Senator Mercer: To my son, Michael, and my daughter-in-law, Lisa, who is at home with the grandchildren, I look forward to spending more time with you and our two wonderful grandchildren, Ellie and Oliver. Thank you for enriching our lives.

Honourable senators, that finishes the first half of my speech. I actually thought, before I came in to give this speech today, that I would come in with a much thicker pile of paper just to show Senator Plett that I could speak for an hour and a half too.

Honourable senators, thank you for your kind words. Thank you for your support, and please continue your good work. Canada needs you. Thank you.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate, and it is once again about the Portapique tragedy, specifically the interim report that lays out the progress of the public inquiry and outlines next steps.

The interim report states that the victims’ families and the broader Portapique community have not received the support they needed. Over the past two years, the federal government has done nothing to provide victims’ families and the community with mental health, trauma and bereavement supports. It’s unacceptable that the federal government has let two years go by without developing a strategy to provide mental health support resources. I would like to quote from a statement Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made on April 19, 2020, about this tragedy:

The people of Nova Scotia are strong and resilient, and we will be here to support them as they heal from this tragedy.

Why didn’t the Prime Minister keep that promise? Why wasn’t he there for these families?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question and for drawing attention to this tragedy and the suffering of the victims’ families and the community.

The Government of Canada is working, and will continue to work, with the Government of Nova Scotia to collaborate and provide support to those who have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of this tragedy.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, honourable senator.

Indeed, the minister is engaged in this regard. It is a priority for this minister and for the government.

As honourable senators may know, Minister Qualtrough has engaged her provincial and territorial counterparts through the forum Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers Responsible for Social Services about the design and implementation of the anticipated Canada disability benefit. These engagements with the provinces and territories will continue over the coming months.

This builds upon previous engagement, consultation and, indeed, considerable funding for stakeholders to participate in this. With all these initiatives, the government wants to ensure — and is confident that it will ensure — to maximize the impact that new legislation might have. When the legislation is ready to be introduced, it will be so announced.

Senator Loffreda: Thank you for that answer.

When I met with the MS Society this week, we talked about the list of criteria for Canadians with disabilities to be eligible for the disability benefit. They stressed the need for individuals with disabilities, including those who have episodic disabilities — like some MS patients — to also be eligible to receive benefit payments.

The language in Bill C-35 proposed that a person be eligible for a Canada disability benefit if they meet the eligibility criteria set out in the regulations. Can you assure us that the government is also considering allowing Canadians with episodic disabilities an opportunity to apply for this benefit, should the bill be reintroduced, and that the definition of “disability” that will be used to establish eligibility will be the one that appears in the Accessible Canada Act?

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Today’s events have me feeling nostalgic. Our colleague Richard Neufeld retired from the Senate in November 2019. British Columbia has been short one senator ever since, leaving the province of 5.25 million people with only five senators in the chamber for two and a half years now.

Alberta, my province, currently has only four senators to represent 4.75 million people. Indeed, we haven’t had a full complement of six senators from my province since April 2020, which was two years ago.

In all, we have 15 Senate vacancies right across the country. With the retirement this week of Senator Mercer, that’s about to be 16.

But because Alberta and British Columbia have such large populations relative to their allotted Senate seats, vacancies there hit that much harder, leaving our two most western provinces uniquely and peculiarly disadvantaged by long-standing Senate vacancies.

I ask a question that I am sure many of us have: Can you give us any sense of when we might welcome new colleagues, particularly new western colleagues, to our chamber and can you tell us what we are waiting for?

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, I have the honour to rise today on behalf of the Independent Senators Group to express our heartfelt gratitude to our colleague Senator Terry Mercer.

Since his appointment in November 2003, Senator Mercer has proudly and faithfully served in the Senate. I am sure you all know the extraordinary role he has played here in the chamber as well as in countless committees. His time in the Senate is a reflection of a life spent in the service of Canadians.

Honourable senators, there is a saying that friends are the family you choose. This is exactly how I feel about Senator Mercer. Ever since I have known him, for over 30 years, he has always been there for me and family.

Terry, Nuralla is here as well today. During pivotal moments in my life, when I was running and serving as vice-president of the Liberal Party of Canada and as president of the National Women’s Liberal Commission, Senator Mercer was by my side, always providing me with sage advice and cheering me on from the sidelines.

Senators, as you know, there have been several points in my Senate career where I have felt very lonely. But Senator Mercer has always encouraged me not to stay silent and speak out on diversity issues. He would say to me, “Speak up. If not you, then who?”

His kindness did not stop with me. I remember him becoming a father figure to my son, Azool Jaffer-Jeraj, who was also a vice-president of the Young Liberals of Canada. Senator Mercer encouraged him to remain engaged, reaching out to him, hiring him and taking him under his wing. He did this for several other young men and women from diverse communities, and although many of his efforts went unnoticed, Senator Mercer has very quietly and humbly led the Liberal Party’s transformation toward diversity and inclusion. In his own way, he made sure that the Liberal Party belonged to all Canadians.

To close, I want to share a message from your B.C. grandchildren, Almeera and Ayaan, “Now you have time to visit us in British Columbia, Grandpa Terry.”

(1420)

Senator Mercer, as you have dedicated your life to the service of countless Canadians, you well deserve to spend more time with those who you cherish and who cherish you most.

To Ellen, Michael and his family, thank you for sharing Terry with us for so many years.

You will be missed, my friend. I will miss you. Thank you.

Senator Gold: The government is working steadfastly to fill the vacancies as quickly as possible.

Colleagues, this is a serious place and it is a serious question. I am trying to give you a serious answer. You all know that the process that was put in place is more time consuming than the old one. There is an application process but, more importantly, there is a vetting process.

Each province where there are vacancies has to have a committee constituted to receive and vet applications. The federal members of the committee work alongside provincial members of the committee who are appointed and named by their respective provinces. Some provinces are keener to participate than others. Some committees get up and running faster than others. Some applications come in faster than others.

The process is a detailed one, and it is designed to ensure that the diversity of this country and within provinces is properly reflected in the competencies and names of the people who are brought forward for consideration for appointment.

We all wish appointments were faster. I am confident in the work of these advisory committees. I have been advised that it is working well and apace. We all look forward to the announcement of new senators when the announcements are made.

Hon. Brian Francis: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, the current government refuses to fully implement the Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Mi’kmaq in relation to fisheries. As a result, some have begun to develop and launch their own self-regulated fisheries.

Most recently, following unsuccessful discussions with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans over several months, Lennox Island First Nation announced it would start its own treaty fishery in Malpeque Bay on Saturday. The community agreed in good faith to follow rules applied to the commercial fisheries and put a maximum of 1,000 traps, which amounts to 0.53% of the 190,000 traps in this fishing area.

Last week when I spoke with Minister Murray and Parliamentary Secretary Kelloway on this matter, I urged them to work with rather than against Lennox Island and other First Nations. I emphasized that the current regime has systematically excluded us from the fishery and contributed to high rates of poverty and other disparities. I am deeply troubled by the lack of respect and understanding shown to date.

Senator Gold, since Fisheries and Oceans Canada is in agreement that the treaty lobster fishery that will be launched by Lennox Island generates no conservation measures, is withholding fewer than 1,000 traps worth undermining the bonds of peace and friendship in Prince Edward Island?

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Thank you very much for the question. As I have said before in the chamber, it is my privilege to sit on that committee with you and my colleagues Senator Harder and Senator Carignan.

Many questions arose as a result of the inquiry in terms of how the inquiry and the parliamentary committee would sit together. Let me speak to how the legislation works, which I think makes it clear for us.

The inquiry was anticipated in the legislation, it was announced and it deals with the circumstances leading up to the declaration of the emergency, generally.

With respect to the parliamentary committee, it deals with the declaration of emergency from the point of invocation to the point of revocation. Mr. Beatty appeared as a witness. I cannot quote him, but let me paraphrase him. He indicated that, at times, one will bleed into the other because you need certain information in order to satisfy questions that may arise pertaining to both.

The committee has heard from two ministers so far. We will have further witnesses, and we anticipate that the RCMP and CSIS will appear next week. Last week, we heard from Department of Finance representatives.

We will proceed with our work plan. I must say that the committee has shown an air of cooperation in order to advance the work plan. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and I am sure there will be many more to come who will help to satisfy the questions that we, as a committee, need to answer.

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate and concerns the budget.

Senator Gold, last month the budget announced two spending reviews, which the government says will lead to $9 billion in savings over five years. In Budget 2017, the Trudeau government began what it called the comprehensive review of federal departments, “with the aim to eliminate poorly targeted and inefficient programs, wasteful spending, and ineffective and obsolete government initiatives.”

However, in 2018, instead of finding any savings, the review was used to justify new spending at Canada Border Services Agency and Health Canada — two of the three departments that had been subjected to the review. Government seems to have been very successful at spending money but not so successful at saving money.

Leader, can we expect that this upcoming expenditure review will be as ineffective as the past review?

Senator Gold: I can’t resist stating, honourable senator, that the government is concerned about the cost of food and the cost of living for Canadians. I wish that I did not have to say that, because all governments care about the well-being of Canadians.

The minister can speak for herself better than I can. I’m sure that when the decisions are made, she will communicate them.

Let me take the opportunity, though, to encourage leaders and members of all the different groups to continue to provide us with information as to which ministers you would like to see appear during ministers’ Question Period. If that’s a minister you would like to see, we will use our best efforts so that you can ask her questions directly in this chamber. We’re making our best efforts.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, my question is to the Government Representative.

Senator Gold, this is an issue that has come up many times in many ways, but today, May 5, 2022, is Red Dress Day in Canada and the United States. The top-of-the-fold headline in Canada’s major newspapers today was that the female population in our prisons is now 298 Indigenous women and 298 non-Indigenous women. In this country, roughly speaking, there is 1 Indigenous woman for 20 others.

So many efforts have been made. So many governments have made so many promises. This statistic on this day poses a devastating reality for all of us to grapple with. If you could, please, share with the chamber what more is being done by the government.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you. It is shocking and scandalous. To those of us who have had some exposure to or experience with the criminal justice system, it is, alas, not surprising.

The legacy of colonialism and systemic racism that have infected too many of our institutions and criminal justice is too well-known — perhaps it should be better known to all Canadians, but it is certainly well-known to this government. The government has taken a number of steps to do its part to see if this trend can not only be reversed but properly and fully addressed.

Some aspects of it are in criminal law reforms that will make their way here, such as reducing the mandatory minimum provisions in the Criminal Code, which have had and will continue to have a disproportionate impact on Indigenous offenders, and women in particular. Other aspects are more designed to strengthen the resilience of communities so that the lack of options doesn’t lead some to take risks and end up within the criminal justice system.

Other measures include supporting the work of law enforcement, whether it is the RCMP or others, to address the lack of diversity or shortcomings in their policing in Indigenous communities.

It is such a complex, deeply rooted and tragic situation that there is no magic bullet, and there is no one answer. This government is committed to doing what it can, as effectively as it can, to address this.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: consideration of Motion No. 35, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion, as amended, of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That, notwithstanding any provisions of the Rules, previous order or usual practice, the provisions of the order of November 25, 2021, concerning hybrid sittings of the Senate and committees, and other matters, extended on March 31, 2022, have effect until the end of the day on June 30, 2022, subject to the following adjustments:

1.subparagraph 7(a) to (e) of the order of November 25, 2021, be replaced by the following:

“(a)when the Senate sits on a Monday, the sitting:

(i)start at 2 p.m.; and

(ii)adjourn at the earlier of the end of Government Business or midnight;

(b)when the Senate sits on a Tuesday, the sitting:

(i)start at 2 p.m.; and

(ii)adjourn at the later of the end of Government Business or 6 p.m., but, unless otherwise provided for in this order, at the latest by midnight;

(c)when the Senate sits on a Wednesday, the sitting:

(i)start at 2 p.m.; and

(ii)adjourn at the earlier of the end of Government Business or 4 p.m.;

(d)when the Senate sits on a Thursday, the sitting:

(i)start at 2 p.m.; and

(ii)adjourn at the later of the end of Government Business or 6 p.m., but, unless otherwise provided for in this order, at the latest by midnight; and

(e)when the Senate sits on a Friday, the sitting:

(i)start at 9 a.m.; and

(ii)adjourn at the earlier of the end of Government Business or 4 p.m.;” and

2.the provisions of paragraphs 12 and 13 of the order of November 25, 2021, cease to have effect, so that the evening suspension be as provided for in rule 3-3(1), including on Mondays, and, consequently, if the Rules require that something take place at 8 p.m., it take place at the time provided for in the Rules; and

That the Senate recognize the need to work towards a return to a schedule of committee meetings reflecting Ottawa-based operations, and call upon the Committee of Selection to continue to work with the leaders and facilitators of all recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups to advance this objective.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, I want to put a few words on the record. I do support the motion in amendment. I supported the motion without the amendment, but I want to thank Senator Saint-Germain for the improvement.

I support the motion, and it was highlighted to me last week why we need it. COVID visited my house. My son had it, and so I decided, as a precaution, to stay at home and participate via the hybrid format. I was able to participate rather than having to stay home, out of an abundance of caution.

I think it is clear to everybody that the hybrid regime has been invaluable in allowing the Senate to function during the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, it was vital in many, many instances as infections rose and fell and so on. I think we have to acknowledge that our role, the Senate’s valuable role in Canada’s democracy was significantly diminished by the way in which we were forced to operate. It was enhanced over what it could have been, but the Senate was not delivering full value to Canada over the course of the last two years. Our committee work was severely hampered over the last many months by, simply put, resource bottlenecks that limited time and continue to limit time for committee meetings.

While I am happy to support this motion with an extension to the end of June, I believe we have to get back without any straitjackets on our committees to fully doing our work. I think hybrid sittings and the technology and the system that we have need to be an important component of our disaster recovery plans in the future, but this system is not any kind of a viable option to be made permanent, unless we want to permanently dilute the value of the Senate.

Senator Marwah, in this chamber and with a statement that was published, detailed the challenges that we have in fully and completely running committees and the chamber as we have done for 150 years prior to COVID-19. He made it clear that it is not possible for us to conduct Senate business the way in which we did it pre-pandemic and have hybrid sittings. I think we all know that.

So, I can’t support further extending this, and I can’t support what I know to be the wishes of some senators — in fact, some members of Parliament — that hybrid sittings be made permanent under the current system. If there is any risk that we want to consider making this permanent, somebody has to do some work around what it would take. Is it absolutely possible for us to run the way that we ran before the pandemic and have hybrid services delivered, and not the other way around? Not that we would torque ourselves into whatever schedule to accommodate the technology. The technology would need to accommodate our schedule, which includes people coming to Ottawa, flying from across the country. I travel on average 18 hours a week to get here.

If there is any appetite in the chamber to consider making this permanent, there is work to be done on the feasibility of it and what it would cost in order for us to fully deliver on our services.

I won’t be supporting it, but I worry that there are some scenarios, potentially, where we could come under a lot of pressure to do something. We should have the answers. I want to put that on the record, colleagues. I know many of you agree with me, but I know that there are others who are desirous of making this permanent. If we are even going to discuss it or consider it, I think there is significant work to be done. I would hope that the administration, potentially the Internal Economy Committee, would give this their consideration. With that, I’ll thank you.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, Bill S-203, An Act respecting a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder, provides the legislative foundation for the development of a federal framework on autism spectrum disorder.

This bill was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for second reading on December 8, 2021. Over the course of two meetings, the committee heard from the sponsor of Bill S-203, the Honourable Senator Leo Housakos; and our former colleague the Honourable Jim Munson; as well as 12 individuals and five organizations. On behalf of the committee, I would like to take a moment to thank all those witnesses who shared their knowledge and their lived experience with us, acknowledging in particular the voices and perspectives of autistic self-advocates.

The committee is recommending several amendments to Bill S-203 that reflect the testimony and discussions we heard.

Witnesses all agreed on the important role of autistic self-advocates, their families and caregivers, both in the consideration of Bill S-203 and the proposed federal framework to follow.

Two amendments emphasizing the central role are therefore suggested by the committee. In the preamble, an additional paragraph is recommended stating that “. . . the development of that federal framework would benefit from the involvement of autistic Canadians, their families and their caregivers . . . .”

The second proposed amendment makes changes to the list of relevant stakeholders with which the Minister of Health must consult in advance of developing the framework. Clause 2(3)(c) now specifies the consultation of self-advocates, caregivers and support persons, in addition to adding service providers and representatives from Indigenous communities.

At committee, autistic self-advocates discussed the importance of the choice of language and vocabulary, and also emphasized the diversity of their lived experiences. The committee is therefore recommending an amendment to the second clause identifying the measures to be included in the framework. The proposed amendment strengthens clause 2(2)(d), emphasizing acceptance of autism spectrum disorder as well as intersectionality and inclusivity.

Once again, the committee would like to thank Senator Housakos for his long-time advocacy and work on supporting the community of autistic people in Canada. In his testimony, he stressed the important work to come in the consultation phase and eventual drafting of the framework, and thus stated that the bill is only a starting point and he had intentionally made it open-ended. Witnesses shared that they appreciated that Bill S-203 was not overly prescriptive or limiting in their future work.

However, the committee is recommending two amendments that ensure that the Minister of Health will have all available opportunities for a fulsome consultation and implementation of measures in the framework, adding language that the minister may also include anyone and anything else that he or she considers appropriate at those stages.

Finally, based on testimony we heard about current challenges in research, diagnosis, information and treatment of autism, two amendments were recommended for the proposed measures to be included in the federal framework. An additional measure has been added to address the current challenges in timely and equitable access to screening and diagnosis, and the existing measure (e) is further refined to specify providing sustained, accessible and culturally relevant resources, both online and offline, that focus on evidence-based information.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill, as amended, be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Housakos, bill, as amended, placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Pate, seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, for the second reading of Bill S-212, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Pate, seconded by the Honourable Senator Griffin, for the second reading of Bill S-230, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Klyne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., for the second reading of 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 (great apes, elephants and certain other animals).

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of Bill S-243, as introduced by my colleague Senator Rosa Galvez. The climate-aligned finance act is a courageous and coherent bill.

I spent most of my career working as a reporter. I was a Washington correspondent. One of the most famous mantras in journalism is “follow the money.” What this means, of course, is that by following financial transactions, one can get to the source of the problem.

The phrase was coined at the time of the Watergate scandal. Of course, the bill before us seeks to address very different problems. In some ways, they are less spectacular. They get less media attention, but the problem of climate change is much more serious, and it threatens the entire planet.

Bill S-243 aims to connect our financial system and our climate commitments to get to the source of the problem and start fixing it. It will not be easy. Nobody said it would be. We should not expect to change the rules of our financial systems, as we must, while preserving the status quo of business as usual. We have to choose.

[Translation]

I am not a scientist so I will not spend a lot of time presenting climate scenarios and energy trajectories. In any event, that is not our role as legislators. Our job is to consider the science and pass laws accordingly — in this case, for the good of the planet and future generations of Canadians.

What are the scientists saying?

The latest IPCC report, published just a few weeks ago, concluded that:

The cumulative scientific evidence is unequivocal: Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health. Any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all.

What are we to do? The IPCC report does not offer detailed solutions, but it clearly identifies “insufficient and misaligned finance” as a problem and highlights the need to adopt a model where “investment [is] aligned with climate resilient development.”

[English]

Others are also pointing the way. In February of last year, the U.K. government published a major study called The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review, led by Professor Dasgupta, of Cambridge University, and it does not mince words:

Collectively, however, we have failed to manage our global portfolio of assets sustainably. Estimates show that between 1992 and 2014, produced capital per person doubled, and human capital per person increased by about 13% globally; but the stock of natural capital per person declined by nearly 40%. . . . In other words, while humanity has prospered immensely in recent decades, the ways in which we have achieved such prosperity means that it has come at a devastating cost to Nature.

But this is not simply a market failure: it is a broader institutional failure too. . . . Governments almost everywhere exacerbate the problem by paying people more to exploit Nature than to protect it, and to prioritise unsustainable economic activities.

We need a financial system that channels financial investments – public and private – towards economic activities that enhance our stock of natural assets and encourage sustainable consumption and production activities. . . .

In May of last year, the International Energy Agency published a pathway to net-zero emissions by 2050 — a goal that Canada has publicly committed to achieve. The report was very direct and precise in saying that no new oil and gas fields should be approved for development beyond those already approved in 2021, and that, going forward, the only focus of oil and gas producers should be to manage and reduce emissions from existing assets.

There are many more reports and studies, of course, but at this point the message is clear: If we are to reach net zero by 2050, we need transformational change at a systemic level, quickly. But that is not what we have done in Canada. So far, we have supported a few climate policies and initiatives, as long as they do not affect our economy in any meaningful way. We vow to protect the climate in the long term, but short-term considerations of competitiveness take precedence. We advocate for bold change, but the status quo prevails most of the time.

As we pledge to reduce our national emissions, we are planning to increase our oil and gas exports. We celebrate our carbon tax, but our biggest polluters only pay a fraction of it. And the most significant measure we are contemplating for the financial industry is a disclosure scheme.

I strongly believe in transparency, of course. It is often an essential first step. In fact, we just passed Bill S-211, which is a transparency bill focused on forced labour and child labour in supply chains. But there are situations where transparency alone is not sufficient, especially when economic incentives are not aligned. In the case of the financial sector, climate disclosure schemes have not had much impact.

A recent report by NGOs shows that in 2021, the world’s top banks provided $752 billion in financing to the fossil fuel industry. One quarter of that amount went to companies that are expanding production. In Canada, financing for oil sands operations increased by 51%. Of course, this is not because we didn’t know about climate change last year or because we had insufficient disclosures to know that increasing oil and gas production contradicts our climate commitments. It’s because disclosures are basically worthless if they are not associated with cost.

In fact, a 2020 survey by HSBC found that just 10% of investors viewed the climate disclosures as a relevant source of information. When discussing that survey, the Financial Times quoted a former Bank of England economist as saying that:

Just discussing risks, and assessing risks, does not mean we are actually transitioning to net zero. Many firms may discuss risks — and do exactly nothing to advance the transition.

And why is that? Because climate disclosures provide information, but they do not align financial incentives. And that’s what matters: alignment.

[Translation]

Today, we are studying Bill S-243.

For the first time, we have a bill that is proposing to do what the IPCC and others are calling for: align finance with our climate commitments. The act would require public and private financial institutions to explain how they align their loans and investments with our climate commitments. It would require Crown corporations to integrate climate expertise at the highest level. It would support financial transactions that accelerate the transition and discourage those that slow it down. The act also addresses the conflicts of interest that have held us back for so many years.

It is a bold and necessary bill that challenges the paradigm under which we have operated until now, which holds that the financial system is untouchable.

This initiative will no doubt spark opposition, but I believe that the criticism should be met with a simple question: If you do not agree with this bill, how do you propose that Canada align its financial system with our climate commitments? If the reply is merely that we need more disclosure and carbon capture, or that we must wait for other countries to act, or that the market itself will ensure that there is a transition, we will know that there is no real will to change anything.

[English]

As I mentioned at the outset, Bill S-243 proposes to follow the money. That is certainly the right approach. But there is another thing that Bill S-243 would allow us to do, and that is putting our money where our mouth is. Senator Galvez is giving us an opportunity not only to align our financial system with our climate commitments, but to align our deeds with our words. We want to be climate leaders, but we are the only G7 country where emissions increased between 2015 and 2019. We point to other countries with bigger carbon footprints, but Canada is the worst country in the world for cumulative emissions per population. We can and should be doing much better. As senators, we often say that one of our duties is to provide representation to under-represented groups. Today, I suggest to you that one such group is made up of future generations. This bill is for them.

As appointed legislators, we are protected from electoral pressures. In politics, this is a rare and invaluable privilege. It should give us the courage and the independence to make hard decisions that are in the public interest. Today I suggest that we should take the time to understand and reflect on this bill. To quote The Dasgupta Review one more time:

. . . the same ingenuity that has led us to make demands on Nature that are so large, so damaging and over such a short period, can be redeployed to bring about transformative change, perhaps even in just as short a time. We and our descendants deserve nothing less.

In 15 or 20 years, most of us won’t be here anymore. Today, I suggest that this bill gives us a chance to do something that will matter when we are gone. So I urge you, colleagues, to send this bill to committee for an in-depth study without delay. We owe this to our children and grandchildren. Thank you.

[Translation]