Senator Seidman: The Tobacco and Vaping Products Act amended the Tobacco Act to add a new and separate class of products, vaping products, for which there was little scientific evidence available about the harms and benefits. We did not know if vaping was effective for smoking cessation. We did not know the harms of vaping flavours, and we did not know the overall effect of vaping as a gateway to tobacco use for youth. That is why the requirement that a legislative review be conducted is of critical importance. It allows parliamentarians to update this innovative health legislation as the science evolves, to address potential unintended consequences.

Senator Gold, how can we ensure that this important legislative review is completed, and the report is tabled here in the Senate and in the other place as soon as possible?

Senator Patterson: Senator Gold, northern leaders say that we need to properly inventory existing northern infrastructure to make sure we’re making smart, targeted investments. This could be in the form of an interactive map. However, an initiative to do just that was turned down by the CIB.

Does the CIB have an equivalent tool already at their disposal? If not, would such a tool not be useful given the difficulty the CIB has had getting money out the door to northern projects?

You mentioned some projects, not all of which are in the North. For context, my research shows the CIB website only lists four nascent, embryonic projects in the Arctic: one is an MOU and another is classified as advisory.

Senator Plett: Hopefully, that won’t take another year.

One of the recommendations in the final report was the creation of a national task force to review and reinvestigate unresolved files of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. A report released last week by the Native Women’s Association of Canada found that there has been no update on the status of a national task force. The report called this extremely concerning and said it was critical that cases be reinvestigated to bring closure to the families.

Leader, a year ago the NDP-Liberal government finally responded to the national inquiry with a so-called action plan of its own. Why hasn’t there been any action taken on the creation of a task force? Will the families see one established this year?

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Pate, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean, for the second reading of Bill S-233, An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income.

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of the principle of Bill S-233 and ask the Senate to have the courage to vote in favour of studying this bill.

Let me start by reminding us of the fact that, contrary to the vast majority of the 10,000-plus emails that we have received on Bill S-233, it’s not about controlling people’s lives or arbitrarily cutting off access to cherished government programs. On the contrary, Bill S-233 is designed to explore how to better empower some of our society’s most marginalized and vulnerable in a more effective and, potentially, more cost-efficient manner.

There are two reasons why I think the study of Bill S-233 is so important. The first is the deeply troubling level of disinformation associated with this bill. Some groups are knowingly creating and sharing false information, and too many vulnerable Canadians believe and share this false information. They are fearful that their access to various government programs will be arbitrarily cut off if Bill S-233 somehow becomes law.

As our colleague Senator Simons said in a well-articulated Twitter thread, an unelected Senate “. . . CANNOT commit the government to spend any money.” Studying this bill, let alone passing it, will not take away people’s rights to existing social programs and does not initiate the World Economic Forum’s takeover of our democracy. Rather, the bill proposes to look into how our social support programs and payments might be streamlined with the intention of improving delivery of such programs, particularly to vulnerable Canadians.

I believe that the scourge of disinformation can only be countered with evidence and transparency, and that’s something we can proudly say is reliably delivered through our Senate reports.

The second reason I would like us to study Bill S-233 is that I’m increasingly worried about Canada’s addiction to creating, and never reducing, regulatory burden. Particularly, we have a concerning affinity for command-and-control regulations, regulations that maintain the status quo, limit innovation and too often create economically unsustainable programs. In business terms, we call this “red tape.”

But too often we forget that it is not just businesses that have to deal with Canada’s OECD-leading levels of regulatory burden; it is all of us, and it is also our country’s most vulnerable. That is why I think it is important for us to study Bill S-233, to address the plague of disinformation head-on and to reduce regulatory burden and red tape.

Interestingly, the desire to reduce regulatory complexities and red tape is what caused guaranteed annual income to be studied at a major policy conference for a national political party back in 1969. A fellow Nova Scotian tabled the idea of implementing a simple and effective guaranteed annual income and highlighted its promise of ending costly and inefficient rules-based income support programs that were weighed down by overlapping and often competing federal, provincial and territorial authorities.

Over 50 years ago, the principle of Bill S-233 was being discussed and debated at a national policy conference. The focus was on replacing the inefficient status quo with an income-tax-based minimum income that would be available to all Canadians if and when their income fell below a predefined level. So who was that Nova Scotian, and what was his political party? It was the Honourable Robert Stanfield, leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

The reality is the idea behind Bill S-233 is far from new and might even represent one of the first times that Senator Pate has actually promoted Conservative Party policy. Actually, Senator Pate, I am hoping that Senator Plett does not accuse you of plagiarism.

More seriously, I want to see S-233 go to committee so that the Senate can explore, identify and better understand innovative approaches to addressing pervasive poverty. I believe Robert Stanfield’s vision of our inefficient status quo being replaced with a more efficient system of helping Canadians if and when their income falls below a predefined level is a very powerful one indeed.

Perhaps unfairly — but prove me wrong — I believe that our income support to vulnerable and marginalized Canadians is fraught with inefficiency, limitations and constraints that severely limit how effectively we enable these Canadians to access the support needed to create success in their lives. In addition, this support exists at the always complex intersection of federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictional authorities and the oft-competing departmental authorities within each level of government. It’s a recipe for program gaps, overlaps and administrative burden.

I’d like to describe four stories that have shaped my support for the study of Bill S-233 and have me believing in its promise.

The first story is from my youth, retold to me more recently. The increasingly neglected plight of Ontario’s seniors in the early 1970s resulted in a bit of shenanigans at the powerful Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, TEIGA, of the Ontario legislature.

At the time, newspapers were telling stories of seniors whose only source of affordable protein was cat food because 35% of them over 65 in Ontario had incomes below the poverty line. My dad, who was an Ontario MPP at the time, found this to be reprehensible as the vast majority were women, and they were the ones who had struggled through the Great Depression and then worked tirelessly to hold Canada’s families, factories and country together during World War II.

I had never heard about the shenanigans part of the story from my dad. I did hear about it from retired senator Hugh Segal about three years ago. At a TEIGA committee meeting during a minority government, the majority of members voted to reduce the salaries of the minister and deputy minister of what would now be Ontario’s Ministry of Finance to $1 per year. The purpose was to familiarize those gentlemen with the effects of poverty. Former Senator Segal was working with Premier Bill Davis at the time and suddenly he had a very worried group of MPPs arriving at the door of his office. Hugh’s response was to learn more.

The result was that, within six weeks, the Ontario legislature unanimously passed a new guaranteed income supplement. What were the results? The supplement helped to reduce the poverty rate for those over 65 to under 5% of the population within three years.

The second story I want to tell you was also discussed around our kitchen table when I was in my youth; it was Manitoba’s MINCOME program, which ran in Dauphin, Manitoba, from 1974 to 1979. The focus was to empower versus control those living in poverty. It became highly politicized and was shut down, with all the data collected being locked away in the Winnipeg regional office of Library and Archives Canada.

What were the results? Well, 25 years later, a health economist by the name of Dr. Evelyn Forget rediscovered the project and was able to analyze the data. Dr. Forget’s analysis illuminated some successes of the project. Dauphin’s hospitalization rate for accidents, injuries and mental health-related issues dropped by 8.5% for those who received basic income. School performance for children in the town improved, with a surge in enrollment rates for Grade 12 students.

But because Dr. Forget’s analysis focused mainly on health outcomes of basic income, there was not sufficient data to assess the causal relationship between basic income and other social or economic outcomes.

The third story that I want to tell you is also from the Prairies. It’s a powerful social innovation called Housing First, developed and refined in the courageous and caring Prairie town of Medicine Hat. In 2015, Medicine Hat became the first community in Canada to end chronic homelessness, meaning that no more than three people were chronically homeless for more than three months.

Housing First worked because it identified individual and structural risk factors of homelessness, such as chronic health issues, disabilities, addictions and abuse, and centred programming on reducing these risks as well as providing opportunities to build social relationships, earn adequate income and gain access to affordable housing.

What were the results? Between 2009 and 2014, the amount of time participants spent in jail reduced by 67%; the number of days spent in hospital reduced by 32%. But some questions remain. For instance, it is unknown what the total net cost savings of the Housing First initiative in Medicine Hat are over the period it has been active, which existing programs were eliminated and which other programs may have been made redundant as a result of it.

The fourth and last story I want to tell you is about a more recent experiment, the Ontario Basic Income Pilot Project; it was commissioned as part of a larger poverty-reduction strategy following recommendations from retired Senator Segal. When asking the government to consider implementing a pilot, Segal reflected on what a pilot should and shouldn’t do. I’d like to quote him:

A pilot project must begin with an understanding of the costs of poverty, not only in present welfare and disability payments, but also in terms of added pressures on our health system, and the Ontario economy as a whole, through its impacts on economic productivity and existing government revenues.

Senator Pate reviewed the interim results of this program when she introduced Bill S-233, so I will not repeat them, despite their merit. Suffice it to say, I still find it very sad that former Senator Segal’s lifelong efforts to have a well-controlled study in GBI were cut short in Ontario in such an abrupt manner.

In closing, for me, Bill S-233 is about reducing red tape for those who require society’s support because they have not been able to get their feet under them, be it through their own choices or circumstances beyond their control.

As I’ve said, too often, accessing support is highly complex and unnecessarily restrictive. I hazard to guess that there likely aren’t many of us who would have the patience to navigate the current system. Many like to think that is a good thing, I expect, because it’s a deterrent, but I don’t agree.

Why? Because I believe it’s possible for us to have a system that empowers versus controls those who need it most. For those who are already struggling to cope, why would we ever think that imposing administrative complexities would help them turn their lives around?

I also believe that administrative burden is the enemy of productivity; moreover, due to my Scottish heritage, choosing to maintain an inefficient and less effective system causes me to have an allergic reaction.

Canada’s moribund productivity growth continues to worsen because we do not innovate in everything we do. Canadians are hard-working, innovative and determined. But too many of our public services are constrained by a legacy of habit, not evidence of effectiveness.

The OECD now predicts that Canada will have the worst-performing economy through 2060. I’m not willing to lay this at the feet of any single political party or level of government. I believe it’s due to a culture that is not committed to innovating in everything we do. We must stop tolerating the sentence, “But that’s not how we do it.”

Let’s have the courage to innovate. Yes, innovation and change bring risk, but they also bring the evidence of what to do and what not to do.

Colleagues, let’s send Bill S-233 to committee and ask them to focus on how the federal government might work with one willing province or territory to complete a well-documented study of the principle underlying Bill S-233. Let’s not just look at the costs but at all of the programs and services across all levels of government that might be replaced or eliminated, the savings potentially enabled and the opportunities that might create.

If we value the prosperity of our grandchildren, we must embrace change and innovation. We must eliminate unnecessary rules and red tape, and focus our attention firmly on the intended result. If we do not do so as it relates to supporting the most vulnerable in our society, then for whom?

Thank you, colleagues.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: Here’s my question. I believe, as you do, that it is very important to empower people. In your opinion, what level of guaranteed income should people receive as part of a guaranteed minimum income program so they can truly escape poverty?

Which programs do you believe involve so much red tape they should be abolished?

[English]

Senator C. Deacon: Senator Bellemare, those would be the questions I hope we would answer in committee as we look at this program and see all the areas that it reaches into, such as health care services and paramedic services. Certainly in my own community, the fire department recognizes that a great many of their calls relate to health crises and issues from those who are not getting appropriate health care.

So who knows to where we should limit this and who knows what programs could be delivered more effectively? But it’s arguable that the patchwork — and I would argue this — provides the evidence to the contrary that a great many efficiencies can be gained.

To answer your question, I would look at that as being something that would come from a Senate study.

Senator Simons: Absolutely. I think those first Lebanese pioneers laid down a foundation that has allowed Muslim immigrants from around the world to come and find a home in Edmonton, whether they are coming from North Africa, East Africa or Indonesia. Wherever Muslims have come from to Edmonton, the Al Rashid Mosque community has been there to welcome them.

You mentioned Lila Fahlman. I didn’t raise her in my speech for one reason, which is that her family was Syrian rather than Lebanese. I know the border is liminal, but as this was about Lebanese heritage month, I wanted to focus on Hilwie Hamdon, who was the remarkable woman who fought for the Al Rashid Mosque, which was, indeed, the first mosque in Canada.

Interestingly enough, the first mosque in North America was, I believe, in North Dakota and not in Chicago or New York as you might have expected. There was really an important Lebanese diaspora that came and filled up that whole prairie west on both sides of the Canadian-American border.

(On motion of Senator Dean, debate adjourned.)

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, the charter that is now being considered by the Senate is part of the overall work of the Audit and Oversight Committee. It’s a governance document that outlines how the committee will carry out its mandate.

It has been a long road that started back in 2014 with the recommendation from the Auditor General to establish independent oversight and to retain an internal auditor. The Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, which I chaired at the time with Senator Jaffer as my deputy chair, was charged with addressing this recommendation.

To preserve the rights of senators to be the masters of their own house, we developed a novel approach that protected our rights but also gave confidence that the best practices were employed in our work. The Auditor General recommended that the committee look at senators’ office expenses only, but we believed that it would be better to have an entity that had oversight over all Senate expenditures — not just the 10% that was recommended, but 100% of the full expenditures of the Senate, now at approximately $120 million.

In order to establish this process and, eventually, this committee, we had to develop novel approaches. Some of these were that the Chair of the Internal Economy Committee and Audit and Oversight Committee cannot be from the same caucus or group. And we have external expertise, unlike other committees that have internal expertise, in some cases by good fortune. On the Fisheries and Oceans Committee we might have fisheries experts, on the Agriculture and Forestry Committee we might have agricultural experts, and obviously we are fortunate to have lawyers and legal scholars on our Justice Committee, but this is not mandated; it’s really by chance. We are fortunate to have the opportunity of nominating and having external members that have the expertise join our Audit and Oversight Committee.

The committee is unique in that we targeted candidates with that specific expertise. I’ll note that, at the time, the original steering committee was made up of Senator Downe, our deputy chair, Senator Dupuis, and me, as chair. We targeted candidates with specific backgrounds and special expertise. Through a rigorous process, we were able to have Robert Plamondon and Hélène Fortin, two highly qualified chartered professional accountants, join our committee. There is an overlap in the initial terms of these individuals so that there is continuity for the committee, and only parliamentarians on the committee can vote, although thus far we have easily and successfully worked based on discussion and consensus.

As well, the audit world is a very rules-based place, as I’m finding out, and that guides our processes as well. In the absence of external members having a vote, any member of the committee can include a dissenting opinion in any report, which is unlike any other committee that we have in the Senate.

In addition, the Audit and Oversight Committee doesn’t have a code like the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Committee has, so for good governance we developed this charter, which is what is before us today. It maps out our processes, our standards and our operating procedure. The rules that we have in the Senate are a general document for all committees. The Senate Administrative Rules apply to the administration of the whole Senate. This charter is such a document for this committee. This is the only instance in the history of the Senate that a committee has developed a charter, one more groundbreaking item designed for continuity of its activities and operations.

Honourable senators, none of us should expect the Canadian public, the media, or the “abolish the Senate” crowd to applaud this significant initiative and accomplishment. Of course, we didn’t do it for that reason. We did it because we needed to get it done, and we did it for the right reasons. Honourable senators, it’s for this reason that our new charter is before us today and will be the guiding document that assists the Audit and Oversight Committee in carrying out its mandate. This is a novel model for a novel institution, and one for which we should all be proud. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and report adopted.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the Senate of Canada call on the federal government to adopt anti-racism as the sixth pillar of the Canada Health Act, prohibiting discrimination based on race and affording everyone the equal right to the protection and benefit of the law.

(On motion of Senator Dean, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to examine and report on the cumulative positive and negative impacts of resource extraction and development, and their effects on environmental, economic and social considerations, when and if the committee is formed; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2022.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy:

That, pursuant to rule 12-18(2), for the remainder of this session, the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament be authorized to meet at their approved meeting time as determined by the third report of the Committee of Selection, adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2021, on any Monday which immediately precedes a Tuesday when the Senate is scheduled to sit, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding a week.

Hon Senators: Agreed.

(Motion withdrawn.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Simons, calling the attention of the Senate to the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face, and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between Canada’s municipalities and the federal government.

Hon. Bev Busson: Honourable senators, I rise today to note that May 23, 2023, will mark the one hundred fiftieth anniversary of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is a significant moment, as the story of our nation cannot be told without the contribution of its national police force.

Spoiler alert: I was a member of the first class of female constables to be sworn in to the RCMP in 1974 and became the RCMP’s first female commissioner in 2006. The RCMP now includes specialized teams investigating everything from child sexual exploitation and international organized crime to threats to our national security.

Recently, at the request of the International Criminal Court, the RCMP deployed 10 officers to investigate crimes against humanity wherever and whenever needed. Additionally, the RCMP is actively investigating allegations of war crimes committed against Ukrainians with the goal of securing statements and evidence from Ukrainians fleeing the war.

From a human resources perspective, the RCMP is now approximately 25% female. The leadership cadre has recently reached gender parity.

Last year, 22% of the promotions were women. Indigenous regular members and public service employees exceed the Canadian standard workforce rates, and new hires from visible minority groups are increasing.

The profession of policing is difficult, increasingly complicated and exponentially challenging. In our streets, life-changing decisions are often made at a moment’s notice. We need to support them.

The trajectory of any 150-year-long story is not going to be a straight line. It comes with chapters that reflect many accomplishments, as well as chapters that need to be acknowledged and actively learned from. Last September, I witnessed an event that reflected both.

At Daajing Giids, formerly Queen Charlotte RCMP Detachment on Haida Gwaii, I saw reconciliation in action. At the detachment there, a traditional potlatch was held — in combination with about 400 community members — culminating in the raising of the Haida flag and a traditional Haida pole, created by a local master carver. It features a Haida guardian, graced with beautiful traditional Haida iconography, but also including pink fingernails to embody diversity and a stetson to represent the RCMP. It is a powerful symbol of the strength and possibilities of true reconciliation to everyone who has seen it.

The one hundred fiftieth anniversary in 2023 is an opportunity to celebrate the tangible action being taken on the path to becoming a more modern, diverse, inclusive and trusted policing organization. I encourage my honourable colleagues to seek out and support these positive efforts of the RCMP in communities across this land.

Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the approximately 300 RCMP members who have lost their lives in the line of duty. We thank them and their families for their sacrifice and service to the people of Canada.

Thank you, háw’aa.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I have the pleasure to welcome and pay tribute to two very special individuals who are guests in this chamber today.

I will begin with Mr. Enes Kanter Freedom, a professional NBA basketball player, activist and Nobel Peace Prize nominee. In the last few years, Mr. Freedom has received international attention for using his platform as an NBA star to bring attention to the human rights abuses being committed in China.

That said, his activism predates his career in the NBA, as he has previously been targeted for speaking out against President Erdoğan’s human rights violations in Turkey where he was raised. It was his outspoken criticism of the Chinese Communist regime and the Western companies that continue to aid and enable China’s genocidal practices that caught the attention of millions of people around the world.

Mr. Freedom has been a leading voice for the rights of Uighurs, in particular, and also for those of Tibetans, Hong Kongers and others. Despite the unfair targeting and treatment he has been subjected to by the NBA and others as a result, Mr. Freedom continues to push forward with integrity in his fight for what is right.

In response to his well-deserved nomination for the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize, Mr. Freedom stated, “Sometimes taking a stand is more important than your next paycheck.”

It is fair to say while his on-court talents are noteworthy, his off-court talents are even more so.

I would also like to pay tribute to Mr. Orkesh Davlet, who is also here today. Mr. Davlet played an instrumental role in the organization of the student uprising in the Tiananmen protests of 1989, having founded an independent students’ association at Beijing Normal University and emerging as one of the most outspoken student leaders. Following the protests, Mr. Davlet was placed on the number 2 spot of China’s most wanted student leaders list.

Facing arrest by the Chinese government, he fled to France under the Hong Kong-based operation known as “Operation Yellow Bird.” He later made his way to the United States where he studied, and eventually emigrated to Taiwan where he built his life and family and where he currently sits as chair on the Human Rights Commission in the Taiwanese parliament.

Mr. Davlet continues to devote his life to his activism and remains a defender of Taiwan’s growing democracy and a promoter of civil society.

Colleagues, these are two remarkable individuals, and it is my hope that their presence in this chamber today acts as a reminder of our responsibility to do what is right when it comes to defending and upholding our principles here at home and around the world. As parliamentarians, we have the tools needed to stand up to malign regimes like the CCP, and we must do more to exercise our role and responsibility as defenders of democracy, freedom and human rights.

Everyone has an example to draw from Mr. Freedom and Mr. Davlet, and it is an honour to welcome them here today and thank them for their outspoken courage and activism. Thank you.

Hon. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, I rise today to celebrate an incredible investment in Canadian farmers for the benefit of all Canadians.

Recently, Protein Industries Canada, or PIC — one of the five Innovation Superclusters sponsored by the Government of Canada in a consortium of private-sector companies — announced a $19 million investment deal that will help reduce carbon emissions and improve environmental sustainability, all through the commercialization of Soileos, a new micronutrient fertilizer.

If you haven’t heard of it before, Soileos is an environmentally friendly fertilizer created from the upcycling of pea, lentil and oat hulls. It is sustainable, non-polluting and can help increase crop yields. It is an innovative new product, and according to Protein Industries Canada, initial field trials led to improved protein content in soil health, increased returns for farmers and reduced environmental damage.

Companies who are part of this investment include AGT Food and Ingredients Inc., Lucent Biosciences, NuWave Research, IN10T and Aberhart Ag Solutions. These are private-sector companies both large and small, working together with a federal supercluster to make good things happen for Canadians. As a result of this investment, a new manufacturing plant will be built in Rosetown, Saskatchewan. When completed, this facility will produce up to 6,500 tonnes per year of micronutrient fertilizer and create 25 new jobs for the community. That is incredible.

Honourable senators, this is great news for the agricultural sector. It is an important investment in our farmers and in the people of Saskatchewan and of Western Canada. At a time when food security is top of mind for all Canadians and supply chains are being threatened, we need to do everything we can to support our agricultural sector here at home. This investment does exactly that, and I wish Protein Industries Canada and its industry and academic partners every success as they embark on this and many more new innovative solutions.

I encourage Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to continue to support PIC’s continued evolution and progress. I hope Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada take stock and promote this innovation with great pride. Thank you.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, I stand today to speak on the anniversary of the London attack to remember the beautiful Afzaal family in London, Ontario, a grandmother, mother, father and a 15-year-old girl who were murdered simply because they were Muslim. A 9-year-old boy was hospitalized in serious condition and now finds himself orphaned, his whole family — three generations — having been stolen from him by hate.

The nature of the attack is shocking, but unfortunately it is not surprising. This is not the first time I have spoken about the rise of Islamophobia, and I fear it will not be the last. As government leaders, we regularly condemn Islamophobia, but this alone is not enough. It is time for concrete action rather than empty apologies or thoughts and prayers.

After the attack, many expressed their horror and outrage. A National Summit on Islamophobia was held the following month, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reiterated the government’s solidarity with Muslim communities across Canada and its commitment to combat and denounce Islamophobia and all forms of racism and discrimination.

Sadly, I worry that this must have been an electoral ploy. Let’s not forget that a year later, the promise of a special envoy for Islamophobia has not been fulfilled, and yet I’m sure there is a suitable candidate among the 1.5 million Muslim Canadians across the country. Two months ago, five men were attacked in a drive-by shooting in Scarborough while leaving Ramadan prayers at their local mosque. And only a few weeks ago, two teenage girls were verbally and physically assaulted in St. John’s outside their place of work. These were high school students — really young girls.

Sadly, these events are not isolated as there has been a steady increase in Islamophobia since the beginning of the pandemic. Sobia Shaikh, chair of the Anti-Racism Coalition of Newfoundland and Labrador, shared that she hears about similar incidents every six weeks or so.

Honourable colleagues, xenophobic views have gone beyond online threats and abuse and have translated into hate-motivated physical harm. We need to act now before such Islamophobic attacks become normalized. We owe it to the Afzaal family and Muslim Canadians who continue to live in fear every time they leave their homes. Thank you.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: I would like to thank Senator Tannas and the Canadian Senators Group for giving me space so we can celebrate the graduates of the world’s first Indigenous law program.

On Saturday, April 9, 2022, I was invited to join the University of Victoria’s celebration to commemorate the graduation of the inaugural class of the world’s first Indigenous law program. These young and vibrant leaders are graduating with two professional degrees — a Juris Doctor and a Juris Indigenarum Doctor. This will position them to practise law at the local, national and international levels.

Through their education, students were taught various types of law through a trans-systemic lens, comparing common law with Indigenous legal traditions. The students also spent a semester in each of their third and fourth years immersed in community-led field schools. Here, the students observed the Indigenous legal processes and worked with the community on law-related projects. In their upper years, student learnings also included the legal traditions and language of the Coast Salish region.

This program, co-founded by Val Napoleon and John Borrows, two of the nation’s leading legal scholars, builds upon the University of Victoria’s commitment to Indigenous law and Indigenous legal education. The program is transformational and will have incredible impacts in training people who will lead us towards true and lasting reconciliation.

But do not take my word for it. Graduate Heather Middlemass has some advice for anyone considering the program:

. . . know that it’s going to be this profound experience that will transform you. And it will empower you with legal skills that go beyond what you would get in a regular law program, by weaving in a lot of lived experience into your legal education.

I was asked to be a witness to the graduation, and part of that responsibility is to carry the news far and wide. The graduation was woven with ceremony as the graduates were drummed into the hall by two young leaders, who then explained the ceremony. Throughout the event, we could feel our ancestors standing among us, dancing with pride. You could sense the recovery of ancient knowledge from ancestral blood memory from the land and our relatives.

The journey of these graduates represents one of strength, survival, recovery and rebuilding. These future leaders are now a bridge between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous world views and ways of knowing. This groundbreaking program truly represents reconciliation in action.

Kinanâskomitin. Thank you.

Hon. Marty Deacon: Honourable senators, one of the greatest honours of our job is paying tribute to individuals who have contributed deeply to our country, globally and to the communities we represent. Today it is a privilege to celebrate the life of Stephanie Leigh Prysnuk, an incredible young woman who was a shining light for so many in her Waterloo community.

In her 32 years of life, Stephanie proved time and again that there was no obstacle she couldn’t overcome. Born with a congenital heart disease and several other conditions, Stephanie was only able to go home after several procedures, and even then, she required specialized equipment and care. She had a childhood of trips to and from the hospital and a loving family, and her father Wayne, a special dad and champion, passed away when she was only 8 years old.

Despite these challenges, Stephanie worked hard to live life to the fullest with a stoic ability to accept the challenges life threw her way and just get on with it to try new things. Her courage, resilience, honesty, feistiness and smile were contagious.

Stephanie found a great deal of strength through her participation at Knox Waterloo Presbyterian Church. Through this church, Stephanie participated in many activities, including a mission trip where she took many wonderful photographs. She also made sure to give back, including planning a fundraising event for the Canadian Congenital Heart Alliance.

Last summer, Stephanie was able to fulfill a lifelong dream and move into her own place in the neighbourhood she grew up in. Her sister Beth lived in the apartment above her, where she could provide support. They spent much time together. Beth was a great source of support, love and friendship for Stephanie, and they both loved their sister time. Stephanie loved her family, which six years ago ballooned from 3 to 31 when her mother, Barb, married Fred, and they became a part of his clan.

Sadly, colleagues, Stephanie passed away last month, having touched the lives of so many in her short time with us — so many, in fact, that Knox Church was barely able to contain the 400 who came to pay tribute to her at a celebration of life, along with her family, Dream Team, Fab Five, Gourmet 2.0 and many, many friends.

Even in death, she found a way to make the world a better place, with her friends carrying on work she left unfinished to fundraise for others with heart disease. They were able to raise $12,000 in her honour two short weeks ago.

Stephanie defined grace for all who knew her, and she leaves a legacy that will truly stand the test of time. Her community — a very large community — was built on her love, caring and courage every step of the way, every day. The world is lesser with her passing, but she leaves it in better shape than she found it, and for that we all owe her a great debt of gratitude. Her light will shine forever. Thank you, meegwetch.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. The government welcomes the Auditor General’s report and accepts the recommendations. Indeed, the Auditor General’s report highlights the challenge that the government has been working to address for many years. The government recognizes that some Canadians, particularly the most vulnerable, still face barriers in accessing government services or benefits for a variety of reasons. For example, they don’t appear in administrative databases, they do not or are not required to file taxes and they are not reflected in the census. It then becomes difficult to remind them to apply for a benefit by mail or telephone because we may not know who they are.

I’m advised that the Reaching All Canadians Initiative, an initiative to eliminate barriers to access and delivery and to ensure more people are getting benefits to which they are entitled, will continue and that the government will expand and strengthen its response to the findings in the audit to which you referred. I am further advised and assured that the government will continue to develop programs and processes to ensure that all Canadians, especially marginalized and underserved people, are able to access services, benefits and support.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. All Canadians deserve to feel safe and secure. I have been told that the minister remains committed to reviewing use-of-force policies.

I would also note that the recent report on police intervention options indicates that the RCMP is making progress towards reform. With the implementation of its incident management intervention model, which was updated in April 2021, RCMP training now focuses on de-escalation and communication techniques.

I have also been told that the minister has asked the RCMP to carefully review the use of force in policing, specifically by eliminating the use of neck restraints, tear gas and rubber bullets. The minister is also committed to ending the use of chokeholds.

Although significant progress has been made, the government knows that there is still work to be done. The government is committed to continuing to review RCMP policing practices in collaboration with the provinces, territories and municipalities, as well as Indigenous and racialized communities.