Hon. Tony Dean: Honourable senators, I rise on behalf of Senator Sabi Marwah and myself to say a few words about our friend and colleague Howard Wetston.

Howard is a highly trusted policy-maker, a nationally renowned regulator, a Federal Court judge in his past, a senator, a collector and player of electric guitars, a tennis player, a snazzy dresser, a recipient of the Order of Canada and — I have just had to write in — golfer.

When we arrived in this place six years ago, Sabi and I were in awe of being appointed alongside Howard. That was because if you got anywhere near the complex world of energy policy, energy regulation or securities regulation, and the major debates about a national securities regulator in Canada, you know about the legendary role and massive contributions of Howard Wetston, including his tenure as a jurist.

I certainly knew about Howard; I had heard about him often, but our paths seldom crossed. Therefore, it has been such a privilege to work alongside you, Howard, and to see your vast experience, scholarship, judgment and, let’s face it, dry sense of humour, which we’ve all seen in full flow.

Howard held senior influential and highly impactful roles as the chair of the Ontario Energy Board and the Ontario Securities Commission. Many things stand out. First, as chair of the Ontario Energy Board, we saw Howard’s balanced emphasis on the thoughtful regulation of electricity and natural gas, directly rooted in legal principles and economic rationale. He enjoyed a distinguished and closely watched tenure as chair of the Ontario Securities Commission, and he was a strong advocate of the concept of a national securities regulator and worked hard to make it a reality, which he has noted as a missed opportunity to create “a best-in-class, state-of-the-art, modern 21st century regulator.”

Howard, as we know, sound policy proposals and good ideas never go away completely, so don’t give up.

Howard has also worked hard to improve diversity on corporate boards and has been publicly recognized for this. He has continued that work here in collaboration with Senator Omidvar and other colleagues.

In his inaugural speech, Howard talked humbly about his past achievements, saying that he had worked in two of the three major fields occupied by our work here in the Senate, the first two being public policy and the law — both of which Howard is well informed about — and the third one is politics. Howard, I hope you have enjoyed the third leg of the stool, my friend.

Howard has made huge contributions here as chair of the Senate’s Banking Committee and as a member of several other committees. He brought with him his vast experience at senior levels of institutions and boards. His legacy, as many colleagues have noted, will be his major study on competition law, which we can now build on.

Howard has always been highly respected as the quintessential public servant: lots of integrity, he cared tremendously about the public interest and he was always perceived as being wise. Howard has quietly shared that wisdom with many of us here, particularly colleagues who have had to tackle complex issues associated with policy and legislation.

Howard, we have been privileged to work with you, learn from you and benefit from your wisdom. You will now have more time to grow and play your collection of electric guitars, and to sharpen your competitive edge in your tennis games even more.

We will miss you here, Howard, but you haven’t seen the last of us. We are going to stay in touch. All the very best, and thank you for your friendship.

Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, I would like to first share a few personal words about Senator Wetston and then talk about his remarkable career.

I’ve known Senator Wetston, or Howard Wetston as he then was, for over 50 years. Howard and I started law school in 1971 at Dalhousie in Halifax. Howard was the star of that star-studded law school class graduating class of 1974. Howard and I have remained friends over the years, occasionally overlapping in work or sports. As some of you well know, Howard was and still is a formidable athlete, as we’ve heard, when his health permits.

We have grown closer in the Senate. Here, he has been my mentor, friend and guide. On my first date day — in fact, in my first hour in the Senate — Howard came over to my seat, up there in the nosebleed section, where Senator Quinn is presently, and offered his advice and support. We had dinner together that first week and had regular coffees, all with gentle guidance to help me navigate the mysteries of the upper house. He made calls of encouragement pretty well every week.

All of us have benefited from Howard’s wisdom — yes, wisdom — and his generosity of spirit, but I think none more than me. Thank you, Howard.

Second, he’s had a career of excellence and distinction at every stage, as you’ve heard, as a Crown prosecutor in Nova Scotia, Director of the Competition Bureau Canada, judge of the Federal Court of Canada, chair of the Ontario Energy Board, member and chair of the Ontario Securities Commission, not to mention his amazing contributions as a senator.

The law school from which he graduated is known for its “Weldon Tradition,” a commitment to public service. It is named after its founding dean, Richard Weldon, himself a member of Parliament over a century ago. As I listed off Howard’s contributions, you might well think, as I have, that this tradition of commitment to public service could have aptly been named the “Wetston Tradition.” All of this emerged from extremely humble beginnings about which Senator Wetston only occasionally speaks.

His contributions to this country have often been at the cost to him of opportunities foregone, sacrifices so that Canadians could benefit. In some ways, he is a superman, which brings to mind, for me, the closing lines from the Crash Test Dummies song, “Superman’s Song,” sung by Brad Roberts. Some of you will know it. It goes like this — and I won’t try to sing it:

Kept on changing clothes

In dirty old phonebooths ’til his work was through

And nothing to do but go on home

Superman never made any money

For saving the world from Solomon Grundy

And sometimes I despair

The world will never see another man like him

A man like Howard Wetston.

Thank you, Howard, for your kindness to me, and for your lifetime of work on behalf of Canadians.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Howard, how can I possibly pay tribute to you in such a short time and tell you how much I value your brilliance? I am privileged to count you among the people who have enriched my life in so many ways.

You are a skilled, subtle and cunning speaker with great emotional intelligence. Very respectful of your colleagues, you accept and consider the ideas and suggestions of others.

I know you as a humble man with an avid curiosity to constantly acquire additional knowledge and understanding. You are an active listener, balanced, calm despite everything, open-minded and analytical. You enjoy silence and peace, but you also enjoy the company of others, and the exchange of ideas and knowledge.

Howard, you have an impressive track record. Before you were appointed to the Senate, you served as a counsel at Goodmans LLP. You are a prominent Canadian leader and a respected public servant, a distinguished lawyer, jurist, regulator and executive. You are an expert in competition law and policy, securities regulation, energy regulation and administrative law. You were a judge of the Federal Court of Canada for six years. At some point during your career, you were Director of Investigation and Research with the federal Competition Bureau, chair and CEO of the Ontario Securities Commission and chair and CEO of the Ontario Energy Board.

Howard, you were at the heart of many significant changes and played an important role in Ontario.

You were called “Suitcase Wetston,” and you provided the explanation for the nickname, saying to me:

I worked in the public service for most of my career. I looked at whatever job I was in as an opportunity to make a difference — I packed my suitcase and went wherever an opportunity arose. When I didn’t feel what I was doing was making a meaningful difference anymore, then I moved on. To me, the nickname was a metaphor for taking a risk — I was willing to take risks with my career. My career in public service was a lifelong experience of learning.

I know you are an active reader, an avid tennis player and that you count among your close circle an impressive number of friends. You are a busy person, but despite your active lifestyle, I have an assignment for you, Howard. You have a story to tell. Please write your biography. From the time of your family’s immigration to Canada to the brilliant career you forged for yourself and the amount of knowledge and experience you have acquired over the years — all of that needs to be shared.

I am an avid reader of biographies and would immensely benefit from reading about you, your life, your involvements, your knowledge, your expertise and your lessons learned.

You are an excellent writer, a good storyteller and a brilliant man. Howard, please let us know; let the world know. Keep well, my friend. You will be missed.

Senator Plett: Thank you, minister. I’m not sure whether that was a yes or a no. But with respect, as I said, I met with the Manitoba beef producers, and they are very concerned about this measure. Margins are already extremely tight. Your carbon tax has hammered their profitability, and this measure is just one more hurdle that they cannot afford.

We see this in a number of other areas in the agricultural sector, where the NDP-Liberal government is deliberately choosing policies that make life more unaffordable for farmers and producers.

Minister, why does your government seem to be doing everything in its power to undermine our beef industry?

We do care for farmers, and we are there to support them in different ways. In the last Fall Economic Statement and in the last budget, we are investing $1.5 billion to support our farmers in different ways, so I would say that our government has the backs of farmers. We recognize their extremely important contribution to our food security and our economy, and also their dedication to sustainable agriculture.

Our government is there, and I can explain during the coming hour the different ways and programming that we are putting in place to support them.

Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, I still remember the announcement in The Globe and Mail in 2016 saying that Prime Minister Trudeau had appointed Howard Wetston to represent Ontario in the Senate. How lucky for the Senate, for Ontario and for Canada.

Howard Wetston has been a marvellous colleague and the model of an excellent senator. He brought to this chamber a depth of expertise in an area that is extremely relevant and vital for government, and I always appreciated his wisdom, judgment and willingness to share his knowledge.

Senator Wetston came to this chamber as a leader in administrative law and regulation with expertise in securities, energy and other regulated industries. He led the Ontario Securities Commission, the Ontario Energy Board and the Competition Bureau. He is a former federal judge and much more. Our colleague was truly a regulator for the 21st century, and I can say that, because I had first-hand experience.

Howard Wetston was my client in our previous lives. As chair of the Ontario Energy Board two decades ago, he brought in processes that were actually considered revolutionary for a regulator. He consulted widely with stakeholders, not only the big electricity and natural gas distributors, but consumers, academics, industry groups and the media. He set goals for his organization, he made them public and he measured his progress and made that public too. That is how I got to know him, as my firm was retained to conduct surveys with stakeholders and consumers.

I also learned at that time that Howard loved discussing and debating just about everything, which was a fine quality that has made him such a wonderful senator and colleague — none of this top-down style of leadership from him.

There’s much, much more. Here is just one: While chair of the Ontario Securities Commission, he took on the challenge of implementing a comply-or-explain policy with respect to women on corporate boards to promote gender equality in the private sector. He expanded this approach when, as senator, he sponsored Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, which required corporations to report whether they had implemented policies regarding diversity, what these policies involved, and, if not, why they had not implemented such policies.

As he said in his sponsor speech:

Talent is not gender-specific. Talented people must be given the opportunity to succeed regardless of gender or ethnicity.

Empowering our diverse and skilled talent to lead Canadian corporations will only benefit our investors, competition and the Canadian economy at large.

Howard, thank you for your service, for your help and advice, for your generosity of spirit, for your collegiality and good humour, and I offer my very, very best wishes to you in the years and months ahead. Like many of my colleagues, I hope to call on you for advice going forward.

Thank you, very, very much, Howard.

Hon. Howard Wetston: Honourable senators, once again, I want to thank the Speaker.

I wish I could be there physically with you, but I took the decision not to appear in the chamber today because I’ve come down with a cold or a flu. I so much wanted to participate, so I decided to do it from my office. Please forgive me for not being in the chamber with you today.

I want to thank you for your kind words on the occasion of my retirement. Your comments are very, very thoughtful, and they mean so much to me. I wonder, though, if I might ask you for something. Might, perhaps, one or two or three of the senators who provided tributes to me wish to write a reference letter for me when I apply for my next job? I may call on you to do that, but I am very, very thankful.

I do have a lot of things to do before I clean out my office, but nothing is more important than what I want to do today, and that is to say thank you to each of you.

Speaking about retirement, as Senator Cotter once said in the Senate in a somewhat different context, “I expected this.” Senator Cotter would remember that.

I have moved around a lot in my career and often had to consider whether to leave before my best-before date. On this occasion, I don’t have to consider that. Nevertheless, not all aspects about my retirement are negative. I won’t have to think about seeing the clock. I won’t have to struggle to figure out how to change channels on Microsoft Teams, and I won’t have to wait through another one-hour bell. Those must be positive things.

Let me begin by thanking our extremely skilled and highly professional administrative staff. I have very much appreciated the advice of the Clerk of the Senate, the law clerks, the staff in Chamber Operations, the clerks of all our Senate committees, as well as the committed staff who support these offices.

I would especially like to thank our Speaker and Speaker pro tempore for their incredibly patient, wise and objective management of Senate proceedings.

As a member of the Independent Senators Group, I wish to express my thanks to its leadership team. I have valued your tireless efforts and commitment, Senator Saint-Germain, Senator Dean, Senator Woo, Senator Duncan, Senator Omidvar and Senator Peticlerc. It’s been a lot of heavy lifting over the last six years and will continue to be, but I’m optimistic about where the Senate is heading.

I would also thank my seatmate over the past five and a half years, my good friend Senator Marwah. You could not find a better person to have in your corner. I’ve always appreciated and enjoyed how he cuts through complex issues like a hot knife through butter. More importantly, I have considerable respect and admiration for him as a person.

Senators, I believe that my most satisfying professional achievement was being appointed to the Senate of Canada as it allowed me to serve in all three branches of our parliamentary democracy: executive, both federally and provincially; judicial, at the Federal Court of Canada, as you know; and legislative. I was able to complete the parliamentary trifecta when I was appointed to the Senate.

You might ask what I learned from these experiences — obviously, a great deal — but first, common sense and pragmatism work best in the reform of markets. Second, regulation has always been about addressing problems with human behaviour, not necessarily problems with innovation. Third, policy making involves complex trade-offs, as you all know, but the bigger challenge is always implementation. And, fourth, I may now know more, but I am sure of less. It is a complex world.

Colleagues, as you have heard from other senators, my parents were Jewish immigrants who fled Poland to Uzbekistan and were then relocated by the Allied forces to a displaced persons’ camp in Ulm, Germany, where I was born. By the way, Albert Einstein was also born in Ulm, Germany. Don’t take too much from that comment. Surprisingly, we share very little in common, other than we have similar hair.

We eventually settled in Whitney Pier in Sydney, Nova Scotia, and my Nova Scotian colleagues would understand where that is. My parents lived there for nearly 60 years.

I was raised in a multicultural and multi-ethnic community, which shaped my value system. We were the only Jewish family in the neighbourhood. We were a religious family. Growing up, we accommodated our differences culturally, socially and economically. There was no internet or Google to keep us occupied. Sports and education brought us together. There were many challenges, but our community was resilient and hard-working.

My upbringing provided me with a strong sense of social and economic justice, which carried through my entire career as a public servant, as a judge and as a senator.

When I consider my time in the Senate, it feels too short, and, to be honest, I feel somewhat cheated. Maybe it’s because of my age but, more so, we lost meaningful time due to the pandemic, an election, a prorogation and, of course, our important committee work was curtailed significantly.

During this time, we also sadly lost three of our own devoted senators: Senator Forest-Niesing, Senator Keating and Senator McCoy. Their contributions will always be remembered. In the Jewish tradition, we say, “May their memories be for a blessing.”

Senators, I enjoyed my work with Senator Colin Deacon in the Banking Committee under the leadership of Senator Doug Black in preparing a report on open banking, which was well received by the fintec community. Indeed, the government is now proceeding to develop an open banking framework, as you know. It will help transform how financial institutions operate. It puts consumers first.

Also, as has been stated, I worked on Bill C-25, which modernized certain elements of the Canada Business Corporations Act. I am especially pleased with the corporate governance reforms with respect to directors’ duties and board director diversity. I recognize that Senator Omidvar was somewhat disappointed that we didn’t go far enough, but I might just say that there’s more to be done and I hope you pursue it.

I worked closely with Senator Woo, and others, on Bill C-69, the wide-ranging environmental impact legislation. That was a massive undertaking for the Energy Committee under the chairmanship of Senator Galvez. The bill was studied over 36 committee meetings; those were the good old days. We worked very closely with other senators in passing this complex piece of legislation, which included numerous amendments from all across the chamber.

I served as a member of the Ethics Committee, which was very meaningful for me. We consistently approached our work with objectivity and fair-mindedness. I enjoyed working with all my colleagues on this committee.

I also think I can recall a period when I was chair of the Banking Committee. I was probably the shortest-serving chair of this committee in the history of the Senate, but at least I can put it on my CV.

Finally, I am most satisfied to have initiated a Senate consultation to examine the Canadian Competition Act in the digital era.

Honourable senators, I want to emphasize that this was a Senate consultation, and I believe the Senate should be proud of the fact that we’ve seen some action on the part of the federal government. Feedback from stakeholders who participated in the consultation indicated that it nudged government to proceed with limited — but important — amendments to the Competition Act. You have seen that in the pre-study to the budget implementation act. I am pleased that the government also intends to proceed with a broad-based stakeholder consultation in the future.

Honourable senators, I joined the Senate at an important time in its history and in the wake of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision regarding Senate reform, which clarified the federal government’s ability to change the terms of Senate appointments.

I believe we are moving toward a Senate that is more reflective of Canada’s diverse population, which is giving more voice to these perspectives and conversations. This has resulted in a more diverse scrutiny of bills and the initiation of special studies and inquiries, which also gives senators the opportunity to join different groups, changing the structural composition of the new independent model. It provides more options for senators. I had a very long chat about this with Senator Dean and I was very satisfied with my being able to present this to the Senate today.

Honourable senators, I believe the Senate is now functioning as it was originally intended — that is, as an independent and complementary legislative body of sober second thought, and not in competition with the House of Commons.

It is my belief that the Senate’s reputation has improved over these last six years. The independent model appears to be building more confidence and trust with the public.

I also agree with the article Senator Harder wrote several years ago — it found its way into a constitutional magazine, which was quite surprising, Senator Harder — in which he asserts that the renewed Senate has acted neither as a rubber stamp for the government nor as a rival to the people’s elected representatives.

In addition, I’m optimistic because I see positive developments in the Senate. Senators are moving between groups. There is more communication and collaboration. Senators from all groups, including the opposition — and I do respect the important work of the opposition; the challenge function is critical — are working together on bills, inquiries and motions in advancing social and economic justice in Canada.

Honourable senators, we live in a more complex and unfriendly world. Indeed, it is distressing to observe the brutality of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Parliament must continue to stand up against this cruelty and I am confident that it will.

It was Mark Twain who said that history may not repeat itself, but it rhymes.

In conclusion, I am grateful to have been part of an institution that represents Canada’s diverse regional, linguistic, cultural and socio-economic interests.

The Senate has been hard at work and I have observed the thoroughness, commitment and thoughtfulness of the Senate’s legislative and committee work.

I wish to thank my staff, Jonathan Bishop and Lisa Fisher. They have served me exceptionally well. They have juggled all my files — and there was no shortage of files — with dedication, enthusiasm and hard work.

Colleagues, I will now look forward to being less scheduled. I will spend more time travelling with Debbie, whom I would like to thank for always being by my side. I’m also going to spend more time studying music; Debbie often asks me, “How many guitars do you need?” I always say, “Just one more.”

That’s a message to Senator Gold.

I’m going to get back on the tennis court and start playing golf again. Maybe we’ll have that golf game, Senator Plett; I hope we do.

There’s always more to do. I’ve been asked to take on some new work — it’s been hard to say no, but I’m trying to get better at it.

Honourable senators, it has been a pleasure and a privilege working with you. It’s been an honour to be a senator. Thank you for your commitment. You have my deepest respect. Thank you for your friendship.

Hon. Marty Klyne: Minister, my question is about the Canada Water Agency. As you know, establishing the CWA is part of the mandate letters for you and the Minister of the Environment. It’s a goal that I and many others hope to see the government move expeditiously on.

Given recent extreme weather events and increased risk in the future, establishing the CWA and rewriting the Canada Water Act are important priorities. They can help mitigate flooding, preserve safe drinking water, manage drought and limit forest fires. Water management also impacts food security in Canada.

Where do things stand with the establishment of the CWA, and do you have a timeline you can share with this chamber?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Your Honour, I rise today on a point of order regarding Question Period. Actually, it’s probably more of a request, Your Honour, for clarification around the parameters around Question Period.

Lately, some senators have taken the habit of asking questions to chairs of committees. That is certainly within the rules and we have no problem with that, as it is a useful tool to learn more about the work of committees. But I think, Your Honour, that you need to remind us and this chamber of the rules regarding those questions.

Yesterday, as you know, Your Honour, we had two senators asking questions of committee chairs, and it’s our belief that in both cases the Rules of the Senate were not followed with those particular questions.

After Senator Black asked his question to the chair of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, you did remind him and the rest of the senators that questions should not be asked of subcommittee chairs and, in fact, by the rules cannot be asked of subcommittee chairs. I do regret the fact that you allowed, however, the question to be answered after ruling that it was out of order. This incident clearly showed us, Your Honour, that clarification around the rules of these types of questions are needed.

As well, during yesterday’s sitting, Senator Bovey asked a question of Senator Boehm in his capacity as chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. While this particular question was on the business of the committee, which, of course, is required by the rules that the question needs to be placed on the business of the committee, the supplementary question was asked of Senator Boehm, which was asking him for a personal opinion. While I have the highest regard for Senator Boehm and his opinions — and a personal opinion from him would always be valuable — Question Period is not the moment or the place for senators to share our opinions.

The next concern that I have about Question Period is centred, in our opinion on this side here, on the length and time of the questions and the answers. As you know, we have established a mechanism whereby the time granted for questions and answers are limited when ministers come to this chamber, and I think it has worked very well. I think we can all agree that this allows for better rhythm and for more senators to be able to get involved and ask their questions.

I am not, at this point, suggesting that we start using a stopwatch each time a senator stands to ask a question. However, some senators’ questions are getting borderline close to making Senators’ Statements. And with the highest regard and respect for our government leader — and, indeed, for chairs — the answers, or non-answers, are equally long. That is unfair to senators who would like to ask a question, are at the bottom of the order and can’t get to their questions.

Your Honour, I do not want this to be a debate in this chamber. I simply thank you in advance, Your Honour, for any consideration you might give to this request for clarification and simply ask, Your Honour, that you clarify for all of us the rules and parameters around Question Period and these types of questions. Thank you, Your Honour.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: Today I am speaking to Bill S-220, which is Senator Carignan’s way of inviting us to make fluency in French and English a requirement for the position of Governor General.

While it is our responsibility to study this bill, I see this as an excellent opportunity to reflect on official bilingualism in Canada today, the protection of Indigenous languages and, in this context, our commitment to reconciliation.

Before I get to the substance of my speech, I would like to thank Senator McCallum and Senator Francis, whose comments and the reservations they expressed about this bill really gave me a lot of food for thought.

To be honest, I’ve learned more from all our Indigenous senators over my six years in the Senate than in the entire rest of my life. Thanks to you, I have been exposed to more of the historic and contemporary realities of Indigenous peoples than ever before. You made me think, reach outside my comfort zone and question assumptions I’ve been making since childhood that no longer work. However, even when one chooses change, when it is necessary and positive, change is never simple or easy.

[English]

Our colleague Senator Christmas once told me, “Reconciliation is a journey that we must all travel together.” Honourable senators, this country that we now call Canada has embarked on this journey, and so has the Senate and each of us. I want my journey to reconciliation to be humble and ongoing. I realize it will be challenging at times, but I am committed to doing my part.

[Translation]

It is with that in mind that I wanted to address the chamber today.

I want to be very clear that my intervention goes well beyond the person of the Right Honourable Mary Simon, an inspiring woman with an exceptional career path, a fighter, a residential school survivor who managed to preserve her mother tongue despite the assimilative policies in force at those schools. Her national and international experience is impressive.

Former prime minister Paul Martin summed up what many people were saying, and I quote:

If there is one person who can help the country heal its wounds and move the reconciliation process forward, it is Mary Simon . . .

When she was appointed, against the very difficult backdrop of the discovery of unmarked graves at former residential school sites, I was filled with pride. What a historic appointment, symbolizing an important step forward in reconciliation.

However, as a francophone, I couldn’t help but feel uneasy at the same time. I say this almost as a confession, because I know that this is a very delicate point and a feeling that many have shared. However, in any reconciliation process, whether personal or historical and national, one must be bold enough to have uncomfortable reflections and conversations in order to move forward.

In this case, as much as I am proud that we finally have an Indigenous person as the Queen’s representative, I am not indifferent to the debate over her lack of proficiency in French; these feelings still coexist among many Canadians.

Canada is this unique identity made up of 70 Indigenous languages and more than 200 immigrant mother tongues. It is also two official languages, English and French, that are recognized under the Official Languages Act and protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is itself enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1982. In fact, in an article that was published in 2019, Senators Cormier and Poirier said the following, and I quote:

 . . . linguistic duality . . . is at the heart of Canada’s social contract, and strengthens relationships among all Canadians.

All of these languages are central to our lives, our daily lives, at the breakfast table, in our communities, at work.

On that, Minister Petitpas Taylor, in introducing Bill C-13, said she understands the following:

 . . . the importance of being able to grow up, work and live in one’s own language.

She also recognizes the following:

 . . . the fragility of our official language minority communities.

Finally, she notes that:

French is in significant decline in the country and that we must make a concerted effort to reverse this trend.

The fragility of French is real, and this must be a concern for us. In fact, history teaches us that it would be irresponsible to take anything for granted when it comes to the French language. On the contrary, the current situation compels us to remain vigilant.

Just recently, as Senator Carignan pointed out, an investigation by Radio-Canada revealed that more than four out of five deputy ministers or assistant deputy ministers in the federal public service are anglophones.

I will not revisit the recent controversies involving the CEOs of Air Canada and CN, companies that have no francophones on their boards of directors. These examples are indicative of the worrisome situation of French, and there are many others. In Quebec, according to the language projections of the Office québécois de la langue française, French will steadily decline as the language used at home. Quebec workplaces and francophone communities elsewhere in Canada have also not been spared. For example, Campus Saint-Jean in Alberta, where I had the pleasure of doing my university studies, is now at risk of disappearing.

It has been well documented that French-language minority populations do not always obtain services in their language, and that the linguistic identity of certain communities is jeopardized by rather worrisome rates of assimilation.

According to Raymond Théberge, the Commissioner of Official Languages, there are:

 . . . more than 8 million French-speaking Canadians in a sea of more than 300 million English-speaking North Americans . . . .

The digital world, which is primarily English, increases that vulnerability and makes the need to protect French all the more urgent.

We do not have to look very far. Even here, it would be naive to think that unilingual francophones do not face any challenges in fulfilling their parliamentary duties. The fight for the French language must be fought alongside the fight to save many of our Indigenous languages. That is a reality that I understand because I witnessed it first-hand.

When I was an athlete, I was sponsored by a company based in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and, as a result, I had the privilege of visiting the beautiful community of Mashteuiatsh. I remember visiting a school in the village where I met a classroom of children who were reclaiming their language. What really stood out to me, other than how proud the children were to teach me a few words of Nehlueun, was the look on the faces of the elders, who were moved to tears at hearing young people speaking their childhood language. That language had practically disappeared and was being revived thanks to their efforts. I never forgot that visit to Mashteuiatsh.

Let’s now come back to the bill before us today. With this bill, Senator Carignan is proposing to amend the Language Skills Act in order to ensure that future governors general are required to speak and understand both official languages.

As an athlete, a delegation head and Companion of the Order of Canada, I had the great privilege of meeting five of our governors general on a number of occasions. These experiences helped me realize how important protocol is to the role of representing the Queen. Governor generals attend receptions, present awards and engage in myriad causes. It is certainly a demanding role, but I was deeply touched every time I was invited. In their own way, they each shared an extraordinary ability to connect with us, to speak to us and to make us even prouder of being Canadian. As I speak, the memories come flooding back; I remember the wonderful conversations with Ms. Clarkson about physical activity with our Paralympians from across the country, as well as a long evening of culture and music hosted by Ms. Jean, at which everyone happily jumped back and forth between French and English. I could go on. One of the moments that touched me the most when I was Canada’s chef de mission, was the beautiful reception in the garden of the Honourable David Johnston, who had agreed to participate in the torch relay. We were surrounded by children from the local English- and French-language schools. With his typical generosity, he spent many hours talking to them, asking them questions — just spending time with them.

Let’s face it, this responsibility to fully exercise a representative role, this spontaneous ability to communicate with Canadians of all ages, in all contexts, in both official languages, cannot exist without a good command of these two languages.

Am I being dramatic? Maybe, maybe not, but I am troubled, to say the least. As much as this appointment is a promise, a hope, an inspiration for Indigenous youth, it is also a message to young francophones that, in the end, it does not matter that much if the person who assumes the duties of Canada’s Head of State cannot speak their mother tongue.

That same message is being sent to all Canadians, young and old, conveying that, in the end, French is not necessary because we can always “work something out.” That is what troubles me.

I’ve already asked Senator Carignan this, and it’s a question I still ask myself. Why is it that, in many fields, both public and private, many highly qualified candidates, including business people, judges and the Governor General are not, at the time of their appointment, fluent in both official languages? Of course, that also opens them to a flurry of criticism.

Just last Tuesday morning, in La Presse, Agnès Whitfield, a professor in York University’s English department, posed the following question:

 . . . why should we worry about unilingual anglophone judges’ career plans? People are not appointed to the highest court fresh out of law school. According to the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, the average age of a lawyer when first appointed to the bench is around 52 or 53. That means they have at least 20 years, if not 30, to learn French. Judges also have access to free French classes. What are we to infer from the fact that they consistently fail to work on learning French?

This shows that there are definitely major problems with the practice of bilingualism in Canadian institutions and the tools available to these individuals over the course of their career. Sadly, it also shows the little importance placed on learning both official languages in some environments. Being pressured to learn French or doing so out of obligation is not the same as doing it by choice, because you know it may help you get the job you want in the future.

The fact that we are in a situation where French continues to remain fragile shows that there are obstacles to bilingualism in Canada. We therefore need to dig deeper and ask questions about that. In an ideal world, we should not need the Language Skills Act.

Senator Dalphond was wondering whether the Language Skills Act is the best tool for correcting the structural problem created by this appointment. That is an interesting question. Here are some others. Will this bill help us achieve the objective? Will this challenge Canada’s bilingualism as we currently know it? Is there a risk that this appointment will set a precedent? Do we need to better understand the mechanisms and realities that stand in the way of learning both official languages?

These are all important and defining questions, and we need to have the courage to dig deep to get answers. That is why, honourable senators, I am proposing that we send this bill to committee for study.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau, P.C., M.P., Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food: Thank you. Actually, farmers benefit from some exemptions from the price on pollution: the on-farm diesel and cardlock; the greenhouse sector also has a significant exemption. So we do recognize that and we are reinvesting the revenue from the price on pollution in the agricultural sector. We are returning a larger amount to the community in general, but we are also saving some part of these revenues to return to the agricultural sector. Last year, we’re talking about $100 million that is going back into the pockets of our farmers through this rebate, and $121 million for the coming year. So we are returning it to our farmers.

It’s true this year that everyone in every sector is facing an increase in their input costs and also in the price of sales of their produce. Once again, our government is there to support our farmers. We’re talking about $4 billion last year. It is a record. We are the government who has increased the business risk management programs. So I think we are definitely there to support our farmers.

[Translation]

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Minister Bibeau, welcome to the Senate. Ukraine is known as Europe’s breadbasket, and the war in Ukraine has many concerned. To what extent can Canada compensate for the lack of global wheat supply caused by this war? Are you having or undertaking discussions on this matter with your European and global counterparts and our wheat producers? As we know, after Russia, Canada is the largest wheat exporter in the world.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Good afternoon, minister. Welcome back to the Senate of Canada.

The labour shortage is a very serious issue in Canada. As you know, this shortage is killing our farms and processing plants across the country. Quebec is particularly hard hit by this problem, and it seems to me that the federal government bears a significant share of the responsibility. Backlogs in the processing of assessment applications are having a significant impact on the labour market. It often takes several months for the Department of Employment and Social Development to process these applications. The same is true when it comes to processing visa applications at Immigration Canada.

All of these delays are penalizing and discouraging workers in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. The agricultural sector is one of the sectors that has been hit the hardest by the labour shortage. Does your department have a serious long-term plan to address this problem? Where do you think the bottleneck is? Why is it easier to enter Canada illegally than legally?

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Honourable senators, I speak from the unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

I rise today in full support of Senator Klyne’s Bill S-241, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act.

Several aspects of the act, as stated in the preamble, are of particular interest to me:

Whereas animal care organizations that meet the highest standards of animal care may serve the interests of animals across many species with regard to animal welfare, conservation, non-harmful scientific research and public education . . .

[Translation]

Whereas animal care organizations may contribute to wildlife rescue and rehabilitation, the provision of 25 sanctuary for animals in need, the restoration of wild populations and field research;

[English]

These summarize the goals, purposes and work of the Assiniboine Park Conservancy in Winnipeg — its zoo, gardens and parks. All the bill’s goals have proven to be attainable.

I recently met with Margaret Redmond, CEO, and Grant Furniss, Senior Director of Zoological Operations, at the Assiniboine Park Conservancy, located on Treaty 1 territory within the Province of Manitoba, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dene and Dakota peoples and the homeland of the Métis Nation. I can attest to the fact that the conservancy supports this bill in its current form. They referred to it as, “. . . a fantastic bill, trailblazing and revolutionary, and people are talking about it.”

First, I declare an age-old personal history with this zoo. In the 1950s, my father, a knowledgeable animal conservationist, was the chair of the zoo’s board. He and I went often — he walking, I on my bike. We spent much time behind the scenes with the keepers. As I can say, the attitudes I experienced then do not differ from those expressed throughout this bill. I am pleased to see those principles and standards coming into wide use.

Mr. Furniss told me the public is increasingly aware of animal welfare standards, expecting our zoos to be transparent and meet high standards — standards that constantly improve.

The Winnipeg Zoo’s Journey to Churchill exhibit is an excellent advance expression of this bill. It is a rescue centre for orphaned polar bear cubs; they are rehabilitated at the Leatherdale International Polar Bear Conservation Centre and are on view in an expanded habitat. There is a truly informative education centre with panels in various languages, Indigenous ones included. They are also conducting a northern denning project as polar bear dens in the wild are under threat given fires and climate change.

The conservancy aims to assist in protecting the area — another goal of this bill.

This bill encourages field work. In addition to the Journey to Churchill exhibition, the Assiniboine Park Conservancy, in keeping with the scientific and animal welfare principles, does significant field work. A team goes to Churchill annually for their Beluga Bits program in which they monitor the belugas, and invite anyone in the public to participate. In this work, they connect with traditional knowledge, profiled in their Journey to Churchill. They also work with the Churchill Northern Studies Centre, and their climate change research includes University of Manitoba academics and others.

Internationally, they have signed a memorandum of understanding with Japan’s Maruyama Zoo dealing with bears and climate change. There, brown bears — like our polar bears — are encroaching on populated areas. Both zoos are learning from each other’s experiences and the impacts of climate change on those species.

In keeping with the conservation aspect of this bill, the Assiniboine Park Conservancy has worked diligently to preserve the Poweshiek Skipperling butterfly, which is dependent on the tall grass prairie. Their research has saved the species from extinction. Only about 50 were extant at the outset of their work. This year, they are about to release 300 back into nature; their first release several years ago was only six. This important conservation project, mirroring what this bill calls for, was based on primary research, breeding and release.

Zoos are moving away from being roadside entertainment centres to ones focused on animal welfare and rights, animal care, rehabilitation, wildlife rescue, sanctuaries, conservation and science. The Winnipeg Zoo’s current master plan discussions include creating larger habitats for the animals. This may mean fewer animals and the creation of mixed species habitats.

Will the public be concerned about fewer species? No. Consultations have shown the public supports the zoo in ensuring animals have space and proper habitats. I was told it was important for animal care professionals not only to know the group of animals, but know them individually — their habits and reactions. The public also wants good information and education opportunities for lifelong learning and engagement.

Some question that this bill might create a two-tier system. It will not. It is not just for big zoos. I have been assured that any zoo of any size or budget can apply for accreditation. As Ms. Redmond said, “The door is open to all to apply for the licence.”

I was also candidly told that had the Assiniboine Park Conservancy applied for accreditation in 2012, they know they would not have been successful. In 2014, they applied and were accredited. The fact is that they now support a bill that would have closed them down.

The accreditation process is rigorous, and CAZA, Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, and AZA, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, are there to assist. The accreditation criteria are scientifically based on publicly available standards. The zoo’s entire operation is examined, including animal welfare, veterinary care, conservation, education, guest services, physical facilities, safety, staffing, finance and its governing body.

As we heard from Senator Klyne, there are 250 accredited zoos in North America. None — and certainly not ours — want to ally themselves with the lowest common denominator.

These zoos work together to make a positive difference. In the last year, they contributed $200 million to conservation science. That’s a huge contribution.

These organizations are aiming to be ready to repopulate species if they become extinct or are nearing extinction in the wild. For those determinants, accredited zoos rely on the International Union for Conservation of Nature, or IUCN, the global authority on the status of the natural world and biological diversity, and the required safeguarding measures.

Using quantitative criteria to evaluate extinction risks of thousands of species, the IUCN researches and maintains the Red List of threatened species. The Red List is currently assessing 134,425 species; 35,000-plus are threatened. Zoos make their breeding decisions based on that list and on scientific, genetic findings.

[Translation]

Education is important for students and for adults, who continue learning throughout their lives. The Morris & Rosalind Goodman Family Foundation has funded a school program for students in grades four to six since 2018. The students participate in a two-week immersion program with the Assiniboine Park Conservancy, during which they learn about climate change in Manitoba, to better understand its impact on Arctic animals.

[English]

What is the current status regarding wider agreement for these changes in the field? There is actually now an alignment of organizations that was deemed impossible a few years ago — humane societies, zoos, and Zoocheck are working together in creative and exciting ways. Is the public concerned about such shifts in our zoos? I don’t think so.

Remember the Shrine Circus that travelled across Canada many decades ago? We went as kids and loved it, but after animals were banned in circuses, did we miss the dancing elephants? No, we did not. Were we upset when new regulations were put in place in pet stores? No, we were not. I honestly believe that society feels money should not be made off animals, whether in zoos, pet stores or elsewhere. Society wants good animal care, animal welfare and action on animal rights. That is what this bill is about — animal rights under human care.

Colleagues, zoos are museums. I recently gave the Canadian Museums Association’s Fellows Lecture, titled Museums to Lead. Highlighting museological roles of collecting, preserving, presenting and educating, I said the following:

[Translation]

Museums manage our material, natural, scientific and creative past and present, as they always have, but I think that they play an increasingly critical role in our rapidly changing modern world, with its many profound paradigm shifts, including climate change. As leaders, museums have the opportunity and the responsibility to bring about substantive social change in the areas of public education, understanding, and humanitarian and environmental realities.

[English]

North America’s accredited zoos do just that. As Mr. Furniss and Ms. Redmond opined, standards for animal care will continue to improve, and more zoos will seek and achieve that accreditation. Colleagues, this Jane Goodall act ensures animal welfare will be the determinant for a licence to operate. It is not about the size or budget of the zoo. It is about sanctuary, rehabilitation and operational standards based on science and in collaboration between zoos internationally. Experience has already shown that attendance has increased in places enshrining these values.

Before I conclude, I want to invite you to the Assiniboine Park Conservancy and our zoo. On entering, to your right are the bison, and their importance to the history and life of Canada’s First Nations and Métis people is evident. There is an offering bowl presented by First Nations leaders and informative Indigenous interpretation panels. A white buffalo is in the herd. White buffalo are considered sacred or spiritually significant in a number of Indigenous beliefs and are often visited for prayer and other religious rituals. Winnipeg Indigenous artist Jackie Traverse’s painting White Buffalo Calf reflects that rich spirituality. She has included white handprints linking the human dimension with animal welfare and spirituality.

Colleagues, as Senator Harder mentioned, the Jane Goodall bill has been publicly supported by Coastal First Nations. In their letter, they stated the reason for their support. Coastal First Nations CEO, Christine Smith-Martin, said:

For far too long, our relatives, bears, wolves, cougars, whales, seals, sea lions, birds, salmon, halibut, herring, and all living creatures have not been recognized by Crown governments and modern society for the individual beings and collective societies they are a part of.

We live together and need each other to be healthy in the biosphere that the Creator placed us in. . . . Therefore, it is not difficult for our peoples, working through our Nation authorities, to say we support a law that offers protection to the animals we live and interact with.

Colleagues, human care, animal welfare, conservation, rescue, relocation and education are paramount in this bill. I congratulate Senator Klyne for this iteration of the bill, Senator Sinclair for its initial introduction and, of course, Jane Goodall for her dedicated and impressive career, vision and support.

I hope you will join me in moving this important piece of legislation to committee as soon as possible. Let’s make animal lives better — those in human care and those in the wild — while assisting and ensuring their habitat meets their needs. After all, it’s really about us in the end, and we need to do what’s right in becoming true stewards of this planet. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

(Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2021, to receive a Minister of the Crown, the Honourable Marie-Claude Bibeau, P.C., M.P., Minister of Agriculture and Agri‑Food, appeared before honourable senators during Question Period.)

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Minister, welcome to the Senate of Canada.

Minister, the Minister of Health is proposing front-of-package labelling regulations which would require ground beef sold at retail to carry a “high in saturated fat” warning label. This would make Canada the only jurisdiction in the world to place a health warning label on its ground beef. Other countries have implemented front-of-package regulations, and they have chosen to exempt all single-ingredient, whole foods based on their nutritional value, including ground beef.

Health Canada is doing the opposite. I met with cattle producers yesterday, and they are very concerned about this measure. They have asked that ground beef be exempted from the regulations, just as butter, milk and maple syrup are exempted.

Minister, do you agree with this proposal, and would you commit to speak with the Minister of Health and ask him to ensure that cattle producers receive the exemption from these regulations that they are seeking?

Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau, P.C., M.P., Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food: Thank you. Yes. As you well know, and as you said, this is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Health, but, obviously, I am following this project very closely since it might have an impact on our producers.

I’m glad that our dairy and beef producers have had the opportunity to be heard. I know that significant progress is being made in terms of understanding the nutritional value of our products and that it is being recognized.

The final decision hasn’t been taken yet, but you can count on me to always advocate for our producers with my colleague the Minister of Health so we can find the right balance to protect the health of Canadians and also take into account the interests of our farmers.

Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau, P.C., M.P., Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food: Thank you, senator. Actually, we have increased AgriStability in the last year and a half. To increase AgriStability and to make it more timely, affordable, bankable and understandable, we have to do it in collaboration with the provinces, because these programs are funded 60% by the federal government, 40% by the provinces. We need two thirds of the provinces to be able to make significant changes to this program.

We did remove the reference margin limit, which was one element in AgriStability that made the program more difficult to understand and, therefore, less bankable. We made this important change that represents $95 million more per year for our farmers who need it the most.

The federal government has put in a contribution of $46 million that we could have put in place to improve AgriStability more by increasing the compensation rate from 70% to 80%. Unfortunately, we did not get the support of enough provinces to make this happen.

I can tell you that the business risk management program is doing better than it was before we arrived. Our government has increased financing to the business risk management programs, and we are, right now, in negotiations with the provinces for the next partnership agreement.