Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, last week the Inter‑Parliamentary Union held its 144th Assembly in Nusa Dua, Indonesia, bringing together 110 national parliaments under the theme “Getting to zero: Mobilizing parliaments to act on climate change.”

In a unified voice, the IPU adopted the Nusa Dua Declaration recognizing the urgent need to address the climate crisis. It outlined the national actions parliaments need to take to implement the Paris Agreement, including accelerating the transition to clean energy, ensuring the inclusion of marginalized members of society, and enhancing global cooperation for joint climate solutions.

I quote Mr. Duarte Pacheco, member of Parliament for Portugal and President of the IPU:

The time to act is now. Time is running out. Scientists and researchers from all over the world have documented what has been described as an atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership. This 144th Assembly must mobilize all parliamentarians. We must lead by example and take resolute action before it is too late. Fellow parliamentarians, let us not fail our citizens and the young generation, who have placed their trust in us!

Colleagues, I echo this call to you. How can we hear the unified voices of scientists, citizens and true leaders across the world warning us of imminent and irreversible catastrophes and do little, or worse, put barriers to effective and necessary climate action to protect our people — Canadians?

In this Senate, there are important initiatives that address the climate crisis and the Senate’s very own carbon footprint. I encourage you all to join the IPU of which you are, I’m sure, a member and join fellow parliamentarians across the world in not only advocating but implementing real climate actions through these and many other initiatives.

Canadians are begging Parliament to be a vessel for action, to become true leaders and to lead by example.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Victor Oh: Honourable senators, I rise today to recognize and congratulate my colleague and dear friend Senator Salma Ataullahjan who received one of Pakistan’s most prestigious civic awards, the Sitara-e-Pakistan. Recipients of this award are recognized for their contributions to Pakistan’s society and culture as well as the promotion of world peace.

Senator Ataullahjan worked with polio programs, refugees and female parliamentarians. She also travelled when floods ravaged her own province. Canada was part of the recovery program.

Senator Ataullahjan was awarded the Sitara-e-Pakistan award on August 14, 2020, but due to the pandemic was unable to travel to Pakistan in person to receive this prestigious award on Pakistan Resolution Day.

On the morning of March 23 of this year, Senator Ravalia and I proudly joined her at the High Commission of Pakistan in Ottawa for the award ceremony. It was an honour to attend and recognize Senator Ataullahjan for her significant contributions toward international diplomacy, natural disaster relief, humanitarian aid and the promotion of Canada-Pakistan relations.

Colleagues, please join me in congratulating Senator Ataullahjan for her noteworthy impacts on South Asia.

Thank you.

Hon. Diane Bellemare, Chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, presented the following report:

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament has the honour to present its

FIRST REPORT

Pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), your committee recommends that the Rules of the Senate be amended:

“Election of the Speaker pro tempore

Process of election

Term of office of Speaker pro tempore

Subsequent sessions

Your committee also notes that any system established under these new rules should ensure that the secrecy of all senators’ ballots, as provided for in new rule 2-4(1), is fully respected.

Respectfully submitted,

DIANE BELLEMARE

Chair

Hon. Rose-May Poirier: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Gold, in January, the Federal Court of Appeal made a historic decision by supporting francophones in British Columbia in restoring the full force of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. However, the government does not support this ruling and is calling for a stay of the decision. In fact, the Liberal government wants to take francophones to court to challenge the decision. This ruling on Part VII affects all francophone minority communities in Canada.

Why is this government planning to turn its back on francophones instead of supporting them in this historic win?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question, esteemed colleague.

As you know, the government has considered the impact of this decision on its major modernization of the Official Languages Act. This practice is consistent with the government’s legislative power.

I have been told that the Minister of Justice is aware of the decision the Federal Court of Appeal handed down on Friday and that he is taking the time to review it in order to determine next steps.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question underscoring the importance of the Official Languages Act.

With respect, esteemed colleague, this does not mean that we are abandoning francophones outside Quebec or even those in Quebec. The main point to note here is that this Federal Court of Appeal decision can potentially affect the modernization of the Official Languages Act. It is to be expected that the government would reflect on its position in light of this ruling.

Senator Gold: I understand your passion and your commitment. I cannot comment on the issue of the ministers’ cooperation. However, I can say that the Government of Canada is firmly committed to promoting and protecting the official languages. The government is well aware that the positive measures at stake in this issue are essential to the vitality of our francophone minority communities.

I have been given the assurance that the government remains committed to the reform that will modernize the Official Languages Act and its instruments, including the regulations that will follow up on the consultations the minister plans to hold as quickly as possible, once the legislation receives, we hope, Royal Assent.

Hon. Marie-Françoise Mégie: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Gold, lately, a lot of attention has been given to the NATO countries’ commitment to allocate 2% of their GDP to defence spending. However, no one seems to be talking about our humanitarian commitment to the UN to allocate 0.7% of our gross national income to official development assistance.

In 1968, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development proposed that donor countries set an objective to contribute 1% of gross national income for the humanitarian component and 2% of GDP for the defence component.

In 2020, Canada reached 46% of its development assistance objective and 71% of its defence objective.

Given that far too many civilians continue to be, by far, the first casualties in armed conflicts, should Canada not increase its assistance or even seek to achieve parity between its humanitarian and defence spending?

If not, could the government at least fulfill its existing development assistance commitments?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government is committed to make our assistance more effective to yield the best results possible for the poorest and most vulnerable, all while mobilizing additional funding for sustainable development.

Esteemed colleagues, Canada is the eighth-largest donor in the world, and the government is committed to investing more in international development.

In Budget 2021, the Government of Canada announced over $1 billion in additional and renewed funding for international assistance, including $375 million to address COVID-19.

Since 2020, Canada has allocated more than $2.7 billion to international assistance, including nearly $1 billion in new resources. Canada’s ratio of official development assistance to gross national income increased by 8%, reaching its highest level in nearly a decade.

Hon. Marie-Françoise Mégie: Thank you, Senator Gold. The point of my first question was that, with more money allocated to development assistance, we could afford to go and get most of the civilians fleeing the war. Ottawa has agreed to extend emergency stays for Ukrainians fleeing war to three years and to make it easier for them to work in Canada.

Through the efforts of the African Canadian Association of Ottawa, more than 1,200 students are now in a position to continue their studies. According to Boulou Ebanda de B’béri, a professor and special advisor on anti-racism and inclusive excellence at the University of Ottawa, the biggest challenge is getting Immigration Canada to accept them. He has written to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to ensure that Black students from Ukraine can benefit from the expedited programs introduced for Ukrainians.

Does the government plan to grant that request?

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

I am told that the government is currently working on the details of those programs, including the eligibility criteria for residents of Ukraine, in addition to Ukrainian passport holders.

[English]

Hon. Jane Cordy: Senator Gold, last week I received your response — or I guess it was the minister’s response — to my questions from November 25 and December 15 regarding clarification on vaccine status and travelling internationally. We know, and it was reiterated in your response to my questions, that the Government of Canada adjusted its travel health notice from a level 3 to a level 2, meaning the government will no longer recommend that Canadians avoid travel for non-essential purposes.

As government recommendations are lifting and we’re now moving into warmer weather, Canadians are beginning to make travel arrangements again. However, the same concerns and uncertainty I raised in my previous questions exist regarding vaccination status and the types of vaccinations, specifically mixed vaccinations, which will be accepted in other jurisdictions.

I completely understand, as stated in your response or the response of the minister from last week, that every country has the sovereign right to decide their own entry restrictions and border measures. However, in the same response, I was given a rather vague answer that, “Canada has successfully engaged other countries to recognize Canadians who have received mixed vaccine schedules as being fully vaccinated.”

Senator Gold, with which countries have Canada successfully engaged to recognize mixed vaccinations? Will the Government of Canada make this information readily available to the public?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you. That’s a fair question. I don’t know which countries have been engaged nor which engagements have been successful nor, frankly, whether or not that list will be published, updated or both. I will make inquiries, and I hope to get you an answer as quickly as I can.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Senator Gold, on March 15 in Pointe-aux-Trembles, a 10-year-old girl was violently assaulted by a man with mental health issues. The girl was leaving school when the man threw her to the ground and started punching and kicking her. She is still in hospital suffering from severe shock.

Every night in Montreal, two out of three emergency response calls involve people with mental illness. I have spent the last 20 years working to ensure that these people are neither incarcerated nor hospitalized, but cared for in the community thanks to adequate funding.

For example, in 2008, the Conservative government created the At Home/Chez Soi program, which produced very good results. In 2019, the Trudeau government established a similar program solely for the homeless. Since 2015, what programs and funding has Justin Trudeau’s government set up to help people with mental health issues roaming the streets in Canada’s big cities?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. I do not have any details right now, but I will look into it and get back to you with an answer.

I would like to add that the government of Canada is working with provincial and territorial governments and providing funding for mental health, which it will continue to do.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable senators, today I want to bring to your attention the National Assembly of Quebec’s recent passage of Bill 24, which will give Quebec parole board judges and wardens of provincial correctional facilities the power to require offenders convicted of intimate partner violence to wear an electronic bracelet while on parole.

I applaud this new bill, which establishes Quebec as a leader in the fight against intimate partner violence in Canada and makes it the seventh jurisdiction in the world to adopt this type of electronic monitoring program. It should be noted that 26 U.S. states have been using this type of monitoring with violent men for years. An electronic bracelet is becoming the tool of choice to break the unhealthy and repetitive cycle of intimate partner violence. It sets up a security perimeter between a partner or ex‑partner and his victim. If the former does not obey the perimeter, both the police and the victim receive a security alert. There are two benefits to this approach: It prevents homicides and proves non-compliance with conditions.

Honourable colleagues, as I’ve said many times in this chamber, intimate partner violence is a tragedy that affects thousands of women in Canada, and the record number of femicides that have been committed in recent years makes Canada one of the countries most affected by this scourge. Despite the Statistics Canada reports produced annually on domestic violence, despite reports from the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability and despite the first‑hand accounts from victims that we regularly read in the media, why is it so difficult for our government and for this Parliament to propose and adopt this modern and technically effective measure, namely the electronic monitoring device, to prevent these murders?

It is high time we took concrete action, as Quebec has done, to protect these women and children who must flee their homes, quit their jobs and hide in shelters to escape death. As parliamentarians, we have a duty and a moral and collective responsibility to our fellow citizens to do something to stop the attempted murders that occur every day in Canada, and the murders that occur every other day.

With electronic bracelets, femicide in Canada could be cut in half. That is why I have asked the Senate to refer my Bill S-205 to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in order to save as many lives as possible.

In the time it took me to deliver this message, one woman was killed in Canada.

Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Brian Francis, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, presented the following report:

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples has the honour to present its

SECOND REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-219, An Act respecting a National Ribbon Skirt Day, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, December 9, 2021, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment but with certain observations, which are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN FRANCIS

Chair

(For text of observations, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 390-1.)

Senator Saint-Germain: On the first part of your question with regard to the notice that requires one or two days hence, I think as a chamber we can decide that the emergency exists and waive it. Then we agree that it won’t be one day hence, but will be now.

I will now go to your third question, because there is a link. If only one senator refuses to grant leave, the senator has the onus to demonstrate why it is this way. When denial of leave is only for one or two days and there is no emergency, we can cope with that.

When you refer to back-to-work legislation, generally we know that the situations have evolved, the negotiations with the unions have not been conclusive and that we will need to study the bill in a kind of emergency situation, but that does not mean that we won’t vote on a bill in a timely manner, given we have enough time to organize our work and study this back-to-work legislation. It doesn’t come with a time allocation. Each time we did this — and I remember it has been the case three times since 2016 — we took the time needed to study these bills.

To return to your first question, the issue of one senator being able to deny leave comes with the responsibility of the senator to have a very good reason in doing so. I trust all my colleagues to be responsible to that end. Frankly, when we look at the best public interest, it is normally something that we have to do only exceptionally.

If we see some abuse of this, let’s refer it to our Rules Committee to try to find a different way to address this issue. Thank you.

Senator Saint-Germain: Senator, I agree that estimates and supply bills are complex bills. This year, especially, those two bills came late, but there is a benefit to the pre-studies that were made, as you know, by the members of the National Finance Committee.

A senator cannot be in a position to study, clause by clause, each and every bill. This is the role and the duty of the Senate committees, to go thoroughly through the bills and then to report to us and make their recommendations of amending or not.

As for supply bills, there is an important tradition to rely or to defer to the other place and to the government. As you know, on a finance bill, a supply bill, a government can be defeated, so there is a nuance there that is important.

In a nutshell, the Senate committees need time to do their work, but we must also consider that the membership of those committees are experts. They must advise us and, if so needed, recommend to us amendments that we need to carefully study as a chamber.