Hon. Leo Housakos: My question is for the government leader, and it is regarding an area that the Liberal Trudeau government excels in: breaking the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. This week, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner reported to the Parliament that Minister Mary Ng breached the code on two occasions: She gave out two contracts to a Liberal Party insider and a personal friend — tens of thousands of dollars — without any due process.

I know, for independent Senate colleagues who have not been in Parliament that long, there is a general sense in the new Trudeau government that this is acceptable, but in the Westminster parliamentary system, the tradition up to 2015 was that a minister who behaved in an egregious fashion and broke the ethics code was actually held accountable. That’s a foreign idea here with the Trudeau government.

So, the question is simple, government leader: When will Prime Minister Trudeau fire Minister Ng for breaking the ethics code?

Hon. Tony Loffreda moved third 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.

He said: Honourable senators, I’m honoured once again to speak to the government’s proposed legislation that seeks to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement, as well as certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament last spring.

Two days ago, at second reading, I spoke at length on some of the main measures contained in Bill C-32. Today, at third reading, I will focus my remarks on two issues that raised some concerns in committee and on which I said I would further elaborate.

The first issue is subparagraph (g) under “Summary,” which says Part 1 will implement additional reporting requirements for trusts, and the issue of solicitor-client privilege. The second issue is found in Division 3 of Part 4, which focuses on the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act.

Regarding Part 1, Summary, subparagraph (g) and trusts — as I explained on Tuesday, with Bill C- 32, the government hopes to improve the collection of beneficial ownership information with respect to trusts by proposing to require that trusts provide additional information on an annual basis to the Canada Revenue Agency.

Currently, a trust that does not earn income or make distributions in a year is generally not required to file an annual T3 return of income. This will now change with Bill C-32.

In addition, where a trust is required to file a return of income, the trust would be required to report the identity of all trustees, beneficiaries and settlors of the trust, as well as the identity of each person who has the ability to exert control over trustee decisions regarding the appointment of income or capital of the trust.

The government is proposing these amendments to help CRA acquire sufficient information to determine taxpayers’ tax liabilities and to effectively counter aggressive tax avoidance as well as tax evasion, money laundering and other criminal activities.

Collection of this information would also be consistent with Canada’s international obligation in relation to transparency and beneficial ownership. This point was reiterated by Minister Freeland when she appeared before our committee a week ago today. She said:

 . . . from my perspective, doing a much better job than Canada has done hitherto to on beneficial ownership is really important. That is an important part of tax fairness. It is an important part of Canada coming up to the standard of our international peers. I am a big champion of the work that we are doing on beneficial ownership.

It is also worth pointing out that general trust accounts of lawyers are exempt from these reporting requirements.

The rules also expressly provide that the new reporting requirements do not require the disclosure of information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege. This blanket exclusion was added to the legislation and can be found at line 3 on page 59 of Bill C-32.

The provision reads as follows:

For greater certainty, subsections (1.1) to (1.3) do not require the disclosure of information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The Department of Finance told us that this blanket exemption was added in response to concerns raised by the Canadian Bar Association — the CBA — and other lawyers. Indeed, both the Canadian Bar Association and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada have expressed concerns regarding the constitutionality of this new reporting requirement. The CBA argues that the amendments “. . . would not withstand constitutional scrutiny given the jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada.” The CBA also told us that the proposed reporting obligations for client-specific trust accounts are inconsistent with section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As for the federation, it believes that:

. . . this blanket provision is ambiguous and not sufficient to prevent the likely breaches of the privilege as legal professionals attempt to comply with the obligation to report information on separate trust accounts. . . .

In its Charter statement, the Minister of Justice acknowledged that this new requirement to provide information about trusts “. . . potentially engages section 8 of the Charter.” However, the statement goes on to say that:

. . . the Minister has not identified any potential effects that could constitute an unreasonable interference with privacy as protected by section 8 of the Charter.

I obviously cannot speak on behalf of the minister or the government, but I would simply propose that the blanket exemption that addresses solicitor-client privilege ensures this privilege is upheld, and that no obligation is being put on lawyers to undermine their compliance with duty to their clients.

Minister Freeland told us that she is very confident that the provision is constitutional and that her department went over this issue in a lot of detail. They have consulted and they feel that they have struck the right balance.

In response to my question, she could not have been any clearer, when she said, “We are confident that there is no requirement to disclose solicitor-client privileged information under this measure.”

Last week, our National Finance Committee was lucky to have officials from the Department of Finance reappear before us to answer any outstanding questions. I asked Ms. Lindsay Gwyer, Director General of Legislation, to provide us with additional information on the matter. She stressed that the government consulted widely and explained that the broad exemption for solicitor-client privilege was included to take into account the Supreme Court decision that interpreted solicitor-client privilege broadly.

The exemption is in direct response to the court’s decision and stakeholder interventions to ensure that these rules will allow lawyers to not report any information that is under a broad interpretation determined to be solicitor-client privilege, as Ms. Gwyer stressed:

. . . the exceptions that we do have in the regulations are intended to find that appropriate balance between completely exempting any trust account that any lawyer could ever set up and providing targeted exceptions and clarifying that solicitor-client information does not need to be provided.

Colleagues, I am not a lawyer, but I have consulted with some of our Senate colleagues who are lawyers, and they agree with the government’s position on the matter.

In the end, I would simply add that I agree that solicitor-client privilege is essential to the proper administration of justice in our country. The government agrees, and it feels it struck the right balance in protecting this privilege with the blanket exemption provided in the bill.

I would now like to shift attention to Division 3, Part 4 of the bill that deals with the First Nations Land Management Act. Our colleagues Senators McCallum, Francis and Patterson spoke on this issue already. I will not repeat everything that they have said and the chronology of events, but allow me to provide you with some additional context on the matter.

As honourable senators know, for most First Nations, reserve lands are managed by Canada according to the Indian Act. The Framework Agreement on First Nations Land Management enables participating First Nations to enact and administer their own land codes and move out from under the application of the land-related sections of the Indian Act. This framework agreement was ratified in legislation in 1999. Today, nearly 25 years later, the government is proposing new legislation to ensure that the framework agreement becomes the central authority through which First Nations govern their lands. Some confusion and inconsistencies exist in the current act that necessitated some cleaning up. Bill C-32 is doing just that and making the framework agreement the overarching or controlling document where one needs to look for the law on this subject.

The proposed new legislation found on pages 144 to 155 in Bill C-32 was co-developed with the Lands Advisory Board, the Indigenous organizations that represent First Nations who are signatories to the framework agreements.

The government contends that replacing the First Nations Land Management Act would modernize the First Nations land management process to better align legislation with the needs and expectations of signatory First Nations and to recognize the First Nations-led nature of First Nation land management.

As I mentioned on Tuesday, the proposed legislation is supported by the 194 First Nations across Canada, most of which are in the development process or operational under the act.

As ably summarized by Ms. Roxanne Gravelle from Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada before our committee, the new bill:

. . . will be shorter, simpler and will point to the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management as the central authority under which First Nations transition away from the Indian Act for 44 land-related provisions. . . .

It is really shortening the process and reducing bureaucracy involved in making changes to this framework as First Nations communicate them and advocate for them through the Lands Advisory Board. . . .

Now I will take a brief moment to address concerns expressed by MKO — the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak — which generated much interest among us. Senator Patterson reminded us that the brief that senators received from MKO included strong language about the gaps in enforcement of bylaws created using the authorities granted to First Nations communities by the First Nations Land Management Act, and that 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.

Last week, Ms. Gravelle explained to our committee when they started working on the drafting of the bill, their objectives were to simplify the legislation and to reinstate “. . . the framework agreement as the central authority under which First Nations govern their lands.”

She clearly said that they did not have policy authority to go beyond the scope of the existing legislation. The government acknowledges the concerns raised by MKO over enforcement and recognizes there are some challenges. It is Ms. Gravelle’s understanding that the Lands Advisory Board is engaging the signatory First Nations on enforcement specifically. In fact, she even suggested that Bill C-32 will give the framework agreement force of law and it will allow the Lands Advisory Board the ability to actually implement the solutions or changes a lot more easily instead of coming forward with complex legislative changes.

In my view, MKO has legitimate concerns that deserve greater attention, and I would respectfully suggest that parliamentarians may not, at this late hour, be best equipped to advance MKO’s demands without fulsome debate. Additionally, the amendments proposed by MKO to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Director of Public Prosecutions Act may be a bit out of scope at this time, considering the fact that these two acts are not even addressed in Bill C-32. They are valid issues, but perhaps they would be best addressed through other channels.

As I mentioned on Tuesday, in a letter dated December 9, Chief Robert Louie, Chair of the Lands Advisory Board, confirms that they are generally supportive of MKO’s position and efforts on First Nation law enforcement, but they are not able to support any amendment to the act at this time for the following reasons:

We do not have the approval of the signatories to the Framework Agreements to make any changes to the FAFNLMA wording . . . [and] Amendments to the Act would create an inconsistency with the guiding Framework Agreement document, which is to say there is nothing in the Agreement now that addresses or refers to the RCMP or Public Prosecutions legislation.

Chief Louie adds that the board hopes to continue to support and work with MKO, and is:

. . . proposing to continue its joint work on enforcement with Provinces and the Federal government and to continue to obtain its direction from signatory First Nations regarding any appropriate changes to the Framework Agreement.

Chief Louie writes — and I agree — that:

. . . granting amendments to the [Act] before seeking First Nation approval is counterproductive to the mutual respect and nation to nation relationship we have worked so hard to build and maintain since the signing of the Framework Agreement in 1996.

To summarize, I will offer two final points. First, the changes proposed in Bill C-32 were co-developed and unanimously supported by all signatories of the First Nations Land Management Act. This is what they want. Second, the amendments that MKO are calling for are legitimate and deserve greater attention, but I would advance that Bill C-32 is not the way to go about seeking these changes. In fact, some might even argue that it would go against advancing reconciliation and supporting First Nation self-determination.

In conclusion, honourable senators, I hope the explanations I have provided on these two matters will give you confidence in voting in favour of Bill C-32. By no means am I suggesting that we disregard the concerns raised with respect to the Land Management Act or the reporting requirements for trusts. Rather, I think these are valid concerns that should be closely monitored, but I feel that the government has done its due diligence and I am happy to vote in favour of the passage of this bill.

Before I wrap up, I want to thank, once again, our colleagues on the National Finance Committee for all their hard work in properly reviewing the bill and, ultimately, in adopting it without amendments yesterday morning. Thank you.

A big thank you to all the witnesses who appeared before our committee, too. I was particularly impressed with our government officials. On behalf of all Canadians, I thank them for everything they do. It’s often thankless work, but I certainly appreciate it when they come before our committees and answer tough questions from senators.

I also wish to extend my gratitude to the administrative staff associated with our committee, including our clerk, Mireille Aubé , and Tracy Amendola, her assistant. We appreciate all you do in the background.

Finally, I will take this opportunity afforded to me to wish you all a very happy holiday season, and I hope you will all enjoy some good quality time with family and friends.

Colleagues, I thank you for your attention and I hope we can adopt this bill today. Thank you.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson: Honourable senators, I won’t speak for long. I just want to make two quick points.

First, I want to thank Senator McCallum for giving voice to the views of her constituents with passion and unwavering dedication to Indigenous Manitobans. Second, I want to remind honourable senators that the part of Bill C-32 that deals with First Nations land management is a really good thing. It’s a bright light in the evolving relationship between Canada and First Nations.

Since the 1990s, 194 First Nations have signed on to an agreement with the government to opt out of the Indian Act’s land management provisions and take back control of their territory. For over 20 years, there have been inconsistencies between the agreement and the federal act intended to implement it.

In fact, Senator Christmas helped us to understand that at our Indigenous Peoples Committee meetings.

Bill C-32 will finally clear up those inconsistencies and give the agreement full force of law.

The co-development process leading up to Bill C-32 was extensive and exemplary. As we heard at the Indigenous Peoples Committee from the Lands Advisory Board, which represents the 194 signatory nations, the process unfolded over many months. It was Indigenous-led. This bill, as currently drafted, reflects the approach that those 194 First Nations collectively endorsed.

Our study of Bill C-32 at the Indigenous Peoples Committee was expeditious, but it was not cursory. In fact, the issue being raised by Senator McCallum on behalf of Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc., or MKO, the enforcement of First Nation laws, was explicitly discussed.

After leaders of the Lands Advisory Board testified and gave their enthusiastic endorsement to this part of Bill C-32, Senator Hartling asked, “If the bill passes, what are the challenges to be tackled in the area of First Nations governance?”

This was the response the board chair, Chief Robert Louie of the Westbank First Nation in B.C., gave:

We have a lot of work to do in the future. A couple of issues that we’re working on right now are enforcement — having First Nation laws enforced.

We have come to find out over the last 20-plus years that Canada and the RCMP are not readily backing and enforcing First Nation laws that First Nations have passed. It’s an issue that is bubbling. It’s something that we didn’t quite expect at the outset —

— that meaning 25 years ago —

— but we’re working now with Canada and with provinces and with Attorneys General both at the Canadian and provincial levels to deal with this issue.

Our committee was very much aware of the matter. It’s a matter of great significance and, as Chief Louie explained, it’s a subject of discussions currently happening between First Nations and various other levels of government.

This is how the issue should be resolved — through a process of diligent and direct engagement, just like the process that led to the bill we have before us now.

Honourable senators, in our observations about Bill C-32, the Indigenous Peoples Committee wrote that the co-development process for this bill “provides a model for the co-development of future legislation related to First Nations self-government.”

I wholeheartedly agree. An exemplary co-development process has taken place. All 194 signatory First Nations were involved. We should not send this bill back to committee. On the contrary, we should adopt it today and finally give full force of law to the agreement that was signed 25 years ago so that First Nations can have real control over their land.

I urge honourable senators to oppose this motion and support Bill C-32.

Senator McCallum: Yes, I do. There has been talk about the 194 signatories. However, as I said — and this came from the report from the other place — in the bill there is no off-the-shelf solution. Any response must be distinctions-based and recognize the need for individual communities to craft their own solutions as desired in order to respect their inherent rights.

What did the voices that were outside these 194 signatories tell you about how they’re going to be proceeding with their own framework?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those in favour, please say “yea.”

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those against, please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies, be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for further study.

Thank you, kinanâskomitin.

The Hon. the Speaker: Every motion needs a seconder, Senator Housakos.

Hon. Bernadette Clement moved third reading of Bill S-11, A fourth Act to harmonize federal law with the civil law of Quebec and to amend certain Acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law.

She said: Honourable senators, today I rise to speak to Bill S-11, which I am proud to sponsor.

Bill S-11 is the fourth act to harmonize federal law with the civil law of Quebec and to amend certain acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law.

To recap, our work on this harmonization has been going on since 1993. Bill S-11 makes technical amendments to 51 acts, particularly acts governing financial institutions.

[English]

I know that this bill doesn’t excite everyone, but our study at committee pulled me back to law school. It was fun to be back in a room of fellow geeks — and I say that affectionately — equally interested in the subject matter: Senator Harder inquiring about the harmonization process; Senator Pate pushing for clarity around whether harmonization is the right construct for inclusion of Indigenous traditions; and Senator Batters speaking to legislative drafting as a very particular expertise. I may not be able to do the committee meeting justice here — bad pun coming, I’m warning you. While I know that Santa Claus will not keep your Christmas free of any clause-by-clause, I hope that over the holidays, you check out this committee meeting of eager geeks studying Bill S-11.

Since it was introduced in the Senate in October, we have heard from Senators Dupuis, Dalphond and Carignan, all of whom have pointed to the importance of this work. They have my thanks for their contributions to this discussion.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan told us that all previous harmonization acts received multi-party support both here in the Senate and in the other place. He also told us that he supported this bill at second reading because it will strengthen the vitality of bijuralism.

Senator Dalphond said the following, and I quote:

Not enough people realize what Canada contributes. As a bijural federation, it is something of a rarity internationally. Our contribution, not only to common law in French and civil law in English, but to bijuralism at the same time, is entirely unique, in my opinion. In that sense, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, I think we can be proud. We are participating in two of the world’s great legal traditions, which is also fantastic.

My colleague Senator Dupuis very clearly explained that this harmonization initiative is based on a legal framework that is deeply connected to the history of Quebec and Canada and to this reality. The coexistence of common law and civil law dates back over two centuries. As we all know, these are just two of Canada’s legal traditions. It is important to add that Indigenous law deserves more of our attention.

[English]

The Honourable Serge Joyal sponsored a harmonization bill in 2004. In his third reading speech, he spoke of their conversations around Indigenous law as “totally new in parliamentary debate.” Honourable senators, it is no longer new to us, and it certainly isn’t new to the communities across Canada working on the revitalization of their traditions and cultures. I’m hopeful to see more progress, action and inclusion.

The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee considered Bill S-11 for two short but intense meetings. We heard from Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada David Lametti and Department of Justice officials France Allard and Riri Shen. Minister Lametti told us that his department is working hard to support the reassertion of what he described as “Indigenous normative systems.” I was glad to hear that legal pluralism is in the minister’s DNA and that the flourishing of Indigenous legal systems is a priority. The minister spoke of integrating Indigenous law into our university programs:

I think the role of the Minister of Justice and the ministry is to facilitate and support that kind of work, and I think at some point there will be another stage of evolution in Canadian law.

[Translation]

The committee also heard testimony on the consultations, during which over 400 stakeholders were invited to provide comments and criticisms. We paid special attention to the proposals of the Chambre des notaires du Québec, and I quite enjoyed hearing the explanations the witnesses gave of the drafting process for this bill.

[English]

We know that harmonization does not mean that one system disappears at the expense of the other; instead, it is about the coexistence of common law and civil law in the same federal legislation.

To that end, a specific approach called co-drafting is used. It was highlighted during our discussion in committee. Instead of writing a code, constitution or bill in English, following the common law tradition, and then translating it to French, co‑drafting means that the text is written in both English and French, considering common law and le droit civil at the same time.

In the geeky fashion mentioned earlier, Senator Cotter and Justice Minister Lametti both proudly spoke to their experience of co-drafting.

When we draft legislation, we capture the terminology, concepts and principles of both legal traditions. It is worth pausing here to reinforce that co-drafting means we will not always have to retroactively harmonize; new bills are drafted according to the policy on legislative bijuralism. Ms. Allard told us that the co-drafting exercise forces the establishment of a dialogue between two languages, and I like picturing that. Instead of working in silos, the work is integrated and happens simultaneously, leading to a more thorough understanding of each other.

[Translation]

Now, here we are at third reading, and it is my responsibility to remind you of all the reasons why this bill is important and why it should be passed.

[English]

I have already used my “box of chocolates” analogy. That got me a gift of chocolates from Senator Bovey, by the way. Thank you. I have called out to individual senators to let them know that the acts that they care about are being amended by Bill S-11, and I have one more communication tactic left in my toolbox, and that is an appeal to the heart.

Nation-building is complicated and messy, and constantly changing. Lines are drawn on a map with various justifications and are often fought over, disputed and renegotiated. It is comparing and contrasting how one nation does things versus another. It is defining culture, rules, language, regions and so much more. Nation-building is a ceaseless process of choices, consequences, actions and reactions.

This bill is about nation-building, even though it doesn’t include all our legal traditions, even though it is not making the papers, causing an uproar on social media or inspiring hearts and minds across the country. Sometimes nation-building is technical and particular, and just a little niche.

[Translation]

However, this is fundamental work. We’re ensuring the coexistence and vitality of two legal systems, two languages and two cultures. I look forward to a time when we can move beyond the so-called duality into a reality that encompasses traditions other than English and French, common law and civil law, but I know this work will take time. I’m happy to be part of it.

As we conclude our study of Bill S-11, let me briefly remind you what it does. First, it makes our legislation more understandable to all Canadians by using concepts and terminology that are appropriate and familiar to them, regardless of their province of origin or whether their daily lives are governed by common law or civil law.

Second, Bill S-11 minimizes uncertainty in the implementation and interpretation of legislative intent, which helps facilitate access to justice. Third, this bill advances the equality of status of English and French within the Canadian legal system.

Finally, Bill S-11 is a collaborative effort. This bill is a painstaking dance to incorporate provincial private law terminology into federal legislation. The constitution of provincial and territorial institutions, in addition to the 400 other stakeholders who took part in the consultations, reflects a respect for the constitutionally mandated role and jurisdiction of the provinces and territories.

[English]

In 2004, the committee studied a previous harmonization bill, Bill S-10. In their report on the bill, the committee referred to the testimony of the Honourable Irwin Cotler, then Minister of Justice. The report stated that the minister:

. . . encourages everyone to take the view that bijuralism is by no means exclusionary. Rather, he emphasized that it is an open model that he hoped would lead to a plural model, as time goes on.

I want to thank all of the officials, analysts and geeks for their diligent work and remarkable contributions to Bill S-11. Honourable senators, I hope you will join me in this opportunity to further the project of nation-building and support the passing of Bill S-11. Thank you, nia:wen.

Senator Housakos: On a vote, but not on an adjournment.

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

Hon. Brent Cotter moved third reading of Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.

He said: Honourable senators, perhaps it is the season, perhaps the sense of honour I have in serving in this place, perhaps the honour of sponsoring this bill. In any event, I am filled with a sense of joy today and, as a result, I’m going to deviate from my normally dour, humourless, serious speaking style in my remarks.

My grandfather was a good, devout, God-fearing, churchgoing man. He never used bad language in his life. One day, a friend came to him and said, “Bill, I’d like to learn a bit more about your religion.” My grandfather was always on the lookout for a convert and took the man along to the church service on Sunday. As the church service began and something occurred at the front of the church, the friend would lean over and say to my grandfather, “What does that mean,” and my grandfather would patiently explain. A little later, the friend would lean over again and say, “What does that mean,” and my grandfather would patiently explain.

About halfway through the church service, the priest went over to a lectern very much like this one, carefully removed his wristwatch and placed it on the lectern, as I am doing now. The friend leaned over to my grandfather and asked “What does that mean,” and my grandfather shook his head and replied sadly, “Not a damn thing.”

So, Your Honour, when my two hours is up — I think I get two hours — somebody should give me a signal.

In the same vein, but a little more connected to this bill, yesterday afternoon, Senator Gagné came over to chat with me briefly and confidentially. Now, Senator Gagné does not do this very often, so I had fairly high hopes. Perhaps she was coming to tell me that the Prime Minister wants to give me some kind of honour for sponsoring this bill, perhaps there is a vacancy in the Supreme Court of Canada or they need an ambassador to Ireland. So if I may riff off of some earlier remarks, visions of sugar plums danced in my head briefly.

I am revealing a confidence here, but what Senator Gagné came to ask me was how short could I keep my remarks on this bill? I apologize for revealing a confidence, senator. The answer is six minutes, at least from now.

Let me begin by thanking the leadership of the Senate for developing a pathway so that Bill C-235 could be considered in a timely and highly expeditious way — I know all too expeditious for some.

I want to express a second message of appreciation to the leaders of the groups in the Senate. I serve on the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, ably chaired by Senator Black and very well supported by Ferda Simpson and her team. We work away conscientiously and it’s a delightful collegial committee to serve on. But we do this work in relative obscurity compared to many of the other higher-profile committees of the Senate.

My brother brought this point home to me recently. He called to tell me that he and his wife were watching the deliberations of the Agriculture Committee on CPAC. He indicated that, rather than our normal situation of being on the SenVu channel, being on CPAC created national viewership, and that with he and his wife watching, the viewership had probably gone up from five to seven people. My brother is retired, but he seems to have a part‑time job making sure I don’t get too full of myself, and he’s pretty good at it.

However, this week we were blessed at the Agriculture Committee with the regular attendance of the government leader in the Senate, Senator Gold; the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Plett; and the presence of the leaders of the other three groups — Senator Saint-Germain, Senator Cordy and Senator Tannas. They took an active interest in the matters before the committee related to Bill C-235. Senators Gold and Plett particularly and constructively engaged with the committee and the dialogue with witnesses, and I want to express my appreciation to them. The Agriculture Committee is not always blessed with Senate royalty in this way.

As well, I want to extend my thanks to Senator Black and Ferda Simpson and her team for the very good work they did in making the consideration of Bill C-235 and its reaching third reading a reality today; and also to the witnesses who, on short notice, appeared before the committee earlier this week, particularly the Attorney General and Minister of Justice from my province, the Honourable Bronwyn Eyre, who made herself available on short notice for a full two hours of the Senate’s considerations earlier this week.

This is a private member’s bill, sponsored in the other place by MP Jim Carr, as you know. Mr. Carr would be delighted that the bill has reached this stage in this place today. Indeed, when I spoke with him last week, he told me that only 3% of private members’ bills from the other place make it across the finish line.

I had hoped to tell him today — subject to your judgment shortly — that due to his good work, that percentage had gone up a little bit. Alas, I will never get that opportunity. I also wanted to tell him that I was honoured to have sponsored this bill.

As I mentioned at second reading, the main focus of the bill is in two parts that address greater coordination among a group of key federal departments and ministries with respect to the Prairie economy. The second part of the bill relates to greater coordination and cooperation regarding the implementation of federal programs associated with a green sustainable Prairie economy, such coordination and cooperation to take place with a range of interest holders and stakeholders in the Prairie region, most notably provinces, municipalities, Indigenous leadership, employers, worker associations and the like.

I should add, as Senator Gold highlighted in the committee’s deliberations yesterday, that the bill also contains a paragraph 5 that deals with a meaningful accountability framework that requires regular reporting by the lead minister federally to both houses of Parliament and the opportunity for periodic parliamentary scrutiny of the success of the initiative.

Although we did not have extensive discussions, my sense of Mr. Carr’s objectives for the bill were that it would generate greater internal coordination of development programs in this area — and this was needed — and greater dialogue with the interests and communities affected by these initiatives, particularly the partnerships with provinces, and this would be critical to the adoption, adjustment and ultimately the success of the federally adopted plans.

In this respect, the bill carries in that way a modest implicit critique of the government practice to date in rolling out sustainability initiatives on the prairies.

With respect to the bill itself, we did hear mixed reactions. One concern in particular was that there was not sufficient consultation with respect to the bill. I think that’s a legitimate observation, but here I would like to come to at least a small degree of defence of Mr. Carr. It will be remembered that this was a private member’s bill — not a government bill. Given the low predictability of success of private members’ bills, it’s a little bit unfair to have expected the government itself to roll up its sleeves and conduct a wide range of consultations regarding this bill.

Although Mr. Carr, even though his health was failing, spoke with many people across the Prairies about the bill, he was, after all, only one member of Parliament with limited resources — and it seems a little unfair to suggest that he should have conducted the equivalent of government consultations while the bill was under consideration, or even before presenting it.

If I may return for a moment, and finally, to the gentle, implicit critique embedded in Mr. Carr’s bill regarding the need for the government to do better on both fronts — within itself, and in engagement with the communities for whom this set of initiatives will matter — and also, as Senator Gold noted, to be accountable, there is, I think, a second message from Mr. Carr in this bill: It is the belief that the government can do better and, with this legislative directive, will do better. I am also hopeful.

Indeed, you will be familiar with the phrase, which I think is also implicit here, that Mr. Carr seeks to “fix the problem, not the blame.” Another way of saying it is that, with this bill, Mr. Carr is encouraging us to light a candle, rather than curse the darkness. That seems, to me, to be a good and apt metaphor for both this bill and, perhaps, for Mr. Carr’s life. If lighting the candle doesn’t work, there will be plenty of time to curse the darkness. But in these days and in honour of Mr. Carr — a very fine parliamentarian and human being — it strikes me that we should pursue the more optimistic road.

Thank you for your attention. I hope that you will support the bill when it comes to a vote.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Let me begin my remarks in a similar fashion to what Senator Cotter did: I will also use a church illustration — not about my grandfather, but about me. I was honoured when I was asked by a church in Alberta — that my children attend — whether I would deliver the message. Now, that might come as a surprise to many of you that I would even be asked to deliver the message at a Sunday morning service, but, nevertheless, I was. They gave me the podium at about 11:30 in the morning, and I asked, “How much time do I have to speak?” And I was told by the chair, “You have unlimited time. You can speak as long as you want. I need to tell you that at 12 p.m., we will all get up and go home, but you can continue to speak as long as you want.”

So I won’t take exception to your leaving at 1:30 p.m. or 2 p.m. while I’m rambling here. You do as you think is necessary.

Colleagues, I would like to begin my third-reading speech on Bill C-235 by once again acknowledging the heart and intent of the man behind it — my friend, and yours, the late Honourable Jim Carr. As I mentioned at second reading, Jim and I were political adversaries, but I never doubted his love for Canada, his love for the Prairies and his deep admiration for Manitoba. It was this passion that drove him to envision Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies, and brought him to Ottawa in the last week of his life to cheer the bill over the finish line in the other place. He, at least, got to see that.

Jim had a heart of gold, and I believe he only envisioned good coming from this initiative. In principle, I can understand what he was trying to achieve. It was a grand effort at collaboration between the federal government, the provinces, municipalities, Indigenous peoples, industry and business to facilitate a priority close to Jim’s heart. I commend my friend for this effort and for his intent, and I have a great respect for what he wanted to achieve.

Regrettably, however, the plan has one major flaw: It cannot succeed unless the federal government implements the bill in the same spirit in which Jim authored it — a spirit of collegiality and collaboration. This is something that this government is clearly incapable of.

This fact was on clear display even at our committee meetings, colleagues. More than one witness mentioned how pleased, and even surprised, they were to be invited to speak to the bill at committee. You might see this as a compliment, but I could not help but see it as a serious indictment of the government. When witnesses from key sectors of the economy are surprised to be called to the table on issues that could potentially have a significant impact on their sector, it is telling us that this government has a terrible track record when it comes to consulting.

You have to remember that the government did not initiate this bill. This is a private member’s bill, as Senator Cotter has rightly said — a bill that will require, however, the government to consult and collaborate. If the government had been doing its job, this bill would never have been necessary. Needing a private member’s bill to spur consultations and collaboratively put together a plan on an important issue is a damning indictment of this government’s track record, and does not leave me hopeful that the bill will achieve what Jim Carr envisioned.

In many ways, I think that the way the government has treated the Prairie provinces over the last seven years set this bill up for failure. It’s the primary reason why none of the provinces want it, and this fact speaks volumes about this government’s relationship with the Prairie provinces. MP Pat Kelly put it this way in the other place:

. . . this bill will do nothing other than compel a process, which the people affected do not want, by a federal government on unwilling provinces in furtherance of objectives, which the people of the provinces affected are not in agreement, in order to report back to a federal government that does not listen and has a track record for which it can be expected it will impose further harm on the three Canadian provinces that have already been severely harmed by the government.

I’d say that’s a pretty fair summary. And if you think it is a bit harsh, you need to understand that currently the government’s flagship policies to “green” the Prairie economy are the carbon tax and the fertilizer reduction initiative — both of which are extremely damaging to the Prairie economy, and did not involve true consultations. You have to remember Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, and you have to remember Bill C-48, the “no more natural resources development” bill. The Prairie governments have opposed all these initiatives — only to have them rammed down their throats in the end. That’s the federal government’s idea of consultation.

So you’ll have to forgive me if I am not as optimistic as some other senators about the federal government’s ability to implement a framework that requires true consultation and collaboration — and actually helps the Prairie economy. That’s never been their priority, and nothing suggests that this bill will suddenly now make it their priority. It was Jim Carr’s priority. Jim loved the Prairies. But nothing this government says — or does — suggests that it feels the same way.

Just consider the fact that all three Prairie provinces oppose this bill, yet the government put its weight behind it to see it pass quickly. They basically made it a government bill, given the way the Leader of the Government conducted himself. I don’t recall when the Leader of the Government in the Senate showed up in an ex officio capacity at a committee meeting on private members’ business. There were clearly some marching orders from the Prime Minister’s Office, or PMO, on this.

That, colleagues, is regrettable, not only because we did not have a true opportunity to do our due diligence, but also because it signals to the provinces what they can expect going forward: more of the same.

Colleagues, out of my respect and admiration for Jim Carr, I made a commitment to him to not stand in the way of this bill proceeding. Even though I cannot support the bill, I have fulfilled that commitment, and I would be fine to see the bill pass on division. But that, colleagues, I will leave in your hands. Thank you.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to third reading of Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.

I want to go on the record about my concern about the expedited process of this bill in the Senate — a bill that is not a government bill but has been given special privilege, a privilege that has superseded government bills on the floor — a process I have not witnessed before.

I understand that this special privilege and exception were ratified by the leaders of the four caucuses. As an unaffiliated senator, I am not part of these caucuses, so I was not party to nor aware of this deal being made, nor do I agree. Therefore, there was not unanimous agreement to this process that seeks to marginalize, exclude and silence certain segments of the Canadian population.

While I understand that this bill is being given prompt consideration as a way to honour the legacy of a dearly departed colleague, I have profound concern that this is the sole reason why we are asked to rush this bill through. I personally didn’t know our colleague, but from the tributes I have heard, I would believe that he would want his legacy to incorporate equity, diversity, inclusion, respect, relationship, integrity, trust, reconciliation and public trust. Any prompt and exceptional consideration requires rigorous examination to maintain public trust and transparency. However, this bill has spent a mere three days before the Senate.

The second-reading debate began just two days ago, and here we are today facing a final vote on a very complex bill, a bill that doesn’t require speedy passage. This process included the decision to hold only one committee meeting to hear the views of the many different rights holders and stakeholders. This study did not include a single First Nations witness to be heard on matters that greatly impact them as rights holders, impact their treaty rights, their economic rights, their human rights. But you know this, you passed Bill C-15.

As many of you will know from correspondence we have all received over the past 24 hours, First Nations were unaware of this impending legislation and of the extremely truncated timeline in the Senate. This precluded First Nations from the opportunity to register their concern with this bill. In discussion on the process being adopted by the Senate, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, or AMC, had the following comment, “The lack of notice and involvement of First Nations is as ridiculous as it is disrespectful.”

This sentiment, colleagues, is telling. While it is blunt, it is a belief that I agree with wholeheartedly. It is a well-established role and function of the Senate to give voice to minority rights and interests in the review of legislation. As senators, we have a duty to promote core principles and values of our democratic system, especially given the Senate’s traditional role in acting on behalf of groups under-represented in the House of Commons, whereby the Supreme Court of Canada has noted in Reference re Senate Reform, 2014:

Over time, the Senate also came to represent various groups that were under-represented in the House of Commons. It served as a forum for ethnic, gender, religious, linguistic, and Aboriginal groups that did not always have a meaningful opportunity to present their views through the popular democratic process.

However, yet again, we find ourselves enabling a process that willfully sidelines and quiets these marginalized voices from our discourse. This is especially troubling, as this is a bill that has an immediate and substantial impact on First Nations in the Prairie provinces. As senators, we hold a unique public office that requires us as parliamentarians to confront racism without reservation and to ensure the integrity of the institution.

Yesterday, honourable senators received a written submission from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs highlighting their concern with Bill C-235. Within their submission, they expressed the deficit they have been placed in by the Senate’s actions. In their words, “This has severely reduced [AMC’s] ability to properly prepare and seek to be a witness to speak to it.”

We received the same. I know that MKO had put in a submission to speak.

Let us be clear: The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs have underscored their support for the development of a green economy. However, as they rightfully maintain, this approach:

 . . . must be done with First Nations, as Treaty partners with the Crown, taking a much larger role in matters that affect Treaty lands and First Nations traditional territories and the waters that run through them.

AMC has stated, colleagues, that Bill C-235 represents:

 . . . the development of a framework through a legislated consultation and engagement process that maintains the status quo and does not consider current developments that impact on their inherent and Treaty rights of First Nations in Manitoba and other provinces.

Honourable senators, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs highlight a greater and more direct concern with this legislation when they write:

Bill C-235 deals with the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, all of which have Natural Resource Transfer Acts that purported to transfer control over Crown lands and natural resources within these provinces from the federal government to the provincial governments that did not have the free, prior, and informed consent of First Nations. In the AMC’s view, supporting legislation that directly affects the NRTA, Treaty lands and rights, self-determination and sovereignty of First Nations in Manitoba can be interpreted as supporting the status quo and accepting the unfinished business that has yet to be resolved.

Honourable senators, it is important to note that tomorrow the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations is having a press conference to announce a lawsuit they are initiating on the Natural Resources Transfer Acts. This lawsuit has the support of First Nations chiefs in both Manitoba and Alberta. Colleagues, with this foreknowledge, we are all now aware that this lawsuit is imminent. Moving to pass federal legislation that will interfere with that process is both reckless and against the usual practice of the Senate, especially when it involves a bill that doesn’t require speedy passage. As senators, we require clarity on this upcoming lawsuit.

Colleagues, we must consider profound legislation that we passed in this chamber, Bill C-15, legislation that will align Canadian law to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. This chamber voted in support of this bill, affirming the Senate’s intent that the articles of UNDRIP serve as guiding principles when approaching the drafting and implementation of federal legislation as it pertains to its impact on, and inclusion of, Indigenous peoples in Canada.

Bill C-235 represents a litmus test on how it respects the principles of UNDRIP. A foundational feature of UNDRIP is that it requires Canada to work with, engage and consult directly with First Nations on a nation-to-nation basis. This show of respect and conciliation is sorely missing from this bill.

This lack of respect and conciliation is demonstrated clearly through the committee process of Bill C-235. First Nations have expressed that they wish to be heard as witnesses on this legislation. As they were not consulted in the development of the bill, it is critical that space be made for them to be heard during committee study. Yet, as we know, the committee examination of this bill was negligible. It took place yesterday, with just one panel of witnesses being heard. Not a single First Nations voice was heard as part of that discussion. What were the factors taken into consideration to invite some and not others?

Honourable senators, we must look inward to determine if passing Bill C-235 at this time is responsible, equitable and just. If we are honest with ourselves, we must acknowledge that we have not been allowed to be fulsome, diligent and, therefore, not responsible in the study of this bill.

First Nations and others who will be negatively impacted but not given the opportunity to be heard on this matter — despite a desire to do so — should be reason enough to prompt us to momentarily delay the final vote. Silencing is violent behaviour and not a good foundation for any bill.

Delaying a final vote until early in the new year will not have a deleterious effect on the bill. However, silencing First Nations when they are requesting to be heard will have a deleterious effect on Canada, including the Senate. We must then ask ourselves what the purpose was of passing previous legislation that purported to advance self-determination and establish a nation-to-nation relationship.

Colleagues, it is not too late to do the right thing and delay the troublingly swift passage of this bill. This will allow all impacted stakeholders a chance to be heard and ensure that we, senators, are dealing with legislation in a responsible, respectful way, practising sober second thought.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, we’re finally here. It is the end of 2022, and we are still standing.

When we returned last fall and did so in person, I will admit to missing the option of connecting virtually. That said, it has been so enjoyable to meet in person, grab a coffee — sometimes something a little stronger — and commiserating while we address the problems that confront Canadians and do our best to make things better.

[Translation]

The Senate and Senate committees began sitting more frequently in February, and we are now almost back to normal. Please know that I am grateful for the work that’s been done and the progress that’s been made on studies and legislation.

[English]

To my colleagues in the GRO, your assistance, Senator Gagné and Senator LaBoucane-Benson, is invaluable. I owe you a great debt of gratitude. We are a small but mighty team. We support one another while we share our ideas, our frustrations and a lot of laughter. I’m grateful for your wisdom, commitment and for your friendship.

To the staff in the GRO, it is not an overstatement to say that we three could not function without all that you do for us. Your research, your briefings, how you organize our days and our lives, your advice, the words you sometimes write for us, the outreach that you do to all of you, your day-to-day interventions in preparing us for our responsibilities in this chamber, and for your friendship as well.

[Translation]

Your support is essential to our work and, by extension, to the work of government, in the best interests of Canada. Thank you.

[English]

To my colleagues in leadership, Senators Plett, Saint-Germain, Cordy and Tannas, thank you for the patience that you have shown me and that, frankly, we show one another and that you show to all of us. Our discussions and negotiations are not always easy, but I have never doubted that our debates and our decisions come from the best of places, a place of legitimate concern for Canadians, for this place and a sincere desire to do what is best for the members in your groups, and by extension for the regions that they represent and, of course, for the country as a whole.

[Translation]

We also extend our sincere thanks to the clerks, pages, interpreters, Parliamentary Protective Service officers, reporters, client service officers and Senate Administration staff. This chamber and our committees couldn’t function without your dedication. Thank you so much.

[English]

You all did yeoman’s work during the pandemic and you have been by our side constantly, faithfully as we’ve navigated this past year. You deserve enormous credit and recognition, and I know we all share in that gratitude to you.

Senator Furey, thank you. Thank you for your calmness when it is needed, your firm hand when it is necessary, your wisdom, grace and experience. They have been examples and inspirations for the rest of us. I appreciate them enormously, and I appreciate everything you do for us.

Last but not least, I want to thank my wife, Nancy, who seems to have nothing better to do these days than watch the Senate proceedings. So if you are watching, Nancy, thank you for supporting me through this.

As was said earlier by Dan Christmas, our families bear the burden of the work that we all do on behalf of Canadians, so thank you to my dear wife.

To all of you, I wish you the best for the holiday season and for the new year and, through you, please accept my best wishes to all of your families and friends and all that you hold dear. May you have a healthy, prosperous and meaningful 2023.

Whether we celebrate at churches, synagogues, temples, mosques or just around the family table, I really hope the season is filled with family, friends, love and much-deserved rest. Thank you, all.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, those of you who were at the Internal Economy Committee meeting this morning know that I was a bit of a grinch, so let me end the season, however, by saying a few kind words.

Colleagues, as we approach the end of the session, and as Christmas is just around the corner, I want to take an opportunity to say a few kind words and thank a few people. I prepared a bit of a list.

First on my list of Christmas kindness are thank yous. Let me begin by thanking the Speaker for hosting the Senate’s Christmas party this year. It was a wonderful time to be together after two or three years, whatever it has been. It was a great time to enjoy one another’s company and dance the night away, that is at least until 8:30 p.m. And for some of us, that was enough.

Humour aside, Your Honour, it may be a little early to speak about this, but by Christmas 2023 you will be retired. So this will be our last Senate Christmas together, unless you find a new birth certificate. Therefore, Your Honour, I also want to thank you personally for all that you have done over the years, both in your role as the Speaker as well as in your role prior to that. The role you play in ensuring this chamber runs smoothly, while exercising incredible patience, is something that I have an appreciation for, but your friendship is what I am the most thankful for.

My gratitude is also directed to our Speaker pro tempore, table officers, the Black Rod and his office, our security, the administration and all senators and their staff in this great big family that we call our own.

To my own staff, thank you for the incredible support you offer to me and our caucus. I often brag that I have the best team on Parliament Hill, but I don’t think it’s bragging when you are speaking the truth.

To my caucus and my leadership team, I want to thank you for the year we have shared. As we get smaller in numbers, we have had the opportunity to build strong bonds by working closer than ever before as we continue to be a very effective opposition in the Senate of Canada. Canadians across the country have noticed the incredible work you do on their behalf, so I thank you for your ongoing dedication.

To the leaders of the other groups — Marc, Raymonde, Jane and Scott — may the holidays offer you a nice break. It has been a pleasure. Yes, we have had some difficult discussions, but it has been a pleasure working with all of you.

The next item on my Christmas kindness list this year is one very close to my heart. I want to thank the outstanding men and women in uniform — military, security and firefighters. You are the courageous heroes of our country. Your service provides reassurance and hope for the future. Whether you are abroad or at home, it is my hope that you know our appreciation, as you deserve our highest recognition.

To our veterans, I know that the recent news has caused you much grief, and this is regrettable. I sincerely pray that you may feel in your hearts the true gratitude that Canadians have toward what you have done and what you continue to stand for. You deserve our utmost respect.

This brings me to my third item of Christmas kindness, sing Christmas carols. But last Thursday, I was reminded that Senator Gold and Senator Ringuette together with the Usher of the Black Rod and Senator Cormier are the much more talented ones when it comes to music. Therefore, I will keep quiet on the carolling front. We found out that my forte is dancing, and I thank Senator Pate for dragging me out of my chair and getting me, I would like to say, out of my comfort zone, but my wife reminded me that, after a few drinks, that probably is my comfort zone.

Colleagues, in the spirit of Christmas kindness, I have decided to be brief, but the fourth item and last on my list is to share the true meaning of Christmas for me.

The birth of Christ makes up the essence of this sacred season and brings with it the promise of hope and renewal. This is, indeed, a time for joyful reunions with family and friends, a time to reflect on all of our blessings and a time to give back and to pray for those in need. It is my hope that the Christmas message brings all of us comfort as we reflect on the year that has gone by, and that it gives us hope as we prepare to welcome the year ahead.

So to my Senate family, I want to wish you all a very merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah and all the best for 2023. Please be safe, and I truly look forward to seeing you and spending time with you next year. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, I, too, want to wish a merry Christmas to our big Senate family, to senators of all stripes, to our office staff, to the Senate Administration teams, to our chamber team, which is also very important to us, as well as to the members of the Parliamentary Protective Service and Library of Parliament. Senator Plett said it best: “my Senate family.” I think that, when we started meeting in person again in September, we realized that, together, we make up one big family. As in all families, some members are wiser than others, and some tend to bicker, but in the end, we are a group, a family, that pulls together, stands in solidarity and loves one another. That is a beautiful thing, and I am very happy to be part of this family.

My thoughts are also with the members of our Senate family who are not with us today, either for medical reasons or because they are still in mourning for loved ones they lost this year. Our thoughts are with you, dear colleagues. We hope to see you again in 2023, and we are looking forward to it. We know that this first Christmas without your loved ones will be difficult, and our hearts go out to you.

[English]

I also want to give special thanks to my fellow colleagues in leadership positions: Senator Gold, Senator Plett, Senator Cordy — the other woman — and Senator Tannas. We have had a lot of negotiations to do this year, indeed, some more difficult than others — I would say challenging — but I’m glad to count on your good faith and camaraderie. Having said that, I know a break until February will do us all some good.

I extend respect and gratitude to our Speaker, Senator Furey, for his understanding and diplomatic guidance in the application of our Rules and practices, as well as for preserving decorum and civility in the upper chamber. This also applies to our Speaker pro tempore, Senator Ringuette. To both of you, I truly appreciate your wisdom, dignity and profound knowledge of this institution.

I also want to take a moment to express my deep gratitude to the Independent Senators Group facilitation team. This is a word that we invented in English. To Senators Dean, Petitclerc, Duncan and our new member on the team, Senator Clement, your support every day in order to serve and represent our wonderful group is vital. I’m privileged to have you by my side.

Colleagues, I’m proud of the work we were all able to do this year, whether in the chamber with thoughtful and impactful interventions, in committees with studies and careful consideration of bills or outside the Senate through public engagements.

To our newly appointed senators and very promising colleagues — Senators Burey, Cardozo, Greenwood, Osler, Patterson and Shugart — every senator in this chamber has something unique to contribute. Do not hesitate to bring your contributions forward and keep making the Senate a vibrant place to adequately serve Canadians.

From all members of the Independent Senators Group, enjoy a wonderful holiday season. Rest up, and we’ll see you all next year. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, I, too, would like to share some well wishes and extend thanks to you on behalf of the Progressive Senate Group.

As we approach the end of the year, it’s often a time for reflection. We’ve said goodbye to several colleagues this year, including one just this morning. But we’ve also said hello to others, including earlier this week. Welcoming new senators to this chamber tends to remind us of our own experiences enjoying this place. Every time I see new senators coming in, I reflect back to when I came to the Senate for the first time, and it wasn’t just yesterday, but the memories are still very fresh.

I think we all arrive here with big plans, and we learn — some more quickly than others — that things don’t always turn out as we expect. In some of my conversations with our newest senators, I’ve encouraged them to keep an open mind and to visit all committees because many of us have found that we’ve been surprised with what captures our interest, and it has changed the direction of our work.

This year, as the leader, I told everyone to pick out the committees they wanted, and I would just take the ones that were left over. One that was left over was the Fisheries and Oceans Committee. I thought, “I’m from Atlantic Canada, but I don’t know much about fishing except that I love to eat fish.” But I have to tell you, I am loving the committee. The people on the committee are incredible people to work with. The chair, Senator Manning, is very welcoming, and I’ve learned so much. So you can learn things when you go on a committee where you’re not that knowledgeable about what it may entail.

We must remember that things don’t always happen on the timeline that we desire. While that can be frustrating, certainly it often reflects that we’re always working on multiple issues concurrently, and we can never predict when something new will take over our time and our interest.

At this time of reflection, may we all look back on the things that we’ve accomplished with pride. So too shall we consider the ways in which we can do better next year. It’s often noted that while we do not always agree, we are all here working toward the same goal. I’m grateful for our productive exchange of views in the service of all Canadians.

To those we work with, I offer my sincere appreciation for your efforts. To the Speaker and your staff, thank you for your guidance and leadership. To the staff in our Senate offices, thank you for always making us look so good.

On a personal note, Senator Furey, I also want to thank you so much for your work as Speaker. You’re always fair and you ensure that things run well. You also engage leadership in the Senate when making decisions, and that is very much appreciated.

Thank you also to our Speaker pro tempore for always being able to assist so ably.

To the table officers, the pages, reporters, interpreters, translators and other staff in Chamber Operations and Procedure Office, to the Information Services Directorate, the Senate Communications Directorate, the Law Clerk’s office, to committee staff, the Corporate Security Directorate and Property and Services — there are so many people who support the work that we do — on behalf of the Progressive Senate Group, we thank you. You always do your job so well despite all the challenges that we’ve had in the past few years.

When I was reading through the list earlier today, I thought there are a lot of people who help to make the Senate run smoothly.

To the leaders of all the groups — Senator Gold, Senator Plett, Senator Saint-Germain and Senator Tannas — thank you for all that you do in helping things run smoothly in the Senate. We don’t always agree, and that’s a good thing. Sometimes we disagree rather vigorously, but when we leave the room, we all understand that our comments are reflective of what our group believes, and we move on. That’s a great compliment to each and every one of you in leadership. I thank you so much for that. It is indeed a pleasure working with you.

To the members of the Progressive Senate Group, you know that I love you all, and I’m blessed to be working with you. I think so many times, whether we’re in the chamber or whether I’m at home, that we are truly blessed to be working in such a great group. We’re a great team.

I thank you, Senator Dalphond, my able assistant and deputy leader of our group; Senator Bovey, who is our liaison and who will be retiring in 2023 — I can’t believe it; and Senator Francis, who is our chair of the caucus. Together, as leadership, we sit down and talk a lot of things through. Thank you so much for all of that.

I will close by extending my warmest wishes with the hope that we may all have the opportunity to rest and recharge so that we can return refreshed in 2023. As we gather with friends and families to mark the holiday season, I wish everyone health and happiness and enough of a break so that we’re excited to return in 2023.

Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa and a very Happy New Year to each and every one of you. Thank you.