Hon. René Cormier: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I’m following up on the questions that Senator Poirier asked, and I thank her for her commitment to official languages.

Senator Gold, much like Liane Roy, the President of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, I was stunned to learn that the federal government plans to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal’s January 28, 2022, decision in Canada (Commissioner of Official Languages) v. Canada (Employment and Social Development) to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Raymond Théberge, the Commissioner of Official Languages, called the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision a historic one because it fundamentally restored, and I quote:

 . . . the full force of Part VII of the Official Languages Act and made it possible to effectively enhance the vitality of the English and French linguistic minorities in Canada and to support their ongoing development.

However, as Senator Poirier pointed out, on Friday, Minister Lametti confirmed that the government did not agree with some of the aspects of the Federal Court of Appeal ruling, while reaffirming his commitment to strengthening the Official Languages Act through Bill C-13.

Could you clarify things for everyone here and for official language minority communities by listing the aspects of the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision that are problematic for the Government of Canada?

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. 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.

Senator Housakos: If the honourable senator will take another question, I will be very brief. I seem to get a sense, especially from Senator Miville-Dechêne, and I do know this, that some senators have been frustrated with the pace at which things move here.

The truth of the matter, though, if you will admit, Senator Saint-Germain — is that we choose to sit Tuesday to Thursday. This Parliament has a calendar schedule of Monday to Friday. Like the House of Commons, we can easily be sitting Monday to Friday.

Do you agree we could easily be sitting past the end of June to deliberate issues? It’s the choice of the leadership groups that we rise when we rise.

Again, going back to my point, I don’t think this is an issue that will be resolved by the Rules. The Rules are there to have this chamber sit as long or as little as we want. Thank God, in 2022, in Canada, it doesn’t take two days to come to Ottawa unless you’re coming by horse and buggy. The truth is if we wanted to sit intensely, we could.

Senator Saint-Germain: I think that the Rules Committee and the Selection Committee could have a look at it, and at the same time the site of MétéoMédia for us to benefit from the best times in the summer as well.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Deacon (Nova Scotia), seconded by the Honourable Senator Kutcher:

That the Senate adopt the following Environmental and Sustainability Policy Statement, to replace the 1993 Senate Environmental Policy, adopted by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration:

The Senate of Canada is committed to reducing the Senate’s carbon footprint to net zero by 2030 and to implement sustainable practices in its operations. Achieving this goal requires a whole-of-organization approach which prioritizes reduction of outputs and utilizes standard-leading emission offsets. The road to net zero will include quantifiable regular reporting on progress towards target. These actions are to demonstrate leadership as an institution on climate action, to encourage accountability of federal institutions and to inform the legislative process.

The Senate is committed to achieving its objective through adherence to the following principles:

That the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration examine the feasibility of implementing programs to establish:

(a)an accountability framework and annual reporting cycle;

(b)the promotion of climate-friendly transportation policies and reduced travel;

(c)enhanced recycling and minimizing waste;

(d)a digital-first approach and reduction in printing;

(e)support from central agencies to allow the Senate to charge carbon offsets as part of operating a sustainable Senate; and

(f)a process for senators and their offices to propose environmental and sustainability recommendations; and

That the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration acquire any necessary goods and services to examine the feasibility or to implement these recommendations.

Hon. Percy Mockler, pursuant to notice of March 22, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to study matters relating to federal estimates generally and other financial matters, as described in rule 12-7(5); and

That the committee submit its final report no later than April 14, 2024, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Hon. David M. Wells (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association concerning the First Part of the 2022 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, held by video conference, from January 24 to 28, 2022.

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate.

In 2017, the Trudeau government imposed an annual automatic escalator tax on beer, wine and spirits, allowing the government to increase its tax year after year without proper parliamentary scrutiny or ministerial accountability. At the time, the Department of Finance official admitted to the Senate National Finance Committee that the Trudeau government didn’t estimate the impact of the new tax, saying the change was “. . . too small to have an impact.”

An answer to a question on the Senate Order Paper shows that during its first three years, this tax brought in a revenue of over $5.5 billion, including over $1.8 billion in 2019-20 alone, government leader.

The next increase to this tax is set to occur Friday, April 1, and that’s no April Fool’s joke. Will your government scrap this tax, government leader?

Senator Housakos: Government leader, the annual increase of the alcohol escalator tax is tied to the Consumer Price Index and, as Canadians are aware, the rate of inflation has gone through the roof over the past year. In February, inflation went up 5.7% year over year, and it stands at the highest rate in over 30 years in this country.

Grape growers, hop producers, grain farmers, vineyards, brewing companies, craft distillers, bars and restaurants and the entire tourism and hospitality industry have all struggled over the last two years, suffering during this existential crisis. How does increasing the alcohol escalator tax on April 1 help these people survive and remain competitive in these tough circumstances? How does it help Canadians who keep having to pay more and more to try to survive? Who does this help besides the high tax‑and-spend NDP-Liberal coalition?

Senator Cordy: Thank you, Senator Gold. I will quote another sentence or two from the response that I received:

The Government of Canada respects the sovereign right of other countries to decide their travel restrictions and border measures and will continue to monitor the situation and provide updated travel advice to Canadians.

We all acknowledge that every country has their responsibility and the right to make their own decisions. It’s easy to just tell Canadians to contact the country of destination, but Canadians look to their own government first to find that information. If I were travelling, I would go to the Government of Canada website before I would go to the website of the country to which I am travelling.

If the government is telling us that they have successfully negotiated with other countries, then they should be able to share this information with the public.

My question of you is, would you remind the government that travel information and vaccine requirements must be easy to understand for Canadians and the information must be easily accessible on the Canadian website?