Senator Bellemare: My second question is about the estimated impact of hybrid meetings on the Senate and committees. If I understand correctly, our hybrid meetings and the investment in these telecommunication procedures may have led to a reduction in expenses? Does this mean it is actually costing less, not more? I would like to hear your comments on that.

[English]

Senator Marwah: Thank you for the question. I would remind the senator that the numbers that you see are from budget to budget. There are no actuals in it. The savings take place in the actuals. And there are substantial savings both last year, the year before and we expect in the coming year.

That’s why you see the numbers the way they are. The actuals are substantially lower than these numbers.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, we did call for an adjournment earlier. There was clearly some scrambling going on all morning. It hadn’t been finished when Senator Gold presented his motion.

I saw there was only one avenue open for us at that time, and that was to call for a bell so that we could continue talking about the things we had been talking about. That happened very quickly after we suspended.

Your honour, if it’s all right with the chamber, if the chamber would give me leave, I would withdraw the motion to adjourn and would be happy to continue debate and, hopefully, be able to hear from Senator Gold.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné:

That:

(a)pursuant to subsection 62(1) of the Emergencies Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 22, a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be established to review the exercise of powers and the performance of duties and functions pursuant to a declaration of emergency that was in effect from Monday, February 14, 2022, to Wednesday, February 23, 2022, including the provisions as specified in subsections 62(5) and (6) of the act;

(b)the committee be composed of four members of the Senate, including one senator from the Opposition, one senator from the Independent Senators Group, one senator from the Progressive Senate Group, and one senator from the Canadian Senators Group, and seven members of the House of Commons, including three members of the House of Commons from the governing party, two members of the House of Commons from the official opposition, one member from the Bloc Québécois and one member from the New Democratic Party, with three chairs, of which the Senate chair shall be a senator from the Independent Senators Group and the two House chairs shall be from the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party;

(c)in addition to the chairs, the committee shall elect two vice-chairs from the House, of whom the first vice-chair shall be from the governing party and the second vice-chair shall be from the official opposition party;

(d)the four senators to be members of the committee be named by means of a notice signed by their respective leader or facilitator (or their respective designates), and filed with the Clerk of the Senate no later than 5:00 p.m. on the day after this motion is adopted, failing which, the leader or facilitator of any party or group identified in paragraph (b) who has not filed the name of a senator with the Clerk of the Senate, shall be deemed to be the senator named to the committee, with the names of the senators named as members being recorded in the Journals of the Senate;

(e)the quorum of the committee be seven members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as one member of the Senate, one member of the governing party in the House of Commons and one member from the opposition in the House of Commons are present, and the chairs be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the publishing thereof, whenever five members are present, so long as one member of the Senate, one member of the governing party in the House of Commons and one member from the opposition in the House of Commons are present;

(f)changes to the membership of the committee on the part of the Senate be made in accordance with rule 12-5 of the Rules of the Senate, provided that any new members or participating senators take the oath of secrecy pursuant to paragraph (g) of this order before participating in proceedings;

(g)pursuant to subsection 62(3) of the act, every member and person employed in the work of the committee, which includes personnel who, in supporting the committee’s work or a committee member’s work, have access to the committee’s proceedings or documents, take the oath of secrecy as set out in the schedule of the act;

(h)every meeting of the committee held to consider an order or regulation referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act be held in camera, pursuant to subsection 62(4) of the same act, and the evidence and documents received by the committee related to these meetings not be made public;

(i)for greater certainty, the chairs may move motions and vote on all items before the committee, and any vote resulting in a tie vote shall mean that the item is negatived;

(j)all documents tabled in the Senate pursuant to the act since February 21, 2022, be referred to the committee;

(k)until the committee ceases to exist or on Thursday, June 23, 2022, whichever is earlier,

(i)where applicable, the provisions contained in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the order adopted by the Senate on February 10, 2022, respecting senators on standing joint committees, shall apply to senators on this committee, and the committee shall hold meetings in person where necessary to consider any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act; and

(ii)senators, members and departmental and parliamentary officials appearing as witnesses before the committee may do so in person, as may any witness appearing with respect to any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act;

(l)the committee have the power to:

(i)meet during sittings and adjournments of the Senate;

(ii)report from time to time, including pursuant to the provisions included in subsection 62(6) of the act, to send for persons, papers and records, and to publish such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee;

(iii)retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel;

(iv)appoint, from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed appropriate and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of its powers, except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons; and

(v)authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its public proceedings and to make them available to the public via the Parliament of Canada’s websites; and

(m)a report of the committee may be deposited with the Clerk of the Senate at any time the Senate stands adjourned, and that any report so deposited may be deposited electronically, with the report being deemed to have been presented or tabled in the Senate; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

Hon. Diane Bellemare: I have a question for Senator Marwah. I would like to hear your thoughts on some of the figures. I was a bit surprised when I looked at the tables.

Before that, however, I would like to hear your thoughts on the size of the International and Interparliamentary Affairs budget compared to the Senate committees budget. I thought the Senate Committees Directorate budget was larger than the International and Interparliamentary Affairs budget.

Can you briefly explain the substance of those differences? That is my first question.

[English]

Senator Marwah: Thank you for the question, Senator Bellemare. On the Senate committee budgets, they are exactly at the level they were pre-pandemic and that’s $2.3 million. Those are the numbers and the increases because, as I mentioned, we are taking back the committee budgets to pre-pandemic levels, assuming that committees will be able to operate fully and be functional for the balance of the year.

On the international and parliamentary affairs, keep in mind that those numbers are not just conferences, they include a whole bunch of other items, such as our share of the Senate of the IIA activities. As you know, we take 30% and the total cost is around $1.4 million.

Then we have ongoing employees, around 10 employees, for a total cost of $1.2 million, the contributions to parliamentary associations of around half a million. And then, of course, we have the additional conference this year of the Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie of $328,000 which is going to take place, approved by Internal Economy Committee, in October of last year.

Those are the major items in comparison of the two categories, senator.

[Translation]

Senator Batters: Thank you. Senator Marwah, I may have missed this in your speech, but I did hear you say that Senate Administration costs had gone up in this particular budget $3.6 million. I point out that, of course, is despite the fact that we have had two years of a pandemic.

Could you please explain in a little bit more detail what major parts of that Senate Administration increase were?

Senator Marwah: Absolutely, senator.

I will remind you again that this is really budget to budget. Really, the savings come in much lower from an actual expense. From a budget to budget, as I mentioned, there are three categories. First is the Senate had to absorb the retroactive salary increases that we had at the beginning of last year. Second, there’s a nonrecurring saving that occurred last year but is not occurring this year because we expect we will be back to full functioning for the balance of the year.

There are some additional expenses this year, mainly for IT, and one existing position in legal affairs and one other position. Those are the three major reasons why it’s gone up year over year from a budget standpoint.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 5-10(1), I ask leave of the Senate to modify the motion so that it reads as follows:

That:

(a)pursuant to subsection 62(1) of the Emergencies Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 22, a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be established to review the exercise of powers and the performance of duties and functions pursuant to a declaration of emergency that was in effect from Monday, February 14, 2022, to Wednesday, February 23, 2022, including the provisions as specified in subsections 62(5) and (6) of the act;

(b)the committee be composed of four members of the Senate, including one senator from the Opposition, one senator from the Independent Senators Group, one senator from the Progressive Senate Group, and one senator from the Canadian Senators Group, and seven members of the House of Commons, including three members of the House of Commons from the governing party, two members of the House of Commons from the official opposition, one member from the Bloc Québécois and one member from the New Democratic Party, with three chairs, of which the Senate chair shall be a senator from the Independent Senators Group and the two House chairs shall be from the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party;

(c)in addition to the chairs, the committee shall elect two vice-chairs from the House, of whom the first vice-chair shall be from the governing party and the second vice-chair shall be from the official opposition party, and one deputy chair from the Senate who shall be from the Opposition;

(d)the four senators to be members of the committee be named by means of a notice signed by their respective leader or facilitator (or their respective designates), and filed with the Clerk of the Senate no later than 5:00 p.m. on the day after this motion is adopted, failing which, the leader or facilitator of any party or group identified in paragraph (b) who has not filed the name of a senator with the Clerk of the Senate, shall be deemed to be the senator named to the committee, with the names of the senators named as members being recorded in the Journals of the Senate;

(e)the quorum of the committee be seven members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as one member of the Senate, one member of the governing party in the House of Commons and one member from the opposition in the House of Commons are present, and the chairs be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the publishing thereof, whenever five members are present, so long as one member of the Senate, one member of the governing party in the House of Commons and one member from the opposition in the House of Commons are present;

(f)changes to the membership of the committee on the part of the Senate be made in accordance with rule 12-5 of the Rules of the Senate, provided that any new members or participating senators take the oath of secrecy pursuant to paragraph (g) of this order before participating in proceedings;

(g)pursuant to subsection 62(3) of the act, every member and person employed in the work of the committee, which includes personnel who, in supporting the committee’s work or a committee member’s work, have access to the committee’s proceedings or documents, take the oath of secrecy as set out in the schedule of the act;

(h)every meeting of the committee held to consider an order or regulation referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act be held in camera, pursuant to subsection 62(4) of the same act, and the evidence and documents received by the committee related to these meetings not be made public;

(i)for greater certainty, the chairs may move motions and vote on all items before the committee, and any vote resulting in a tie vote shall mean that the item is negatived;

(j)all documents tabled in the Senate pursuant to the act since February 21, 2022, be referred to the committee;

(k)until the committee ceases to exist or on Thursday, June 23, 2022, whichever is earlier,

(i)where applicable, the provisions contained in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the order adopted by the Senate on February 10, 2022, respecting senators on standing joint committees, shall apply to senators on this committee, and the committee shall hold meetings in person where necessary to consider any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act; and

(ii)senators, members and departmental and parliamentary officials appearing as witnesses before the committee may do so in person, as may any witness appearing with respect to any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act;

(l)the committee have the power to:

(i)meet during sittings and adjournments of the Senate;

(ii)report from time to time, including pursuant to the provisions included in subsection 62(6) of the act, to send for persons, papers and records, and to publish such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee;

(iii)retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel;

(iv)appoint, from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed appropriate and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of its powers, except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons; and

(v)authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its public proceedings and to make them available to the public via the Parliament of Canada’s websites; and

(m)a report of the committee may be deposited with the Clerk of the Senate at any time the Senate stands adjourned, and that any report so deposited may be deposited electronically, with the report being deemed to have been presented or tabled in the Senate; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

Senator Gold: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the motion before you regarding the joint parliamentary review committee that is mandated under section 62(1) of the Emergencies Act which states that a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be established to review “the exercise of powers and the performance of duties and functions pursuant to a declaration of emergency . . . .”

The motion before you mirrors the one passed in the other place Wednesday evening. It is self-explanatory. It lays out the membership of the joint committee as it pertains to the Senate.

The invocation of the Emergencies Act on February 14 — for the first time in Canadian history since the inception of the act in 1988 — was historic. As the invocation of the Emergencies Act was historic, so too is the establishment of the joint parliamentary review committee to study and assess the circumstances surrounding the invocation of the act.

Because the committee is required to report to both houses of Parliament within seven sitting days after the revocation of the declaration by the Governor-in-Council, it now falls on the Senate to adopt a corresponding motion as was passed by the other place.

I ask honourable colleagues to adopt the motion expeditiously so that the committee can get to work and perform its due diligence for Canadians.

The motion that was passed in the other place lays out the parameters and makeup of the committee. When the Emergencies Act was debated in the Senate in 1988, there was a worry that the government and the House of Commons would move to include piecemeal Senate representation. What if, it was argued by honourable senators, the House of Commons chose to include only one senator? This would be unfair to the Senate.

Today, in 2022, I’m very pleased to see that the government proposed to the house a fair and proportionate Senate representation of four out of 11 members on this important committee, including a co-chair. I was even more pleased to see the House endorse our chamber’s role with votes in support coming from three of the four parties in the House.

The motion before you provides for the fair and proportionate representation of senators from each party or group in the chamber. It is designed to uphold the basic principles of group equity and fairness by ensuring that all Senate groups have the opportunity to select a senator.

As a reflection of the principle of proportionality, the motion provides that the senators selected from the Independent Senators Group will occupy the position of Senate co-chair. The Government Representative Office in the Senate will not be seeking a seat on the committee.

As some may argue that the literal wording of the Emergencies Act, section 62(2) — which states:

The Parliamentary Review Committee shall include at least one member of the House of Commons from each party that has a recognized membership of twelve or more persons in that House and at least one senator from each party in the Senate that is represented on the committee by a member of the House of Commons.

— precludes the appointment of non-politically affiliated senators.

In advance of any argument to that effect from honourable colleagues, let me quote the Honourable Senator Perrin Beatty, then Minister of Defence, in his testimony in front of the Senate committee studying the Emergencies Act legislation in 1988.

In response to a question put by former senator John Benjamin Stewart, Minister Beatty stated:

Senator, in designing this particular provision of the bill, we did not attempt to fix what would be the absolute number of members from the House of Commons, for that matter. We did try to provide that there would be representation from each of the political parties in the House of Commons. It would also be possible, presumably, that representation of the Senate might involve independent senators. One would hope that reasonableness would apply in any case where the two houses are called together to meet with one another.

In many elements of parliamentary and constitutional procedure in the past we have resisted setting up very rigid structures which are not capable of being adapted to particular circumstances. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect there would be goodwill in a national crisis or that reasonableness would apply.

Colleagues, we have a duty to Canadians to see to it that the Joint Parliamentary Committee charged with reviewing and studying the rationale and merit of the government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act on February 14 is constituted as quickly as possible. Each caucus and group can nominate one of its own without influence or dictum by the government. Senate members of the committee will undoubtedly bring experience, insight and wisdom to the committee’s deliberations.

The invocation of the Emergencies Act requires, by law, examination. The intent of the motion before you is to safeguard the plurality and diversity of voices. Former Minister Beatty himself, 34 years ago, went so far as to predict that independent senators would have seats on this committee if and when the need for its composition should ever transpire.

Colleagues, there is now a need, and I ask that this motion be approved so that the work may begin. Thank you very much.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Your Honour, I want to start off by thanking the Government Representative in the Senate for his collaboration today. I want to thank Senators Saint-Germain, Cordy and Tannas for agreeing to what Senator Gold now put into his amendment. It’s great when we can work together and make deals, and I believe that we have done that. I believe that the Senate, during this time over the last week, has shown the absolute need for this chamber. I would say that this chamber did a much better job on the Emergencies Act than they did in the other place.

I believe overall the collaboration here is much better than it is in the other place, and so I thank all honourable senators. I believe that the reason the Prime Minister came to his senses and revoked the Emergencies Act was because of the debate going on here in the Senate. I believe that cooler heads prevailed, and they saw the senselessness of having an Emergencies Act when there was no emergency.

However, we are tasked, as Senator Gold says, with studying this as a committee. We can say all we want that this is the way it should be — that this is the way a committee should be struck. When the act was struck, we did not have the kind of a Senate that we do now. We had a Senate that was basically made up of two political parties: the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada.

When they struck the Act, saying that there needed to be a senator in the chamber from all parties that were being represented in the House of Commons, they believed those would be the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada. It doesn’t matter what we say about the Senate now. That is what they believed at that time because that is the type of a Senate that we had.

So we now have a different type of a Senate, and we just simply decide to interpret what these people back in the 1980s wrote. Be that as it may, we live in — as they say — new and interesting times.

I’m always troubled when our government leader here refers to how they voted in the other house and always forgets to talk about the numbers of votes and the debates.

The fact of the matter is that the Conservative house leader in the other place came forward with a very, very reasonable amendment to what the government was proposing. The government had proposed that the two smallest groups in the house take the co-chairs. They did it for one reason and one reason only. They were trying to exclude the Conservative Party of Canada from being one of the co-chairs there. It was evident. Nobody can deny that. They did a good job of that. They browbeat Jagmeet Singh as the Prime Minister did with his threat of a confidence vote. Here again is something the leader failed to mention when he talked about how the other house had voted. He failed to mention that a minority Parliament threatened an election if another group would not support his demands.

Last night, the other place voted down our house leader’s amendment. Not with all the parties; with two parties. The Bloc — bless them for it — were given a co-chair position by the governing party, and they were willing to give up that co-chair position because they thought the right thing would be that the Conservatives have at least one co-chair. They were prepared to give up their co-chair position so that the Conservatives in the Senate could then have the co-chair.

For the Bloc to give that up obviously took a little bit of doing. That isn’t being mentioned here. What isn’t being mentioned here is that we have a government in the other house that is trying to take away the rights of a party that got more votes in the last election and in the election before than any other party. Yet, they’re not supposed to have a co-chair position. Why? Because the government is afraid of what is going to come forward if all of sudden the Conservatives have too many people and too much power in a committee, which they should have as the official opposition.

Let me tell you, colleagues, we are going to accept this motion — this amendment — on division, but we will accept what Senator Gold has brought forward because I really believe Senator Gold has done his job in trying to reach an amicable solution. I appreciate him for that. As I said, I appreciate the three other leaders collaborating and saying they agree that we should have that.

I do not believe we’re getting what we should be getting, but listen, you don’t always get what you think you should be getting or what’s fair. In this case, that is my belief.

I don’t want the words that I am saying here about the other place to be a reflection of what I believe in this place. I believe we did a good job. I believe we did a great job on both sides of the debate. I listened to senators on both sides of the debate, and we had good arguments here. At the end of the day — as I said — I believe the Prime Minister was reading the tea leaves and said, “I’m better off withdrawing this before I get 45 or 46 senators all of sudden voting the wrong way in the Senate.” We’re going to take credit for that. Whatever you say, you can’t take that credit away from us.

I can stand here and say it’s us. I can stand here and say it was Senator Wells’s speech or my speech that turned the tide, and we’ll take credit. We’re politicians. Justin Trudeau can come along and tell us why he actually did it. Until he does, we’ll take the credit, colleagues.

Having said that, thank you Senators Gold, Saint-Germain, Cordy and Tannas for your collaboration here today. I think it goes a long way in showing how we want to work together, but I do not want anybody to believe that for one second I accept what the Liberal Party of Canada and the government tried to do in that other place and, as a matter of fact, got away with it.

On that note, I do apologize to you, Senator Gold, that I cannot vote in favour. However, we will allow this to go on division.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: I wanted to ask Senator Plett if he would be willing to accept a question? Thank you.

On the theme of you don’t always get what you want, my question is: Do you interpret, in particular, Senator Gold’s reference to the former Minister Beatty, at the time of the act, and whether you interpret the current situation as excluding any possibility of an independent, non-affiliated senator to be considered for membership on this committee?

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the following communication had been received:

RIDEAU HALL

March 3, 2022

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 3^rd day of March, 2022, at 3:43 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McCowan

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The Honourable

The Speaker of the Senate

Ottawa

Bill Assented to Thursday, March 3, 2022:

An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement) (Bill C-12, Chapter 1, 2022)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Black, seconded by the Honourable Senator Griffin, for the second reading of Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Rose-May Poirier: I will continue from where I left off.

With Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada, as proposed by Senator Black, we are celebrating our local food, but it is also an occasion to strengthen our bonds with our neighbours.

We are encouraging you to support your local food markets, your local farmers, because they are integral to our communities. What better way to spend a Saturday morning picking up fresh produce for the week, a prepared meal for the day and, by doing so, supporting your community.

It is important to strengthen the bond between farmers and Canadians, because when we need them, they are there for us. And so, to show our appreciation for what they do for us, a day like the one Senator Black is proposing is an excellent way to say thank you to them. In a time where we as a society are trying to be greener and more environmentally friendly, supporting local food is one way that we can also support our local environment.

According to a study by the Columbia Climate School, buying local food could reduce the average consumer’s greenhouse gas emissions by 4% to 5%. But more importantly, according to the same study, small farmers already adopt environmentally friendly practices. They often rebuild crop and insect diversity, use less pesticides, enrich the soil with cover crops and, most importantly, produce tastier food.

Finally, I want to share a bit more about the local in my community. By living on New Brunswick’s east coast, our local food is more from fishing, as we have a lot of fishing communities. So on the first day of the lobster fishery in the spring, a lot of people gather at the wharf to see the boats off for the first time in the season. Around Mother’s Day weekend, the tradition is to have lobster; it coincides with the first harvest. At the centre of this tradition in my community is the lobster. It is one of the many examples of how food brings people together. It creates bonds between us and gives a strong sense of belonging.

Honourable senators, local food keeps local land in production, local money in our community, often costs less and builds community relationships. Let’s take a moment to recognize the crucial contribution local farms make to our communities and have a food day every year to thank and support them. I support this bill and urge senators to send it to the committee for further study. Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Translation]

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

(On motion of Senator Griffin, for Senator Black, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.)

Hon. Diane F. Griffin moved second reading of Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island).

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island). This will be the very last time I speak to a bill in this chamber during my tenure as a senator. This bill serves as a coda for my Prince Edward Island advocacy but, more importantly, it serves as an opportunity for senators to champion a cause for Canada’s smallest province.

Last spring, I spoke to Senator Gold’s inquiry on the 2021 federal budget to bring the Senate’s attention to the flawed policy of two Employment Insurance regions in Prince Edward Island. The 2021 Budget Implementation Act entrenched in statute this unnecessary division of my province. Since 2015, the vast majority of Islanders have repeatedly called for change under the simple mantra of “one island, one zone.”

The division of P.E.I. into two economic zones creates a fundamental unfairness for workers, especially those who live in the Charlottetown zone but work outside the capital region. For example, this February, workers who lived in the capital region had a minimum of 14 weeks of benefits, while those who lived in the non-capital region had 20. Many folks who work for the same company will have widely different benefits simply because of an arbitrary dividing line of where they live.

Senators, I am thankful for your collective support last spring, and especially to Senator Mockler in his capacity as the chair of the National Finance Committee for inviting the mayors of Charlottetown, Stratford and Cornwall to speak to this issue during the committee’s pre-study of the BIA. In a sign of bicameral advocacy, our proceedings inspired Green Party MP Elizabeth May to move an amendment to the House of Commons Finance Committee to unify Prince Edward Island into one EI economic region. Although Elizabeth May’s efforts did not secure sufficient votes to pass, the entire episode brought new information to light.

The government provided several reasons why it could not support the amendment to the BIA last year. The first was Employment and Social Development Canada’s antiquated computer systems, which operate the EI program. At the time, officials indicated that it was not possible for the EI system to have a single EI zone for seasonal workers and two zones for regular EI applicants. Further, in the ministerial briefing binder, the government said that due to temporary COVID measures artificially increasing unemployment rates, a change in the spring of 2021 was not warranted as the two regions were de facto temporarily the same.

Honourable senators, those temporary measures have expired and this bill would solve the computer system issue by amending both the Employment Insurance Act and the regulations at the same time. It would further prevent the federal cabinet from making regulatory changes to P.E.I.’s EI zone without future parliamentary approval.

For over seven years, the federal government has promised Islanders a return to one EI zone, and this change has often been premised under the framework of a larger review of the EI system. Most recently, ESDC indicated in December 2021 that the review is ongoing, but there was no mention of changing the EI regions.

In a June 2021 report, the House of Commons Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, chaired by Charlottetown MP Sean Casey, issued a separate recommendation that ESDC, “reinstate a single Employment Insurance Economic Region for Prince Edward Island within 12 months.” Eight months have now passed with no response from the government.

Honourable senators, in the best of times it is difficult for matters impacting P.E.I. to be satisfactorily elevated for a decision at the federal cabinet level. I only have to remind you of the ongoing pleas by both farmers and the Government of Prince Edward Island for more direct involvement by the federal government in ending Canada’s self-imposed P.E.I. potato export ban. As is often the case, the ever-growing House of Commons gradually lessens the influence of P.E.I.’s four members of Parliament.

Local politics also frustrates a return to one EI zone. P.E.I.’s westernmost riding of Egmont is the only riding exclusively outside of the Charlottetown zone. It is understandable for any MP of any political stripe representing Egmont to defend the status quo, as it could result in a reduction of benefits for their constituents. This lack of unanimity of Island MPs has complicated a return to one zone. Cabinet does not wish to cause political turmoil and thus far has not taken action despite multiple electoral promises to do so.

This issue may not be the most important issue facing the country; however, it is important to the renter in Charlottetown, to the recent immigrant in Cornwall and to the seasonal worker who lives in Stratford but works at a fish plant outside of the area. Therefore, this issue is important to me.

Why is this bill before us in the Senate? As stated much earlier today by Senator Plett, the Senate is free from the day-to-day burden of electoral considerations. We can examine the return to one Employment Insurance, or EI, zone in more detail in committee and amend the bill to ensure a proper coming-into-force alignment with Economic and Social Development Canada computer systems. If the Senate chooses to send this bill to the House of Commons, it will, for the first time, force the other place to consider the idea of one EI zone for Prince Edward Island via an up-down vote, without the need to balance other national priorities.

I strongly support Senator Pate’s goal to have Prince Edward Island serve as a pilot for guaranteed livable income. But until that day arrives, EI is very much the social safety net of Islanders — not by choice, but by necessity. Consequently, there is a moral obligation to do what we can in Parliament to ensure that Employment Insurance is fair for all Islanders.

Honourable senators, as I mentioned earlier today, it is a privilege to have served with you over the last five and a third years. It is my hope that Bill S-236 can serve as a reminder of this important P.E.I. issue long after my retirement.

Prince Edward Island is the smallest province, but it is also an equal partner in Confederation. I encourage any of you in this chamber to help champion this important provincial cause, with the goal of sending the bill to the House of Commons. It is a way for the Senate to serve one of its constitutional roles of giving a voice to regional interests, especially for regions with smaller populations. Thank you.

Senator Pate: Thank you very much. Before I ask my question — which you sort of answered, but sometimes I can be a bit slow, so I will make sure I clearly understood — I want to take this opportunity to say a few words.

In addition to your golfing, birdwatching and hosting of incredible dinners of goose and lobster, to your incredible collegiality and your kind and generous offers for all of us to come and visit — which, as you know, I have taken you up on several times — I want to thank you for the incredible work you have done historically in P.E.I. When I visited there, I realized that it was you who had developed all of this recycling that led the country in many ways and led many of the environmental initiatives. That was fantastic, and then to see the work you have done in your local community, but also provincially, regionally and now nationally. It has been such a privilege and honour to be your colleague for the last five years, and I know I share that sentiment with everyone else in this place.

I wanted to confirm, just to be clear. You’re very keen, I think, and my question is this: Are you hoping that Charlottetown and P.E.I. will now be the birthplace of yet another incredible national rollout that could be a plan for the country and one that illustrates the brilliance of Prince Edward Island to have led the way in demanding a guaranteed livable basic income?

Senator Griffin: Thank you for the question. Yes. The premier and the legislature have unanimously endorsed the concept of elimination of poverty by working in collaboration with the federal government to institute a guaranteed livable income. Prince Edward Island would be the test spot to run it out, work out the kinks and then — to use a Senator Deacon phrase — scale it up to the rest of the country.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu moved second reading of Bill S-238, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (information about the victim).

He said: Honourable senators, my thoughts are with the families of victims of crime as I rise today to speak at second reading stage of Bill S-238, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (information about the victim).

This bill, which I introduced in the last Parliament, is more important than ever, because it honours the memory of the victims and ensures respect for their families.

This bill bears the name of a victim of domestic violence who perished at the hands of her husband, as so many women in Canada do. Her name was Véronique Barbe, and this bill is dedicated to her memory and the memory of far too many victims of crime.

I would have liked to show you her photo today, but the Senate Rules do not allow me to do so. It is very important to put a face to a victim, because unfortunately, they are often forgotten too quickly.

Véronique Barbe was a 41-year-old woman, a mother whose life tragically ended on September 14, 2017, when she was killed by her husband at their home in Saint-Eustache, in Québec. I also want to pay tribute to Yvon Lacasse, who was also brutally murdered by this same murderer during his deadly rampage.

According to her mother Claudette and her father Pierre, Véronique Barbe was a smiling, happy and loving woman. She loved life and shared her happiness and love with her children, who were always her top priority.

According to her mother, Véronique was a caring mother who spoiled her children, as her mother told me, and a ray of sunshine to the whole family. Her sense of humour enlivened family meals.

Unfortunately, like many women in Canada, Véronique was a victim of domestic abuse and found herself unwillingly trapped in a downward spiral for many years, dominated by a violent spouse. She had previously taken steps to contact the police, seven years before she was murdered. In 2010, she began reporting what was happening to her, including the episodes of violence. These serious incidents of physical and psychological abuse should have been taken seriously by the authorities at the time. Despite her cries for help, our criminal justice system failed to offer her assistance, protection or freedom from this toxic relationship.

In Quebec, 26 women were murdered in 2021, and the vast majority of these murders were committed in a context of domestic violence. This is the highest number since 2008. According to a preliminary report from the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability, 160 women were killed in Canada in 2020, half of them in a domestic violence context. I want to reiterate that it is essential and urgent that the Senate study and quickly pass my Bill S-205, which seeks to combat the scourge of domestic violence. The preliminary data on femicides in 2021 clearly show that this number will be greatly surpassed.

Coming back to the case of Véronique Barbe, the murderer has since been convicted and is currently incarcerated. However, showing no respect for the memory of Véronique and her family, this coward continued to post images of himself and Véronique, his victim, on his Facebook page, despite the family’s many attempts to get the web giant to permanently shut down his account.

Facebook denied the family’s many requests without explanation. Facebook did not respect the principles of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which is a supra-constitutional law in Canada. It took a lot of media pressure to get the murderer’s profile taken down for good and to get Facebook to apologize to the family. I want to thank Le Journal de Montréal for also denouncing Facebook for its lack of cooperation and for helping the family prevail over this web giant. Apologies do not go far enough to ease the pain of Véronique’s family, who had to fight hard to get that Facebook account shut down out of respect for their daughter. It was outrageous for the murderer to do this, and it was a serious failure on the part of Facebook.

I would like to quote a statement made by Véronique’s mother about this bill. She said:

It was very hard on the family to see photos of Véronique with her murderer on social media, but with Senator Boisvenu’s help, we managed to close his account on Facebook with this long-awaited bill. I am grateful that it is named in honour of Véronique. Victims of crime and their families have the right to expect respect for any information and images pertaining to them.

I also heard from a father in Montreal who lived through a terrible family tragedy almost two years ago. This man lost his 11-year-old daughter, who was murdered, sadly. This bill is also dedicated to the memory of that girl. The man’s second daughter, just five years old, was almost killed, and she’ll be traumatized for life by these tragic events that should never have happened. The girls’ mother, who was found not criminally responsible for these crimes, still has a Facebook profile and still posts pictures of her murdered daughter, which causes the father much suffering and rage.

I would like to share a moving statement he sent me, which is addressed to this house. He said:

Today, I just want to share what my two daughters mean to me. They have been my everything since the day they were born. They were and will always be my greatest pride and my most wonderful accomplishment. I’ve never made anything as beautiful, as good, as wonderful or as important. In other words, my life revolved exclusively around my two girls, and they are the ones who truly taught me to love and to give unconditionally. I also want to say that I somehow found enough strength — and love — inside me to take care of myself and my youngest daughter, who is still in shock, and to keep doing what I’ve always done for my girls: defend and protect them. That’s why I have spoken to the media numerous times to condemn the sharing of photos of my daughters on social media sites . . . of the accused and her family.

For many people, posting pictures of their children on social media sites like Facebook is totally normal. But for me, for us victims, the fact that pictures are being posted of my two daughters, especially the one who was killed, is intolerable, hurtful, painful and even revolting, since I believe, in addition to the flagrant lack of respect towards the memory, the life and the legacy of my deceased daughter, that the images of my two daughters, who are minors and victims of an extremely violent criminal act, should remain private and do not belong in the public sphere. . . . That being said, nearly two years after the tragedy, I still want to fight to protect the dignity, the image, the memory, as well as the integrity of my daughter who was killed, to speak only of her, because I miss her so much. . . . I therefore ask you today, very humbly, to pass Senator Boisvenu’s bill, since it aims, first and foremost, to truly protect the dignity, memory and images of all victims of crime in Canada, by prohibiting and criminalizing the dissemination of their images and information on social media by criminals. As for my youngest, who survived, I keep telling her every day, “I love you.”

It is in this context and at the request of these two families that I decided to introduce this bill to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in order to reinforce the right to better protection for victims and families in similar situations. The Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues believes that this is an important bill that will guarantee the dignity and protect the memory of victims who are ruthlessly murdered.

This bill amends the Victims Bill of Rights by adding a paragraph to section 11, entitled “Privacy,” which would require the criminal justice system to take measures to prohibit an offender from posting any images or information about their victim on the internet and on social media. This reinforcement will be included in the section on the right to protection in the Victims Bill of Rights. This bill also amends the Criminal Code to prohibit any offender or accused from posting images or information about their victim or keeping existing images of their victim on social media either during legal proceedings or after being convicted.

An accused or offender who is ordered to comply with such a ban or who commits to complying will be at risk of being indicted on new charges if they fail to comply. The burden will be on the accused or offender to remove any information, images or videos about the victim they may have posted. That way, the participation and collaboration of social media networks such as Facebook or other sites such as YouTube will no longer be required. This will undeniably be a major advantage for achieving the desired effect, because we all know that it is nearly impossible for victims and their families to get these social media networks to cooperate in taking down offensive content, despite existing internal policies on content distribution.

The changes to the Criminal Code will revolve around the addition of a section to every stage set out in the Criminal Code with respect to an accused’s legal proceedings, including the issuance of an undertaking to appear by police, an interim release while awaiting trial ordered by a justice, detention pending a bail hearing, or detention during legal proceedings.

I believe that this new provision does not violate the constitutional protections afforded by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that a certain number of rulings along these lines have already been made by the courts. These rulings have made it possible to impose restrictions on the freedom of expression of the accused to ensure safety and privacy for the victim.

I plan on doing the same with the Criminal Code section governing offenders convicted of a criminal offence, in particular for probation orders, conditional sentences and detention sentences. This new section also applies to everything concerning 810 orders, such as the general order, fear of forced marriage or marriage under the age of 16 years, fear of a sexual offence or where there is fear of serious personal injury.

To conclude, there is also a provision for a person found not criminally responsible. In that case, a review board is established and a hearing is held to determine the safety risk that the offender may represent and to impose conditions. I am of the opinion that the provision I am proposing must also be added to this section of the Criminal Code. I remind senators that the second case I mentioned in my speech involved a mother who was found not criminally responsible for the murder of her daughter.

Honourable senators, I would like to take this opportunity, as I did in my previous speech, to talk to you about the importance of improving the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. As you know, I was the co-founder of the bill, which was passed nearly seven years ago in June 2015. For victims of crime, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights is, first and foremost, a recognition of their rights within the criminal justice system. Let’s not forget that this bill of rights is supra-constitutional and consists of four pillars based on four fundamental rights that actors in the criminal justice system have an obligation to uphold: the right to information, the right to participation, the right to protection and the right to restitution.

This bill that I am speaking to today is the only one in the past six and a half years that seeks to amend the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to improve and enhance it. Unfortunately, according to the many accounts that I hear every week, this bill of rights is all too often applied inappropriately and not complied with, as in the example I shared about Facebook. It is therefore urgent that Parliament undertake the five-year review of the legislation and get victims to actively participate in this legislative exercise. I spoke to Minister David Lametti about this during a private meeting we had this morning.

Bill S-238 reminds us that we have a Victims Bill of Rights that has the force of law in Canada and applies equally regardless of gender, religion or community. Legislators like us must use it more, respect it more, and the Senate of Canada must ensure it is applied across the country out of respect for all victims of crime and their families.

Esteemed colleagues, I know you care about protecting and respecting victims’ rights. That is why I invite and urge you to take part in improving the bill of rights by amending it every time you feel victims’ rights were not respected. Victims should not have to fight hard, over and over, when there is already a tool that should keep victims and their loved ones from being re‑victimized.

This morning, I also reminded the minister that it is unacceptable that victims and their families, like the ones in Portapique, do not have access to a government-appointed ombudsman. I think this situation sends a very negative message and shows that the government lacks empathy for victims and their families. Contrast that with the correctional investigator position, which has never been vacant for more than 24 hours.

In closing, honourable senators, in memory of Véronique Barbe, in memory of the young girl who lost her life at the tender age of 11, and in memory of the many other families of victims you may know, I ask you to pass the bill at second reading so it can be sent to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for prompt consideration.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

[English]

The Senate proceeded to consideration 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. Sabi Marwah moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, this report deals with the Senate’s budget for 2022-23. In summary, the anticipated budget is $121.8 million, which is $6.2 million or 5.4% over the 2021‑22 budget. However, this includes $2.6 million related to retroactive salary economic increases and $800,000 for the reinstatement of committee budgets to pre-pandemic levels. Without these two large items, the year-over-year increase is much lower at 2.5%.

As background on the process of arriving at the budget, it is based on the recommendations of the Subcommittee on the Senate Estimates. The subcommittee is comprised of Senator Moncion, chair; Senator Marshall, deputy chair; and Senators Bovey, Saint-Germain and Tannas. I thank them for the substantial time and effort they have spent on reviewing the budget.

The members of the subcommittee met with the Senate Administration, the executive committee and the majority of directors on many occasions. Detailed presentations were made by the directorates to the subcommittee. The members had the opportunity to discuss and question funding requirements throughout the process.

Throughout its consideration of the Main Estimates, the committee took into consideration not only changes in the Senate but also the effects of the pandemic on the Senate’s operations. The committee was also very mindful of the Canadian economic environment and the importance of balancing operational needs with proper stewardship of public funds.

As a result, the Main Estimates have been prepared with prudence to ensure that the level of Senate spending remains stable without compromising service to senators.

Moving to the details of expenditures, I would remind senators that there are two parts to the budget. One is statutory funding, and the other is the voted funding.

The statutory portion deals with money allocated by legislation. This includes senators’ basic and additional allowances and pensions, senators’ travel and living expenses, telecommunications and employee benefit plans. Any shortfalls in these categories at the end of the year are covered by the Treasury Board. Conversely, surpluses are automatically returned to the Treasury Board as they cannot be reassigned.

The second part of the budget is a voted budget which is for the workings of the Senate. They cover senators’ office budgets and Senate administration. Moving briefly to the numbers, the total amount of the statutory budget is $37.3 million, an increase of $0.8 million or 2.2% from last year.

The main reason for the small increase is the senators’ basic and additional allowances and pensions, which are increasing by around $568,000 to reflect the increases that have been in place since April 1, 2021, and approved by legislation.

The other major increases are the living expenses budget, increased by $101,000, and the contribution of the employee benefit plan, which rose by $165,000. These were partly offset by the telecommunications budget, which was reduced by $32,000 thanks to a collective effort to reduce the number of land lines.

Moving to the second part of the voted budget, this portion is $84.5 million, an increase of $5.5 million, or 6.9% over the previous year. As mentioned earlier, while this looks large, it includes retroactive salary increases from 2019 to 2021 of $2.6 million and the reinstatement of the committee budgets to pre‑pandemic levels.

Excluding these two large items, the year-over-year increase is much lower at $2 million, or 2.6%.

The major components of the voted budget are: the overall senators’ offices budget, which increased by $484,000, or 2%; the Senate committees budget, which rose by $810,000 to the funding levels that existed before the pandemic; the International and Inter-Parliamentary Affairs Directorate, which increased by $329,000 to cover the cost of the fourth annual session of the Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie; and an increase of $176,000 for the Indigenous Youth Internship Program, which is expected to begin for the first time in the upcoming year.

Finally, the administration rose by $3.6 million primarily due to four major items: $2.6 million for retroactive economic increases from prior years; $360,000 for nonrecurring savings that were achieved in 2021-22; new funding requests of $521,000 mainly for additional software licences and operational expenses including in IT; and $145,000 mainly to cover position reclassifications.

From a staffing standpoint, the budget includes a net increase of 6.5 positions. This is from 3.3 additional full-time equivalents for the International Aboriginal Youth Internships initiative and 3.2 positions for administration.

To conclude, I would once again like to thank the committee for their extensive work. They deserve a lot of credit.

A lot of credit also goes to Senate Administration and the executive committee, they approached the budget in a very thoughtful and prudent manner. I recommend that we adopt the report.

Thank you, colleagues.

[Translation]

Hon. Margaret Dawn Anderson: Akana, honourable senators. I rise today on Treaty 7 territory, the traditional territories of the Blackfoot Nations, including Siksika, Piikani, Kainai, the Tsuut’ina Nation, Stoney Nakoda First Nation and the Métis Nation Region 3 to speak to Motion No. 7 moved by Senator Galvez.

I rise today in support of this motion and to share how climate change affects the residents and communities within the Northwest Territories, or the N.W.T. We are on the forefront of climate-driven change and global warming. It severely threatens our people, culture, community, landscape, ecosystem and way of life.

According to Susan Nerberg, a science and environmental journalist:

For people living in the Arctic, climate change is hacking away at their foundation. It drives storm surges, washes out roads and clogs rivers with sediments. It produces sinkholes and triggers landslides capable of altering the topography and tilting houses. The climate crisis is even seen by some as a form of environmental racism — a problem created down south and suffered up north.

Although the N.W.T. is responsible for less than 0.2% of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, some places in the N.W.T. have already experienced significant warming in mean air temperature. Since 1957, in the Beaufort Delta, the territory’s northernmost region, Inuvik’s average air temperature has warmed by 4.4 degrees Celsius, while in Hay River, located in the southern part of the territory, the average air temperature has warmed by 2.7 degrees Celsius. To provide context, the Paris Agreement, adopted by 196 parties at COP21 and entered into forced on November 4, 2016, set a goal to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. The North’s temperatures are indicative of a larger global issue.

On June 22, 2020, I spoke about the experience of climate change in my home community of Tuktoyaktuk and the impact on community infrastructure. That spring the hamlet had relocated four privately owned homes inland from the point of Tuktoyaktuk because the shoreline was eroding under their piling foundations due to rising sea waters and permafrost melt. The relocation of four homes from the point is just the latest chapter in the lived experience of climate change in Tuktoyaktuk. In my lifetime, I have witnessed the loss of the community’s curling rink, relocation of the community school and the RCMP detachment, as well as several metres of land loss around the perimeter of the community.

The one-kilometre sized island where my mother grew up and which, in my lifetime, always provided protection to the harbour of Tuktoyaktuk is also falling victim to erosion and rising water.

The Government of the Northwest Territories, or the GNWT, anticipates that further community infrastructure — including the landfill, several community buildings and cemeteries — will need to be relocated due to coastal erosion and sea level rise. This is not a simple task.

Coastline erosion is a divisive issue for my community. It is not simply a matter of relocating buildings and residences. Our cultural heritage, including our graveyard, is threatened by encroaching sea. The monetary costs of relocating them are difficult to weigh against the cultural costs of them washing away. There are also significant and legitimate concerns about the loss of historically important Inuit cultural sites. The GNWT is working to assess how erosion of the Arctic coast and glacial recession are affecting artifacts and key archeological sites. We are facing not just a loss of land and resources, but significant loss of our historical and cultural landmarks as well as a lifestyle which defines us. This loss is immeasurable.

According to the GNWT:

Infrastructure and processes that rely on weather, such as ice roads, building seasons, supply chains, and community access for residents are becoming unreliable.

This means the annual window of opportunity to get critical goods into communities is shrinking. This creates new challenges, financial implications and affects food supply, building seasons, fuel resupply and capital infrastructure.

Much of the N.W.T. is underlain by permafrost, and climate change is decreasing its thickness. As the layer of seasonal thaw in the ground increases, so too does the need for deeper piles to support infrastructure, raising building and maintenance costs. The vast majority of highways and municipal roads are constructed and surfaced with gravel. Permafrost thaw causes subsidence and sinkholes in the roads, which requires financial investment and maintenance to keep them safe and useable.

Near Fort Simpson, in the southern part of the N.W.T., discontinuous permafrost has decreased by 38% over the last 61 years. Permafrost thaw on hills has resulted in an increase in large landslides that are up to 40 hectares, with head walls up to 25 metres, resulting in sediment affecting streams and aquatic life.

These landslides are also occurring further north. In September 2017, I witnessed four landslides within hours while at the historical Inuvialuit site of Reindeer Station and along the Mackenzie River. The landslides not only uprooted trees, dumping them in the river, but also destroyed a historic cabin as well as channel markers along the river.

Events like these are occurring all over the territory. In the Gwich’in Settlement area, subsidence is outpacing our ability to map the occurrences. Subsidence and sinkholes on the Dempster Highway also affect the integrity of the highway connecting the N.W.T. to the Yukon. Slumps in lakes run the risk of connecting the lakes to rivers and draining them. Residents of Fort McPherson have observed this phenomenon in the lakes around their community.

The warming climate is disturbing habitats in the N.W.T., and invasive plants and animals have been observed in many communities. From Into the Arctic:

My eighty-two-year-old mother loved to fish. Regardless of the weather or season, she would set her net in the ice, or water just off the shore that lies within steps of her home. A tangible and vital connection to her past and our culture. My brother sets the net now and we follow in her footsteps. The same place, same net and same waters. There has been one notable difference, salmon, a fish once foreign to our nets and diet is now in our waters.

Cougars and magpies, species that have historically not been present in the N.W.T., have also been observed.

Warmer temperatures are making weather patterns less predictable, endangering traditional lifestyles and livelihoods. The number of days below freezing can be used as a measure of the season for travelling over ice. Historically, in Fort Simpson this is about 221 days. By the end of the century, it may decrease to only 176 days if nothing changes.

In the Beaufort Sea, a decrease of 8.3% in summer ice per decade, combined with rising sea levels, has accelerated coastal erosion and is impacting community infrastructure. Since 1968, the Beaufort Sea has experienced a total loss of 204,000 kilometres squared of sea ice. This is an area almost three times the land area of New Brunswick.

The GNWT notes that the loss of sea ice caused by the carbon emissions of industrialized nations destroys 30 square metres of Arctic sea ice annually.

As the Arctic sea ice melts, potential shipping lanes will open allowing for reduced transit times for global shipping. This is particularly relevant for shipping between Europe and East Asia, as it would allow shipping to occur throughout the Northwest Passage, rather than through the Suez Canal.

The N.W.T. is also experiencing more extreme weather during the summer months, making wildfire management more challenging. In 2014, 3.4 million hectares of boreal forest burned in the N.W.T. This is six times the normal amount and 2.5 million hectares more than annually burns in Canada. That same year the drought caused the Yellowknife hydroelectric facilities to run dry. Because Yellowknife is not connected to the grid, $15 million in diesel fuel was burned to generate and provide power.

According to the GNWT, ecosystem modelling suggests that the boreal forest located in the southern Northwest Territories will be replaced with grasslands by the end of the century. This is attributed to climate changes, including drought, wildfires and insect infestation. Water levels have been recorded in the N.W.T. since 1939, with the highest water levels recorded in 2021. Although there have been historical flooding and high water levels in N.W.T. communities located near water bodies, the high water levels that we are seeing now are unprecedented.

In May 2021 extreme flooding led to the complete evacuation of Jean Marie River and displaced over 700 people in Fort Simpson, causing millions of dollars in damages. In Jean Marie River, the water levels rose so high and so quickly that the fuel tanks were uprooted, cell service disrupted, the power plant damaged, and the only access road to the community was cut off. The Canadian Rangers were deployed to help assist those affected by the flooding.

Another rare weather event occurred on June 29, 2021. A downburst, one of the first ever recorded in the N.W.T., ripped through and uprooted a patch of trees some 60 kilometres long and 9 kilometres wide when it struck the Dehcho region east of Fort Liard. It is believed that the wind speeds during the Dehcho storm reached up to 190 kilometres per hour.

On January 24, in a conversation with Brigadier-General Pascal Godbout, Commander of Joint Task Force (North) located in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, I was apprised of Operation LENTUS. Operation LENTUS is the Canadian Armed Forces response to natural disasters in Canada. Brigadier-General Godbout noted that within the last year they have responded to three major events across the three northern territories: the floods in Jean Marie River, Yukon floods and the Iqaluit water crisis. He added that this is the first time in 15 years that Operation LENTUS has responded to requests and noted that these were unusual and reflective of the increased climate impacts we are seeing in the North.

Given that Joint Task Force (North) is responsible for emergency responses across the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon, this poses an additional burden on their ability to serve the North and places an additional demand on the Canadian Armed Forces resources.

In the N.W.T., responding to climate changes means balancing adaptation to and mitigation of the significant impacts we are already seeing. With our population of 44,000, we will not be able to support the logistical and financial challenges of adapting and mitigating without a Northern-specific approach to climate change. This must also incorporate national and international advocacy and partnerships.

As Inuvialuit, we have survived epidemics, mass deaths, colonization, residential school, as well as relocation; yet, with climate change, the Inuvialuit are facing one of the greatest challenges of this century. I venture to say that this goes beyond the Inuvialuit. As a country, and collectively a world, we are facing the challenge of our lifetime.

In the words of Hans-Otto Pörtner, a co-chair of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future.”

My 16-year-old daughter wrote an assignment for her Canadian and World issues class with Ashbury College, and it was entitled “Tuktoyaktuk: Evidence and global climate change.” I share her words for two reasons. Firstly, it is telling that it is important and relevant to a teenager. At 16 years of age, I never wrote or thought about climate change. Secondly, I believe that her words are timely and valid. These words are as follows.

This issue in the Arctic transcends all boundaries. It is a global responsibility and given we created the problem; we must also create the solution.

The importance is not lost to her. It should not be lost to us as decision makers and as parliamentarians. I urge you to support this motion. Quyanainni, mahsi’cho, thank you.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)