Senator Batters: Senator Gold, I’m looking for particular examples. Since you listed kidnapping and then referenced some types of situations, do you really think those would result in a kidnapping charge? Because not only do the police have discretion, but the prosecutors and judges have discretion in the types of charges that are laid and the sentences that are given out. For blocking an exit or something like that, would you contend that is actually something that somebody would receive a kidnapping offence charge for?

With respect to custody situations, of course, those can be extremely damaging situations too. We had one in Saskatchewan a few months ago where the mother in that situation had no idea where her child was for months. Wouldn’t you contend that if someone is charged with kidnapping, that is particularly something that should not be a conditional sentence?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I believe the “nays” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure to adopt the motion in amendment?

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, I rise today to congratulate and recognize the humbling and inspirational leadership of our former colleague the Honourable Murray Sinclair and our too-soon-retiring colleague and my seatmate Senator Christmas. These two outstanding First Nations leaders are well recognized for their countless contributions with and for Indigenous peoples in their communities, regions, the country and the world over. Today, Queen’s University in Kingston installed the Honourable Murray Sinclair as its first Indigenous and fifteenth chancellor, and awarded Senator Christmas an honorary PhD in Law.

Hon. Tony Loffreda: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, I would like to talk about immigration in Quebec. We know that this subject has received extensive coverage lately.

Early this month, journalist Joël-Denis Bellavance published an article in La Presse stating that Quebec spent only 25% of the funding it had been given by the federal government for the 2021-22 fiscal year to help immigrants integrate and learn to speak French. We are talking about $168 million out of a total of nearly $700 million.

Senator Gold, can you confirm whether Mr. Bellavance’s reporting is true? If so, is the federal government okay with the fact that this federal funding intended to meet specific provincial objectives is not being spent?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Gold, would you answer a question?

Senator Loffreda: I recognize, accept and approve of the fact that, according to the 1991 Canada-Quebec Accord on immigration, Quebec is responsible for welcoming and integrating newcomers to Quebec and ensuring they know French. I agree with Premier Legault that integration must be at the heart of our immigration policy. However, this recent news troubles me.

If this money were used for the intended purpose, perhaps Quebec could welcome more immigrants and would be able to better integrate them, which could alleviate some of the pressures on the labour market.

Doesn’t the federal government have a responsibility to ensure that the money it transfers to the provinces for a particular program is spent on that program?

Is it time to re-evaluate the concept of unconditional federal transfers to the provinces and explore a transparency and accountability mechanism?

Senator Dalphond: Thank you for expressing your policy on the issue. I think you’re right: The Supreme Court has made clear there are policy decisions to be made here.

You tell me that conditional release should not be imposed to protect the victims, but here we’re talking about the less serious offences that deserve less than two years.

Are you saying that someone who receives a sentence of three months — and the judge thinks that is the proper sentence, according to all the principles and based on his case-by-case analysis — should serve the time in jail? So after three months, what would you do? The person will be released, and will maybe live next to the victim again.

What are you proposing — that the law be amended to specify that the person be forced to live in a different city? Please explain it to me. I understand the victim’s perspective, and the right to be protected, but you think that the conditional sentence is a fix? I don’t think it is a fix. So after three months, what would you do?

(1550)

Senator Dalphond: Don’t you think the real problem is the root cause of this violence? That the real answer is to address the real cause of this violence — that jail is not the answer to it, that three months or three weeks in jail is not going to change a person, that the judge should impose conditions that the person go to therapy to follow some education to better understand his reaction and to have to wear a bracelet that will signal to the victim he’s coming by? Don’t you think three weeks in jail is not protecting the victim enough? There are other ways. We have to address the real issues. It may be sensational to say, “He shall serve three weeks in jail because he did something to deserve jail,” but is that the answer?

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: This question is for the Government Representative.

Senator Gold, as you know, there is a crisis in pediatric health centres across the country. Last Friday at the Hospital for Sick Children, half of the children were in ICU on ventilators, and this spike of respiratory illnesses has prevented surgeries, cancelled emergency room access and flooded intensive care wards. Halifax’s IWK Health Centre set a record a week ago with the highest number of seriously ill patients. CHEO — the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario — opened a second ICU with unprecedented demand.

Senator Gold, I understand and I agree with the federal government’s position that money is not the only solution and there needs to be a systemic change. Nevertheless, we are in a crisis.

Despite the failure to make progress on health funding at the recent Federal-Provincial-Territorial Health Ministers’ meeting, has the Minister of Health re-engaged with his provincial and territorial colleagues to seek pathways for meaningful collaboration to address this pediatric health crisis?

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented the following report:

Tuesday, November 15, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its

EIGHTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material, has, in obedience to the order of reference of December 8, 2021, examined the said bill and now reports the same with the following amendments:

1.Clause 11, page 6:

(a) Replace line 11 with the following:

(b) add the following after line 14:

Respectfully submitted,

MOBINA S. B. JAFFER

Chair

Hon. Clément Gignac: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

In her November 3 economic statement, the Minister of Finance had a few surprises for the financial sector. On the positive side, there were smaller-than-expected deficits for the previous and current fiscal years, and the government expressed an intention to return to a balanced budget within five years. However, the government’s decision to stop issuing real return bonds has caused some surprise among the country’s pension funds and insurance companies, which are the traditional purchasers of such products to protect themselves against inflation-related risks.

As my colleagues may recall, real return bonds were introduced with great fanfare in 1991, shortly after the Bank of Canada and the finance minister of the day jointly adopted a 2% inflation target. Now, as National Bank’s chief economist recently noted, Canada will be the only country that no longer issues real return bonds.

Senator Gold, my question is this: Can you clarify the reasons behind the finance minister’s decision to abruptly stop issuing real return bonds, since her economic statement contained only three lines to explain her decision?

Senator Pate: Many of us are well aware of Chancellor Sinclair’s numerous well-deserved honours, his leadership at the bar and on the bench as the first Indigenous judge appointed in Manitoba and the second in Canada and his work exposing Canada to the human rights and Charter violations, systemic discrimination and overrepresentation in the child welfare and criminal legal systems, including issues of murdered and missing Indigenous peoples that dates back decades. He co-chaired the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Since issuing the report in 2015, his commitment to seeing all 94 Calls to Action implemented has not wavered. Most recently, he urged us to fix Bill C-5 to meet the Calls to Action that address the mass incarceration of Indigenous peoples by freeing judges from the shackles of mandatory minimum penalties.

With wisdom, thoughtfulness and clarity, he continues to urge and inspire all of us to do and be better.

Senator Christmas is also a brilliant leader and advocate with a kind and generous heart. He has worked tirelessly to safeguard Mi’kmaq sovereignty and treaty rights in Nova Scotia and urge reconciliACTION. Before coming here, Senator Christmas was instrumental in taking his community from near bankruptcy to its current circumstances of being one of the most successful and thriving First Nations in this country. In his home community of Membertou and elsewhere, he continues to work to address the persistent challenges that too many face at the hands of discriminatory attitudes and systems that persist.

Senator Christmas’ outstanding achievements and service have been previously recognized with numerous awards and honorary degrees, and among the mountain of his contributions here, many of us will always remember his most touching tribute to his World War II veteran father.

Honourable senators, please join me in celebrating the wonderful recognition of these two amazing, inspirational and fabulous leaders. Meegwetch. Thank you.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Fall Economic Statement 2022.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, entitled (1) Volume I — Summary Report and Consolidated Financial Statements, (2) Volume II — Details of Expenses and Revenues, (3) Volume III — Additional Information and Analyses, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 64(1).

[English]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a Charter Statement prepared by the Minister of Justice in relation to Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, pursuant to the Department of Justice Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. J-2, sbs. 4.2(1).

[Translation]

Senator Plett: Senator Gold, saying it does not make it a reality.

The government has not shown any of what you have just said. Leader, the urgency of this threat seems to be evident to our Canadian intelligence officials, to experts on China and to our allies, and yet not to your government.

We know that the Chinese regime is targeting our democratic process. We know that they are targeting Chinese Canadians through police stations operating on Canadian soil. And yet the Prime Minister continues, leader, to sit on his hands.

Leader, when will your government abandon its failed strategy of appeasement, which only emboldens this rogue regime in China?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I don’t have the answer to that question. I do know that our national security agencies are doubling down on allegations and on threats from foreign bad actors such as China. As I said before, maintaining the integrity of our electoral system remains a priority for this government, as it is and should be for any government. As the Prime Minister has said:

We have taken significant measures to strengthen the integrity of our elections processes and our systems, and will continue to invest in the fight against election interference, against foreign interference of our democracies and institutions.