Senator Batters: Senator Gold, the Trudeau government’s rules haven’t kept pace with the evolving nature of the virus, particularly its Omicron variant. Even Canada’s federal health agencies haven’t endorsed blanket vaccine mandates as necessary, and Dr. Theresa Tam has said she thinks they should be reviewed. Doctors who testified before the House of Commons committee yesterday said that this government’s universal mandates were coercive, of limited benefit and have driven up vaccine hesitancy. The doctors know the science, Senator Gold, and they are saying the mandates are not necessary, yet the Trudeau government still refuses to drop the mandates.

Senator Gold, if science isn’t the basis for deciding when to lift the federal vaccine mandates, what is? Political science or political theatre?

Senator Gold: Neither one nor the other, with respect, senator. Science does not speak with one voice or a diversity of views, as there inevitably are in other areas of life as well. The government continues to evaluate the rules that it put in place, and its primary and exclusive concern is the health and well-being of Canadians.

Hon. Larry W. Smith: Honourable senators, my question is for Senator Gold.

Senator Gold, the recent aggression and invasion of sovereign Ukraine by the Russian Federation has highlighted a critical need for Canada to bolster its defence spending. Successive governments have failed to take seriously the very real threat posed not only to our sovereignty but the sovereignty of our NATO allies from adversaries abroad. Canada continues to fall short of its NATO spending obligations, becoming more isolated in a changing global environment. Even the most pacifistic of countries, such as Germany, are beginning to reverse their long‑standing policies, recognizing the need to meet their NATO obligations and bolster their militaries.

Senator Gold, a simple question: When will the government commit to spending the full 2% of GDP on national defence, as is our current obligation under NATO?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. As I have mentioned in this chamber, I think as recently as yesterday — and the Minister of National Defence, Minister Anand, has announced this — Canada is evaluating and considering what changes or what measures are to be included in the budget with regard to defence spending.

I’m going to take this opportunity to remind this chamber that nothing in the supply and confidence agreement that was entered into between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party either undermines or compromises the government’s commitment or the vision it set out in Strong, Secure, Engaged, Canada’s defence policy, which was widely applauded as a major step forward. At the top of the minister’s mandate letter is making sure that the Canadian Armed Forces have the capability and culture needed to meet current and emerging threats.

I remark that when it comes to defence spending, the government is on an upwards trajectory, reversing years of cuts. Canada is notably now the sixth-largest contributor to NATO’s commonly funded budget. The government has been making critical, smart investments into our forces in addition to increasing spending by 70% between 2017 and 2026 to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces have the right people, equipment, training and culture to do the difficult tasks that we ask of them.

As I said at the beginning, and I’ll conclude on this, the government continues in a responsible manner to evaluate a number of options to ensure that Canada continues to have a robust and effective response to Canada’s defence needs both at home and abroad.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. Again, as I have stated on other occasions in this chamber, Canada is committed to doing everything that it can do, and is doing everything it can do, to defend our sovereignty in the Arctic. That includes investments in assets and training, and through other measures of diplomacy and the like.

Senator Smith: Senator Gold, the question here is that Canada spends 1.39% of GDP on defence and we have been asked to spend 2% because we’re not meeting our obligations within NATO.

Continuing the question, Guy Thibault, a retired Vice Chief of Defence Staff, was quoted this past week in a Toronto Star article, saying about the Arctic:

Clearly it’s going to become a new frontier . . . And we should be very worried about what Russia is doing, not only in Eastern Europe but around the world, and China’s interest up there.

Russia’s militarization and encroachment in the North coupled with Canada’s persistent patchwork of failed promises and policies have left the Arctic vulnerable for far too long. Senator Gold, will this government finally put in place a concrete action plan that reaffirms Canada’s claim to the Arctic?

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, tomorrow, Hellenes and Philhellenes from all around the world will be celebrating the national day of Greece’s independence as they do every year on March 25. For Greeks, this symbolic date acts to commemorate the end of their 400-year-long struggle under the oppressive rule of the Ottoman regime.

For centuries, the Greek people were reduced to second-class citizens in their own home and endured the daily realities of extortion, excessive taxation and mass slaughter. The eventual struggle for independence was brought on by a series of uprisings and national rebellions by the Greek people in which they sought to drive out the occupying force and reclaim their freedom once again.

The fight for freedom was not one reserved only for the Greek people. It’s only appropriate to highlight that the rebellion for Greek freedom originated by an organization called “Friendly Brotherhood” in Odessa, now modern-day Ukraine. Other defenders of democracy include none other than Lord Byron, who invested his wealth and gave his life in support of Greece’s pursuit of independence.

On March 25, 1821, after having relentlessly fought an uneven battle against the onslaught of Ottoman forces for nearly a decade, the people of Greece declared their independence and restored democracy to its birthplace.

Over 200 years later, this triumphant victory remains an inspiring example of courage and determination in the face of tyranny and serves as a powerful reminder of the necessity to never back down in our defence of freedom and democracy. Today, in the face of the rising authoritarianism we are observing around the world, this reminder is as important as ever.

As Canadians, we must never forget that the fundamental values of freedom and democracy, which we hold dear, have their roots in ancient Greece, the oldest and richest civilization known to man. Above all, we must always recognize that we are blessed to have inherited these Hellenic ideals, which live on today in Greece and right here in Canada, thanks to the courage and sacrifices of the Greek heroes who fought to preserve them all those years ago in 1821.

With that, dear colleagues, I would like to take this opportunity, on the eve of the annual celebration of Greek independence, to extend warmest wishes to members of the Hellenic community across Canada and around the world.

Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, with the momentous events of recent months, some of us may have missed the very exciting first findings from the 2021 Canadian census. I hope to change this in my brief comments today and provide a few key take aways.

Released on February 9, this first statement from StatCan tells us about population changes in this country. The census paints a picture of robust growth and relentless urbanization.

Did you know that Canada led all G7 countries in population growth from 2016 to 2021? Although the pandemic halted growth in 2020, Canada’s population still grew at almost twice the pace of other G7 countries during that time frame.

Canada is now home to almost 37 million people, which is a 5.2% increase from 2016. Most of the increase occurred before the pandemic, and, in fact, 2019 was a record high year for population growth in this country. Immigration accounted for four fifths of the increased growth.

Among all provinces and territories, Yukon grew at the fastest pace nationally by 12.1%. Among the 10 provinces, Prince Edward Island had the highest growth at 8%, followed by British Columbia with 7.6%. Ontario also experienced above-average growth, with a 5.8% increase. Following Ontario were Nova Scotia and Manitoba, with 5% each, and Alberta with 4.8%. Quebec and New Brunswick each had growth of 4%, Saskatchewan’s growth was 3.1% and Nunavut had a growth of 2.5%. Newfoundland and Labrador and the Northwest Territories were the only places to experience a drop in population over the five-year period.

The second big population trend can be described as relentless urbanization. Urban areas overall grew at a rate of 6.6%, while rural areas had almost no growth at all.

Here are some fast facts: All 41 of Canada’s largest urban centres grew. Ottawa and Edmonton each exceeded the 1 million mark. The downtown areas of large cities are growing at a faster pace than ever. Notably, downtown Halifax, Montreal, Calgary and Toronto have grown significantly over this period. As well, the most distant suburbs of the three largest urban areas grew at a faster pace than the inner suburbs. In the Greater Toronto Area, we call that the 905 area. The 905 is famous for its swing voters, and now there are way more of them.

Colleagues, I hope you appreciate that I have mentioned all of Canada’s provinces and territories in my brief statement today.

Thank you.

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 the provisions of the order of November 25, 2021, concerning hybrid sittings of the Senate and committees, and other matters, be extended to the end of the day on April 30, 2022;

That the Senate commit to the consideration of a transition back to in-person sittings as soon as practicable in light of relevant factors, including public health guidelines, and the safety and well-being of all parliamentary personnel; and

That any further extension of this order be taken only after consultation with the leaders and facilitators of all recognized parties and parliamentary groups.

Hon. Rose-May Poirier: Honourable senators, I rise here today to pay tribute to an exceptional New Brunswicker, physicist Paul Corkum. Professor Corkum, a Saint John native, is the 2022 co-winner of the prestigious Wolf Prize in Physics, joining the ranks of such laureates as the late Stephen Hawking. The University of Ottawa professor shared the prize with two fellow physicists from Europe.

Upon receiving the phone call, Professor Corkum did not recognize the number. In a time where we are always double‑checking the caller ID before we answer, Professor Corkum thought it was a telemarketer and nearly hung up. Thankfully, he took the call to receive the prestigious award.

The Wolf Prize is awarded to outstanding scientists and artists from around the world for achievements in the interests of mankind and friendly relations among people. In the fields of physics and chemistry, the award is often considered second to the Nobel Prize. Between 1978 and 2010, 14 of the 26 Wolf Prize laureates were awarded the Nobel Prize shortly after.

Furthermore, 2022 marks the third year in the last five years when a Canadian has been a co-winner. Professor Corkum joins Gilles Brassard, who won in 2018 with an American colleague, and Allan H. MacDonald, who won in 2020 with Spanish and Israeli colleagues.

Professor Paul Corkum has gathered a long list of awards at home and abroad for his groundbreaking achievements, including a Royal Medal from the Royal Society, the Isaac Newton Medal and Prize from the United Kingdom’s Institute of Physics, the Lomonosov Gold Medal of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Harvey Prize from the Israel Institute of Technology, the King Faisal Prize for Science and the Gerhard Herzberg Canada Gold Medal for Science and Engineering. Professor Corkum is being honoured for his pioneering role in the development of attosecond science: one billionth of one billionth of a second.

Honourable senators, I will not go into the specifics of his research, since the details are well beyond my comprehension of physics. What I do want to point out is that, although we’ve been going through a pandemic the past two years, there have been other positive news and developments in the world. The COVID pandemic overshadowed a lot of what has happened these last two years, but the world kept turning. Discoveries and achievements, such as the ones made by Professor Corkum and his colleagues, illustrate that well.

Honourable senators, join me in congratulating Professor Paul Corkum for his long list of achievements and advancements in the field of physics, and for making New Brunswick and Canada proud on the international level. Thank you.

Senator Gold: Thank you, senator, for your question and for your long-standing work in support of the charitable sector, which is well known to all of us, certainly in Quebec.

I’m advised that most charities, in fact, meet or exceed their disbursement quotas but that there is a gap of at least $1 billion in charitable expenditures in our communities that exists today.

With regard to the specifics of your remaining questions, I will make inquiries with the government and report back to the chamber as soon as I receive an answer.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson moved second reading of Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (property qualifications of Senators).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (property qualifications of Senators).

This marks my third attempt to bring forward such a bill, though similar versions were also introduced by our former colleague the late senator Tommy Banks. I am touched to mention this dear departed colleague of ours because I know that Senator Banks was heartened when I promised him I would carry the torch on this bill when he retired from the Senate.

Because I have made other speeches in this chamber about this bill, I will keep my comments brief.

The bill seeks to remove the $4,000-net-worth requirement for all senators, as well as the $4,000 property requirement for all senators except those coming from Quebec. At the same time I tabled this bill, I also tabled a motion, which I will speak to today, that deals with the property requirements in Quebec. Stay tuned, because I will have more to say on that topic later.

I have introduced this bill and its accompanying motion for two main reasons. The first is that this bill would erase a major gatekeeper for prospective new senators — a major barrier for some. I believe that when we hear from Canadians with diverse cultural backgrounds, different faiths and varying lived experience, we are all the better for it. Diversity is Canada’s strength and therefore should be represented in its institutions. In the Senate, our diversity — happily — engenders lively, rich and well-rounded debates and enhances our ability to speak up on issues important to minority populations and regional concerns. That is one of the mandates of the chamber and one that I am ardently committed to.

However, at this moment, we have requirements that were originally created to keep the masses out; we have requirements that have sought to ensure that this venerable institution was ruled only by wealthy landowners meant to temper the great unwashed who ruled the other place.

Here are the facts: According to a post by Consolidated Credit Canada, as of November 2021:

Canadians now have an average of a $1.73 debt for every dollar they earn. A large amount, which totals $2.1 trillion dollars of debt in the country. . . .

A February 16, 2022, Global News report tells that:

The purchasing power of Canadians waned further last month as wages were outpaced by an annual inflation rate that topped five per cent for the first time in more than 30 years.

The annual inflation rose to 5.1 per cent in January compared with a gain for 4.8 per cent in December, Statistics Canada reported . . . driven higher by prices for housing, gasoline and groceries.

Over the same stretch, wages rose by 2.4 per cent, a gap in purchasing power inflamed by rising costs for essentials like food that often hit lower-income households the hardest.

Finally, the National Post, in a June 17, 2021, article, listed the many factors that have contributed to sky-high real estate prices that have made home ownership impossible for many Canadians. This list includes foreign investors who have purchased “vast swaths of the Canadian housing market as investment properties.”

They go on to explain that even though foreign buyers make up only a relatively small percentage of the total housing market:

. . . only a small fraction of a city’s housing market will come up for sale in a typical year, even a moderate amount of outside cash thrown into the mix can tip the scales into the realm of $1 million teardowns. Stock prices, for instance, are routinely sent into the stratosphere by buyers bidding up a small fraction of a company’s available shares.

Another factor they list is the issue of zoning bylaws that are geared solely toward single-family detached homes and the lack of developable land that is severely constraining the supply of available houses in the midst of an ever-growing population.

The National Post explains that:

. . . Canada’s per-capita supply of housing units is lower than in any other G7 country. Canada’s high rate of migration helps to increase supply pressures, but it’s no excuse for such an acute housing shortage given that, proportionally, our rate of in-migration is lower than Germany, the U.K. and even Switzerland.

Finally, the article lists the surging cost of construction burdened by increased land transfer taxes, increased municipal taxes and fees collected from home builders, supply chain issues and “a latticework of local regulations.”

They go on to say that:

Even before the construction industry became blindsided by recent spikes in the costs of lumber and other materials, the average Canadian home was already getting progressively more expensive to approve and build. And with so many Canadians existing on the absolute margins of home ownership, each new cost comes at the expense of pushing another demographic of families out of the market.

Colleagues, I’m sure none of this is new to any of you. We’ve heard for years about rising inflation costs and wages that don’t keep up with the increasing cost of food and other necessities. We know that Canadians are getting priced out of home ownership. All of this matters when we talk about this bill.

There are middle-class folks in their thirties and forties who feel they can never attain home ownership. Some of them are living in our basements. In 20 years, these future leaders in their fields, whose voices we deserve to hear from, would not qualify to be members of this chamber. By keeping these requirements in place, we are, in fact, going backwards rather than forward. We are returning to a time when only wealthy landowners have the privilege of participating in the upper house.

My mind always lingers on an August 12, 2016, article by the CBC entitled “Property condition dissuades Stratford woman from applying, but doesn’t dissuade Mi’kmaq Senate candidate.”

The article tells the story of two women from P.E.I., both of whom were Senate hopefuls. Kelly Robinson, a long-time and well-known resident of Stratford, P.E.I., who has worked in non‑profit and community organizations, was upset to see the $4,000 property requirement. She stated:

It felt like it was going back to when only landowners could vote, only landowners could be certain things . . . And I just thought that is not the Canada that I’m in or that I thought I was in. I think it’s a very old rule that hasn’t been properly confronted yet.

The second woman was P.E.I. Mi’kmaq filmmaker Eliza Knockwood, who didn’t own $4,000 in property. She applied anyway, with her supporters pledging to find a way around that if nominated. However, while that may have been possible under the old way of naming senators — such as was done in the well‑known case of senator Peggy Butts, a nun who had sworn a vow of poverty — my newer colleagues will know that the Selection Committee will not even consider your application unless you meet all the basic requirements such as age, residence, net worth and property. How many more qualified voices and perspectives are we missing here today because of these antiquated requirements?

The second — and more personal — reason that I have doggedly pursued this change is the fact that I am one of the very few in Nunavut who owns property with freehold title. Through a series of plebiscites, Nunavummiut residents have reinforced the Inuit principle that no one owns the land. Outside of Crown land and a few grandfathered plots, homeowners own the structure but are only leasing the land it sits on.

According to section 23(3) of the Constitution Act, 1867, which outlines the qualifications of a senator, “He” — and I’ll take a moment to point out how antiquated this is in that it still assumes only men are appointed senators, but that’s a side point. See if you can understand this:

He shall be legally or equitably seised as of Freehold for his own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Free and Common Socage, or seised or possessed for his own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Franc-alleu or in Roture, within the Province for which he is appointed . . .

Having trained in the law, I can tell you that no one uses such terms as “common socage” anymore and haven’t for many years.

More importantly, I contend that the requirement for freehold title would strictly disqualify not only Inuit in Nunavut but also First Nations homeowners who hold land allocated by Certificates of Possession granted by the minister or “CP lands,” as they are known, which are technically leased from the Government of Canada. It may not even apply — there are some opinions — to those who only own condominiums, since the land is technically owned by the condominium corporation.

Honourable senators, there is no need for these requirements. Your ability to perform your duties is not dependent on whether or not you own property or have a particular net worth. According to the Supreme Court of Canada decision of April 25, 2014 rendered in response to a series of reference questions on Senate reform initiated by former prime minister Stephen Harper, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that:

We conclude that the net worth requirement (s. 23(4)) can be repealed by Parliament under the unilateral federal amending procedure. However, a full repeal of the real property requirement (s. 23(3)) requires the consent of Quebec’s legislative assembly, under the special arrangements procedure. Indeed, a full repeal of that provision would also constitute an amendment in relation to s. 23(6), which contains a special arrangement applicable only to the province of Quebec.

I will get to that special arrangement portion in my next speech on the motion I’ll be introducing today, but I would like to end this speech by emphasizing that the decision states Parliament can, indeed, unilaterally remove the net worth requirement for all senators and the real property requirement for every senator except those in Quebec, which this bill aims to do. We do not need to invoke the amending formula and involve provinces, apart from the special situation I mentioned in Quebec.

Colleagues, I do hope I can count on your support for this bill to modernize and reform the Senate. Thank you, qujannamik.

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, this is a follow-up to my earlier questions about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. In 2017, the Trudeau government claimed that membership in this group would create middle-class jobs right here in Canada. A question put on the Senate Order Paper asked the simple and obvious question: How many jobs were created as a result of Canada joining the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and pumping in tens of millions of dollars — billions of dollars? No surprise, the response from the Trudeau government didn’t provide any number. We still haven’t had a number. It pointed to just three Canadian companies that had signed contracts related to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

Leader, your government made these claims justifying Canada becoming a member of this group and pumping in billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. Why can’t you back it up with facts? How many jobs have been created in Canada with Canadian taxpayers’ investment in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank?

Senator Gold: I don’t have those figures, but I will certainly make inquiries and report back.

Senator Housakos: Government leader, with all due respect, it has been months and weeks that we have been inquiring about this and we can’t get a straight answer. Through our membership in this bank, the Trudeau government has sent over $200 million to a regime that kidnapped Canadians and held them arbitrarily for years, yet the government can’t tell Canadians how many middle-class jobs have been created, which they claim was the purpose of this program to begin with?

Leader, I’ll ask again, why should Canadians remain a member of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank where after weeks and months we can’t even provide this chamber, a chamber of Parliament, a simple answer to a simple question?

Senator Gold: I will repeat my request for an answer, transmit it and report back as soon as I can.

Hon. Mary Coyle: If the honourable senator would accept a question from me, I would first say thank you very much for your speech. Thank you for your efforts over and over again to right this wrong. It’s an embarrassment, as you have said. It’s an anachronism. It’s time for change. We hopefully will have a little longer in this Parliament to bring about this change. I hope it doesn’t take years, but I hope we can get it done in this Parliament.

Can you tell us why it has taken so long? What have been the obstacles up until this point to moving forward this very important motion to eliminate those net-worth and property-ownership requirements for Canadians to become senators, to come here and join us in this chamber? Would you tell us what the impediments have been?

Senator Patterson: Yes. Thank you for that question. When former senator Tommy Banks championed this same bill, which did the same thing, we didn’t have the clear advice from the Supreme Court in the decision that I quoted. That decision made it crystal clear, from no higher authority than the Supreme Court, that the amendment that I’m proposing can be done alone by the Parliament of Canada — the House of Commons and the Senate.

The spectre was raised at that time that this would require a constitutional amendment; it would require the invocation of the amending formula; it would require provinces to be involved. We’ve been through that movie, some of us, in connection with the repatriation of the Constitution and the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords. There’s no appetite, I believe, in Canada for going back into those challenging constitutional amendment processes.

That clouded the debate at that time. Now, this is an amendment of the Constitution. We can do it now — the Supreme Court is clear — with the consent of the House of Commons and the Senate. I think we are now in a better climate to consider this matter, just as, by the way, we’ve been considering the Saskatchewan Act amendment just recently in the Senate and as we’ve also done in other matters often brought forward by provinces to amend the Constitution where Parliament has the jurisdiction.

That is the problem that we clearly now don’t have. Your question is a good one. Why haven’t we eliminated this obvious and inequitable anomaly? I thank you for your support.

Hon. Colin Deacon: Senator Patterson, would you take another question?

Senator Patterson: Yes.

Senator C. Deacon: I would like to echo Senator Coyle’s comments in terms of supporting your efforts and gratitude for your efforts. I’m just wondering whether you have looked into what the rationale was. Why did this exist in the past as a condition? Is there anything in that research that you may have done that would present a barrier to getting this finally through the Senate and the House of Commons?

Senator Patterson: Thank you for that question. Senator Deacon, I believe that this historical anomaly goes back deep in our Westminster parliamentary history, back to the time when there were Whigs and Tories, and landowners were considered more capable of making decisions for the people than were the rabble who were in the commons and who were not landowners. It was a time when it was considered that the wealthy were the best people to govern.

There’s a long history of class behind this distinction of privilege for the wealthy, the net-worth requirement and the land‑title requirement, and it’s clearly not egalitarian. It’s clearly not the way Canada sees itself, as a country with opportunities for all, even the opportunity to participate in this august upper chamber. The origins of this are buried in history. The language I read which describes the property requirement, referring only to males, is also a relic of our history, when it was thought that men were better qualified to make decisions for the public in Parliament. That’s obviously also a very antiquated and elitist requirement.

Our history is not a proud one of why this invidious provision is still in the Constitution of Canada. Let’s get rid of it. Thank you.

Hon. Paula Simons: Senator Patterson, I agree with you; the roots of this go back to 1867 which is — not coincidentally — the year that Britain passed the reform bill which gave universal manhood suffrage and the establishment of the Senate to be a cognate parallel of the House of Lords, a place where the closest thing they could find to landed gentry in Canada would sit.

I am deeply sympathetic to this bill and to the legacy of my dear friend Tommy Banks. I’m just curious how we could then ensure that senators live in the provinces which they are meant to represent. I remember my own screening process in which I had to provide, I think, four kinds of proof that I owned my house and lived in it.

How would we set up a system to ensure that senators really live in the provinces they are meant to represent without a property requirement?

Senator Patterson: I’m glad you asked that question, Senator Simons, because I relish the opportunity to make it clear that this bill will not diminish the requirement which is laid out in qualifications of senators that one reside in the jurisdiction that one represents.

This is a critical element of the qualifications for a senator based on our mandate to speak for regions. The requirement to reside is important and would not be changed by this amendment. Should it matter whether you live in a trailer, whether you live on a First Nation reserve or whether you live in a tent? Should that affect your ability to represent your region? No. It’s not from property ownership that you derive your legitimacy to speak for your region. It’s from living there, and it shouldn’t matter where you live, and that won’t change by this bill. Thank you.