Hon. Rose-May Poirier: Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate.

According to the information that predates the pandemic, the number of homeless veterans across Canada is estimated to be about 3,000. Last year’s federal budget promised $45 million over two years on a pilot project aimed at reducing homelessness amongst veterans, beginning with the 2022-23 fiscal year.

A recent answer to a Senate Order Paper question revealed that Infrastructure Canada and Veterans Affairs Canada are still working on the design of the program. They don’t know how many veterans this program will serve.

Leader, when will this program be operational, and how many veterans will it help?

Hon. David Richards: Honourable senators, my question is also for Senator Gold.

Senator Gold, I’m following up on Senator Poirier’s question dealing with the closure of the production fish plants. Senator Gold, you mentioned the science involved in coming to this decision about species protection. However, on the Miramichi River, nothing has been done in the last 40 years to cull the seals at the mouth of the bay or harvest the striped bass that arrive in the tens of thousands in our waters and devastate salmon, smolt and smaller species of fish, both local and migratory. In fact, the stripers are allowed to navigate into all the tributaries of our rivers and are up by the Cains River in the main southwest and up into the headwaters of the northwest. Predators are on the salmon spawning ground. You only have to live on the Miramichi to know that the DFO is almost totally incompetent in dealing with this matter and has no right to speak of science as their major concern.

Senator Richards: What would it take to allow the province itself or the Miramichi Salmon Association, in conjunction with the First Nations peoples, to take over the salmon problem on the Miramichi and relieve the DFO of its concerns on this matter?

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

As I mentioned in my answer earlier, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the great majority of Canadians, in fact, will receive more than they pay out, but clearly not all, as you have properly mentioned.

The important thing to underline, colleagues, is — and I go back to classical Economics 101 — putting a price on pollution is meant to increase the cost. It is meant to create incentives for all of us, businesses and individuals, to change our habits.

One hopes that the provinces that have not yet signed on to a meaningful plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will do so for the benefit of their citizens, for the benefit of the children of their citizens and for the benefit of the country and the planet.

Senator Batters: Senator Woo, thank you for that. However, my question remains unanswered.

Perhaps you can answer this: Is this the first regulatory statute of this type from the Trudeau government during its six and a half years in power? If not, how many have there been? How many meetings did your committee have during the last parliamentary session, given that we are already several months into this session and we just had the first meeting?

Senator Woo: We call this the second Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill. The first one was part of the 2019 Budget Implementation Act. It was embedded within that bill but clearly spelled out as the first set of regulatory modernization activities. The short answer is that this is number two.

Insofar as Scrutiny of Regulations Committee meetings during the last Parliament, I believe we had one substantive meeting. The reasons are well known to all of us. It was lower in the pecking order in terms of priority time slots for committees to meet. Being a joint committee made it more complicated. There were delays in the nomination of the joint chair on the other side and, of course, there was a short parliamentary session.

However, as I mentioned, we now have some runway. With a bit of luck, we can get five meetings in before the end of June, and we hope to get a lot done.

Senator Richards: You mentioned in this regulations act the relaxation of fishery charges. Would you have information on which specific charges you are talking about? If you don’t have the information at hand, could you send me an email about this, please?

Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Richards. The best place to get those detailed answers is in committee. I look forward to detailed scrutiny. I think it’s not so much a relaxation of rules but, rather, the ability for fisheries officers to legally use alternative dispute settlement mechanisms for minor infractions of the Fisheries Act.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Jaffer, I am sorry, but your time has expired.

Senator Simons, your microphone is not on. Honourable senators, it seems that the console system has an issue, so we will take a break for a few minutes.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

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. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Honourable senators, it is very likely that the one thing you remember from the Oscars ceremony on March 27 is seeing actor Will Smith slap comedian Chris Rock.

However, I will remember those Oscars for another reason. It was a proud moment for me as a Canadian, a Quebecker and a francophone.

What an honour it was for all of us to watch Quebec filmmaker Denis Villeneuve win six Oscars for his movie Dune. He was honoured alongside several members of his team, who are also Canadian. Together, they took their place in the world of American cinema, which is dominated by anglophones.

With six Oscars, Dune tied with several other major blockbusters, including Titanic, which is no small feat.

Born in Bécancour on the south shore of Trois-Rivières, Denis Villeneuve has been making movies for more than 30 years. Since 2012, he has been a top filmmaker with such movies as Incendies, Arrival, Blade Runner 2049, and now Dune, which had a budget of $165 million and has already earned more than $400 million at the box office.

We know that there will be a sequel to Dune and that it will be directed by Denis Villeneuve. Given his recent success, we have no doubt that Denis Villeneuve will continue to amaze us, because he is only 54 years old. Steven Spielberg is 75, Martin Scorsese is 79 and Francis Ford Coppola is 82. They are all still working.

I therefore want to pay tribute to Denis Villeneuve today and highlight the key role that francophone talent from Quebec plays in the U.S. entertainment industry. Some of our artists who are currently working in the U.S. include Céline Dion and Cirque du Soleil. What is more, the stages for the biggest theatres in New York and Las Vegas are designed by Montreal’s Scéno Plus. The visual and sound effects for the biggest concerts and shows in the United States and around the world are also produced by Quebeckers from Moment Factory. Finally, the LED wristbands that the audience wore during the Super Bowl halftime show were made by Montreal’s PixMob.

Although the Americans may sometimes be reluctant when it comes to buying our wood and aluminum, they are quite open to the idea of importing our cultural talents. I am particularly proud of that.

Thank you, and I hope that Denis Villeneuve wins many more Oscars.

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.)