face too.

[English]

I send condolences to his wife Colleen, his family, his friends and his colleagues at this sad time.

[Translation]

Rest in peace, dear Jim.

[English]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Minister of National Defence’s Report to Parliament on Culture Change Reforms in response to former Supreme Court Justice Arbour’s recommendations.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government knows that the stigma and discrimination that continue to fuel homophobia, biphobia and transphobia must be eliminated. The government knows that online hate is real hate and that online violence is real violence. The government has committed to introducing a bill to fight harmful online content. I have been informed that the government has appointed a group of experts to assist it in its work.

The government intends to introduce this bill in a timely manner, as indicated in Minister Rodriguez’s mandate letter. In recent months, Minister Rodriguez and caucus members have held 13 round tables across the country, where they listened to the experiences and concerns of members of the 2SLGBTQI+ community. The minister also held a virtual round table on gender-based violence and discrimination. What the government heard was that the status quo is no longer acceptable and that platforms and social media must be held responsible for the content that they host. The government is continuing its work and remains steadfast in its commitment to introduce an online safety bill that will protect communities, equity groups, children and Canadians.

Hon. Diane Bellemare: My question is for the Government Representative and concerns employment insurance. I asked you this question a while ago, but we know that the government announced that there would be a reform proposal in the summer of 2022. It is now December 12 and there is still no reform proposal.

Do you have an idea of when we will see a substantive reform proposal for employment insurance? What process will the government use to collect its ideas and once again consult Canadians about specific proposals?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I am advised that in the past few years there were several technical exchanges between the CFIA and Ukrainian officials. To alleviate concerns expressed through industry engagement, the CFIA sought additional assurances regarding the food safety and animal health controls in Ukraine — and Ukrainian officials assured that their standards and controls are still at the same level as they were at the time of the audit, and that they can inspect and certify exports as per the certificate conditions. The CFIA finalized the export certificate only with effective assurances from Ukraine; the certificate contains rigorous food safety and animal health conditions.

The CFIA maintains a robust import inspection system to verify that imported products meet Canada’s federal regulations. New imports of any meat products from a newly approved establishment undergo full inspection for the first 10 shipments. Imports from Ukraine would also follow this process, and only compliant shipments will be released to the importer.

I am assured that the CFIA intends to hold poultry products imported from Ukraine to the same strict scrutiny as poultry products produced in Canada, or originating from other countries. I am advised that, to date, the CFIA has not received any information or evidence contrary to the assurances that have been provided by Ukraine, and Ukraine has continued to export poultry products to other countries, such as the members of the European Union.

Colleagues, all food sold in Canada, whether it’s domestic or imported, must comply with Canada’s federal regulations. Where non-compliance is identified, the CFIA takes immediate action — regardless of country of origin. Actions can range from mandating minor label corrections to product detentions, import entry refusals, suspension of foreign establishments, product recalls or cancellation of import licences.

Senator Gold: No, I’m not of that opinion. However, I will commit to finding out about the next steps of the process. I hope to find out more about the progress being made within the government and I will inform the Senate as soon as I have information.

[English]

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of December 8, 2022, moved:

That, on Tuesday, December 13, 2022, Wednesday, December 14, 2022, and Thursday, December 15, 2022, once the Orders of the Day have been called, the Senate only deal with Government Business and Commons Public Bills;

That, notwithstanding the order of September 21, 2022, the sitting of Wednesday, December 14, 2022, continue beyond 4 p.m., if necessary, and adjourn at midnight, unless earlier adjourned by motion; and

That, on Wednesday, December 14, 2022, Senate committees be authorized to meet for the purposes of considering government business, as well as the committee to which Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies, may have been referred, if that has happened, even though the Senate may then be sitting, with rule 12-18(1) being suspended in relation thereto.

She said: I defer to Honourable Senator Gold.

Senator McCallum: Senator Cotter, there are a lot of unresolved issues here for rights holders in this bill. How will the lived experiences of rights holders in the Prairie provinces be meaningfully addressed when you see Alberta and Saskatchewan, with Manitoba not far behind, ignoring the rights holders in the acts that they are bringing forward? How do you see that being addressed in this bill?

Senator Cotter: As you will see in the bill, Senator McCallum, there is a requirement of consultation and dialogue with Indigenous leadership in the Prairies. That’s a mandate imposed upon the minister who coordinates this work, and, I presume, the other ministers who will have a role here.

Maybe I could answer this with an example of what I think is an opportunity lost in the past, but may be there in the future.

When you think about economic opportunity — let me focus on that first — the opportunities for Indigenous people, but particularly First Nations, have been badly circumscribed by treaties, treaty lands and reserves. I think you and I are on the same wavelength there. In fact, a lot of those, if you look at the maps — Saskatchewan is, perhaps, the worst case — are not just being put on small, postage stamp-sized reserves, but also at the margins of a productive economy in the province, at least in the days when agriculture seemed like the story. So Indigenous people and communities never had a chance to get off the ground.

The place where those conversations have been the richest have been in relation to traditional territories. Not the postage stamp-sized reserves, but the areas where First Nations tended to live traditionally, which often covered vast areas.

One of the ways of trying to build an economy is to create opportunities for Indigenous people and communities to tap into those resources. It’s tricky if you’re a provincial government because usually tapping into those resources — which conventionally provincial governments have understood to be theirs or belonging to all the people — are a source of revenue to run the programs of the province. What you need is a partnership with the province and the Government of Canada because in the Constitution Indians and land reserved for Indians are the constitutional responsibility of Ottawa. It’s possible for the Government of Canada to support those developments, sometimes with support for equity, but also support for sharing the constraints or the opportunity costs for the provinces.

Ottawa has not always been open to that. I don’t know where this will go. I am hoping that imaginative ideas to unlock that potential that was taken away will occur. There are people a lot smarter than me coming up with these ideas, but I think there is a remarkable amount of potential to do that if the goodwill is there.

Provinces are vulnerable in some respects. Sometimes when oil revenues and others are really good, it looks pretty good, but provinces are vulnerable to having to give up large amounts of their tax base. But partnerships with the Government of Canada, which has a fiduciary obligation here and was the mechanism for taking away that opportunity, I think there is a duty that rests with Canada.

I hope that is at least partly helpful.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: May I ask a question of Senator Cotter?

Senator Cotter: Yes, of course.

Senator D. Patterson: Senator Cotter, I note your expressed hope in your remarks, in speaking to this bill today, that it be a legacy for the bill’s sponsor, the late Jim Carr — someone whom we all respect and who died, unfortunately, before the bill could be dealt with in the Senate, although he lived to see it receive third reading in the House of Commons.

In that connection, creating what I think you called a legacy for the late Prairie MP, I would like to ask you this: Is it your hope and intention, as I’ve heard widely discussed, in sponsoring this bill soon after it being received in the Senate that the bill be rushed through committee, including hearing witnesses and clause by clause, then third reading this week in the chamber, three days before we recess for our scheduled Christmas break?

Senator Cotter: Thank you, Senator Patterson. As you know, I’m not the architect in coordinating how things take place in this chamber.

With respect to the bill, I think there will be some good dialogue if we can get it to committee on an expeditious basis. The story of the bill is really not today or tomorrow or Thursday. The story will be, if we pass the bill, what the Government of Canada will do in the coming 12 months to create a pathway to a sustainable economy in the Prairies. That will be the time when the dialogue will be the richest, in my respectful view, and getting that under way soon is fairly important.

Senator D. Patterson: Thank you for that answer. Senator Cotter, you’ve spoken eloquently as a senator from Saskatchewan in favour of the bill. Can you explain why the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba expressed opposition to the bill in committee in the other place?

Senator Cotter: Thank you for the question. I’m not a mind reader, but let me say that one of the reasons I tried to talk a bit about the constructive constitutional role the provinces have played — and Saskatchewan has played a big role, though not the only, by far — is because there are some tensions around whether this can be a trap for provinces, perhaps. I don’t think it is. I think what we have faced in the country of late is reluctance to have meaningful dialogue to build the country together. That is certainly the feeling I have vis-à-vis some of the Prairie provinces, and I would include my own province in that.

There is no mechanism by which this bill can take away rights of provinces. In fact, that’s a principle of Canadian law. I’m hopeful that the provinces are reluctant because of the level of tension and rhetoric but not because there isn’t something to be gained here. I think the first few conversations will show that to be the case.

I understand the tension. My own province has reluctance in terms of its relationship with the Government of Canada. That is borne out in some of the evidence. However, in working together, the opportunities are so meaningful for us. Some of these areas — agriculture is a good example — are joint areas of jurisdiction. It seems to make sense that we would engage in dialogue to move that forward.

Senator Plett: Senator McCallum, thank you for that question. I’m not on the steering committee whatever committee it goes to. If it goes to the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, I’m not on the steering committee. If it goes to the Energy Committee, I’m not on the steering committee. The steering committee would need to determine who the witnesses are.

I think you will appreciate, Senator McCallum, I have here, for the last number of months, especially on Bill C-11 and some other bills, advocated for better consultation by the federal government with the Indigenous community. And so I continue to do that. How the committee will deal with that, I’m sorry, I can’t answer that until we get it to committee and see who the witnesses are, what lists they have, because I haven’t seen that.

Senator D. Patterson: Senator Plett, thank you for expressing your support that committees of the Senate are masters of their own destiny, which is a principle I fully support. It’s a hallmark of the work of the Senate.

You referred to the Prime Minister throwing his weight behind the bill. I would like to ask you, considering the separation of powers between the judiciary, the executive and the legislative branches — the fundamental underpinnings of our Westminster system — if you believe it’s appropriate for the timing of third reading of any bill, including this bill, be set by members of the executive branch, cabinet ministers or even the Prime Minister.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Thank you, Senator Cotter, for your comments. You’ve talked about the fact that you want to pursue a sustainable economy on the Prairies. I believe that we have a sustainable economy on the Prairies if it’s allowed to grow and reflect the local needs.

When we’re talking about some of the concerns and resistance to this bill, just this summer we heard the federal government talking about reducing fertilizer use by 30%. Farmers are, in fact, the best stewards of the land. It is in their own interests and best interests to make sure the land is preserved and used wisely.

You spoke about the fertilizer sector, the potash industry. When we hear comments like that from the federal government, it creates concern about whether the best interests of the Prairie provinces are being put forward by this government.

Senator Plett: Well, let me answer that in two ways. Number one, in the other place, we very regularly have time allocation, so it’s clearly being done. They do it all the time. They have done it for 150 years, Senator Patterson.

We have not had time allocation; we have had negotiations. This was done not by the executive branch but by five elected leaders in their respective caucuses. They decided the timelines here. In my opinion, they were unanimous in that decision.