Hon. Diane Bellemare moved the adoption of the report.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Galvez, seconded by the Honourable Senator Forest:

That the Senate of Canada recognize that:

(a)climate change is an urgent crisis that requires an immediate and ambitious response;

(b)human activity is unequivocally warming the atmosphere, ocean and land at an unprecedented pace, and is provoking weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe, including in the Arctic, which is warming at more than twice the global rate;

(c)failure to address climate change is resulting in catastrophic consequences especially for Canadian youth, Indigenous Peoples and future generations; and

(d)climate change is negatively impacting the health and safety of Canadians, and the financial stability of Canada;

That the Senate declare that Canada is in a national climate emergency which requires that Canada uphold its international commitments with respect to climate change and increase its climate action in line with the Paris Agreement’s objective of holding global warming well below two degrees Celsius and pursuing efforts to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius; and

That the Senate commit to action on mitigation and adaptation in response to the climate emergency and that it consider this urgency for action while undertaking its parliamentary business.

Hon. Dan Christmas: Honourable senators, there are seminal moments in life when time just stops and events become etched in your heart, your soul and your memory; points in life’s incredible journey when the tectonic plates shift, and one realizes that something extraordinary is taking place that will bring about changes which will impact things for years to come.

One such moment occurred nearly 14 years ago when Prime Minister Stephen Harper rose in the House of Commons in June 2008. This apology, coming about 128 years after the introduction of residential schools, was nothing short of monumental and, indeed, earth-shaking. I know in the case of my peoples, the Mi’kmaq, we kept wondering and hoping that this means of conciliation and atonement would continue to move forward.

Last Friday, at the Vatican, it finally did. His Holiness Pope Francis made an apology to survivors for:

. . . the deplorable conduct of . . . members of the Catholic Church, I ask for God’s forgiveness and I want to say to you with all my heart, I am very sorry. And I join my brothers, the Canadian bishops, in asking your pardon.

Colleagues, this apology is an equally significant game changer. This is why it is so important that we embrace it, endorse it and actively promote its acceptance.

Already there are some who decry the sincerity of it being rendered, that it doesn’t mean anything unless it is followed up by actions. But I’m not convinced that it represents how the survivors feel. Much of the commentary appears to come from the periphery. Let’s not take that position for granted. Let’s hear, instead, what some Mi’kmaq survivors are saying.

Magit Poulette, 79, is a survivor of Shubenacadie Indian Residential School, an elder from the We’koqma’q First Nation and a devoted Catholic and self-professed “prayer warrior.” She said, “It was very good — I think it really came from his heart.”

Another of the delegates representing Atlantic Canada was Phyllis Googoo, 79, also from We’koqma’q and a member of the community’s support group for survivors. She spent 10 years in residential schools, from the time she was only 4-years-old. The apology left her feeling very happy and with a lump in her throat. It was clearly an emotional event for her.

I’ll leave final comment of the Mi’kmaq to my community’s leader — and my dear and trusted friend — Chief Terry Paul. He said:

Each and every day of my life for the last nearly 40 years as Chief of Membertou, I have carried the memories of the five-year-old boy who went to Shubenacadie Residential School all those years ago.

As I grew, I promised myself that my experiences at residential school would not hold me down. I would not allow the painful times in my life to define the possibility of what I could be, or do.

Honourable senators, I beg you to consider that for the survivors, this is less about justice rendered than it is about being released from the legacy of the unmitigated pain and suffering of the memory of residential school trauma.

Honourable senators, the apology is a gift that allows survivors to finally say, “Our chains are gone; we’ve been set free.” Wela’lioq, thank you.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Brian Francis: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the apology made by His Holiness Pope Francis to Indigenous peoples on the role of the Catholic Church in the residential school system.

I am a Catholic. I am also an Indian day school survivor. I can tell you that it was important for me to hear the Pope say he was “very sorry” for the conduct of some of its clergy. But I wish he had gone further. The Catholic Church must take full accountability for its role in instigating, supporting and defending the historic and ongoing genocide of Indigenous peoples in Canada — including in the Indian residential school and Indian day school systems, where hunger, neglect, abuse and death were rampant.

It must also condemn the Doctrine of Discovery and other undoubtedly racist and unjust narratives, which not only depicted Indigenous people as inferior or savages but also enabled the displacement and dispossession of our land and resources.

Colleagues, the partial apology came after a week of meetings in Rome requested by Indigenous delegates. It is a product of the courageous and persistent efforts of survivors and their descendants, who fought for decades to ensure the truth is known while still healing from their trauma.

It is, furthermore, a product of the domestic and international outrage over the discovery of thousands of unmarked graves at the sites of former Indian residential schools. Had it not been for these devastating, but not surprising, discoveries, who knows how much longer it would have taken for the Catholic Church to apologize.

In the next months, Pope Francis must respond to Call to Action 58 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which requires that he come to Canada to issue an apology — one that must be robust and meaningful. In addition, the Catholic Church, which already failed to meet its obligations under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, must use its vast wealth to make substantive financial reparations. It must also turn over all Indigenous artifacts held by the Church and release all relevant documents and records. These next steps are non‑negotiable.

To conclude, colleagues, to me a partial apology is important, but is simply not enough. If the Pope is really committed to the path towards truth, healing, justice and reconciliation, concrete actions and changes by the Catholic Church must follow.

The wrongdoings of the Catholic Church are not just in the past. Indigenous people continue to be impacted, including our children, who are overrepresented in the child welfare system at rates higher than at the height of the Indian residential school system. Wela’lin, thank you.

[Translation]

[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in an Indigenous language.]

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, I want to begin by thanking the Canadian Senators Group for giving me their statement time today.

Maya Angelou has said:

I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.

What an amazing power we possess to make the world a better place when we wield it for good. One such person who embodied goodness and spread it so generously to others was Claudette Bradshaw. Claudette sadly passed away on March 26, 2022, following a battle with cancer.

Claudette served as an MP from 1997 to 2006, representing the riding of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe in New Brunswick. During her time on the Hill, she had been Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Minister responsible for la Francophonie, Minister of Labour and Minister of State for Human Resources Development.

From 1999 to 2004, she was Federal Coordinator on Homelessness. It is a well-known fact that Claudette often opened her apartment in Ottawa to her constituents. She made herself available whenever possible to meet, to chat and to encourage others, particularly young people.

While working on a task force on women entrepreneurs in 2003, I recall attending several meetings with Claudette. She regarded the work of the task force to be very important and generally wanted everyone who came in contact with the work to feel as though they mattered and could contribute in a meaningful way. Many people have developed a lifelong love affair with public service and humanitarian outreach because Claudette, or others like her, made them feel as if they could make a difference just by being themselves.

This is perhaps Claudette’s greatest legacy: the people she sent out into the world with a smile and one of her famous hugs to share and to spread love, making it multiply exponentially.

The project that was perhaps nearest and dearest to her heart was the Headstart program she founded in Moncton with her husband, Doug. This program has helped countless high-risk children and their families who struggle to meet their most basic needs, with early family intervention and support services. In the 50-plus years since the start of this initiative, I can only imagine the lives that have been and continue to be impacted because of Claudette’s vision of a brighter present that would hopefully lead to a better future.

In 2009, Claudette was appointed a member of the Order of New Brunswick, and in 2020 she received the New Brunswick Human Rights Award.

Honourable senators, Claudette Bradshaw was a bright light in this world. What is more, she did not keep that light to herself, but spent her energy lighting the candles of others so that they, too, would shine.

May we all shine so brightly. May we all care as deeply. May we all live as fully. Thank you, Claudette. My condolences to her family, friends and the many who loved her. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable senators, today I rise to pay tribute to the 22 victims of the shooting in Portapique, Nova Scotia, which was and still is the worst mass shooting in Canadian history.

The 22 women and men who lost their lives leave more than just their families in mourning. An entire community is being forced to endure this unspeakable tragedy. This beautiful part of rural Nova Scotia, where everyone knows everyone and where time has stood still since April 2020, is still in pain. Twenty-two innocent victims were shot or burned by a man who was known to have beaten his partner. In fact, it was following an episode of intimate partner violence on April 18, 2020, that the murderer roamed Portapique on a killing spree that lasted over 13 hours.

Public hearings into this tragedy are happening now, and I deplore the Government of Canada’s treatment of the 22 families of the innocent victims. Over the past two years, these families were not invited to be an integral part of the inquiry. They have complained publicly about being kept in the dark as to how the inquiry would work. That shows a lack of respect for the family and friends of the 22 victims. It is also an unacceptable way to re-victimize them and make them suffer all over again.

They should never have been treated this way, because they are the ones most directly affected by this tragedy and therefore the ones who most deserve answers about the RCMP’s responsibility in this matter.

The inquiry has already exposed multiple communication errors made by the RCMP, which was slow to give the public adequate warning to protect them. This would have helped stop the gunman’s rampage sooner. This tragedy leaves wondering about the RCMP’s preparedness and the resources that it must have in order to intervene faster and more effectively when faced with a possible mass killing. The Portapique tragedy must serve as an impetus for change; otherwise, we will have failed on all counts.

I therefore call on the federal government and the Minister of Public Safety to assume their responsibilities and act immediately to ensure that the RCMP is adequately equipped so that a tragedy of this nature can be better managed, or better still, prevented altogether. I hope these 22 women and men will never be forgotten. We must stand together in paying them a heartfelt tribute on this second anniversary. Our prayers and thoughts are with the victims’ families. Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Michèle Audette: Honourable senators, my thoughts are with all of the souls who never returned to their lands from residential school.

As you know, last week, a delegation of First Nations, Métis and Inuit representatives met with Pope Francis to seek justice for the genocide perpetrated in the residential schools run by the Catholic Church, under the direction of the Government of Canada.

Residential schools were part of the deliberate assimilation efforts seeking to destroy our rich identities, cultures and languages and to wipe out our histories. Let me quote Grand Chief Mandy Gull-Masty of the Cree Nation, who was one of the representatives in the delegation that went to Rome.

[English]

“We cannot ignore the power of an apology,” she said, saying it can help spur forward efforts aimed at “transforming anger and hurt into a process of peace, love, and freedom.”

[Translation]

The Pope finally apologized to the delegation, but I am thinking of all those here in Canada. For some, this apology offered comfort. For others, it represented the beginning of true healing. But for many, the apology was meaningless, and for some people, it came too late.

We must allow everyone to accept or reject the apology. We must accept that survivors and their families have different healing journeys. We must walk alongside them, at their pace, free from judgment.

The Pope must also come here, to Canada, to apologize to all those who were not able to travel. This is where it all happened, where the harms were inflicted and the irreparable damage was done. On top of the apologies, the Pope must also agree to open the Vatican archives and provide the information that many of us and many families are missing, so that these people can start a real grieving and healing process and recover their dignity and identity.

The First Nations, Métis and Inuit have always been here. Since time immemorial, they have been the inhabitants of this country we call Canada. The reconciliation process calls for the eradication of acts based on one group’s dominance over another. That is why it is important to revoke the papal decree that gave rise to the Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius.

As the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples says so well in its report:

A country cannot be built on a living lie. We know now, if the original settlers did not, that this country was not terra nullius at the time of contact and that the newcomers did not ‘discover’ it in any meaningful sense. We know also that the peoples who lived here had their own systems of law and governance, their own customs, languages and cultures. They were not untutored and ignorant; they were simply cast by the Creator in a different mould, one beyond the experience and comprehension of the new arrivals. They had a different view of the world and their place in it and a different set of norms and values to live by.

Dear colleagues, reconciliation is achieved not through lip service, but through concrete action, such as celebrating the inclusion of the First Nations, Métis and Inuit in history books and establishing a university by and for First Nations that is rooted in the values, cultures, languages and knowledge of our great peoples, and that is also open to the world. I invite senators to embrace and promote the calls to justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Together, we can do great things.

Hon. Tony Dean: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-213, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (independence of the judiciary). I would like to thank Senators Jaffer and Pate for their perseverance in pursuing this important issue, session after session.

I spoke in support of Senator Pate’s Bill S-251 back in the Forty-second Parliament, and I will speak in support of Senator Jaffer’s bill today, which shares many of the same features of Bill S-251. We have heard many colleagues and Senator Pate in particular speak about mandatory minimums and the harms they cause. I will not repeat those comments, but I do want to offer my own thoughts on how we have moved the issue along since then.

Over the past decade, colleagues, the Supreme Court of Canada has struck down a number of drugs and firearms mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, and ruled them unconstitutional. This includes MMPs for the first-time offence of unlawfully possessing a loaded or easily loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, contrary to section 95 of the Criminal Code. That offence carried a mandatory term of imprisonment of three years, and five years for repeat offenders.

The Supreme Court also struck down the one-year mandatory minimum for an offender with a previous conviction for the offence of possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking. The 2016 court case R. v. Lloyd acknowledged the frequent correlation between possession and trafficking of drugs with that of addiction and other mental health issues.

In R. v. Lloyd, the majority decision noted:

At one end of the range of conduct caught by the mandatory minimum sentence provision stands a professional drug dealer who engages in the business of dangerous drugs for profit, who is in possession of a large amount of drugs, and who has been convicted many times for similar offences. At the other end of the range stands the addict who is charged for sharing a small amount of drugs with a friend or spouse, and finds herself sentenced to a year in prison because of a single conviction for sharing marihuana in a social occasion nine years before. Most Canadians would be shocked to find that such a person could be sent to prison for one year.

The majority decision goes on to state that although the completion of a drug treatment program provides an exception to the one-year mandatory sentence, it is limited to specific programs that might not be accessible to all individuals. In addition, in order to be admissible to those programs, the individual must usually plead guilty and forfeit their right to a trial. Finally, the requirement that an individual successfully completes the program might not be realistic for those with serious addictions challenges.

Colleagues, we know harsher penalties do not reduce crimes, and for those struggling with addictions and mental health issues, receiving a prison sentence makes it even more difficult for them to access the resources they need.

Many other senators have also spoken at length on the disproportionate impacts that mandatory minimums have on disadvantaged persons and members of minority groups. The same is true of Indigenous peoples. Mandatory minimums do not allow judges to consider the social context of the offender in criminal sentencing, and as a result, vulnerable people may be adversely and disproportionately affected by mandatory minimums.

Larry Chartrand, Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Ottawa, argued that the application of minimum imprisonment penalties on Aboriginal peoples is contrary to the stated penal objectives of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Gladue, which recognizes that a different analysis and approach are required by judges when sentencing Indigenous offenders, “which may specifically make imprisonment a less appropriate or less useful sanction.”

Racialized Canadians are also overrepresented in prisons. CBC reported in 2021 that Indigenous adults make up more than 30% of the prison population despite representing less than 5% of the general population, while Black adults represent 3% of the population but more than 7% of federal offenders. These disproportionate impacts perpetuate systemic racism in our justice system and may impede efforts towards equality in many other aspects of our society.

Unlike jurisdictions with mandatory minimum penalties, Canada does not have a safety valve. It doesn’t have a provision for judicial discretion in certain instances. These safety valves can allow judges to use alternatives to mandatory minimums in those cases where they feel that mandatory minimums cannot be fairly or justly applied. The idea of a safety valve is important as it permits the acknowledgment of variation in the severity of criminal conduct at the time of sentencing.

I’m pleased, colleagues, that the government has acknowledged that mandatory minimums do not reduce crime and, in fact, cause significant social harms to convicted individuals and their families. We applaud Bill C-5, which eliminates mandatory minimums for drug-related offences and gives discretionary powers to police and prosecutors to allow them to make alternative sentencing decisions such as requiring the individual to undergo treatment and rehabilitation instead of punishing them with a prison sentence. This is an important first step and one which I support. However, Senator Jaffer’s bill would give judges discretionary power to choose alternative sentencing for all mandatory minimums.

I know some colleagues believe this is a step too far, especially when it comes to sentences for offences such as a murder. I want to highlight one case in particular which convinces me that it’s necessary to give judges such discretion to decide on all offences. You’ve heard about this before, and it’s the case of Helen Naslund.

In 2020, Ms. Naslund pleaded guilty to killing her husband, who was verbally and physically abusive. In 2011, after 27 years of enduring domestic abuse, Ms. Naslund reached breaking point and shot her husband in the head while he was sleeping. She was sentenced to 18 years in prison on a manslaughter charge. The court had not taken into account the fact that she had been a victim of domestic abuse. However, in January of this year, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that her sentence should be reduced to nine years, in a landmark decision.

In the majority decision, Justice Sheila Greckol said the original sentence was unduly harsh because it failed to take into account Ms. Naslund’s abusive marriage. In the decision, she states the following:

The sentencing judge suggested that Ms. Naslund had “other options” open to her, implicitly the option to walk out the door. . . .

For the sentencing judge to suggest that battered women have “other options” is to invoke a stereotype that a battered woman stays in a situation of domestic violence by choice . . . .

And further:

It is beyond time for this Court to explicitly recognize that cases of battered women killing abusive partners involve unique circumstances that must be considered by the sentencing judge, particularly where “battered woman syndrome” is involved. . . .

Observers have noted, colleagues, that the mandatory minimum sentence for murder — a life sentence — has negative implications for cases similar to Ms. Naslund’s. Individuals may be under pressure to plead guilty to manslaughter despite the fact that they have a legitimate defence of self-defence. The Court of Appeal’s decision is, therefore, an important step in recognizing that the social context of an offender must be taken into consideration in the sentencing. Providing for judicial discretion on mandatory minimums would allow judges to consider all aspects of the crime and the offender’s history.

Colleagues, one of our key responsibilities in this place, in the Senate of Canada, is to examine the unintended consequences of legislation, but also sometimes the impact of the intended consequences of legislation — tough-on-crime legislation — where that has been found wanting or overreaching, with horrendous consequences for those like Ms. Naslund, who have been victims of long-term abuse and violence, or those who have a history of mental illness or other trauma. This is one of those cases, and it cries out for our attention.

This is where we are called upon to be at our very best in exercising our own judgment, our own experience, in some cases our knowledge of the law — and we have lots of that in this place — and the sometimes overly sharp edges of the law and our sense of justice and fairness. In this case, as in many others, this place and we in it are a place of last resort. We can’t turn away from that, colleagues. Senator Jaffer and Senator Pate have drawn these issues to our attention, and I’m convinced that they have found an appropriate and balanced approach.

For that reason, I support their bill and, colleagues, I ask you to consider doing this too. Thank you.

Senator Dean: Yes.

Hon. René Cormier: Senator Patterson, I truthfully support the intention of your bill. I have a very simple question; maybe it’s too simple. When I read the bill, I see the holder must deploy the spectrum to provide service to at least 50% of the population within the geographic area covered by the spectrum licence within three years of the licensee’s insurance. How did you come to that 50%? The needs are so important in rural regions. How did you get to that percentage?

Senator Patterson: That’s open to study in the bill, and it may have been an arbitrary figure, but I have been in consultation with industry folks, and that was the recommended goal. It would do a lot to improve connectivity in our rural regions. Let’s study the bill, and, no doubt, it could be improved.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the first report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, entitled Amendments to the Rules — Speaker pro tempore, presented in the Senate on March 29, 2022.

Senator Dean: Thanks very much for the question. It’s obviously a very pertinent one. Senator Dalphond, in my remarks, I did choose to recognize the government’s bill, and I applaud that bill and will support it. As far as I’m concerned, it should move apace.

I’m also of the view, though — and I said this, too, in my remarks — that it is wanting in some respects. I think that Senator Jaffer and Senator Pate before her and now the two senators together are drawing our attention to some of the shortcomings in that bill, and I believe for that reason this bill deserves serious consideration. It deserves rigorous debate, and it’s something that we should consider pushing all the way. But at the same time, absolutely I agree. I will do nothing to stand in the way of moving the government bill, because it would represent a significant improvement.

I see absolutely no reason why in this place we can’t consider the two bills in parallel, and I think we should, to the extent that we have the time and opportunity available to do that. Thank you for the question.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

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. Nancy J. Hartling: Honourable senators, I am speaking to you from the unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq people in my home in New Brunswick.

Today, I rise to support Bill S-233, An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income, or GLBI, one of the most critical bills that I have seen come before us. I will focus my remarks on poverty, women and New Brunswick.

I was appointed to the Senate, to this place, in 2016, following a 34-year career as the director of a non-profit agency in Moncton, New Brunswick, where I worked with single parents and vulnerable people, most of whom lived in poverty and who may also have experienced abuse and violence. I bring my experience and their voices here today to help us understand what living in the margins really means.

I am an optimistic person who tries to look at the positive side of what social justice activities can change. Two noteworthy studies that have come out of the Senate include the Croll Report — the 1971 Report of the Special Senate Committee on Poverty, which details the devastating impact of poverty in Canada — and the 2006 Kirby report — Out of the Shadows at Last, which revealed the interconnection between mental health and poverty.

When we met with former senators Art Eggleton and Hugh Segal, and listened to their wisdom and expertise on poverty and basic income, I felt encouraged and optimistic. Eggleton’s 2018 book The Poverty, Inequality, and Job Challenge: The Case for Basic Income in Canada confirmed that the time is right to pursue legislation for guaranteed livable basic income.

In Canada, poverty reduction strategies have been talked about for decades. One positive move was legislation that enacted the Canada child benefit which assists thousands of families so they may better provide for themselves and their children. According to Statistics Canada, the child poverty rate decreased from 15% to 8% between 2012 and 2018, largely because of this transfer.

I witnessed, like many of you, the creation of the first food banks — mine in Atlantic Canada — in the 1980s. They were only meant to be a temporary measure. Food banks have not only grown, but many families now depend on them as everything around them has become unaffordable. According to Food Banks Canada’s HungerCount 2021 report, food bank use had experienced sharp growth prior to the pandemic, but it exploded by 20% since the arrival of COVID-19. The top reasons cited for using them were the high cost of food, social assistance being too low and the cost of housing. It is worth mentioning that many of those who visit food banks are working but cannot make ends meet.

Across New Brunswick, rents have been increasing at a rapid rate. In the past months, some seniors and families faced eviction due to rent increases of up to $500 per month. For example, Moncton saw two-bedroom rentals increase on average by 9.1% in 2020, the highest increase in Canada.

Temporary rent control has just been implemented for the province, but will cap at a 3.8% increase for this year only. Then, what? As a result, some people are forced to choose between heating, eating or being homeless.

What has the pandemic done to exacerbate these problems? It’s been the most difficult for those who are marginalized and who already had income challenges: families, racialized people, people with disabilities, seniors, people with mental health or addiction issues and those who face violence and homelessness. We need to remember the intersectionality of the most vulnerable in our society.

The pandemic directly affected the economic security of many individuals. Many businesses had to shut down due to COVID health restrictions. Government financial aid programs were rolled out quickly to help, like the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, wage subsidies, lockdown benefits, sickness benefits and caregiving benefits to name a few. Now, to be clear, not everyone was able to access these programs, often because they did not qualify for support. The most vulnerable remained vulnerable.

The impacts of COVID-19 have not been gender-neutral. As a result, women were likely to shoulder the disproportionate share of unpaid labour, experience poverty, be employed in minimum wage jobs, receive less in pensions and other benefits and experience gender-based violence or abuse. More than 56% of Canadian women are employed in work that we call the five C’s: caring, clerical, catering, cashiering or cleaning. These are the people who took on the most health risks, were at the highest risk of losing their jobs and are too often paid the least.

Recently, Senator Bernard and I hosted a panel with the Canadian Association of Social Workers for National Social Work Month. The discussion turned to how people who live in poverty are viewed that somehow it’s their fault they are poor, homeless, don’t have good jobs, have mental health issues or are trapped in intimate partner violence. Attitudes are still prevalent about the poor being undervalued people in our society. Could that be why public policies like guaranteed livable basic income aren’t seen as important? Do such people really deserve this money?

Senator Bernard said, astutely:

I think the way the government responded to Covid-19 with CERB was phenomenal and it was my hope and expectation that they would make a bold move to introduce a national strategy for a Guaranteed Livable basic Income.

The word “bold” struck me as it means accepting and acknowledging that the most vulnerable people deserve to have their basic needs met and live with dignity.

However, here we are 50 years after the 1971 Croll Report, and one in seven Canadians live in poverty according to the low-income measure. One in five racialized Canadians live in poverty. People living with disabilities are twice as likely to live below the poverty line, and 21% of single mothers raise their children while living in poverty. The statistics are even starker for Indigenous and northern communities. In New Brunswick, 30,000 children, or 21.8%, live in poverty. In one part of Moncton, that number is 39%. Most Indigenous communities in my province have child poverty rates exceeding 50%.

During my career, I had many opportunities to listen to the voices of those most affected by poverty. Between 2007 and 2011, our agency initiated a project called Photovoice to capture those voices. It was led by Dr. Lynne Duffy, a professor at the University of New Brunswick’s nursing school, who obtained a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council grant to undertake this project. We recruited women from our agency and the community to carry out a participatory community health assessment based upon, and from, a woman’s perspective and experience using Photovoice. Each participant was given a camera, and each week they were asked to take a photo that reflected their everyday challenges and the barriers they felt held them back. Several themes emerged, including finances, stress, transportation, support, personal development and, especially, abuse and intimate partner violence. The women created posters that shared their photos and their challenges, and made several public presentations.

We got to know these women deeply, as well as how that intimate partner violence impacted their lives and often led to poverty. Their struggle to make ends meet was like being at war — always trying to survive. They struggled to attend appointments in the justice system or family court, or attend counselling for themselves or their children. Many of the women had an education, but trying to work, find child care and transportation while dealing with mental health issues linked to the abuse and violence they had suffered was difficult.

I want to note that tonight I have heard two speeches referring to intimate partner violence. I’m pleased to have heard from two men in our chamber. These issues all intersect. For me, basic income is a part of the solution for helping people who live in intimate partner violence.

However, to go back to the women’s photos, they were often riveting. For example — I don’t have the picture, but you’ll understand the image I describe — there was a photo of two litres of milk alongside two litres of pop. The milk was triple the price, making it difficult to purchase. Other photos showed apartment rooms with mould around the floor, and there were photos of food banks with the caption, “It’s not a supermarket, you get what you are given.” One that remains with me is a photo of a cracked mirror with a caption reading, “Shattered lives.” Then, there were blank photo sheets labelled, “The pictures that aren’t: Too personal. Too painful.”

This not only created awareness, but also empowered the women to discuss with each other some of the issues they experience.

Therefore, honourable senators, today, I am sharing my experiences of these women so you will understand why a guaranteed livable basic income is imperative: because living in poverty traps people and forces them to live in substandard conditions without the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter and without the access to resources, such as counselling. After leaving a violent relationship, those are even more critical. This impacts their health with long-term costs for them and our systems.

I believe that guaranteed livable basic income can be an effective solution to lift Canadians out of poverty. GLBI is an unconditional and universal income granted to individuals to ensure that no person’s income falls below what is necessary for health, life and dignity. It is not EI or social assistance, although it could build on the existing social safety network rather than replacing it altogether. GLBI is available to everyone, subject only to residency and income. It is enough for a person to live securely and with dignity. GLBI is free of stigma while respecting the ability of recipients to choose to spend it how and where they feel is best, just as we do. It would be responsive to changing circumstances, being only gradually reduced as other income increases.

It is critical to ensure that the punitive and prescriptive methods used in the administration of other existing social assistance programs are not a part of the GLBI.

Canada has two great examples that demonstrate how effective basic income can be. The most notable is the 1974 Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment, or Mincome, and the 2017 Ontario Basic Income Pilot Project. The results of Mincome were promoted most effectively by economist Evelyn Forget, a professor at the University of Manitoba. Time does not permit me to go into detail on the implementation; however, many recipients reported improvements in their physical and mental health, labour market participation, education, food security, housing stability, financial status and social responsibility.

For women, the impact can be even more dramatic. For example, a GLBI would provide a source of income for unpaid work that is undertaken predominantly by women, such as child rearing and caregiving. It would provide better opportunities for safe housing and it would provide a stable source of income for women and their children who may be fleeing from intimate partner violence. A GLBI could be a stepping stone to better opportunities, such as providing opportunities to leave a low‑paying or unsafe job to start a business, or to give the space needed in order to obtain a higher education.

In areas of Canada where poverty rates tend to be higher and where employment is often precarious and seasonal, a GLBI could stabilize incomes, reduce stress and increase opportunities for those looking for a better education or more secure jobs.

Senator Griffin explained to us the report of the Legislation Assembly of Prince Edward Island’s Special Committee on Poverty in PEI, which had buy-in from all parties in Prince Edward Island. Their major recommendation was the creation of a basic income for the province. Premier King even noted the positive impact it was expected to have on labour participation, putting to rest the fears that many have about such a program.

I commissioned a report on the impact of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and similar supports on labour participation. Our findings revealed that labour shortages were systemic in nature, predated the pandemic and were not correlated to financial supports. This reflected the findings of the P.E.I. report. We need to keep watching P.E.I. because they are pushing forward for GLBI and it would be a good example for us to look at.

There are many supporters of GLBI, including former senators Eggleton and Segal; The Very Reverend the Honourable Lois Wilson; former MPs Bruce Stanton, Wayne Easter and Jean Crowder; 50 of us from this chamber; many national organizations, including Coalition Canada Basic Income, Basic Income Canada Network, Basic Income Canada Youth Network, UBI Works, The United Church of Canada; and many Canadian businesses.

In conclusion, I ask for your support for this important bill. Social justice means pushing beyond charity and making social policy changes that will impact future generations. As Senator Segal said, putting a floor under people by providing a basic income so they can live without worry and plan a life they deserve is the least we can do.

GLBI is an effective, just and evidence-based approach to create income security and directly address poverty. It would also offer women more choices and opportunities in many significant domains of their lives. As such, it is an important step forward in the pursuit of gender equality and in recognizing the role of women through specific public policy initiatives.

As I remember and honour the women’s voices from the Photovoice project, I sincerely believe this is a way forward. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson moved second reading of Bill S-242, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-242, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act — or, as I call it, “the use-it-or-lose-it bill.” This bill would amend Canada’s spectrum policy to ensure that this public resource is used to connect Canadians and not as a speculative vehicle for billionaires.

Canadians in rural, remote and northern communities deserve connectivity. Senators know that I have long railed against Canada’s spectrum policy, which prioritizes urban competition over rural connectivity. Communities anywhere from 15 minutes outside of Calgary to those in the Far North — such as Grise Fiord, Nunavut — are deprived of connectivity. While there are many factors that contribute to the lack of connectivity, one reality is that some communities lack access to sufficient internet connectivity thanks to spectrum that remains unused.

What is spectrum? Senators, spectrum refers to the airwaves that telecommunications companies use to deliver wireless services, like cell services or wireless broadband. These companies need enough spectrum to deliver high-quality wireless services.

I want to take a second to note that when I say “companies,” I don’t just mean the big telcos, like Rogers, Bell and TELUS. When I say “companies,” I mean anyone that uses spectrum. This could be the big telcos, but it could also be small companies like the many mom-and-pop wireless broadband companies that are present in so many rural communities.

Access to spectrum is particularly important as we move towards 5G. We hear frequently about the promises of 5G — which I’ll address in a minute — but one of the most important developments is the high-quality wireless broadband that will be available.

Spectrum is first and foremost a public resource. The government often auctions it off to make it more available to Canadians to improve connectivity. That’s why spectrum is so important — the more you have, the better your services can be. This is incredibly important because without enough spectrum, no company can offer a good service, be it cellphone service or wireless broadband. What it means is that without using spectrum efficiently, we cannot expect to connect all Canadians. Given that the government has the goal of connecting all Canadians by 2030, this is a substantial and material policy problem.

What is the current policy? Spectrum policy today is focused on encouraging competition in urban Canada. While this goal is laudable, competition alone is not enough. Competition means little to those Canadians who are not connected.

The policy today revolves around how the government carries out spectrum auctions, the next being scheduled in 2023. These auctions cost companies billions of dollars — and the government, to encourage urban competition, sometimes sets aside up to 60% of the spectrum available for smaller players. While this is great for urban competition, it means that a lot of spectrum sits idle outside those urban cores. That spectrum could be used to connect rural, remote and northern communities all across Canada. Instead, what happens is the companies who receive subsidized spectrum turn around and sell it for hundreds of millions of dollars.

In 2017 — and this is only one example and maybe the most egregious, dear colleagues — Pierre Karl Péladeau’s Videotron sold subsidized spectrum for a profit of $243 million over what was paid for it. This was spectrum that was supposed to support Videotron’s expansion into Toronto and the rest of Ontario. Instead, the taxpayer subsidy was funnelled directly into the pockets of a very wealthy family.

In an effort to increase competition, the government has been deeply discounting spectrum for smaller regional carriers who consistently fail to deploy it. In every geographic region across Canada, there are areas sitting unserved by broadband because of limited access to spectrum resources. That spectrum is a scarce public resource but has been squandered because it has been licensed to regional carriers who prefer to flip it for profit rather than use it to improve the lives of Canadians.

Did you know that less than 20% of rural spectrum has been deployed nationally by regional carriers? That matters because that other 80% is held by companies that often do not have the resources to deploy it.

Senators, we must create a policy environment where spectrum squatting, as I call it, and speculation should not be permitted. This is especially important in the context of the auction rules that set aside lots of spectrum and allow some players to obtain the spectrum at subsidized costs without a meaningful timeline for deployment. It is safe to say that set-aside-eligible companies have received over half a billion dollars of cash by selling spectrum that they originally purchased at a deep discount thanks to Canadian taxpayers. There must be a policy of “use it or lose it.” This is responsible long-term policy-making that will protect Canadians. We all agree the end goal is to drive the best outcomes for Canadians, so we should agree that companies should have to deploy the spectrum that they purchase. That’s what it’s there for.

The second thing we need to consider is the cost of spectrum. A dollar on spectrum is a dollar not spent on expanding connectivity. Other countries appear to have learned this lesson. The governments of Japan and South Korea both have provided spectrum to their carriers for free. Smaller economies like Ireland and the Czech Republic both charged an average of 4 cents per each unit of spectrum for the same unit U.S. carriers paid on average $1.19. Meanwhile in Canada, national carriers paid more than 2.8 times as much as the U.S. for 5G spectrum. Canada’s latest auction, the most expensive in the world, drove close to $9 billion in revenue for the Canadian government. This is important because it would take that same $9 billion to fully close the rural connectivity gap and provide full 50/10 megabyte per second download/upload service to every single Canadian household. This comes from a study from the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa using data from the CRTC that estimated it would cost between $6 billion and $10 billion to provide 50/10 Mbps service to the 14% of Canadian households currently underserved.

Senators, we must seriously consider how wise it is for us to endorse a policy that outright prevents companies from building in rural Canada.

Here is another number that might surprise this chamber. Through cellphone bills, a typical family of four now pays $400 annually — or $100 per person — for the cost of spectrum. This is up 12.5% since the latest auction. That’s essentially two months of wireless bills every year per customer that goes straight back to the government.

Senators, there is an opportunity cost to having the highest spectrum prices in the world. First and foremost, it’s preventing our goal, which is universal access. Second, it’s driving slower economic growth. In fact, the GSMA, the global mobile industry standard-setting body, estimated that bringing 5G spectrum policies in Canada in line with international best practices would deliver well in excess of a total of $30 billion in additional GDP growth for the entire 2020-2040 period.

The third consideration around spectrum is a bit technical, but it actually might be the simplest to fix. We need to make sure that providers with a successful track record of deployment have enough spectrum to achieve the best networks. Even in the early stages of 5G deployment, carriers will need access to spectrum to satisfy the needs of consumers, businesses and the public sector, including for cellphone services and wireless broadband. Experts agree that the maximum benefit of 5G comes with 100 megahertz channels. However, ISED allocated much less than this in the most recent 5G auction and then set aside a significant amount for regional carriers. The result was that the most expensive spectrum auction in the world was one that didn’t allocate enough spectrum to launch next-generation networks.

Senators, I need not remind you that these networks are the key to rural, remote and northern connectivity. For the next spectrum auction — which, as I say, is scheduled to take place in 2023 — the goal must be to ensure that coming out of it, every carrier has access to 100 megahertz of 5G spectrum as long as they are ready to put it to use. It’s the only way that we can continue to offer world-leading networks to Canadians.

Honourable senators, several of you have spoken in this place about the need for new thinking when it comes to spectrum policy. Namely, we must think hard about whether past policies are working in our interests. I would posit they are not. For the upcoming auction, I would propose we abandon the current policy — set-asides — entirely in favour of an internationally recognized alternative: caps. Caps ensure carriers get the spectrum they need while making sure costs stay under control. A recent study found that most OECD countries use caps in their auctions and did not see the same prices we saw here in Canada. So we know this policy works. In the upcoming auction, there is enough spectrum to go around. Let’s not have a repeat of the last auction. Instead, let’s focus on the goals that really matter: connecting Canadians.

Honourable senators, we must see spectrum for what it is: the key to future productivity, core to economic development and a catalyst for innovation. Most importantly, it is a tool to connect and enable our vision for Canada. In the North, increased connectivity means we can access better medical services and do more procedures in the territory. It means we no longer have to travel as much or as far in the administration of justice. As I mentioned in my second reading speech on Bill S-4, better connectivity in Nunavut means students can connect with world-class institutions and take online courses, and it means something as simple as being able to apply online for services and grants.

Honourable senators, we all want the same thing: for Canada to be the world leader in productivity, quality of life and sustainability. For this to happen, we must have ubiquitous access to fast and reliable networks. If we can reach this vision, we will unlock untold potential for growth, innovation and prosperity. I want to use an industry we’re all familiar with to illustrate the economic importance of broadband: agriculture.

It’s estimated that next-generation 5G connectivity will add as much as $40 billion to Canada’s GDP within five years, and another $500 billion in value could be added to the global gross domestic product if connectivity is successfully implemented in the agriculture industry. The lack of reliable connectivity in rural communities leaves farmers behind. Farmers, as we know, are the backbone of our economy, working hard to feed Canadians and the world. So let’s help our farmers produce more food and produce it sustainably by giving them better access to connectivity.

As technology develops and as connectivity becomes more prevalent in rural, remote and northern communities, thousands of sensors will enable real-time decision making on farms based on data from those devices to produce more, maximize inputs and further increase sustainability across the supply chain. Connectivity will help farmers automate precision agricultural technologies to produce more wheat, canola and other crops while optimizing inputs and time, creating a more sustainable product without cutting their yield.

Looking ahead, we unlock the possibilities of data-driven agriculture to get an even deeper understanding of how to best raise crops. With automation, our farmers will be able to use data to practise the four R’s: right time, right place, right rate and right source. In particular, 5G will also literally drive semi-autonomous to fully autonomous tractors. A multitude of sensor devices, augmented reality and real-time decision making on farms will be based on data from those devices. Smart tractors and robotics are a viable option for many remote agricultural operations that struggle to find workers, but they need to be connected.

We’re also seeing a rise in advanced livestock sensors, whereby large herds can be connected to sensors that monitor every aspect of what is going on with the animal, such as heart rate, to ensure that they can receive the best and healthiest treatment possible. To enable these technologies, connectivity is the key.

Improved connectivity on the field will allow for easily accessible cloud computing and responsiveness to data that is gathered and used in precision agriculture, and help unlock the potential of ag-tech innovations. Connectivity through 5G will help future-proof the sector as tech develops to higher capacities. To make sure we don’t leave our farmers behind as 5G rolls out across Canada, we need to make sure companies make good use of spectrum they receive through auctions and deliver for all Canadians, not just urban Canadians.

Fundamentally, this bill is about making sure those that buy spectrum actually use it. When you buy a public resource, especially at a significant discount, you should be buying an obligation to connect Canadians. This bill does two important things. It clarifies the minister’s powers to ensure the minister takes away licences when companies refuse to connect at least 50% of Canadians in a given licence area, and it allows Canadians to sue companies that under invest in connectivity. If the minister takes away a licence, and the former licensee cannot find someone to continue connectivity, the former licensee becomes liable for damages.

The first element is key because while the minister technically has this power implicitly, it has never been formally set out in law. By creating this provision in law, the minister will have a clear mandate to withdraw licences when it becomes clear that the company that bought the spectrum has no intention of using it. Then it can go to another company or group that will actually deploy the spectrum to connect Canadians. This is a policy that balances the industry’s need for rules that governs fair spectrum use with Canadians’ need for connectivity. If passed, “use it or lose it” would apply to all spectrum licences. I expect that would create an incentive for companies to build quickly — a positive thing — before the government can take away licences once the grace period expires.

The second element here is the liability of a company to a community that loses connectivity. It’s possible that if a company is providing connectivity to one community, but not the rest of the communities in the licence area, the loss of the licence could mean a community is disconnected. This is obviously unacceptable. The solution is elegant: mandate the company to find another company to take over the licence, or pay massive penalties to the community.

Honourable senators, I believe this will be enough of a disincentive to prevent any company from actually disconnecting a community, and instead work hard to build the infrastructure needed to connect all Canadians. The bill is important because it sets the stage for a modern connectivity policy, one that is rooted in increasing Canada’s economic productivity and ensuring that Canada has the highest quality of life globally. This bill is important because it means that Canadians will be connected faster to better broadband to build the future we all envision.

Honourable senators, we were all appointed to represent views that are not always present in the other place. We’re constitutionally obliged to represent minority perspectives. In this case, it is the perspectives of rural, remote and northern Canadians who have been deprived of connectivity for so long. This is an issue that I believe transcends party lines; “use it or lose it” was present throughout the Conservative Party platform in 2021. I know it’s also present in Minister Champagne’s mandate letter, so I hope I can count on all of your support and your help in moving this bill to committee. It is imperative that we hear not just from experts on this matter, but also from communities affected by poor or no connectivity. I’m ready to work collaboratively with all of you to improve connectivity across Canada. Thank you. Qujannamiik.

Hon. Pat Duncan: Honourable senators, I rise today grateful to the Creator for this day and for the privilege of speaking from the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe and respectfully serving Canada and Canadians with all of you.

Today, I’m speaking to Senator Galvez’s motion that describes the climate in a state of urgent crisis. Senator Mégie most eloquently described how our planet, which supports life, needs intensive care without further delay.

What constitutes an emergency? An emergency is a threat to life. Our climate, life on the planet as we know it, has been threatened with extreme weather everywhere. In Canada, we have borne witness to floods, fires, droughts, record snowfall, and we have lost Arctic ice — ice that forms the icebergs in Newfoundland and Labrador’s Iceberg Alley. An emergency is a threat to the security of the person. An absence of shelter, especially in extremes of weather, is an emergency.

No longer being able to access food and a subsistence lifestyle your culture has depended upon for thousands of years is a threat to the security of the person and culture. It’s an emergency.

The decision to describe a situation as an emergency, especially for governments — for leaders — is not an easy decision arrived at lightly, nor is it easily accepted. We have witnessed recent debates on this very subject earlier this year.

In 2018, strategy discussions amongst the Assembly of First Nations Regional Chief Kluane Adamek, her team and Yukon chiefs coined the phrase “A Yukon that leads” to describe our region and the First Nations leadership and their advancement.

The regional chief granted me permission to share this with you. I spoke of this in a tribute to the late First Nations Yukon leader Paul Birckel. We lost a leader. Fortunately, we have not lost our way. “A Yukon that leads.” I cannot think of a better phrase to describe a variety of Yukon First Nation initiatives.

A notable example is Chief Dana Tizya-Tramm of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation. On May 19, 2019, Old Crow, the home of the Vuntut Gwitchin, declared a climate emergency in their community. Climate change is drastically changing the landscape and the lifestyle in this remote community, the only community not accessible by year-round road in the Yukon.

I will return to the discussion of roads in a moment.

Honourable senators, I would like to share with you this quote from the Chief Tizya-Tramm. He said:

It’s going to be the blink of an eye before my great grandchild is living in a completely different territory, and if that’s not an emergency, I don’t know what is.

The emergency — the urgent crisis — is upon us, as Senator Galvez has outlined. It’s not the first time Canadians have been given this message. The 2019 Government of Canada report, Canada’s Changing Climate Report, noted:

Northern Canada is defined as the geographical region north of 60º north latitude, encompassing Yukon, Northwest Territories, most of Nunavut, and parts of Nunavik (northern Quebec) and Nunatsiavut (northernmost Newfoundland and Labrador). In this region as a whole, annual mean temperature has increased by 2.3ºC from 1948 to 2016, roughly three times the warming rate of global mean temperature.

Senator Black, in his address on this motion, outlined that he would speak from what he knows best — addressing climate change and agriculture. Senator Anderson spoke most eloquently of the changing climate in the North that she knows. Today, I speak of what I know — the changing climate in the Yukon.

In my lifetime, colleagues, I’ve borne witness to warmer winters. Yes, we still experience perhaps a week of extreme cold, yet not the weeks of minus 40 degrees Celsius that I remember walking to school.

As a young adult, I worked for Parks Canada Youth Conservation Corps in Kluane National Park at the base of Sheep Mountain, where the Kaskawulsh Glacier graced the landscape and fed the majestic Kluane Lake.

Honourable senators, I invite you to read the dramatic story of climate change in the North entitled A River Ran Through It, published on June 24, 2019, by Ainslie Cruickshank. It says in part:

Climate change has gripped the North. In a dramatic display of its power, a receding glacier stole the river that feeds this lake and the consequences have rippled throughout the watershed.

She was referring to the Kaskawulsh Glacier and Kluane Lake. “Now the Kluane First Nation is being forced to adapt.”

The motion by Senator Galvez describes climate change as an urgent crisis and the resulting climate events as catastrophic, particularly for Canadian youth.

The motion says climate change is an urgent crisis, and, if left unaddressed, the consequences for our youth are profound. Yes, there are lauded and laudable youth who have led and are leading, recognizing the urgency of the situation and the need for change, but the consequences of climate change continue.

I mentioned earlier that Old Crow is a fly-in community. Periodically over the years, when a new school or a health facility was constructed, an ice road would be built to the community of Old Crow. This year, the trucks were unable to traverse the ice road for a period of time due to warmer temperatures. The ice road to Old Crow, when it’s in use, is temporary, essential infrastructure.

The impact on permanent infrastructure, such as the highway network throughout the Yukon, is significant. These highways include the Alcan or the Alaska Highway, a major transportation route from the Lower 48 in the United States to Alaska, as well as Diefenbaker’s “Roads to Resources,” the Dempster Highway, a critical link for the communities of Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk in the Northwest Territories.

The thawing permafrost on these roadways is estimated to have increased the highways’ annual maintenance costs by hundreds of thousands of dollars per year since 2005. Hundreds of thousands of dollars may not mean much to provincial budgets of millions of dollars and the budget we’re looking forward to of billions of dollars, but when you’re considering a relatively small budget of a territorial government, it’s a lot of money.

The discussion of transportation, climate change and solutions like electric buses in the city of Edmonton are as important as all the steps, large and small, to address climate change.

Honourable senators have often heard me say that one size does not fit all. Recognition and acceptance of the need for change and the urgency of this situation are not everywhere. It’s perhaps most evident in some of the younger population. There is a generation that grew up playing with big trucks that loudly went “vroom, vroom” and who dreamed of owning that F-150 truck or the GMC Denali with big tires. Now, as young adults, they love snowmobiling and driving four-wheelers in the back country of our provinces and territories.

The consequences for these young people is to say that all those things you thought you knew, the world you thought you were growing up in, doesn’t exist anymore. The lifestyle and adventures of your family, the generation that preceded you, are not yours to share.

We have all become deeply conscious of the divisions in our country. I believe our debates on emergencies such as this must also include discussions of understanding how painful these life-changing decisions are for some.

We cannot forget, and we must also express our understanding for rural Canada, places where transit systems powered by electricity — or even transit systems — are not the norm. In small rural communities, you hop on a four-wheeler to go to the store, and the pickup or the Suburban is your office, team transportation to the rink and the family trip to the nearest major centre for all manner of groceries and supplies.

Switching from fossil fuels is a challenge. Yes, we’re seeing the advancement of electric vehicles. Just yesterday on the news, there was an announcement of investment by governments in an electric vehicle plant. We must adapt to changes, not only in the area of climate. We have to adapt our lifestyles, our expectations and ensure that the transition is not a forced and one-size-fits-all approach.

Honourable senators, speaking to adapting to change, Kluane First Nation’s Chief Bob Dickson is quoted in A River Ran Through It. There is a lesson for all of us in his words. The article quotes him as saying, “We have to relearn our traditional knowledge all over again because things are changing.”

The article continues:

And it’s not just the lower lake level. The winters are getting warmer, there’s more rain, and the moose rut — mating season — is happening later in the fall.

Chief Dickson is quoted again:

We’ll live with it. When they created a national park they moved us here and we adapted to that. I think we’re going to adapt to this, just the same.

In discussing this emergency and the way forward, I believe we must be mindful of the differing circumstances, and we must approach the discussion in a way to deepen the understanding and not the divide, as seen in Senator Coyle’s inquiry on climate change solutions, and hope for the future. I hope to speak to that later this session.

Honourable senators, if there’s something good that can be said of everything, perhaps in our search for solutions for a changing climate and moving away from fossil fuels, there is also opportunity. The Yukon, as Senator Dasko shared in a statement recently, has witnessed the largest growth in the country. The demand for electric power has far outstripped the production capability of the hydroelectric facilities in the Yukon, especially in Whitehorse, to the point that diesel generators have been augmenting the supply for several winters.

In Old Crow, after declaring a climate emergency, Yukon’s northernmost community announced the completion of an ambitious project, delayed, as so many other projects have been, due to the pandemic. Sree Vyah is a solar energy project consisting of 2,160 single-sided monocrystalline panels, configured to maximize solar generation during the long summer daylight hours. It will reduce the community’s current reliance on diesel generators by 189,000 litres of diesel per year. It’s a drastic change for a fly-in community. Funding for the project came from several federal programs, the First Nation and the Yukon government’s development corporation.

Another innovative First Nation-owned project announced last month is Yukon Energy’s Electricity Purchase Agreement with Tlingit Homeland Energy Limited Partnership, a company that is 100% owned by the Taku River Tlingit First Nation, who will build and own the Atlin Hydro Expansion Project. Atlin is actually in British Columbia. This will add eight megawatts to the Yukon grid, eliminating the need for four rental diesels each winter. It will generate about 31 gigawatt hours of electricity each winter: approximately enough to power 2,500 Yukon homes annually.

Honourable senators, in my short time in the Senate, I’ve had the opportunity to learn more about Canada’s nuclear industry. I have become especially interested in the small nuclear reactors as a possibility for power generation in the North. The Canadian Nuclear Association has stated that the uranium needed in the industry will create and sustain jobs, especially for First Nations in northern Saskatchewan. Ontario Power Generation, Bruce Power, New Brunswick Power and SaskPower have developed a pan-Canadian initiative to develop and deploy small modular nuclear reactors. These are just some of the Canadian solutions and opportunities that I look forward to discussing in Senator Coyle’s inquiry.

Honourable senators, I hope that my participation today has confirmed for you that the climate crisis is real in the Yukon, the territory I represent, and that it has significant negative, destructive effects on human health, life, food security and infrastructure, permanent and temporary, and that there is a real financial cost to climate change.

However, as seen in my examples, a cookie-cutter approach isn’t the way. The transition needs to be locally adapted. It needs to be community-led and sufficiently supported by all orders of government: federal, provincial and territorial, Indigenous and municipal.

We need to be mindful of the differences throughout the territory and of the opportunities.

I look forward to discussing the climate emergency as well as the solutions in coming days. Thank you, mahsi’cho, gùnáłchîsh.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moncion, seconded by the Honourable Senator Simons:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to examine and report on the Canadian assisted human reproduction legislative and regulatory framework and any other related issues deemed relevant by the committee, when and if the committee is formed; and

That the committee submit its final report on this study to the Senate no later than October 31, 2023, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Hon. Judith G. Seidman: Honourable Senators, I rise today in support of my colleague Senator Moncion’s motion to authorize the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to examine and report on the Canadian assisted human reproduction legislative and regulatory framework, and any other related issues deemed relevant by the committee.

I would like to thank Senator Moncion for her leadership on this important issue. Throughout her tireless advocacy, she has remained focused on the health, safety, and dignity of Canadians who wish to grow their families with the assistance of reproductive technologies and processes, and the surrogate mothers who help them do so.

The Assisted Human Reproduction Act, Canada’s legal framework on assisted human reproduction, became law in 2004. The framework was built on the work done by the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, which was established in 1989 to study the ethical, social, research and legal implications of new reproductive technologies in Canada.

The original Assisted Human Reproduction Act was meant to be a comprehensive and transformative framework. It prohibited and criminalized certain activities, while simultaneously permitting and regulating others. It also established the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada, a federal regulatory agency responsible for enforcing the act.

However, the aspirations of the framework were short-lived. Many of the provisions of the act remained dormant for years. Intended parents, health care professionals, lawyers, and ethicists were left in the dark about the legal parameters of assisted human reproduction. As an example, the federal government released regulations related to reimbursement only in June 2019 — 15 years after the law was passed.

Additionally, shortly after the Assisted Human Reproduction Act received Royal Assent in 2004, the Government of Quebec challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the act. A decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada struck down a number of provisions of the act, including the establishment of the agency, which shut down its operation in 2013.

Today, surrogacy and gamete donation programs in Canada lack oversight, are unregulated and unlicensed. The regulation, as well as the licensing of fertility clinics, is a responsibility left to the provinces and territories. Data collection is also inconsistent and fragmented, and most of it is anecdotal in nature.

Over the years, there have been reports of fertility clinics and agencies engaging in unlawful behaviours. While the stories are few, they are concerning. This is all due to the lack of standards and oversight of surrogacy in Canada, which leaves prospective parents, surrogates and donors vulnerable to harm.

Honourable senators, there is no question that a national conversation about Canada’s assisted human reproduction laws is long overdue. In my second reading speech on Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, I suggested that rather than proceeding with a private member’s bill, we should first conduct a comprehensive study of the subject matter. I argued that this approach would allow us to understand the unintended consequences of changing the current framework and suggest options for other frameworks, which could ultimately be addressed in a separate piece of legislation.

As I stated in that second reading speech:

A debate on this proposed piece of legislation would restrict our hearings to only the scope of the bill, with broader questions necessitating fulsome evidence collection on assisted human reproduction beyond our reach.

Now, a Senate study on this subject matter would provide a necessary and timely opportunity for us to learn from health and legal experts who are actively engaged in the field. Also, it would allow Canada to draw upon the expertise of other countries, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, India and others who have crafted programs on assisted human reproduction and utilize best practices from their studies over the years. It is for these reasons that I fully support Senator Moncion’s motion and once again thank her for her leadership.

Almost two decades have gone by since the passage of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. A fulsome study conducted by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology would play an important and timely role in modernizing and shaping Canada’s legislative and regulatory framework on assisted human reproduction. It would also respond to the urgent need to pay attention to the health and safety of all those involved.

Honourable senators, this really does matter. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

Senator Moodie: Senator Gold, what I’m asking for is an update on where things are at. Is it possible for you to provide this chamber with such an update? Thank you.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question today is for the government leader in the Senate.

Senator Gold, the Canada Infrastructure Bank was created by the Trudeau government and has been operational since the 2017-18 fiscal year.

In the five years since its creation, the Canada Infrastructure Bank has failed to complete one single project. A recent answer to the question on the Senate’s Order Paper shows that in 2021 alone, the Canada Infrastructure Bank paid out over $5.7 million in short-term incentives to its 79 employees. This works out, Senator Gold, to a bonus of over $73,000 per employee.

Leader, how could the NDP-Liberal government possibly think that these bonuses are appropriate?

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the second report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament entitled Use of displays, exhibits and props in Senate proceedings and I move that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

(On motion of Senator Bellemare, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[English]

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, which deals with the work of the committee and other matters.

(For text of report, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 430-1.)