Senator Dalphond: In my view, this country is based on the principle that a contract is the law of the parties, and the contract should be respected until amended. It was amended in 1966 to remove the tax exemptions for municipal taxes, but it was not amended to remove the other taxes, provincial and federal. Therefore, the rule of law shall apply and leave the courts to decide what is the scope of the exemptions and trust the court to make the right decisions and come to the right conclusions.

The Federal Court said that the federal Crown was right in the definition of the scope of the contract, and I don’t see why Saskatchewan is not ready to let its own courts decide if the scope of the contract is the scope that has been defined by the Federal Court.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question today is for the government leader in the Senate. It concerns one of the many leaks that appeared in the media detailing items that will be found in the “NDP budget” later this afternoon — the first NDP budget in Canadian history.

According to Reuters, the “NDP finance minister” will bring forward a growth fund for new and green technologies. It will be run by professionals at arm’s-length from the government. It has no clear mandate. It hopes to attract $3 of private investment for every public dollar invested, and it will contain $15 billion in taxpayers’ dollars.

Does that sound familiar, leader? Every single taxpayer should be concerned about the similarities between this new scheme and the Canada Infrastructure Bank, something I asked you about yesterday. Why on earth would you want to repeat your failed infrastructure bank?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I wanted to correct the record. I inadvertently slipped up in a response to Senator Batters’ question. I clearly should spend some more time looking for myself on the internet.

In strict terms, I’ve never actually been a member of the Operations Committee, though I’ve attended every meeting and my reports from the Senate to the committee are a standing item on the agenda. I continue to be a regular participant as invited and as appropriate.

However, from a strict membership standpoint, only ministers of the Crown can be considered members of cabinet committees. So I wanted to correct the record. Let me add, if I may, that I’m not here for trophies or for titles. I’m here to do the best I can for Canada and to serve the public to the best of my ability.

I do apologize for the error in my response. Thank you.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Yes, it’s very important in every change that we make to help small businesses, even the smallest of fees will make a big difference for them.

On another matter of importance to many small businesses, is Conservative MP Larry Maguire’s Bill C-208, which reduces the taxes paid when transferring family farms or small businesses to family members. Although Bill C-208 passed last June, the Trudeau government never supported this bill and, in fact, even attempted not to implement it through a finance department press release.

In July, on the night before a committee of the other place intended to examine the government’s defiance of Parliament on this bill, Minister Freeland happened to release a statement acknowledging the law had come into force. The minister committed to bringing forward changes to Bill C-208 in November.

(1450)

Leader, here we are in April, nine months later, and we still don’t know what the NDP-Liberal government intends to do with this bill. What are your plans with respect to Bill C-208?

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Acting Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: consideration of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Jaffer, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, for the adoption of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, entitled Report relating to Government motion 14 (taxation of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Saskatchewan), presented in the Senate on March 31, 2022.

Senator Simons: I think there is consideration, because I think it is important that we live in the provinces that we represent.

And I spoke to one constitutional law professor, Eric Adams, who is Vice Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Alberta. I asked him if I should be concerned that eliminating the property requirement might make it easier for people not to live where they say that they do.

His question to me was, “Does the property requirement actually make them live where they say that they do?” And I had to say that, no, it didn’t, and he told me that if it is not actually a safeguard now, getting rid of it won’t functionally make any difference.

As far as the other constitutional questions, you know, I have been pretending to know something about the law these last couple of speeches. But this place is filled with actual constitutional law experts who could answer that question better than I.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question and for shining a light on what we all know is a growing and pernicious phenomenon.

Disinformation, in its various forms, is a really serious threat to our society, to our democracy and to all Canadians. I am advised that the government has just added $2.5 million for targeted projects to help Canadians identify misinformation and disinformation online through the Digital Citizen Initiative. This is on top of the government’s $8.5 million Digital Citizen Contribution Program. That’s a program which funds projects to help Canadians become more aware and more resilient and to think more critically about the information that they see and the information that they consume online.

As mentioned by our honourable colleague in her question, the government clearly must look at the role of social media platforms in reducing the spread of misinformation and disinformation as well as online hate and other pernicious practices. To this end, I’m advised that the minister has announced the creation of an expert panel to provide advice on eventual legislation to counter these forms of online harm.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to, on division, and report adopted.)

(Accordingly, the Senate adopted the motion that it agree with the proposed resolution to amend the Constitution.)

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, on March 22, the Associate Minister of Finance, Randy Boissonnault, announced that Abraham Tachjian will be the open banking lead in Canada. His task is to lead the creation of an open banking system that gives individuals greater control over their financial data and access to the benefits that those data can deliver. This is great news.

This week, Pollara Strategic Insights released a comprehensive survey examining how Canadians feel about traditional banking and newer financial technology products. Pollara found that 84% of small business owners and consumers feel that bank fees are too high, and more than half feel stressed when interacting with the banks. For marginalized Canadians, this stress can be even greater. Maybe that’s why more than two thirds of Canadians told Pollara that they think more competition will lead to greater product choices and lower fees. Of those who already use new financial technology products, 91% say they’re easy to use, 82% like the lower fees and 73% say these products help them save money.

By contrast, our big banks introduced fee increases mid-pandemic. For example, one bank’s chequing account transaction fees increased 56% –- from $1.25 to $1.95 per transaction –- but with no corresponding increase in service. Quite the opposite. The minimum deposit required to avoid paying these fees also jumped — from $2,000 to $5,000. This pricing policy disproportionately impairs the financial health of the already marginalized. It also really improves bank profits. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives just reported that the 2021 profits of the five big banks were 40% higher than their pre-pandemic average in 2018-19. That’s six times the rate of inflation. The five big bank CEOs saw, on average, a 23% increase in personal earnings in 2021. That’s almost four times the rate of inflation. In a few hours, the Government of Canada may impose an excess profits tax on the Canadian banks. My profound preference would instead be to accelerate and broaden regulatory reforms like open banking.

The reason is that markets work best when innovators — the makers of better mouse traps — are rewarded. Markets fail to serve citizens when regulatory moats protect incumbent businesses from that competition in ways that enable them to increase prices and profits while still selling the same old mouse trap.

Colleagues, as you may expect, I am thrilled about the implementation of open banking and the consumer-centric financial opportunities it will unlock, and also about the progress in the related areas of payment modernization and digital identity. There are challenges ahead, but we’re finally moving in the right direction.

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Honourable senators, Russia’s reprehensible invasion of Ukraine continues amid mounting atrocities, making it more important than ever to promote international peace, security and prosperity, particularly to our young people who may not comprehend just how serious the consequences of this kind of conflict can be.

That is why I immediately agreed to participate in the second International Forum on Peace, Security and Prosperity, a hybrid event happening today and tomorrow. Hundreds of participants are gathered in Italy for the occasion.

[English]

For two days, the Peace, Security & Prosperity, or PSP, Forum will unite military and political leaders, policy-makers, researchers, students and the wider public to explore the role of the military and the institutions of public order and justice in establishing the basis for flourishing peace, stable security and increasing prosperity. In other words, what does it take to make, and, more importantly, to keep and protect, world peace?

As Canadians, it’s easy to take for granted these three elements that are part of our DNA. We are privileged to live in a just and democratic society where the rule of law prevails and our rights and freedoms are protected under the Constitution. Recent world events have shown us just how precious and fragile democracy can be.

In just a couple of years, Stephen Gregory, the co-founder and chairman of the forum, and his dedicated team of officials and volunteers have successfully and considerably expanded the reach of this event. Today’s forum will feature representatives from 32 countries, 23 military academies and approximately 75 high schools representing some 2,000 students, along with many distinguished guests, academics and military personnel.

Beyond the various panels and keynote speeches, one of the highlights of the forum is a student essay and video contest that I will be moderating. Students have been given three topics to choose from with the focus of civil-military cooperation. It will be an honour for me to engage with these students tomorrow morning and exchange ideas on how to achieve and maintain peace in the world.

In my view, the Government of Canada should take note of this important conference and consider establishing a more formal partnership, financial or otherwise, with the PSP Forum, so it can continue to offer high-value educational opportunities for our youth and build strong links with citizens around the world who share the common goals of promoting peace, improving security and ensuring prosperity.

Honourable senators, please join me in congratulating the organizing committee for hosting the second International Forum on Peace, Security & Prosperity and for assembling such an impressive program.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Paula Simons, Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, presented the following report:

Thursday, April 7, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has the honour to present its

SECOND REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada, has, in obedience to the order of reference of March 3, 2022, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment, but with certain observations, which are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

PAULA SIMONS

Deputy Chair

(For text of observations, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 456.)

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Senator Galvez, thank you for this initiative.

I want to frame my question as a result of a recent report from the Sierra Club and six other non-governmental organizations that reported fossil fuel financing from the world’s 60 largest banks reached US$4.6 trillion in the six years since the adoption of the Paris Agreement. As you noted, the latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released just three days ago, warns us that the time is now — that we just don’t have any more time.

I note that in the Sierra Club report, three Canadian big banks are specifically named among the “dirty dozen” of the top international fossil fuel financiers from 2016 to 2021. Number 5 on that list is RBC, number 9 is Scotiabank and number 11 is TD.

Senator Galvez, could you please inform us as to your intention with this bill in responding to that kind of factual demonstration of how banks are not acting now or rapidly in the way the experts say must happen?

Senator Galvez: Thank you so much for the question, Senator McPhedran.

I can tell you that this is a concept of double materiality. That means that, on one hand, the financial sector acknowledges and says that the climate risk is systemic and, whether it is through the transition or the physical risk with all these extreme weather events that have been very destructive, they turn assets into stranded assets. On the other hand, they are financing the fossil fuel industry. They call this double materiality.

Now, the standards on sustainability — and this is on a global scale — they are saying this concept needs to be studied and the disclosure cannot only be voluntary. It has to be more complete in order to assess the risk more precisely and to apply the remedy because the risk, as you were saying, is there, and it’s growing; it’s alarming. It can bring us to a very difficult point of a different nature than other financial crises. People tend to think this could be very similar to the 2008 financial crisis, but it’s not. This is an external crisis coming from several factors that are cumulative and convergent.

I hope I answered your question.

Senator Moncion: I am referring to environmental disasters that occur suddenly and were not expected. In the financial system, a black swan is an economic disaster that was not expected, such as the situation in 2008. We now speak of black swan events associated with climate change.

Senator Galvez: You reminded me that at some point we were talking about “unknown unknown” risks. We were talking about radical uncertainty. As an engineer, I know how to manage risk when we are able to measure it, model it, and predict it. That is what we do in engineering when we adapt our infrastructure.

The problem, financially speaking, is that according to experts, this risk is unknown. We cannot really measure it, because these factors are convergent, cumulative and exponential, and they are truly very difficult to predict. That is why experts are telling us that we must use microprudential and macroprudential approaches to ensure we can resolve the problem both on an individual entity level and on a systemic level, because the risk is systemic.

Senator McPhedran: Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: First, very briefly, I want to congratulate you for the boldness, the determination and all the work behind your bill. I believe that we will indeed have a robust debate.

For the past few years we have been hearing about initiatives to make financial institutions and businesses more transparent. I understand that your bill goes much further, suggesting that these disclosures are inadequate.

Could you explain why these disclosures do not work and how your bill affects existing initiatives to enhance climate disclosures made by businesses?

Senator Galvez: Thank you very much for your question and for appreciating the work that has been done.

So far, the reporting of climate risks is just a recommendation and it is voluntary. Experts have said that just 9% of the entities monitored produced a report on their climate risks. Among that 9%, just 2% took action in response to the risks they identified.

There is another criticism that, because there are no strict requirements or guidelines to disclose these risks, this ultimately just serves as a sort of greenwashing. Some entities are taking advantage of this situation to overstate how much they are doing, but no one can validate the claims.

Our bill seeks to improve the disclosure of climate risks, but it goes much further than that, because the entities must prove that their efforts are in line with climate commitments. This means that they not only have to disclose the risks, but also have to offer solutions. Disclosure and solutions became mandatory with our bill.

Hon. Clément Gignac: Senator Galvez, I echo Senator Miville-Dechêne in congratulating you on your excellent work. As the former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England said, the energy transition will neither materialize nor succeed without a significant contribution from the financial sector.

You mentioned the three committees that could be interested. I have reviewed the procedures of this chamber, and my understanding is that the leaders will decide. Don’t you think this item should be sent to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce? I’m suggesting this quite neutrally because it is my privilege to be a member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

You’re talking about amending the Financial Institutions and Deposit Insurance System Amendment Act. A number of bills governing the financial sector were mentioned. Do you have an opinion about this with respect to the committees, given that we know it’s the leaders who will make the decisions and decide which committees should study your bill?

Senator Galvez: I don’t know whether you follow budget news, but the issue of sustainable finance is one aspect of the budget. That’s good, and I would point out that in the last election, several of the political parties’ platforms included sustainable finance elements to develop, so that’s very good.

Ultimately, it is true that this bill may be of interest to the three committees I mentioned, but obviously, as you said yourself, it is not my decision to make. Everyone will speak with their facilitators or leaders and ultimately they will be the ones to decide, but certainly the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance are the two committees . . .

The other reason I can say this is because our bill is agnostic when it comes to technology. It does not say whether or not to use a certain technology. We are asking the entities to show us the efforts they are making to align their activities with Canada’s domestic and international climate commitments. So long as they are doing just that, we have nothing to say about the technology they use. I would say that the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance are the two committees that I would favour.

(On motion of Senator Moncion, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Marwah, seconded by the Honourable Senator Deacon (Nova Scotia), for the adoption of the second report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, entitled Senate Budget 2022-23, presented in the Senate on February 24, 2022.

Hon Senators: Agreed.

(Notice of motion withdrawn.)

(At 6:20 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, April 26, 2022, at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Margaret Dawn Anderson: Drin Gwiinzii, honourable senators.

It is my privilege to rise today to congratulate the Gwich’in of Aklavik, Inuvik, Teetl’it Zheh and Tsiigehtchic on the thirtieth anniversary of the Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement.

The agreement, signed on April 22, 1992, granted the Gwich’in ownership of 22,330 square kilometres of land in the Northwest Territories and 1,554 square kilometres of land in the Yukon, including the subsurface rights to 6,158 square kilometres of land in the Northwest Territories. The agreement also secured the Gwich’in economic benefits, the exclusive rights to be licensed to conduct commercial wildlife activities on Gwich’in lands and formalized Gwich’in participation in land‑use planning and the management of renewable resources, land, water and heritage resources. This included a commitment to negotiate self-government.

Since receiving the original $75 million of capital transfers between 1992 and 2007 secured through the land claim agreement, the Gwich’in have increased these funds to over $165 million while supporting their people and communities.

The recognition and affirmation of Gwich’in rights secured through the land claim agreement have also supported Gwich’in initiatives around conservation and sustainability. For example, the Gwich’in have been able to maintain the Porcupine Caribou Herd as one of the largest and healthiest international barren-land caribou herds in the world — a critical and vital resource for the Gwich’in.

Over the last 30 years, the Gwich’in have, through their Department of Cultural Heritage, been working to preserve culture, language and traditional knowledge for future generations as well as develop programs appropriate for Gwich’in needs. Some examples of their work include recording the life stories of many Gwich’in elders and collaborating on second-language curriculum for kindergarten to Grade 12 students in the Beaufort Delta Region.

Finally, the move toward Dinjii Zhuh government will ensure the Gwich’in can continue to undertake occupancy and harvesting activities for generations to come while blending their historic leadership structures with contemporary forms of governance.

I wish to congratulate the Gwich’in and their communities and organizations on their achievements over the past 30 years. I know the Gwich’in Tribal Council will continue to prioritize their people, communities, culture, spirituality, language and values as they move toward Dinjii Zhuh government. It is indeed time to define “Your future, your way.”

Mahsi’cho, quyannaini. Thank you

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, senator. I’m not yet privy to the budget, so we’ll have to wait one more day to find out what the government is proposing.

The comparison with the Canada Infrastructure Bank is an interesting one. Despite the fact that the projects are not yet completed, there are 35 projects under way, as I think I mentioned at another time, and they are important projects, Senator Plett. They include the Manitoba Fibre broadband project that will bring broadband services to nearly 50,000 households in rural Manitoba, an issue that our colleague Senator Patterson has underlined on more than one occasion. It also includes work to advance the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link, which will provide a vital energy and communications link between Manitoba and Nunavut.

Every dollar that Canadians are being asked to spend through the government on those infrastructure projects is creating jobs, attracting investment, fighting climate change, promoting social equity and building the economy of the future.