Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to this question of privilege with some trepidation. I don’t mean to belittle the seriousness of the concern raised by Senator Tannas, but my brother is a retired golf pro at a golf club. He describes everything in terms of how big or small a handicap anybody has. Higher numbers are worse. When it comes to questions of parliamentary privilege, I am about a 30 handicap, and I apologize for my limited knowledge on that point.

Nevertheless, I do think there are some issues that are worthy of consideration by the Speaker here, and I would like to refer to them ever so briefly.

I agree, in particular, with the observation that Senator Lankin made about the importance of dignity and decorum in the Senate and in Senate committees, and let me share with you my own personal learning experience on that.

In the debates in the committee and the questioning of witnesses during the consideration of medical assistance in dying, there was a stretch of time when I was fairly aggressive with respect to a witness. Senator Plett upbraided me for my conduct. I was troubled by that, but on reflection concluded that he was right, and I had, at least, overreached. He didn’t bring the matter here, but he provided an opportunity for me to learn the point that Senator Lankin made. I don’t always agree with Senator Plett, but I appreciated that assistance and intervention. I think it’s fundamental for us to think in those terms, and in that respect, Senator Tannas’s angst about this — if I could call it that — is not ill placed.

There are two concerns I think you have here, Your Honour. One is the point Senator Lankin made, which is a lack of evidence, and, quite frankly, based on the nature of the complaint, in my view, it is inaccessible to you because it would require you to be able to dig into the question of that story and how it came about. Who knows? The allegations of deviousness here might be legitimate, but there is actually no way to know. The first question, I think, is evidence.

The second point is jurisdiction. Much of the concern that’s expressed here — and I don’t mean to diminish it, but much of it is rhetoric — focuses on the way in which some people behaved in the other place. I think that is beyond your jurisdiction.

The second problem with jurisdiction is exactly the point that was raised with respect to Senator Tannas’s letter, and if I can take a second to call it up — I don’t quite have the research resources of others — the language of the complaint is that “the timing and content of an article may constitute intimidation of a witness.” It is with respect to this issue of what the press did that could intimidate a witness.

With the greatest respect, wandering into that field invites you to reflect on what I will call the privileges of the press vis-à-vis the Senate, and I would be, with respect, very uncomfortable going there to chastise The Globe and Mail for having published this article as a compromise of how we do our business in the Senate.

Indeed, on reflection, it might invite you to read every newspaper every morning to see if somebody has written something that could be conceived as intimidating a witness at some committee, and, ultimately, quite frankly, that would only be speculation.

Thank you.

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on the occasion of the fifth annual Latin American Heritage Month.

Canada’s Latin American community is thriving and growing in numbers and influence every year. I am very proud to be part of this determined, resourceful and resilient community. I am also thrilled by the accomplishments that members of our community are making in so many areas. This is a community with a big heart, where love, solidarity and collaboration abound.

[English]

I would like to recognize and thank personally the ambassadors of Latin American countries who have been working diligently to reinforce the links between Canada and their respective nations. They are here today in the gallery. I also want to thank the Speaker and the Usher of the Black Rod for their hospitality in our Senate Chamber.

Later today, we will be celebrating Hispanic Day on the Hill with a reception from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Sir John A. MacDonald Building. The embassies have generously contributed traditional food and beverages along with artistic and music shows. I invite you all, dear colleagues, to come and experience the vibrant Latin American culture.

[Translation]

Thanks to the embassies and multiple Latin American organizations in Canada, throughout the month of October, events will be taking place across the country to celebrate our art, cuisine, music, film, literature and more.

[English]

I encourage my honourable colleagues to seek out and participate in the events that will take place near your home province. The Latin American community is very welcoming and would love to share its richness and vivacity with you. In this month of October, I wish everyone a happy Latin American Heritage Month.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Galvez spoke in Spanish.]

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[Translation]

Hon. Marie-Françoise Mégie: Honourable senators, the author Antonine Maillet once said, and I quote:

Acadians, as a people, will know that they have come into their own when they are focused on their contributions to society, rather than what they need to maintain their own vitality.

To contribute to society, a community must maintain a healthy relationship with that society, have something to offer, and feel included.

That idea certainly applies to the reality of Quebec’s Black communities. The vast majority of Black Quebecers speak French and have an immigrant background.

This brings me to the Quebec election on October 3. Out of the 880 candidates, about 60 were from Black communities. This level of representation was found in every political party and was spread out among more than 40 ridings. I congratulate the 125 candidates who were elected, including the five Black people who will represent 4% of the seats in the National Assembly of Quebec.

I do have one observation to make. Voter turnout this year was just over 60%, well below the 85% that was reached when I arrived in Quebec in 1976. Without identifying a specific cause, a study conducted through the Datagotchi app by researchers at Laval University found that being in good health also means having more chances to vote. In light of the pandemic we just went through, do we need a sound body and mind to have a healthy democracy? That is something to think about.

Let’s continue to encourage all voters to go to the polls.

In conclusion, I hope that the presence of candidates from Black communities is a sign that we are welcome here and that we are fully contributing to a healthy democracy.

Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canada‑Europe Parliamentary Association concerning the Meeting with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Third Part of the 2022 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, held in Strasbourg, France, from June 20 to 24, 2022.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, last week I could not help but be reminded of a department that the Trudeau government put together when it first came to power named the Results and Delivery Unit, which was based on the “deliverology” approach. Your government said it was adamant on keeping focused on its priorities and delivering what was promised to Canadians.

I was reminded of this thanks to an answer that you gave in this chamber last week to a question posed by my colleague Senator Martin on reconciliation efforts. You said:

This government has begun the work. In the tradition that I am part of and I’m proud to embrace, it is said that we are not obligated —

— this is interesting —

— to finish the work, but we are not permitted not to start it. This government has started it.

Leader, is that what your government meant by “deliverology” back in 2015, that it was not obligated to finish the work it started? Senator Gold, without shaking your head, please answer the question.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Senator Plett, thank you for the question. I was referring to an important teaching in the Jewish tradition that imposes upon all of us the responsibility to do what we can to make this world a better place. All of us here in the chamber, having agreed and been summoned here, would agree that that is what we are here for in our small, modest ways.

With regard to your question, I stand by my answer. The Government of Canada, this government — unlike any other government before — is taking seriously the work with Indigenous communities across this country to begin the process of confronting the truth of our history and doing what is necessary so that we can reconcile ourselves with our Indigenous citizens and with our history.

In that regard, the amount of work that has been done, though difficult, is impressive. There is a great deal to be done, and Minister Miller and the whole of government are to be congratulated for the seriousness with which they are approaching this work and the respect they are giving our Indigenous colleagues and partners in the co-development of the initiatives.

Senator Plett: The answer was a very direct answer to a very direct question. Senator Gold, your response from last week, in fact, rings truer than your government’s “deliverology” mandate at the start of its term.

This Trudeau government has a long track record of broken promises to Canadians, which are brought up week after week in this chamber: electoral reform, fixing the housing crisis, clean drinking water for Indigenous reserves, planting 2 billion trees and the budget that was supposed to balance itself. I can go on and on, leader. These are all promises that your government has not delivered on.

Leader, did your government ever have the intention to fulfill these promises; and, if so, when? Or was it always more about appearances, as it often seems to be with this government?

Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, with all due respect, this is a very important issue when it comes to freedom of democracy and dealing with human rights. Recently, we saw 30,000 Canadians get together in solidarity for freedom and in solidarity for what the people in Iran are going through. Given how important this issue has been over the last few weeks, you as government leader should have an answer to this simple question: What due diligence has the government undertaken to make sure that any individual who is linked to the IRGC, or to this regime in Iran, does not get entry into our country?

I don’t think that is a very difficult question, but I’ll leave that one with you. And I’ll ask a second one which is a lot simpler, but again we’ve received no answer.

After all these years — after both chambers of Parliament have demanded that your government add the IRGC to the list of terrorist organizations — why does the Trudeau government refuse to? Explain that one. That’s an easy one. It’s been a long time that we’ve been asking.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The minister and the department are working hard to address what is a very difficult situation for too many Canadians who are facing uncomfortable and stressful waits. The government is very aware of the burden that this imposes on Canadians who want to travel. It is seeking to do — and has done — many things to tackle these challenges.

There is a triage system in place in our larger communities, such as the Vancouver area — where you’re from, senator — the GTA, Calgary and Edmonton, to help people be served more expeditiously. Officials continue to look for solutions to what is a very troubling and difficult situation for far too many Canadians.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, my next question is maybe somewhat of a supplementary to what Senator Housakos already spoke about.

Last week, you will recall that I asked you twice about your government’s reluctance to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, as a terrorist organization. In your answer, you spoke about the separation of powers, implying that it is not your government’s responsibility to decide whether to designate or not to designate — a bizarre response considering that the decision on whether to list an organization as a terrorist entity is taken entirely within the executive branch.

In fact, in 2018, the House government leader’s parliamentary secretary at the time outlined the process for listing the IRGC under the Criminal Code. A criminal or security intelligence report is drafted which documents the entity’s activities. The report is then reviewed by an independent council at the Department of Justice to ensure that the entity meets the legal threshold for listing. If the Minister of Public Safety agrees that this is the test that is to be met, he may make a recommendation to cabinet that the entity be listed.

Leader, the procedure is clear, so is it that your government can’t list the IRGC or that it won’t? Which begs the same question I asked you last week, leader: why?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I certainly did not intend to say that the government had no responsibility for the ultimate decision in the process that you described. So if you said my answer implied that, I think that was certainly not my intent.

But if I recall, your question also touched upon the role of security agencies that are seized with the responsibility to advise and make recommendations as part of an appropriate process to make sure that decisions of this nature are made intelligently and appropriately.

In that regard, the government remains focused on what further steps it might take to enhance the sanctions and the pressure on Iran, its agencies and its instruments to condemn and further underline our condemnation of the actions against their citizens and against our values abroad.

Senator Gold: Senator, you know from your own political experience and your experience in government that I’m not at liberty to disclose what advice or reports were issued to cabinet. I simply stand by the answer that I have already given on a number of occasions to this question.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, my question is again for the government leader in the Senate and it has to do with “JustinFlation.” I have asked about this issue on a number of occasions, and it is an issue that is starting to destroy average middle-class and poor Canadians who are struggling to survive.

I’ll ask the question a little bit differently because in the past I’ve tried to hold this government responsible for some of the things they have done, and, of course, this government never takes responsibility. It’s market forces, international conditions, wars — it’s any other reason but the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Trudeau or his two finance ministers over the last seven years.

Will you agree that, with three small steps, we can solve “JustinFlation”? Number one, will you agree that this government should cap the Liberal government’s spending and taxation of the middle class with the Employment Insurance, or EI, taxes that are being implemented as of January?

Second, cap the Liberal government runaway deficit right now?

The third step, very importantly, unleash the energy sector in this country to produce energy that Canadians badly need to heat their homes, that farmers need in order to fuel their tractors and produce more food and, of course, that the rest of the world is so thirsty for because right now they’re under the grip of a bunch of dictatorships like Russia, Iran and I can go through the list.

Do you agree with those three simple steps the government can take in order to give middle-class Canadians, and those working hard to join the middle class, some relief?

Senator Gold: I’m choosing to find a question in your comments, which gives me the opportunity to say the following: These are serious matters. As I’ve said on many occasions, what Canadians are going through — with the rising cost of food and other essentials and with the challenges in finding appropriate and affordable housing — are real and serious problems. I have stood here many times, Senator Housakos, and tried to draw a distinction between the tone and content of the questions, as well as the use of slogans like “JustinFlation” — which does not violate any privileges in this place because there is no Justin here. It can’t be used in the other place, so I guess one has to cycle these slogans where they can be safely said.

I draw the distinction between the purposes, which I accept and which we all accept. Question Period is where you ask questions to hold the government to account, and I do my best to answer. These are serious questions that deserve serious answers. As I’ve tried to do on so many occasions — and I won’t sit here and lecture, because I think you’re tired of hearing me say the same thing, as are our colleagues here who may have a different view than you as to what the policy instruments or causes are. Suffice it to say, these are real problems that require real solutions and analysis worthy of this chamber.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): No, I do not. Thank you for your question.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of September 29, 2022, moved:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice:

1.the Senate resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole at 6 p.m. on Thursday, October 6, 2022, to consider the subject matter of Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit), with any proceedings then before the Senate being interrupted until the end of Committee of the Whole;

2.notwithstanding rule 3-3(1), the sitting be suspended at 5 p.m., rather than 6 p.m., for a period of 60 minutes;

3.if the bells are ringing for a vote at the time the committee is to meet, they be interrupted for the Committee of the Whole at that time, and resume once the committee has completed its work for the balance of any time remaining;

4.the Committee of the Whole on the subject matter of Bill C-30 receive the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, P.C., M.P., Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, accompanied by no more than two officials;

5.the Committee of the Whole on the subject matter of Bill C-30 rise no later than 95 minutes after it begins;

6.the witness’s introductory remarks last a maximum total of five minutes; and

7.if a senator does not use the entire period of 10 minutes for debate provided under rule 12-32(3)(d), including the responses of the witnesses, that senator may yield the balance of time to another senator.

Senator Martin: Senator, excuses and further delays are unacceptable. The government knew that the 10-year passports were expiring and knew there would be demand once the pandemic was over.

Passports aren’t the only issue at IRCC. While life has returned to normal for millions of Canadians, new Canadians still cannot take their oath of citizenship at an in-person ceremony. As an immigrant myself, I know that for a new Canadian taking their oath, alongside dozens of other excited new Canadians, is among the most important moments and memories.

(1440)

Senator Gold, why is the minister continuing to deny new Canadians this once-in-a-lifetime experience?

Hon. Percy Mockler: Honourable senators, before I speak on Bill S-222, I would like to quote Michael Green, a famous architect from Vancouver, who said the following in the preface of The Canadian Forest Sector: A Future Based on Innovation report by the Agriculture and Forestry Committee in 2011:

I would love to see our nation move to a sense of ambition, of world leadership and dominance in the way we express wood and the way we build with wood. We are wonderful at cutting down trees but we still export them and hope others use them well. We have to learn how to celebrate our own material in the architecture we do.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, it is with great pride that I rise today as the critic of Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood). Bill S-222 is essential. It is a very positive initiative for Canada’s forestry industry that will benefit our country from coast to coast to coast.

[English]

Honourable senators, I would like to thank our recently retired colleague Senator Diane Griffin for sponsoring this bill, which is a reintroduction of an earlier Commons bill that died on the Order Paper.

Congratulations to Senator Griffin for her dedication to this file and her steadfast vision of the importance of using wood from coast to coast to coast in Canada. The benefits will be monumental for the industry — economically, socially and environmentally.

I would also like to thank a newcomer to the Senate, our friend and colleague from New Brunswick — a fellow New Brunswicker — Senator Jim Quinn, for carrying this bill through the remaining legislative stages in the Senate. Great leadership, sir.

Honourable senators, I want to congratulate the Chair of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, Senator Robert Black, as well as the members of the committee, for the excellent report that was produced on Bill S-222. The report is very informative and enlightening and highlights the importance of the use of wood for our economy and for the forestry sector as a whole, in all areas of Canada and in our communities. There is no doubt in our minds that Canada is the leader of the best practices in managing forests.

Put into context, honourable senators, it is the story of our great country. No one can deny that, from our earliest beginnings, forestry was part of our life, and today it still plays an important role in our economic sector from coast to coast to coast.

I will share with you a bit of history, the reason I support Bill S-222 and why now is the right time for it to become law.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I cannot criticize the strategic objectives of this bill, which seeks to require the Minister of Public Works and Procurement to consider using wood in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I must say that although I am the bill’s critic, I am a friendly critic, as the people back home would say. Honourable senators, in the federal riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, the forestry industry has generated a total of $363 million and represents 26.6% of all jobs in the region. What’s more, New Brunswick’s forestry industry generated more than $1.7 billion in economic spinoffs in 2016. I think it is easy to understand that wood has been an economic driver for our region, our province and Atlantic Canada, and from coast to coast to coast in Canada.

[English]

Honourable senators, the Senate provides increased representation for smaller regions of Canada so they are not overlooked. It is our responsibility to ensure that laws are beneficial for all Canadians, regardless of where they live across Canada. There is no doubt in my mind that using wood has many benefits, which I will highlight as I share comments from stakeholders across Canada.

Honourable senators, we cannot deny the fact that successive governments, provincially and federally, since our humble beginnings in 1867, had a vision to legislate for natural resources and environmental management. As we are growing and modernizing our country, both jurisdictions, provincial and federal, shared a common national forest strategy that still benefits all regions of our great country.

Let us remind ourselves as parliamentarians that the sixth national forest strategy was groundbreaking. It was entitled A Vision for Canada’s Forests: 2008 and Beyond, and it was released in December 2008 by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. With that strategy, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, including representatives from the federal, provincial and territorial governments, identified two major priorities that still stand today: the transformation of all forest sectors and — yes — climate change.

[Translation]

I would also be remiss if I did not mention the two reports issued by a Senate committee in 2011 and 2018, which also drew the attention of successive governments to the importance of communicating the benefits of using wood in the construction of multi-storey buildings, both residential and commercial.

These two reports have been raising awareness among governments of different stripes for the past 10 years, ensuring that they recognize the important role that wood and the Canadian forest play in the fight against climate change and greenhouse gases. One of the reports was entitled, and I am looking at Senator Galvez, The Canadian Forest Sector: A Future Based on Innovation.

[English]

Honourable senators, the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, chaired by Senator Griffin, was released in 2018 with the title Feast or Famine. One observation that is appropriate and telling with respect to Bill S-222 going forward. Observation 13 states:

That the Government of Canada:

a. ensure that research funding is available for high-level assessment to determine the most effective, economical investments in climate change action; and

b. continue to implement programs and initiatives that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging the use of new materials, such as advanced bioproducts, and new technologies to sequester carbon, like constructing tall buildings with wood.

That was groundbreaking. It is the right thing to do, honourable senators.

Please permit me to quote the Canadian Wood Council:

Canada is sustainable forestry, in conjunction with widespread use of wood as a construction material, is a simple and cost-effective way to mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions of other industries. A typical 216 square metre (2,400 square feet) wood-frame house holds 28.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide, an amount equal to the emissions of a small car over seven years.

Honourable senators, for additional information, Forintek Canada Corporation is also revealing important statistics on the use of wood. It is also reported that, according to science-based evidence, from an environmental perspective, for every cubic metre of additional wood used in Canada, the wood removes from the atmosphere one tonne of carbon dioxide. An increased use of wood by mills in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in Atlantic Canada would remove 160,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, which is the same as 35,000 vehicles being off of our highways.

When there is an alignment between environment and economy, we as a country must show leadership and rise to the occasion. We must continue to use smarter techniques to use wood in construction. There is no doubt in my mind that we are the best country in the world to lead that fight.

I want to share with you that on June 9, 2022, there was signed the Memorandum of Cooperation between the Government of Canada and the Government of the State of California of the United States of America concerning Climate Action and Nature Protection. The memorandum’s objective 1(a)(ii) is to promote, inter alia:

. . . the use of clean technologies to meet their emission reduction and Canada’s net zero goals, . . . and to build resilience;

In the spirit and intention of that memorandum, Canada should require the use of wood whenever federal buildings are converted to housing, creating an opportunity to contribute to a significant national need of reducing emissions. It is incumbent upon us, honourable senators, in order to maintain the quality of life of all Canadians going forward.

The Canada-California memorandum is an initiative working in the spirit of our debate today on Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood).

Parliamentarians, we have a duty to act now. There is no doubt that Bill S-222 is a catalyst. Sustainably managed forests are a net carbon sink and a critical tool to fight against climate change. It will help Canada meet its emissions-reduction targets.

Lumber sourced from sustainably managed forests is a viable alternative for our economy, also.

Science-based evidence notes that lumber stores carbon for over 100 years. In North America, it is laudable that most Canadian forestry products companies, from coast to coast to coast, carry third-party forest certifications, like the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, which also means that the lumber is LEED, or green-building-certified. It is Canada’s leadership, and there is no doubt that we are the envy of many other countries.

It is a step in the right direction, and in the spirit of Bill S-222, I want to share with you that the new National Building Code of Canada 2020 allows the construction in Canada of 12-storey buildings using wood only and what is called cross-laminated timber, which has a smaller carbon footprint than conventional materials.

Bill S-222 is the next pillar to move forward with wood and cross-laminated timber to help create better jobs. Most of the commercial tree species growing in Atlantic Canada are accepted and can be used in cross-laminated timber and other wood‑engineered products. It has a role to play, just like concrete, and it has a role to play, just like steel.

Honourable senators, the erection time required for wood, mid‑rise buildings, that are 12-storeys high and use cross‑laminated timber is significantly less than a conventional building, which therefore reduces labour costs and allows for fast project completion.

Cross-laminated timber buildings are meeting all Canadian fire codes and seismic requirements, and have been used in new construction in Europe for many decades. Government policies that would favour and promote the use of engineered wood in commercial and government buildings would help to support the local forest product value chain, create more jobs locally and reduce the reliance of our Atlantic lumber industry on exports.

According to the Forest Products Association of Canada, if Bill S-222 becomes law, there is potential for 10% growth in the use of wood across Canada. When the bill is combined with a review of building codes to allow for the construction of tall, wood buildings, the Forest Products Association of Canada predicts the possibility of an increase of 500–750 well-paying jobs in the Maritimes alone and about 5,000 jobs across Canada.

Honourable senators, it is reported — as per science-based information — that from an environmental perspective, for every cubic metre of additional wood used in Canada, the wood removes from the atmosphere one tonne of carbon tax.

Therefore, the increased use of wood by mills in New Brunswick, and by looking at the impact it would have on our emissions, I believe that when there is an alignment between the environment and the economy, as a country, we can continue to show leadership.

[Translation]

To conclude, I would like to quote the Canadian Wood Council:

Canada’s sustainable forestry, in conjunction with widespread use of wood as a construction material, is a simple and cost-effective way to mitigate . . . greenhouse gas emissions . . . .

[English]

Honourable senators, when I was asked to be the critic of this bill, I thought back to my time as Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry where we issued a 2011 report called The Canadian Forest Sector: A Future Based on Innovation. The leadership provided to the senators in 2011 and the leadership provided now is the right thing to do.

Colleagues, we are starting to see the benefits of this long-term innovation, but its use is not uniform across the country. Bill S-222 is our last building block to ensure the use of wood in our construction cycle.

In conclusion, Sir Winston Churchill once said:

 . . . it is better to be both right and consistent. But if you have to choose—you must choose to be right.

Honourable senators, as I conclude, we are doing the right thing, and we are consistent in the spirit of Sir Winston Churchill and the challenges that we have to protect the quality of life of Canadians and create durable jobs. Thank you.