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

Senator Carignan: Government Representative, the mandate letter that the Prime Minister gave to his Minister of Public Safety states, and I quote:

Canadians continue to rely on journalists and journalism for accurate and timely news.

Of course, I myself, not a journalist, submitted the access to information request, but I expect a journalist would have to wait just as long. Do you think it is reasonable to wait seven months to get timely information? Is that reasonable and timely?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, senator, for the question. Building a Foundation for Change: Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy for 2019–2022 will invest $4.6 million to establish a new anti-racism secretariat that will lead a whole-of-government approach in addressing racism. I’m advised that that secretariat will also work with the government to address the effects of discrimination, including leading federal institutions to identify gaps, to assist in developing new initiatives and to consider the impacts of new and existing policies, services and programs on communities. The secretariat will publicly report on outcomes in addressing racism and discrimination, and contribute to work being undertaken by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat towards a more diverse and inclusive public service. The government remains committed to working with provinces and territories and to continue to engage in work with non-government partners, Indigenous peoples and other communities to identify and develop further areas for action.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government has taken and will continue to take measures to address this important and troubling issue for those seeking housing.

In the Throne Speech, the government outlined initiatives to increase housing supply and to support Canadians looking to buy their first home. This includes a housing accelerator fund to speed up the construction of new housing, a flexible first-time homebuyer incentive and a rent-to-own program to help renters become homeowners.

The government is moving forward on its annual 1% tax on the value of non-resident-, non-Canadian-owned residential real estate, and I’m advised there will be additional measures in the upcoming budget.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Boniface, there are a number of senators who wish to ask questions. Will you accept questions?

Senator Boniface: Of course.

Hon. Rose-May Poirier: My question is for the government leader in the Senate.

Information released last week from the Canadian Real Estate Association showed housing inflation rose by 3.5% in one month and by almost 30% year over year, which is a new record. Housing inflation in my province is worse than the national average. According to the Canadian Real Estate Association, home prices in New Brunswick increased by almost 6% between January and February. In the Moncton area, home prices have increased by over 35% in one year and by a staggering 110% over the last five years.

Leader, many Canadians, especially our youth, believe they will never be able to afford their own home. Nationwide, the cost of homes has doubled under your government. Why hasn’t the Trudeau government brought forward a credible plan to deal with housing affordability?

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, today, Ontario is the only province that has not reached a bilateral agreement with the federal government on child care.

A few weeks ago, in response to Senator Omidvar’s question, you clarified for us that there was no deadline for the province to sign such a deal. However, Senator Gold, despite there being no deadline, the end of the fiscal year, March 31, is rapidly approaching. Can you confirm that if Ontario does not sign by the end of the month, the province could lose over $1 billion in funding? If so, would there be a way for the province to recuperate this funding?

Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Government Representative, as you know, section 2 of the Access to Information Act states that the purpose of the act is to, and I quote:

 . . . enhance the accountability and transparency of federal institutions in order to promote an open and democratic society and to enable public debate on the conduct of those institutions.

My office submitted an access to information request to Public Safety Canada on February 11. This week, we received a reply informing us that the department would get back to us within 195 days, by September 22, 2022, but I don’t even know if I will get a detailed answer.

Government Representative, do you think that it is right to have to wait 195 days to get an answer in a society that calls itself free and that seeks to be transparent and give access to information?

Senator Boisvenu: Senator Gold, it is time to stop hiding women and start protecting them. Last week, Quebec passed Bill 24, which will require men who are convicted and receive a sentence of less than two years to wear an electronic tracking device. However, with this law, we now have a two-tiered justice system where there will be better protection for Quebec women and no protection for Canadian women.

As a former parole board member, do you think it is right that Quebec women who experience domestic violence are better protected than Canadian women who experience domestic violence?

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, my question is to the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Gold, on December 7, 2021, this house passed Bill C-4 banning conversion therapy. The law came into force on January 7 of this year, 2022.

On March 3, a CBC “Marketplace” investigation published an article raising questions about just how effective the ban on conversion therapy has been in the age of virtual therapy. They mention that several life coaches in the U.S. are still offering their conversion therapy services online to Canadians. What is the Canadian government doing to address this dangerous practice and to protect Canadians and Canadian youth in particular?

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on March 3, 2022, the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on March 22, 2022, its first report (interim).

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, in accordance with subsection 39(1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (S.C. 2005, c. 46), the Senate approve the reappointment of Mr. Joe Friday as Public Sector Integrity Commissioner for a term of 18 months.

[Translation]

Hon. René Cormier: Honourable senators, today I rise as an independent senator from New Brunswick to speak to Senator Dalphond’s Motion No. 15. I am mindful of the fact that I am speaking to you shortly after the International Day of La Francophonie, which took place on Sunday. Before I proceed, I would like to acknowledge that we are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people, and I am sincerely grateful to them for welcoming us here.

First of all, Senator Dalphond’s motion reminds us that the Canadian Constitution, which is the supreme law of our land, is not fully bilingual, despite section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

In fact, official versions of some of the constitutional texts that lay the foundation for our Canadian Confederation in the Constitution Act, 1867, exist only in English.

This motion calls on the federal government to consider adding to the Official Languages Act a requirement to submit periodic reports detailing efforts made to comply with section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Section 55 reads as follows:

A French version of the portions of the Constitution of Canada referred to in the schedule shall be prepared by the Minister of Justice of Canada as expeditiously as possible and, when any portion thereof sufficient to warrant action being taken has been so prepared, it shall be put forward for enactment by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada pursuant to the procedure then applicable to an amendment of the same provisions of the Constitution of Canada.

[English]

Simply put, colleagues, Senator Dalphond’s motion seeks to give effect to constitutional commitments already enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1982. In a sense, this motion also highlights the need to implement the work undertaken by the French constitutional drafting committee in 1990, which drafted a French version of all the constitutional texts referred to in the schedule to the Constitution Act of 1982. At this point in time, the remaining step in implementing section 55 of the Constitution Act of 1982 is to officially adopt these texts as alluded to in Senator Dalphond’s speech on this motion.

The Constitution could be considered the bedrock of our parliamentary system, colleagues. Therefore, with this motion we have an opportunity to collectively affirm our commitment to uphold and respect the Constitution. This is why, again as an independent senator representing New Brunswick, I support this motion.

[Translation]

On February 19, 2021, the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages at the time, the Honourable Mélanie Joly, tabled a reform document entitled English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada, which contained a series of measures to strengthen the Official Languages Act.

In her introduction, the minister pointed out that the French language was in decline across the country and that concrete action was needed to achieve substantive equality between our two official languages.

It is important to remember that substantive equality means that, depending on the circumstances, a linguistic minority could be treated differently from a linguistic majority so that the former receives the same quality of services as the latter.

It should be noted that adopting a fully bilingual Constitution was not one of the concrete measures mentioned by the federal government in its reform document. This is confirmed by Bill C-13, An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, which was recently introduced in the House of Commons. In its current form, this bill does not contain any clauses related to the implementation of section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

François Larocque, an eminent professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa, has already pointed out the following, and I quote:

The long road to achieving substantive equality begins first and foremost with minimal respect for formal equality, or parity. The enactment of the French version of Canada’s constitutional texts is a matter of formal equality and fundamental justice for French-speaking Canadians.

In other words, ensuring compliance with section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is fundamental to achieving substantive equality of the two official languages, which will remain an unattainable ideal if the constitutional commitments set out in section 55 remain unfulfilled.

[English]

The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, during its exhaustive examination of Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act — including a short study on the official languages reform document — received input from stakeholders on how this act could be a vehicle to address the ongoing omission to adopt a fully bilingual constitution. Indeed, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages has received briefs and heard testimony from La Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, La Fédération des associations de juristes d’expression française de common law, The Canadian Bar Association and eminent jurists — notably Professor Larocque — who all agreed on one central premise: the Official Languages Act must recognize the need to implement section 55 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

In the context of our current debate on the motion before us, their recommendations bear some consideration.

[Translation]

Although the committee did not officially recommend measures in connection with section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982, in its final report on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, it did make a good point regarding the non‑compliance with section 55, which I think is worth sharing:

 . . . the English version of these texts is still the only one that has the force of law. This has an impact on the interpretation of language rights by the courts, since judges cannot apply the shared meaning rule to both versions. The Senate Committee therefore calls on the federal government, in the context of modernizing the Act, to take the lead and follow up on implementing this constitutional obligation.

Professor Linda Cardinal, holder of the Research Chair in Canadian Francophonie and Public Policies at the University of Ottawa, and Professor Larocque concluded that the enactment of the French version of the Constitution is a matter of moral justice for Canada’s francophones.

That said, a fully bilingual Constitution would not only serve francophones in this country, but would also serve the interests of all Canadians, including us, as parliamentarians.

Knowing that constitutional texts are official in English only, how can we carry out our role as legislators correctly and thoroughly?

Explicitly making reference to the Constitution Act, 1867, our former colleague, the Honourable Senator Serge Joyal, eloquently said the following, and I quote:

 . . . when senators and members of Parliament need to refer to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, they can only use or refer to the English version, even though a Department of Justice translation is available. This is also true for anyone else who must refer to or quote from the 1867 Act.

If Canada wants to live up to its status as an officially bilingual country, it must respect the commitment in section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982. . .

How can Canada claim to defend the equal status of the two languages when its constitution is in English only?

Far from being a symbolic measure, Senator Dalphond’s motion embodies the idea that it is important to recognize and respect bilingualism and the linguistic duality of our country.

[English]

Colleagues, I support the overarching objectives of this motion, which simply asks the federal government to — at the very least — consider this important issue in the context of modernizing the Official Languages Act, an initiative that is currently underway in the other place. Although the Senate and its Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages will presumably undertake this valuable independent work in the foreseeable future on the proposed Bill C-13, I nevertheless feel bound to give voice to this motion that raises a key constitutional issue for our bilingual country — one that has remained unresolved since the patriation of the Constitution in 1982.

[Translation]

Thank you for your attention.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Simons, calling the attention of the Senate to the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face, and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between Canada’s municipalities and the federal government.

Hon. Éric Forest: It is my pleasure to rise today to participate in the debate started by our colleague Senator Simons to draw the attention of the Senate and Canadians to the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between Canada’s municipalities and the federal government.

[English]

I wanted to take this opportunity to speak about the renewal of the relationship between the municipalities and other levels of government, as this issue has been at the heart of my political engagement for 40 years.

[Translation]

I will begin by saying that it may seem paradoxical to discuss the role of the federal government in Canadian municipal affairs, because local government falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial government, giving rise to the oft-heard expression that cities are creatures of the provinces.

No doubt you know that I shudder when I hear this expression. First, because it is extremely paternalistic and disrespectful and it devalues municipal democracy, but also because it is not quite accurate from an historical perspective. In the history of human development, cities appeared before empires, countries and provinces.

The first municipal institutions in Quebec were founded in Quebec City, Montreal and Trois-Rivières during the French regime, long before Confederation in 1867, under which the provinces were given exclusive jurisdiction over municipal institutions.

[English]

In fact, it would be more correct to argue that municipalities create countries and provinces.

[Translation]

I apologize for that historical aside. Getting back to the federal-municipal relationship, I think it’s important to note that this relationship is not static and has evolved quite a bit over the past few decades. This is important to note, because I often hear people say that nothing can be done and that it would be impossible to rethink the nature of federal-municipal relationships without triggering a difficult round of constitutional negotiations.

Formally recognizing the role of municipalities in the Constitution would be ideal, but let’s be realistic. Given that it is virtually impossible to amend the 1982 Constitution, I think we should focus our efforts on changes that we can make outside the scope of the Constitution.

Over the course of my 40 years in municipal politics, I witnessed many attempts to redefine the federal-municipal relationship. I’d like to demonstrate that changes to this relationship are possible.

First, we need to recognize that the federal government has shown renewed interest in urban issues in recent years.

One such example is the recognition of the central role that municipalities play in our economic development. The economist and urbanist Jane Jacobs did a wonderful job of demonstrating that in the 1960s, saying cities create the wealth of nations.

Paradoxically, the national policies that are imposed on cities can end up curbing their vital activities. This truth stands the test of time and knows no geographic bounds.

In Canada, 80% of the population is concentrated in urban centres. No so-called national government can claim to have control over the economy unless it mobilizes our cities as economic drivers.

To paraphrase an old saying, what’s good for cities is good for the country — and vice versa.

Moreover, municipalities’ expenses have increased considerably in recent decades, partly because of responsibilities downloaded onto them by higher levels of government, but also because of the social changes some cities have been dealing with for some time.

Our colleague, Senator Boniface, did a great job explaining the situation when she talked about problems related to opioids and the municipalities’ responsibilities in that regard.

The pandemic has also made it clear that municipalities play a vital role in all aspects of human activity.

Cities have stepped up to facilitate vaccination. They have had to reinvent how they deal with homelessness. They have contributed to public health efforts since the start of the crisis. Montreal even stepped in for the federal government to better handle international travellers.

Clearly, no so-called national government can claim to be in control of public health, the fight against homelessness, mental health issues, welcoming immigrants, fighting climate change and more without mobilizing cities and municipalities.

Federal government involvement in municipal affairs is not a new phenomenon. As early as the 1920s, the federal government implemented national programs to improve housing conditions by providing loans and grants to cope with waves of mass immigration. Yes, we are experiencing a housing crisis at the moment.

It is also important to remember that, during the Great Depression, the government created a loan program to enable municipalities to upgrade their infrastructure and stimulate job creation.

In the 1950s, as the suburbs grew, the federal government supported municipalities by creating programs to improve water and wastewater infrastructure. In the 1970s, the federal government even established a Ministry of State for Urban Affairs to foster cooperation between the three levels of government. The ministry had a short life, however, as it existed for less than nine years.

The weak economy, the fiscal crisis, the federal government’s refocusing on its own responsibilities, and the particular dynamics of federal-provincial relations on the eve of the Quebec referendum dampened the federal government’s interest in municipal issues for a time.

What a shame.

It was not until the Liberal Red Book in 1993-94 that a proper infrastructure program reappeared. Originally intended as a temporary two-year program, it expanded greatly as the federal government’s finances improved.

Under the Paul Martin government of 2004 to 2006, we saw an interesting attempt at establishing closer collaboration between the federal government and the municipalities with the launch of Canada’s New Deal for Cities and Communities. This new deal was a real attempt at establishing:

 . . . a national urban policy aiming to transform federal-local relations by involving municipalities in public policy development.

This policy was based on three pillars: first, provide municipalities with predictable, long-term revenue streams; second, establish multi-level collaboration mechanisms for area‑based policy making in the larger urban centres; and third, introduce an urban lens to assess and improve federal activities in cities.

Unfortunately, this promising experiment ended abruptly with a change in government, but several worthwhile initiatives survived, from the sharing of gas tax revenues — an excellent initiative — to the full GST rebate and the inclusive cities initiative.

There is no denying that the need to review the federal-municipal relationship stems primarily from budgetary pressures, because the current financial situation of the municipalities is untenable. In 1955, municipalities owned 22% of public infrastructure in Canada. Today, municipalities are responsible for nearly 60% of all public infrastructure in Canada.

The revenues did not follow, however. In fact, the federal contribution to municipal budgets fell from 23% in the 1990s to 17% in 2005.

I was unfortunately unable to obtain updated statistics, but it is not difficult to imagine that the trend has continued, if not accelerated.

Municipalities’ current tax regime is based on property taxes, which represent more than 70% of their revenues. In the 1970s, the reason for this association was that the role of municipalities was basically limited to providing property-related services such as firefighting, wastewater treatment, and road maintenance.

This premise no longer corresponds to today’s reality, given that municipalities are now involved in all aspects of the organization of our societies.

When I was president of the Union des municipalités du Québec, we published a municipal white paper entitled “L’avenir a un lieu,” about the place of municipalities in the future. It called for the municipal taxation system to be adapted to take the municipalities’ current responsibilities into account and for municipalities to finally be recognized as local governments.

The idea of requesting a constitutional amendment was set aside.

It would have been too easy for higher levels of government to latch onto this as a pretext for not making changes. I believe that the strategy we proposed in the white paper is still valid and that only two things are required to revisit the federal-municipal relationship.

First, all levels of government must acknowledge that municipalities are local governments, which means that they are in the best position to address various issues. Once this has been generally acknowledged and there is a new division of responsibilities, we can review the tax base of each level of government. Like it or not, I think that a new division of responsibilities can be done through administrative agreements.

Seeing as Quebec and Ottawa have managed to come to an agreement on the transfer of responsibilities regarding immigration and skills training, for example, I don’t see why we couldn’t come to an agreement to assign municipalities some responsibilities that, I should point out, some already take on. The municipalities would receive more revenue in proportion to their increased responsibilities, and this would allow all levels of government to contribute to wealth creation, while focusing on environmentally friendly choices and social cohesion.

I’m not deluding myself. I know that this will involve some difficult discussions, but we’ve been sweeping problems under the rug for too long.

We unfortunately need to acknowledge that the provinces and Ottawa are just fine with the status quo because it gives them a fiscal advantage.

However, for the future of our country, we must be mature enough to consider this in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. This principle will help us determine which level of government is best suited for and most efficient at providing a given public service most cost-effectively.

I’m choosing to be positive here, in spite of the challenges. I suggest that we build on the progress made in recent years. I note, for example, that the Gas Tax Fund, renamed the Canada Community-Building Fund, is working quite well. It is a cornerstone of federal infrastructure programs and is framed by federal, provincial and territorial agreements that provide municipalities with considerable flexibility and predictability.

Another good example of a tripartite agreement is that Toronto, Canada’s top destination for immigrants, is a signatory to the Canada-Ontario-Toronto Memorandum of Understanding on Immigration and Settlement.

In the category of positive experiences, we could also include various urban revitalization projects that are led by tripartite organizations. Some examples that come to mind include the Corporation du Pôle des Rapides, which manages the revitalization of the Lachine Canal in Montreal, and Waterfront Toronto, where the relationship between Ottawa, the provincial government and the city has been institutionalized.

If we can agree on a piecemeal basis on how to share responsibilities in order to better serve Canadians, I am confident that we can achieve this with a more ambitious project.

In closing, I want to thank Senator Simons for raising this important debate. Now is the time to get this done. We have a moral duty to work together to modernize our institutions and create an effective environment for delivering quality public services at the local, provincial, territorial and national levels to serve the fundamental interests of Canadians.

I see a clear path to renewing the relationship between the municipalities and the higher levels of government. All it will take is a bit of political will.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Judith G. Seidman, for Senator Cotter, pursuant to notice of December 14, 2021, moved:

That, for the remainder of the current parliamentary session, the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators be authorized to:

(a)meet even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 12-18(1) be suspended in relation thereto;

(b)hold hybrid meetings or meetings entirely by videoconference; and

That for greater certainty the provisions of subparagraphs 20 to 22 of the order adopted by the Senate on November 25, 2021, concerning hybrid committee meetings apply in relation to meetings of this committee, including meetings held entirely by videoconference.

Senator Forest: This is a great illustration of the situation we are in.

I believe that when we look at pandemic-related issues, the people of Alberta or Calgary, or any city really, are the same people who turn to their municipality first to call for the adoption of measures that affect their daily lives. In that case, it is truly the cities that can take the pulse of their population and adopt appropriate measures.

The situation you mentioned is an anecdote that clearly shows the connection between the municipalities and the provincial governments.

Thank you for your question.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Esteemed parliamentarians, friends and colleagues, good morning and thank you for being here today to welcome a courageous and exceptional leader.

[English]

President Zelenskyy, on behalf of parliamentarians and all Canadians, it is an honour to welcome you to our House.

Mr. President, Volodymyr, you are a friend. Canadians and Ukrainians are friends, and they have been for a long time. Our people share deep historical ties. In the early 20th century, a massive wave of Ukrainian immigrants came to Canada. Many of them settled in the Canadian Prairies. They worked the land, they built churches distinguished by their beautiful spires and they helped shape Canada in significant ways.

[Translation]

Today, there are 1.4 million Ukrainian Canadians in our country. This is the second-largest Ukrainian diaspora in the world. Whether as farmers, scientists, community leaders, athletes or frontline workers, Ukrainian Canadians continue to make a tremendous contribution to our country.

The friendship between Canada and Ukraine is based not only on this shared history but also on our shared values.

[English]

Volodymyr, in the years I have known you, I have always thought of you as a champion for democracy. Now democracies around the world are lucky to have you as our champion.

Your courage and the courage of your people inspires us all. You are defending the right of Ukrainians to choose their own future and, in doing so, you are defending the values that form the pillars of all free democratic countries. Freedom, human rights, justice, truth and international order are the values you are risking your life for as you fight for Ukraine and Ukrainians. Beyond that, you are inspiring democracies and democratic leaders around the world to be more courageous, more united, and to fight harder for what we believe in. You remind us that friends are always stronger together.

With allies and partners, we are imposing crippling sanctions to make sure Putin and his enablers in Russia and Belarus are held accountable. Today, in line with our European Union partners, I can announce that we have imposed severe sanctions on 15 new Russian officials, including government and military elites who are complicit in this illegal war.

[Translation]

Canada will continue to support Ukraine by providing military equipment as well as financial and humanitarian assistance. We will be there to help rebuild Ukraine once the aggressor is repelled.

[English]

In Canada, we like to root for the underdog. We believe that when a cause is just and right, it will always prevail, no matter the size of the opponent. This does not mean it will be easy. Ukrainians are already paying incalculable human costs. This illegal and unnecessary war is a grave mistake. Putin must stop it now.

[Translation]

Vladimir Putin’s blatant disregard for human life is absolutely unacceptable. Canada continues to demand that Russia stop targeting civilians and that it end this unjustifiable war.

[English]

Ukrainians are standing up to authoritarianism and, as parliamentarians united in this House today and all Canadians, we stand with you. As friends, you can count on our unwavering and steadfast support.

Now it is my great privilege to introduce to you all the President of Ukraine, our friend, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister, dear Justin, members of the government, members of Parliament and all distinguished guests and friends, before I begin, I would like you to understand my feelings and the feelings of all Ukrainians, as much as is possible, over the last 20 days of the full-scale aggression by the Russian Federation after eight years of fighting in the Donbass region. Can you imagine that at 4 a.m. each of you started hearing bomb explosions, severe explosions?

Justin, can you imagine you and your children hearing all these severe explosions, the bombing of airports, the bombing of the Ottawa airport, in tens of other cities in your wonderful country? Can you imagine that?

Cruise missiles are falling down on your territory and your children are asking you what is happening. You are receiving the first news as to which infrastructure objects have been bombed and destroyed by the Russian Federation, and you know how many people have already died. Can you only imagine? How can you explain to your children that a full-scale aggression just happened in your country? You know this is a war to annihilate your state, your country. You know that this is a war to subjugate a people.

On the second day you receive notifications that huge columns of military equipment are entering your country. They are crossing the border. They are entering small cities. They are laying siege, encircling cities, and they start to shell civilian neighbourhoods. They bomb school buildings. They destroy kindergarten facilities, like in our city in Sumy, in the city of Okhtyrka. Imagine that someone is laying siege to Vancouver. Can you just imagine that for a second and all of the people who are left in such a city? This is exactly the situation that our city of Mariupol is suffering right now. They are left without heat or hydro, without a means of communicating, almost without food and water. They are seeking shelter in bomb shelters.

Dear Justin and dear guests, can you imagine that every day you receive memorandums about the number of casualties, including women and children? You have heard about the bombings. Currently, we have 97 children who have died during this war. Can you imagine if the famous CN Tower in Toronto was hit by Russian bombs?

Of course, I do not wish that on anyone, but this is the reality in which we live. We have to contemplate and see where the next bombings will take place. You have your Churchill Square. We have our Freedom Square in the city of Kharkiv. We have our Babyn Yar, the place where victims of the Holocaust were buried. These have been bombed by the Russians.

Imagine that Canadian facilities have been bombed similarly to how our buildings and memorial places are being bombed. A number of families have died. Every night is a horrible night. The Russians are shelling us from all kinds of artillery and tanks. They are hitting civilian infrastructure. They are hitting big buildings.

Can you imagine a fire starting at a nuclear power plant? That is exactly what happened in our country. In each city they are marching through, they are taking down the Ukrainian flags. Can you imagine someone taking down your Canadian flags in Montreal and other Canadian cities?

I know that you all support Ukraine, and we have been friends with you, Justin, but I would also like you to understand and I would like you to feel what we feel every day. We want to live and we want to be victorious. We want to prevail for the sake of life.

Can you imagine calling your friends, friendly nations, and asking them to please close the sky, close the airspace, please stop the bombing? You ask them, “How many more cruise missiles have to fall on our cities until you make this happen?” In return, they express their deep concerns about the situation, when you talk to your partners. They say please hold on, hold on a little longer.

Some people are talking about trying to avoid escalation. At the same time, in response to our aspiration to become members of NATO, we do not hear a clear answer. Sometimes we do not see obvious things. It is dire straits, but it also allowed us to see who our real friends are over the last 20 days, as well as the eight previous years.

I am sure that you have been able to see clearly what is going on. I am addressing all of you. Canada has always been steadfast in its support. You have been a reliable partner to Ukraine and Ukrainians, and I am sure this will continue. You offered your help and assistance at our earliest request. You supply us with military assistance and with humanitarian assistance. You have imposed severe sanctions.

At the same time, we see that unfortunately this did not bring an end to the war. You can see that our cities, like Kharkiv, Mariupol and many other cities, are not protected like your cities are protected, like Edmonton and Vancouver. You can see that Kyiv is being shelled and bombed, and Ivano-Frankivsk. It used to be a peaceful country with peaceful cities, but now they are being constantly bombarded.

What I am trying to say is that we all need to do more—you need to do more—to stop Russia to protect Ukraine, and by doing so to protect Europe from Russian threats. They are destroying everything: memorial complexes, schools, hospitals, housing complexes. They have already killed 97 Ukrainian children.

We are not asking for much. We are asking for justice, for real support, which will help us to prevail, to defend, to save lives, to save life all over the world. Canada is leading in these efforts, and I am hoping that other countries will follow suit. We are asking for more of your leadership. Please take a greater part in these efforts, Justin, and all friends of Ukraine, all friends of the truth. Please understand how important it is for us to close our airspace to Russian missiles and Russian aircraft. I hope you can understand. I hope you can increase your efforts and you can increase the sanctions so they will not have a single dollar to fund their war effort. Commercial entities should not be working in Russia.

Probably you know better than many other countries that this attack on Ukraine is nothing less than an attempt to annihilate the Ukrainian people. This is the main objective. It is actually a war against the Ukrainian people. It is an attempt to destroy everything that we, as Ukrainians, do. It is an attempt to destroy our future, to destroy our nation, our character.

You Canadians know all this very well, and that is why I am asking you to please not stop your efforts. Please expand your efforts to bring back peace to our peaceful country. I believe that you can do it and I know that you can do it. We are part of the anti-war coalition, and jointly I am sure that we will achieve results.

To our Ukrainian diaspora in Canada, this is a historical moment, and we need your support, your practical support. We hope that with your practical steps, you will show that you are part of more than Ukrainian history. Please remember that this is a practical, modern-day history of Ukraine. We want to live. We want to have peace.

I am grateful to everyone in the Parliament of Canada who is present and to every Canadian citizen. I am very grateful to you, Justin. I am grateful to the Canadian people, and I am confident that together we will overcome and we will be victorious.

Glory to Ukraine. Thank you to Canada.

[Applause]

I now invite the Hon. George Furey, Speaker of the Senate, to say a few words.

[Translation]

Hon. George J. Furey (Speaker of the Senate): Good morning, President Zelenskyy, Prime Minister Trudeau, Chief Justice Wagner, Speaker Rota, fellow parliamentarians, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. President, it is a great honour and privilege for me to thank you for your very powerful and inspiring words.

[English]

On behalf of all senators, members of the House of Commons and indeed on behalf of all Canadians, please know, Mr. President, that Canadians stand with you. We know what is at stake. You are battling for your people, for your country and for all of us who believe in peace and democracy, in truth and justice. You are battling for all of us who stand against tyranny, lies and the horrific war crimes that have been committed against the Ukrainian people.

There is a word in the Bible, one word, that expresses so much of the courage that you, Mr. President, and your fellow Ukrainians are showing the world. In the original Hebrew, the word is “hineni”. Literally, it means “here I stand”. It was said by the great Old Testament leaders when called upon to lead their people. It is a statement of stepping up to leadership in the face of overwhelming odds. It is clearly what you are saying, Mr. President, by your actions, and it is what all Ukrainians are saying in this terrible time of crisis. The world is witnessing a Ukraine united more than ever in common cause to secure its place among the family of nations. As Prime Minister Trudeau has made clear by his words and actions, Canada stands with you.

I know I speak on behalf of all Canadians when I express our admiration for the leadership and courage you have demonstrated as the Ukrainian people struggle to repel a brutal and illegal invasion. You have shown the world that Ukraine will not cower, will not falter and will not be defeated. The heart and soul of Ukraine are strong. Canada recognizes your fortitude, your resilience and your strength of purpose. Canada stands with Ukraine and her many allies in the pursuit of a swift and peaceful resolution to this conflict. This resolve rests upon our shared commitment to democracy, to human rights and to the sovereign equality of all nations.

For Canadians, Ukraine is permanently woven into the fabric of our culture. Ukraine, simply put, is family. Mr. President, to you and the people of Ukraine, please be assured of our solidarity in the days and weeks ahead.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. President, for your great strength and courage.

[English]

We thank you once again for your courage and determination in the face of this horrific onslaught and for your inspiring words to Canada and indeed to the world today.

Slava Ukraini.

[Translation]

Mr. President, most of us can only imagine the hardship, sorrow and fear that the people of Ukraine are enduring as their nation is attacked and its very existence threatened.

[English]

The extraordinary courage and defiance that Ukrainians are demonstrating in defending their country and their way of life is an example to all freedom-loving people, and it is clear that many of our fellow citizens are drawing strength from your own determination to repel the invaders and protect your homeland.

You are not just the president anymore; you have proven to be a great leader of your nation. As Ukraine continues to fight for its freedom, please know that you are not alone, and that you will not be left behind. We will be there with you. We may be distant cousins in terms of geography, but Ukraine is woven into the very fabric of Canadian society, thanks to more than a million Canadians of Ukrainian descent.

In an interview you gave two years ago, you said, “We must remember the heroes of today, heroes of the arts, heroes of literature, simply heroes of Ukraine. Why don’t we use their names—the names of the heroes that today unite Ukraine?”

To the people of Ukraine, to your friends in Canada and around the world, you, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, are one of those heroes.

Heroyam slava.

[Translation]

Mr. Zelenskyy, on behalf of all parliamentarians, thank you for addressing the people of Canada and for showing us the true meaning of courage, freedom and patriotism. May we prove worthy of the friendship between our peoples and our countries.

Slava Ukraini.

[English]

I now invite the Hon. Candice Bergen, interim leader of the official opposition, to address us.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the time for Question Period has expired.