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

(On motion of Senator Gagné, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

Hon. Rebecca L. Patterson, of Ottawa, Ontario, introduced between Hon. Marc Gold, P.C., and Hon. Bev Busson.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, there have been consultations and there is an agreement to allow a photographer in the Senate Chamber to photograph the introduction of new senators.

Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. René Cormier: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, according to a recent report by MediaSmarts, almost half of Canadian youth see racist or sexist content online at least once a week, and 2SLGBTQI+ youth are more likely to encounter harmful content online.

Given that, in its 2SLGBTQI+ action plan, the Government of Canada committed to introducing legislation to combat serious forms of harmful online content, I’d like to know how youth members of 2SLGBTQI+ communities are being consulted as this bill is being drafted. Also, when will the bill be introduced?

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Senator Plett, as a Manitoban, may I ask my fellow Manitoban a question along the lines of Senator Dupuis’s question?

In trying to achieve a green economy, the ultimate goal, I believe, is for the future of the planet. Yes, this bill asks my region, the West, and gives the minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada a mandate and framework to consult — not tell — the provincial First Nations, Métis and municipal governments, as well as businesses and civil society, to prepare for the changes we need in order to meet our net-zero emissions by 2050. If that’s the case and our provinces are ahead of others, isn’t there a responsibility to share that so we can come up with a national framework?

I do happen to believe it’s a laudable goal for the future of the West. I’d like to know if you agree with me on that laudable goal, and that consultation and developing a framework isn’t necessarily about the federal government telling the regions what to do; maybe it’s about the regions informing the federal government what to do.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

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

[Translation]

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

Senator McCallum: I want to go back to your statement about the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement that was done unilaterally without First Nations input. That is now a huge conversation and area of concern for First Nations, and they are going to be bringing it forward. Underneath that lies the Doctrine of Discovery and how it plays into the Constitution.

Is there any way that this portion of the bill could be sent to the Indigenous Peoples Committee to study? That is huge, and I think we need to settle that before you go any further.

Senator Cotter: Ever so briefly, I think the point you make is a matter of legitimate concern, but the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement is a recent Prairie-Alberta-Saskatchewan event that actually creates the same question across the country: Who are the owners of subsurface resources, not just in Alberta and Saskatchewan but more broadly across the country? I think that question, if it were to be studied, would need to be studied on a national basis, and this bill isn’t the right fit for it, with the greatest of respect.

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a “no.” I apologize, Senator Marshall. You will be given the balance of your time when we resume at 8 p.m. The sitting is suspended until 8 p.m.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

[Translation]

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

(2000)

The Hon. the Speaker having informed the Senate that there were senators without waiting to be introduced:

The following honourable senators were introduced; presented His Majesty’s writ of summons; took the oath prescribed by law, which was administered by the Clerk of the Senate; and were seated:

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, we were all indeed saddened to learn about the death of the Honourable James Carr, Member of Parliament for Winnipeg South Centre, who passed away yesterday.

I know senators join me in expressing condolences to his family, friends and colleagues. I would now ask you to rise and join me in a minute of silence for our deceased fellow parliamentarian.

(Honourable senators then stood in silent tribute.)

Senator McCallum: Will the senator take another question?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Well, the answer to your question is “yes,” but allow me to elaborate. The government is committed to providing efficient and effective processing of applications to support the successful integration of newcomers to Canada.

I’m advised that applicants can be assured that the 60,000 applications currently in the queue for review are, in fact, being processed. I understand that the codes, which were the subject of your question, are used to differentiate the various stages in the application flow and review. These are means of inventory management, and clients can still expect to be contacted once a decision has been made.

Hon. René Cormier: Senator Gold, thank you for that answer. Parliamentarians from both chambers joined forces last week to form the first ever non-partisan 2SLGBTQI+ caucus in Canada, the Canadian Pride Caucus. The main goals of the caucus include engaging in a dialogue with civil society organizations, working in a non-partisan manner to raise awareness of 2SLGBTQI+ issues among Canadian parliamentarians, and acting as an interlocutor in parliamentary diplomacy on 2SLGBTQI+ rights.

As co-chair of the Canadian Pride Caucus, I would like to know the following. How does the Canadian government welcome the creation of this caucus, and how does it plan to work with us?

Senator Marshall: I cannot agree with you, Senator Loffreda, because the corporation hasn’t been created. There is no corporation there. The bill says, “Give the minister $2 billion so she can buy shares in a subsidiary corporation.” So I said, “Oh, what’s the name of the corporation so I can look it up?” And somebody says, “Oh, don’t worry, it hasn’t been created yet.” There is nothing in the legislation, and for you to look and say, “Oh, we have a backgrounder with information, oh, yes” — listen, I want to see it in the legislation. That’s the right way to do it.

Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Leader, we’ve learned in the last few hours, following the release of a report by the Commissioner of Official Languages, that nearly half of the commissioner’s recommendations made in response to the shortcomings identified in his reports and investigations have been ignored by federal institutions.

The commissioner listed the organizations, institutions, departments and agencies in order of least to most effective. Air Canada is ranked seventh.

Which department is the worst performer in terms of complying with the commissioner’s recommendations?

Leader, the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister’s Office, has the worst record. It is the department that hasn’t followed any of the recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Leader, I imagine that you’re familiar with the expression “all talk, no action.” Do you think it applies to the Prime Minister of Canada?

Senator Carignan: Leader, after the President and CEO of Air Canada’s English-language speech, the Minister of Official Languages, Ginette Petitpas Taylor, said the following, and I quote:

I acknowledge his apology, but it must be followed up with concrete action to demonstrate that he takes his obligations seriously . . . . It is a question of respect.

The Prime Minister and the Privy Council haven’t taken any concrete action after the Commissioner of Official Languages made his recommendations. Does this mean that they don’t take their obligations seriously and that they don’t respect the Official Languages Act and Canada’s francophones?

Senator Marshall: Thank you very much. Your interpretation of the bill is correct. It allows for the $2 billion that is specifically carved out. That is a statutory payment. There is also a provision that the minister can also requisition money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and there is no limit on that at all. We have no idea as to how much money is going to be channelled into that fund once it’s created.