Senator Plett: Let me say this: The decisions that were made were, of course, made while MP Carr was still alive. We knew how ill he was. This was something that Jim Carr wanted desperately to see happen before he passed away; that didn’t happen.

The Prime Minister put some of his strength behind that, which is one of the reasons. I don’t think it went unnoticed that the government reordered government business, and reordered a motion — the government is certainly behind this. I am not wanting to point fingers, but I think we’re all adults, and we can read between the lines as to what happened.

As far as the rush for the bill is concerned, let me tell you, Senator Moncion, I’m planning on voting against the bill — maybe on division. I don’t plan on supporting this bill the way I see it. I plan on asking questions at committee. I actually think four hours of committee study is sufficient — we have testimony from the other place that we can look at. It is certainly not unprecedented that the Senate deals with some very important legislation in four or six hours of committee study. It’s not an extensive bill. It’s not like Bill C-11. It’s a fairly simplistic bill, if you will, so I’m not sure that we would be serving any useful purpose by extending two committee meetings, if they are two hours each, to four. I’m not sure. When we get to committee, I guess we will be able to determine that.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID-19 response and other measures), and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill without amendment.

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Loffreda, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, for the second reading of Bill C-32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022.

Senator Dupuis: Senator Plett, I’m curious as to your understanding of this bill. If I understand correctly, the bill gives a federal minister the task of developing, with the help of other federal ministers, a framework to, and I quote subclause 3(1):

coordinate local cooperation and engagement in the implementation of federal programs across various sectors, with the objective of building a green economy in the Prairie provinces.

Is it your understanding that the bill only targets coordination and cooperation in implementing federal programs? We’re not talking about getting the approval of the provinces but about a task given to a federal minister in cooperation with other federal ministers to develop a framework to “coordinate local cooperation and engagement in the implementation of federal programs.” Is that your understanding of Bill C-235?

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that the Clerk of the Senate has received certificates from the Registrar General of Canada showing that the following persons, respectively, have been summoned to the Senate:

Sharon Burey

Rebecca Louise Patterson

Hon. Sharon Burey, of Windsor, Ontario, introduced between Hon. Marc Gold, P.C., and Hon. Rosemary Moodie.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I am compelled to rise again today to speak to Bill C-32, with specific reference to Division 3 of Part 4, that being the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act. My focus today will be on how the pre-study process commits an injustice to First Nations.

I have witnessed that with pre-studies we, as senators, cannot and do not attend to our matters as thoroughly as we should, and, therefore, are unable to apply proper sober second thought. Yet, as stated by other senators, pre-studies have become a normalized part of procedure, which creates problems.

As a senator who is First Nations, I am concerned about how this rush has breached my right of privilege. The interim report of the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament entitled A Matter of Privilege: A Discussion Paper on Canadian Parliamentary Privilege in the 21st century states that:

. . . in the late 20th and now in the 21st century discourse about parliamentary privilege centres on how privilege should function in a rights-based legal system exemplified here in Canada by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and where the public expects increased transparency and accountability for the decisions made by parliamentarians.

The report cites the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid:

Parliamentary privilege in the Canadian context is the sum of the privileges, immunities and powers enjoyed by the Senate, the House of Commons and provincial legislative assemblies, and by each member individually, without which they could not discharge their functions.

Colleagues, my work and function rests with Indigenous peoples across Canada, including grassroots, leadership and specific interest groups. Part of my function is to bring their voices, which have been largely and historically unheard in this arena, to the Senate floor and into our committees. It is extremely difficult to do this with pre-studies.

In the artificially fabricated rush to deal with Bill C-32 via multiple pre-studies, I have been unable to ensure that the interested groups I represent have been empowered to be heard on relevant matters that are of critical importance. This has resulted from an inability to procure timely translation of their documents into French and an inability for them to bring proposed amendments forward due to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel being stretched too thin. This issue, which is of absolutely no fault of the Law Clerk’s office, as they provide a crucial service, has previously affected my work in the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

Of great concern in such instances is that this issue has already impeded me from being able to best demonstrate to my colleagues, who are charged with making decisions that have direct bearing on First Nations’ lives and well-being, the impacts of the cumulative effects of resource extraction on Indigenous lives as well as on reconciliation efforts.

I’ll be interested to see how French translation will be handled with these new committee studies. Why are some bills allowed amendments and others are not? This is differential treatment.

Honourable senators, in this specific situation with Bill C-32, Grand Chief Garrison Settee of the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, or MKO, only heard about this bill very late in the process. He immediately presented a written submission to the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples and the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.

On December 1, 2022, MKO also requested to be invited to appear before the Indigenous Peoples Committee and the Energy Committee with regard to Part 4 of Division 3 of Bill C-32. To date, MKO has not received correspondence from either committee on the decision about their request to appear. More importantly, they have not been informed if or how their critical submission was taken into account.

Colleagues, MKO has championed thoughtful and determined efforts to uphold First Nations’ rights to enforce and adjudicate First Nations laws enacted pursuant to the First Nation Land Management Act and of bylaws enacted pursuant to the Indian Act. The MKO is underscoring that the intent behind Parliament establishing these law-making regimes further to the inherent right of self-government is to move towards establishing the third level of government in the nation-to-nation relationship that the federal government speaks about.

However, these law-making regimes in First Nations communities are currently being rendered inactive by the policies and inaction of the Government of Canada and of the RCMP. The result, Grand Chief Settee says, are “stranded regimes” of unenforceable First Nation laws and bylaws.

What are the results of these stranded regimes? MKO Grand Chief Settee wanted to share critical information with all honourable senators about the real-life experiences of MKO First Nations in their struggle to apply enforcement of the self‑governing law-making authorities of First Nations enacted through previous legislation, Bill C-49 in 1999 and Bill C-428 in 2015. Why do these uncertainties persist, despite legislation that was supposed to correct these injustices?

These real-life experiences impacted all communities that were then forced to scramble to best protect their people. This included lockdowns; social distancing; maximum number of patients in a dwelling, business or facility; trespass by prohibited persons during bans on non-resident travel; and health checks of persons entering the community — all protections afforded to other Canadians.

Honourable senators, one example that I previously read into the record recounts that the chief and council, First Nation safety officers and the pandemic response coordinator of the Misipawistik Cree Nation were abandoned by RCMP, who refused to enforce the COVID-19 emergency law enacted under the Misipawistik Land Code during the midst of a major outbreak of COVID-19 in the community.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada has gone on record to say that PPSC has no mandate to prosecute offences under First Nation land code laws under the First Nation Land Management Act.

The First Nations Land Management Act was enacted to recognize the inherent right of self-government and the nation‑to‑nation relationship by providing the option to replace parts of the Indian Act. Where is this recognition of self‑government when First Nations laws enacted further to a land code to protect the health and lives of First Nations during a declared global pandemic are then not recognized, respected, enforced and prosecuted? Requests for help in an emergency situation must be acted upon in a timely manner. Such requests cannot wait idly for the Attorney General’s blessing — something that could take literally months to occur.

Colleagues, I concur with the statements by Senator Patterson that our pre-study of Bill C-32 has served only to rush legislation. I appreciate the senator’s view that:

. . . 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.

I acknowledge and concur with the statements made by Senator Francis that:

. . . we are responsible for ensuring that the voices of historically marginalized, under-represented and oppressed individuals and groups are heard and acted on.

I also share the view of Senator Francis that:

I further hope that the members of the Committee on National Finance have an opportunity to hear directly from MKO and perhaps others in relation to the proposed Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act.

As requested by Senator Loffreda at the National Finance Committee, I, too, am looking forward to comments from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance on the concerns about Bill C-32 raised by MKO, to which the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance advised as being, “Duly noted.”

Honourable senators, the two amendments identified and submitted by MKO refer to two other acts of Parliament that are not included in Bill C-32 but directly impact the ability of enforceability by the First Nations land code laws. These two acts that impact the enforcement and prosecution of First Nations laws enacted pursuant to a land code include the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. R-10, and the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, S.C. 2006, c. 9, s. 121.

I believe that it was a serious oversight that these two statutes were not amended when this Framework Agreement was enacted in 1999. The problems with enforcement and prosecution were known in 1999 when Bill C-45 was first enacted, but they were thought of as being part of an ongoing, longer term discussion that never took place. The COVID-19 pandemic starkly illuminated the effects of the failure to enforce and prosecute.

Honourable senators, when I speak about the gaps created by legislation we pass, this is but one example. Because of this legislation, which is, once again, being rushed through this place, we are unable to do our fulsome research on the impact this legislation has on First Nations impacted by the bill. It also precludes us from identifying what recourse we have to best speak for the people for whom we have responsibilities. How can we practice reconciliation under such conditions?

It makes it very difficult to come up with solutions to help First Nations navigate the injustices created by siloed legislation. We must acknowledge the reality that we are seeing that pre‑studies only add to the silencing of First Nations’ voices. We must do better, and we must demand better. Kinanâskomitin. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Honourable senators, today I wish to add my voice to the debate on Bill C-32.

I was a little surprised by the debate we had on the Growth Fund. I may have been a little surprised, but not entirely. I do want to share some of my concerns about the Canada growth fund, but I would rather put it into context.

When I first looked at Bill C-32, I saw a number of very good measures in it and I thought it was very important that they pass. Consider, for example, the measures for students and for home ownership.

My interest for the Canada growth fund only grew after reading the bill, because I had looked at the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which was introduced in the U.S. last fall. That legislation provides for a set of measures aimed at reducing the impact of inflation on Americans, but also measures to stimulate American investment, promote the green transition and increase productivity while generating growth that will help reduce the deficit. The Inflation Reduction Act seeks to address a whole range of challenges.

At the same time, the legislation provides nearly $400 billion to companies in the form of tax credits and loans. I saw more tax credits than loans, but the Department of Finance saw more loans than tax credits. It depends how you interpret the American legislation.

In a nutshell, the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act contains a package of measures to stimulate business investment in the context of the transition to a greener economy. It is worth nearly $400 billion, not including the leverage effects that these measures are trying to achieve.

I understand that following the enactment of this U.S. legislation, the Government of Canada felt the need to take action, and that the bill before us includes a measure known as the Canada growth fund. When the minister appeared before the committee — I wasn’t there, but I read the testimony — it was obvious that she was making a case for the urgent creation of a fund of up to $15 billion, which had been announced. She put it in this bill in order to immediately start making potential investments in businesses.

It is true that this raises many questions because the bill is relatively succinct and provides for $2 billion in shares held by the government, which will look to the Canada Development Investment Corporation to potentially make investments and oversee the transition.

Many senators obviously asked questions in committee. Senator Marshall asked some very interesting questions, as did Senator Gignac, Senator Loffreda, Senator Galvez, Senator Moncion and Senator Cardozo, who were all interested in this fund and in the lack of information — let’s be honest — that was made available to us.

That said, we do learn a little more when we read the technical document for the Canada growth fund and the government’s objectives for this measure.

I will read some excerpts. You will see that my goal is not so much to defend this measure as to try to suggest some elements the government could use in the next version of the bill, where there will be more information on the institution being created. I think this is a good opportunity to tell the government to include these elements in the next version. That’s why I’m quoting from the fund’s objectives:

Because Canada’s economic prosperity has traditionally been built on natural resources and other emissions-intensive industries, a substantial transformation of our industrial base will be required to meet our climate targets and ensure long‑term prosperity for Canadians and the Canadian economy. Canada needs to build the technology, infrastructure, and businesses to reduce our carbon reliance, but this will not occur without rapidly increasing—and then sustaining—private investment in activities and sectors that will strengthen Canada’s position as a leading low-carbon economy.

It goes on:

The CGF is designed to invest in a manner that mitigates these risks that currently limit private investment, and unlock the domestic and foreign capital that Canada needs now.

Those are the objectives the fund seeks to achieve, in terms of the transition, on a rather broad scale.

The debate also made it clear that the situation is urgent. We also see in the newspapers that there are companies that started making investments, risky investments, that may decide to go invest in the United States without too many penalties being imposed. The fund therefore helps to somewhat defend the Canadian strategy and to say to companies that the government will also help them with technology and the more at-risk sectors, or at least that is how I see it.

The argument itself is not all that convincing, but the technical backgrounder lets us see the magnitude and complexity of the issue. In the technical backgrounder, we learn what risks the fund is trying to mitigate for businesses. We’re not talking about small risks. These are big risks.

First, there’s demand risk, which is associated with the uncertainty around end market pricing. There’s also policy risk, which is related to uncertainty around climate regulations, such as a carbon price or clean fuel standards. Then there’s regulatory risk, which is a big one that has to do with what the provinces can do with respect to project assessments and permitting approvals for construction projects. Finally, there’s execution risk from building first-of-a-kind commercialized products and companies.

All of this is lingo to say that our companies are facing major risks. In this sense, the government will use this fund to find financial instruments that will allow it to receive returns on its investments and mitigate all various forms of risks at the business level.

This is what the government wants to do, but for the moment there’s not much in the legislation that describes this measure, except for the information in the technical document.

In my opinion, the government should have introduced targets in the bill. It would have been quite simple to propose concrete greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Those targets, as well as the elements and criteria to define them, are also found in the technical document, on the last page. There are several of them, I won’t read them all, but the document could have stated that the first objective is to quickly and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to help reach Canada’s climate targets.

The bill should also include potential performance metrics, such as annual greenhouse gas emissions reductions through the fund’s investment in technology improvement projects and the fund’s investment in businesses.

That said, I think we should give it the benefit of the doubt and wait for the next government bill. We have to tell the government that we want to see three things in its bill: results-based objectives, targets to achieve concrete results, and much broader governance than what was planned and described in committee.

In committee, the department mentioned that it had provided for governance by experts, finance experts who will be able to adopt the best instruments to lower investment risks for companies. Unfortunately, I’m not sure whether this is enough.

We heard some very interesting ideas from witnesses about the fund’s governance. I’m thinking of Gil McGowan, the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour. He is a trade unionist who came to present elements of a report produced by the Alberta Federation of Labour entitled Skate to where the puck is going. In its report, the Alberta Federation of Labour provides for transition elements and an industrial strategy for Alberta. Mr. McGowan told the committee that the Canada growth fund lacks vision, and that the government should have one. Interestingly enough, he suggested that the Canada growth fund should be managed in a bicameral structure. I will read a excerpt of what he said in English, because I think it is clearer:

[English]

I’ve shared the report with the clerk, so I would encourage you to take a look at the seven pathways we identified. The one thing about the growth fund that I want to emphasize and I mentioned it in passing in my opening remarks has to do with governance. We’re suggesting that instead of simply creating an arm’s-length organization that is run by investment managers that we have a bicameral structure where we have a stakeholder board on the top that will help provide direction and then an operational board that would handle investments.

We actually have a bicameral structure like that for our big pension plans in Alberta. I acted of the chair of what we call the sponsor board to set general policy and then we had an operations board.

[Translation]

What we’re suggesting to the government is that, in the next version of the bill, which should be arriving soon, there should be a governance structure of this nature to ensure that the projects that are chosen will facilitate a more macroeconomic transition rather than small, specialized projects.

Something else occurred to me when I compared the present situation to the experience in Quebec. Indeed, Quebec had a green fund. There was legislation, that has since been changed, there was a somewhat bicameral structure and results-based objectives. However, it takes time before there is any clarity in all this because it is a relatively complex issue. In my opinion, there’s something missing in Canada to be able to make this highly necessary transition. We have the money, we know what we need to do, but there is no cooperation between the key economic players. Every government wants to do things in accordance with what the government in place decides.

In my opinion, the macroeconomic problem would require the creation not just of a fund, but of a Canadian prosperity council. Let’s institutionalize a council of the provinces, the federal government, as well as representatives from the economy, namely businesses and the workforce.

It is a colossal challenge. If we created this type of council, we could give it the necessary vision to spend the money we have all around. There’s money in Quebec; we’re going to get some. This is what I hope for from the government: results-based objectives, a bicameral governance and a prosperity council.

Thank you very much.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Loffreda, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, that the bill be read a second time. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that each of the honourable senators named above had made and subscribed the Declaration of Qualification required by the Constitution Act, 1867, in the presence of the Clerk of the Senate, the Commissioner appointed to receive and witness the said declaration.

[English]

Senator Plett: Well, without question, I would like to tell the government what to do — they just aren’t listening.

Senator Bovey, you may well be right; I don’t think this is a national program when you pick three provinces and title the act “An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.” A national program would be an act respecting a green economy in Canada. So why don’t we do that? Then it should be a federal project.

They are asking to come in and dialogue with Manitobans, Saskatchewanians and Albertans in helping us develop a green economy when natural gas in Alberta, for example — and Saskatchewan has the greenest development of potash in the entire world. This was not done by the federal government. This was done by the Province of Saskatchewan.

Senator Plett: Certainly.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Government leader, I have frequently risen through the years to ask you, and your predecessor, regarding Minister Mélanie Joly’s electoral commitments in a number of elections and, actually, even in writing. She has committed in writing and promised the Canadian-Armenian community — on many occasions — to open up an embassy in Armenia. Despite the fact that your predecessor Senator Harder once said to me that electoral promises are not the basis upon which a government determines where they open up an embassy, in September, with great fanfare, we saw Prime Minister Trudeau, with great enthusiasm, announce to the community that he would be opening up an embassy in Armenia. Yet, just a couple of weeks ago, in the middle of the night, with a lot less fanfare and a lot less enthusiasm, the department announced that it won’t be an ambassador, and it won’t be an embassy; it will be a consul. There is a big difference.

Government leader, can you explain to us why is it that Prime Minister Trudeau continues to backtrack on promises made to the Canadian-Armenian community?

Senator Housakos: I appreciate that, government leader. I want to remind this chamber that in September when the Prime Minister made the announcement, it was on the day commemorating Armenia’s independence, and celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of diplomatic relations between Canada and Armenia. The Prime Minister, again with great fanfare, talked about how we need to strengthen people-to-people relationships, diplomatic relationships, economic relationships and so on and so forth between our two countries. But, again, we see that, when it counts, the Prime Minister says one thing and does another.

We see a pattern with this Trudeau government where their priority seems to be in making grand announcements and running victory laps — rather than taking action and getting things done. My question is very simple: Can we get a commitment from the government that they will honour their ongoing electoral promise and open up an embassy — and stop putting on a show and take action?

Senator Gold: Thank you for asking that question, but I’ve answered it many times. I’ve listed the historic levels of investment that this government has made in augmenting our capacity in the North, whether it’s with regard to fighter jets, helicopters or fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft. As I recall — and it seems some months ago — I also provided this chamber with a historical overview of the increases in defence spending that this government has put into place as compared to previous governments.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, on behalf of my colleagues in the Government Representative Office, I would like to welcome our newest colleague to the Red Chamber, Senator Sharon Burey.

Senator Burey has been a practising pediatrician in the Windsor region for more than 20 years. She has also provided care for the smallest patients in northern Ontario. Her list of accomplishments is a long one. She attended the University of Western Ontario, received a Bachelor of Science in Biology, got her medical degree from Dalhousie University and completed a residency in pediatrics at the IWK hospital in Halifax. She served as the president of the Pediatricians Alliance of Ontario. She is a member of the Health Policy Committee of the Ontario Medical Association, or OMA, a former pediatrics delegate to the OMA Council and a former committee member of the OMA Outreach to Women Physicians Committee. She is also an adjunct professor of pediatrics at Western University.

[Translation]

When Senator Burey was appointed, the Windsor Star published an article proudly announcing that a Windsorite had been appointed to the Senate of Canada for the first time in 40 years. What is even more remarkable is that she is the first woman and the first person of colour from Windsor to hold such a position.

Senator Burey, your hometown is very proud of you.

[English]

Senator Burey’s impressive professional and personal experience, her work in the health care field and her perspectives and passion on issues relating to diversity and inclusion are welcome additions to this chamber.

Senator Burey, I hope you’re looking forward to your time here, because we are certainly looking forward to your input and your wisdom as we deliberate, review and study the issues most affecting Canadians.

Senator Gold: Honourable senators, I rise again today on behalf of the Government Representative Office, this time to welcome Senator Rebecca Patterson to our midst.

Senator Patterson comes to us after a stellar career in the Canadian Armed Forces. As someone who holds a diploma in nursing from Niagara College Canada and a Bachelor of Science in Nursing — summa cum laude — from the University of Ottawa, she is the first person with a military nursing background to ever lead at the rank of Flag (General) Officer as Rear‑Admiral. She is a Canadian Armed Forces leader and Defence Champion for Women and, just prior to joining us, she served as Director General, Culture Change, Chief Professional Conduct and Culture, where she coordinated the whole-of-defence policy approach to support Canada’s National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security.

[Translation]

She has also had international experience on military deployments to the Persian Gulf, Somalia, and Afghanistan.

[English]

Senator Patterson was named a Global News Edmonton Woman of Vision, was granted the Ontario Premier’s Award for excellence in health sciences for Ontario college graduates, received recognition for “Breaking Down the Barricades” in the highlights of the Esprit de Corps magazine and was presented with a Niagara College distinguished alumni award.

[Translation]

The accomplishment that she is most proud of is being the founder and director of Soldiers Helping Soldiers, a volunteer‑based organization that connects veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness with service providers who can help them.

[English]

We are lucky to be welcoming to our Senate ranks someone whose life experiences will help inform us on the timely issues that are so relevant to our studies and deliberations.

Welcome, Senator Patterson.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, I am also pleased to rise today to welcome two new colleagues, the Honourable Senator Sharon Burey and the Honourable Senator Rebecca Patterson.

[English]

Honourable Senator Sharon Burey, today in the Senate you are officially opening a new chapter of your life, and as this chapter is beginning, I wish to express how eager all members of the Independent Senators Group are to work with you.

Colleagues, Senator Burey has demonstrated tremendous leadership and earned so much respect in the field of children’s health. Her work as a health advocate has been recognized with numerous honours. She has been bestowed with the Ontario Chapter Excellence Award and a Special Achievement Award from the American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as an Excellence in Health Care Award from the North American Black Historical Museum & Cultural Centre. She was notably recognized for her outstanding service to the Council For The Prevention Of Child Abuse in Windsor-Essex County, where she was the co-chairperson of the medical issues committee. Despite all those experiences and awards, Senator Burey has proven her continuous pursuit of professional development, and she has recently completed a Physician Business Leadership Program at York University.

Honourable Senator Burey, even though you were appointed 23 days ago, you have been dedicated to improving the well‑being of Canadians from a very young age when you decided to pursue your medical studies and became a renowned, engaged and seasoned pediatrician.

At one of the conferences of the Ontario Medical Association related to the impact of COVID-19 on mental health, which took place in August 2021 and at which you presided, you stated, “Children and adolescents make up roughly 20% of our population, but they are really 100% of our future.” As we all face the challenge of leaving future generations with a world worth living in, your credentials give me high hopes that we will do a much better job with the contributions and leadership of colleagues like you.

Colleagues, we are privileged to have with us here the first woman of colour to ever hold the position of President of the Pediatricians Alliance of Ontario. Senator Burey, it is now no secret that you know how to break a glass ceiling, and today we are pleased to have among us another senator to inspire future generations to dream big.

We wish you every success.

Senator Saint-Germain Respect: That is what I feel when I think about the career of our new colleague Senator Rebecca Patterson. Her career culminated in her rise to the high office of Rear-Admiral of the Canadian Armed Forces — an office that, you will agree, is grounded in excellence.

[English]

Your military career, Senator Patterson, is nothing short of remarkable. I won’t enumerate the long list of your important leadership positions with the military, but I will note that you devoted your life to the service and protection of others, and for that, we are very grateful.

A nursing practitioner by training, you have risen through the ranks in the Armed Forces by your talent, hard work and natural leadership. You were deployed in key areas at crucial moments for Canada. In 1991, you served at a Canadian field hospital in Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf conflict. You also supported the efforts of the Canadian Airborne Regiment in 1993 in Somalia. More recently, you assisted the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police with re-establishing their medical education and training system — an impressive list of achievements, to say the least.

For your outstanding service, you were inducted as an Officer of the Order of Military Merit and received the Governor General’s Meritorious Service medal, just two of the many awards you have earned. Your strong military experience guarantees an added value as well as a unique perspective for our work here at the Senate. It will be highly useful when tackling contemporary issues and forming public policy.

Immediately before your appointment, you served as Director General, Culture Change, Chief Professional Conduct and Culture. In this role, you led and supported efforts to change the culture in the Canadian Armed Forces and bring it closer to a future where it is free of sexual harassment and other harmful behaviours that largely target women and vulnerable people. The Canadian Armed Forces trusted you — and rightly so — with this vital role for their credibility. I am glad that, from now on, such a trusted figure as yours will be associated with the Senate of Canada in the minds of Canadians.

As you may know, in the Senate of Canada, we have also taken steps toward instilling a culture of excellence. We know that you will contribute to keeping us on the right path. Senator Patterson, in my name as well as in the name of every single senator in the Independent Senators Group, I congratulate you on your merit and wish you every success during your tenure in the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, on behalf of the Progressive Senate Group, I’m pleased to once again join other leaders in what feels like a now regular and indeed very positive occurrence. Today, we have another two senators taking their places in this chamber, and I would like to extend the same warm greetings to them as I have to those who came before.

With your arrival, Senator Burey, we are gaining a champion for equality and justice, particularly for those in marginalized communities. I dare say that will make for a seamless transition to working in the Senate, although you’ll be surrounded by fewer children in this place.

As has been noted, you were the first woman of colour to become president of the Pediatricians Alliance of Ontario. In this place, it’s been over 40 years since we have had a senator representing your city of Windsor, and you are the first woman — and the first person of colour — to fill that role. We all know that being able to see oneself reflected in particular positions can have a tremendous impact, and I know that so many people — and especially children — will benefit from seeing you take your place in this chamber.

Being from Nova Scotia, I was very pleased that you were a graduate of Dalhousie University and that you worked at the IWK Health Centre.

Senator Patterson, with your arrival, we are gaining a champion for women — a Defence Champion for Women, to be more precise. As we’ve heard, you were the first person with a military nursing background to lead at the rank of Flag (General) Officer. Your work has taken on many different directions, but always in the service of others. One of your most recent efforts — helping seniors in long-term care facilities during the pandemic — is particularly commendable.

In a committee in the other place, you said that “Establishing a culture of belonging, dignity and justice will help unite us.” You were, of course, speaking about the Canadian Armed Forces and the work you’ve done there, but I think it’s a fitting statement for many places, including our own chamber. We work best when we are working under the right conditions, and I’m pleased to have more new faces to help us with that task here.

By the way, my brother-in-law, Dennis Hearn, who worked with you in the military, said that I would love working with you because we both have similar personalities. So if you see me staring at you or listening intently, I’ll be checking out your personality.

Senators, through your respective careers to date, you have both faced tremendous challenges, and you have both tackled them admirably. With this new chapter in your lives, I am certain that you will equally rise to the occasion.

On behalf of the Progressive Senate Group, it is my pleasure to officially welcome you both to the Senate of Canada. We look forward to working with you both, Senator Burey and Senator Patterson.