Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Esteemed colleagues, when we adjourned yesterday I was about to conclude my speech. I simply wanted to remind you, one more time, that GC InfoBase is available for you to consult online. It makes it possible for parliamentarians and Canadians to access information on the estimates and other government financial and performance data.

I appreciate your attention. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I would like to express my appreciation for the way in which Senator Dalphond, as sponsor of the bill, has clearly outlined its main provisions and urged that it be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for detailed study.

Senator Dalphond clearly outlined the main provisions of the bill, and he pointed out that since the bill is not a money bill and has been first introduced in the Senate, we have the freedom to make amendments if they seem appropriate. This is more freedom now than if the bill had originated in the other place. I believe that introducing government bills in the Senate is good practice for a government that says it wants thoughtful advice and constructive criticism from the Senate on legislation but often gives us very little time to do this important work. Such review of legislation in a less partisan atmosphere than in the other place is to the benefit of all Canadians.

I wanted to speak to this bill because, as Senator Dalphond said, the bill is about making the justice system more efficient using available technologies. Perhaps nowhere in this great country are there greater challenges of remoteness, adverse weather and air travel than in Nunavut’s 25 isolated, off-road communities in the largest jurisdiction in Canada.

In its first iteration, this bill was introduced in the House of Commons at least in part as a response to COVID; it was an attempt to minimize in-person contacts wherever possible in the justice system. The Nunavut Court of Justice, out of necessity, has always been on the forefront of trying to utilize technology to facilitate remote appearances because of the huge distances and costs resulting from our remote community locations across three time zones in an area covering one fifth the land mass of Canada.

The Nunavut Court of Justice is fundamentally a circuit court. The court travels to all of Nunavut’s communities, multiple times each year, to ensure Nunavummiut have meaningful access to justice at their doorsteps. There is a long tradition in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut of bringing justice to communities, beginning with legendary flying circuit court judges Sissons and Morrow. As a legal aid defence lawyer, I was privileged to travel on the circuit with Judge Morrow. This tradition is honoured today by judges, lawyers, prosecutors and court officers who travel courageously in challenging weather and small planes to bring justice to people’s doors.

Some observers of the Nunavut justice system are concerned that the ability of technology to facilitate remote appearances could have the unintended consequence of diminishing the public’s confidence in the administration of justice in Nunavut if the public sees the court as a purely Iqaluit-based or southern institution. It is seen as essential that lawyers be on the ground meeting and developing relationships with their clients who have matters before the court.

In Nunavut, where severe lockdowns and strict limitations on travel between communities were put in place by public health authorities, COVID shone a light on how valuable technology can be in enabling courts to proceed when personal appearances are not possible, which was very important during the pandemic. Additionally, increasing ways in which certain court appearances can be made without incurring expensive travel costs, which this bill allows, has obvious benefits.

However, a preliminary survey of individuals who work in the criminal justice system in Nunavut suggests that support for the efficient mechanisms offered by the bill still need to be viewed with caution. It was emphasized to me that, as good as the technology is — or can be — it should not be a replacement for in-person appearances when and where possible. This principle will require that attention be paid to the adequacy of safeguards around the use of technology for court appearances. As Senator Dalphond noted, trials and preliminary inquiries will be held only with consent of the accused, and the same safeguard of requiring the accused’s consent will apply to sentencing or pleas by teleconference.

While Bill S-4 is clear about the requirement of consent by both parties for the exercise of its provisions for virtual proceedings, obtaining true, informed consent from people in custody, or indeed anyone, may be made difficult by language and cultural barriers amongst our high-majority Inuit population. I would note that many lawyers for both the Crown and defence are based in Southern Canada and are non-Inuit, non-Inuktitut speakers.

These difficulties of communication are not resolved simply by face-to-face encounters between lawyers, clients and witnesses. Addressing the language and cultural challenges requires significant investment in interpreters and translators, as well as court workers.

Interpreters and court workers have been a mainstay of the system in Nunavut courts since the earliest days. It is encouraging that increasing numbers of young Inuit are entering the legal profession in Nunavut, but many more professionals are needed.

There is a fear that has been expressed about this bill that, without proper safeguards, technology has the potential to turn the court system in Nunavut into a satellite operation where counsel practice remotely in the territory from locations mainly based in southern Canada. This would have a negative impact on access to justice as vulnerable clients would miss out on personal interactions with counsel.

The other important reality that must be recognized in Nunavut is the limitations of the currently available communications technology. One experienced northern lawyer wrote to me saying:

We do want to share that we think Parliament should be wary of passing legislation that depends on technology that is not realistically available in every jurisdiction impacted by the new law.

Colleagues, you have heard me speak on the issue of unreliable connectivity in Nunavut several times, and I will definitely be speaking about this reality many more times. This past weekend, for example, when I went to buy gas and at a local store, the businesses were requiring cash only, since cash machines depending on the internet were either inoperative or painfully slow.

That the internet in Nunavut is not reliable is only one part of the problem. Experienced practitioners in Nunavut observe that we also operate in a jurisdiction that lacks sufficiently sophisticated expertise to deal with technical issues that arise, is disjointed in its technological rollout and generally apathetic about the impact of technological failure on the rights of individuals or the fairness of proceedings.

One practitioner said:

There is a very real risk associated with the new wording of s.650 that people will acquiesce to being physically absent for meaningful parts of their trial because they are (a) disengaged from and indifferent to the process and/or (b) believe that it will lead to expediency — a fast, if not fair, trial.

In this connection, the importance of language and cultural sensitivities is once again brought to the fore. It is notable that, despite two successful iterations of the Akitsiraq law program, which has graduated two cohorts of mostly Inuit lawyers, the defence bar has unfortunately attracted few Inuit lawyers. There is none at present.

It is said that some of those who have tried this work have found the experience triggering. Probably all of these young lawyers will have experienced or witnessed the traumas that lay behind so much of what ends up in court.

In closing, I’d like to express my thanks to Maliiganik Tukisiiniakvik legal aid clinic and the defence bar of the Law Society of Nunavut for their preliminary advice on this bill, which is so relevant in Nunavut, and to express the hope that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee will seek their input and advice in its study of Bill S-4.

I support sending the bill for study by that committee.

Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Honourable senators, “representation,” and “to be representative of” are at the core of arts programming challenges in today’s realities, and especially so with COVID-19’s current status.

Arts organizations are opening. Programming has begun and audiences are returning, though uncertain. At this time of reopening, many organizations are seriously working in new ways to represent and reflect their diverse communities.

Two recent visits in British Columbia were particularly inspirational for me. The University of British Columbia’s Museum of Anthropology’s exhibition Sankofa: African Routes, Canadian Roots, and the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria’s Denyse Thomasos solo exhibition. Both exhibitions were stellar and both presented artists we have featured in our installations honouring Canada’s Black artists.

Chantal Gibson had works in Sankofa, and the Thomasos exhibition featured paintings from the series now in our foyer.

The Thomasos exhibition was organized by Kleinberg’s McMichael Gallery and curated by Gaëtane Verna, Director of Toronto’s Power Plant Gallery, and she advised us on our current installation. The exhibition introduction noted Thomasos’s power, “to help us see human history in a new light.” She did, with strong work, and so too did that exhibition.

Sankofa included both African and Black Canadian artists with work from the museum’s collection and that borrowed from artists. Three sections in the show were curated by young Black curatorial students under the guidance of senior Museum of Anthropology, or MOA, curators. That exhibition effectively reflected on the past, the present and indeed the future. The introductory statements were stunning, and the facts presented were stark and demand reflection.

Quotes such as “A guiding light forward — permission to exist as a living ancestor” and “A past confronted with our future in mind” were poignant and germane.

Colleagues, the arts do and should reflect society. We, as viewers, are invited into the dialogue and reflections and are richer for those opportunities.

Dance, theatre and orchestras — large and small — across this country are, likewise, working in new directions with composers, musicians, writers, actors, choreographers and dancers to present unknown stories.

The representation of artists of colour is improving, and so too will the presentations reflecting our cultural diversities.

Again, I applaud and thank them all.

Thank you.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, I rise today on behalf of the 24 million Afghans who are currently at risk of famine.

According to the United Nations Development Programme, by the end of the summer about 97% of Afghanistan’s population will plunge into poverty.

Since the Taliban takeover last summer, the Afghans’ desperate situation has intensified. While this was sadly expected, what I find truly upsetting is how quickly Afghanistan has been forgotten amidst other crises.

Currently, over 3.5 million Afghans are internally displaced, sleeping in the streets or public parks. Desperate parents find themselves forced to sell their daughters at an increasingly young age, often to families they do not know, because they cannot afford to feed them.

The desperation is palpable. Aziza, a young mother of three, is trying to sell her kidney to avoid having to sell her one-year-old daughter. Another Afghan woman, after selling her two young daughters, had no other choice than to sell her kidney to feed her family. The situation is so dire that she consented to the surgery, even though she was very sick. She said, “I told them I’m happy with my own death, but I can’t tolerate seeing my children hungry and ill.’”

And in a settlement near the town of Herāt, so many residents have sold their kidneys that it has become known as “one-kidney village.” Afghans are being preyed upon by organ traffickers who are responding to their desperation by purchasing kidneys for less money with no regard for the health risks, as these surgeries are not regulated.

Canada has made specific commitments to vulnerable Afghans. In September of 2021, the Liberal government committed to assisting and resettling 40,000 Afghans. To this day, only 9,560 Afghans have been resettled. Most of them had to get out on their own and through private NGOs. Many of these individuals left behind are those who risked their safety to help our forces in Afghanistan.

On March 4, the International Rescue Committee stated:

As the world’s attention shifts to the conflict and displacement crisis in Ukraine, the IRC calls on the world to not neglect Afghanistan. The international community should seize this window of opportunity in Afghanistan to prevent famine, save lives, and put an end to the horrific conditions facing women and girls.

Honourable senators, I cannot stand idly by as the Trudeau government ignores starving and suffering Afghans who have been left behind to fend for themselves. This government can and must do better.

Thank you.

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, for those of you who knew her, to meet Claudette was to engage with a force of nature. She loved and respected everyone regardless of social rank or economic means.

Many know Claudette Bradshaw as a former MP or minister; an advocate for the homeless; a promoter of literacy, a director for the Boys & Girls Club of Moncton; a co-founder, with her dear Doug, of the Moncton Headstart program; a member of the Premier’s Task Force on the Community Non-Profit Sector; a coordinator of the Mental Health Commission of Canada; launcher of Housing First; a mom to many children — besides those she birthed, her beloved Chris and Nick — an advocate for marginalized families and a selfless, kind and tireless community champion.

In 2009, she was inducted into the Order of New Brunswick, and she received the Order of Moncton in 2010 for her work throughout the community. Awarded honourary doctorates from the Université de Moncton and the University of Ottawa, Claudette was also a most deserving recipient of numerous additional awards.

We met in 1994 when we were both appointed to the National Crime Prevention Council where we became fast friends and immediately found a common cause. From there, Claudette went on to run for election where she served as Minister of Labour, Minister responsible for Homelessness, Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation and Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Status of Women.

Perhaps best known for her boundless generosity, unconditional love and trademarked full-body hugs, Claudette gained infamy in the Commonwealth when in 2002, after the Queen’s visit to New Brunswick, she ended the visit with one of her trademark bear hugs. Her son recalls exclaiming, “She’s going to hug that woman and they’re going to taser her in front of all of Moncton.” Completely unfazed, she did the deed and claimed the monarch was no different from you and me.

As our colleague Senator Mockler reminded us yesterday, Claudette made our country a better place to live, work and raise children. She was indeed very special and will be sorely missed. May we all take comfort in the knowledge that her work and spirit live on in the community and in countless numbers of people whose lives she touched and raised up. Meegwetch. Thank you.

Hon. Pat Duncan: Honourable senators, I am grateful to the creator for this day, humbled to be speaking from the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe and honoured to be of service to the people of Canada.

The Yukon Regional Chief Kluane Adamek shared with me that during strategy discussions with her team and the Yukon chiefs, they coined the phrase “A Yukon that Leads” to describe our region and the First Nations leadership and advancement.

We lost one of our leaders. Paul Birckel was born on the shores of Kluane Lake in the traditional territory of the Kluane and Champagne and Aishihik First Nations. His father, Paul Eugene Birckel, came from Rombach-le-Franc in the Alsace region of France. His maternal grandfather, Hutshi Allen, was Upper Tanana near Tetlin and Tanacross, Alaska.

Honourable senators, Elijah Smith and a delegation of Yukon chiefs, the authors of the document Together Today for our Children Tomorrow, tapped Paul Birckel to be the first Executive Director of the Council of Yukon First Nations, or CYFN, during the amalgamation of three organizations: the Council for Yukon Indians, the Yukon Association of Non-Status Indians, and the Yukon Native Brotherhood. The document Together Today for our Children Tomorrow, accepted by Canada in 1973, became the basis for the Umbrella Final Agreement, signed in 1993.

Paul went on from CYFN to serve as chief of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations. Elected for five terms, he led his nation to be among the first to finalize a land claim agreement under the Umbrella Final Agreement. In 1996, he successfully negotiated an agreement to co-manage the Tatshenshini-Alsek Park, which covers over 6,000 square miles and spans the border of Yukon and British Columbia.

Instrumental in establishing the Yukon Native Language Centre and negotiating a child welfare agreement between his First Nation and the Government of Yukon, Paul was also an astute businessman, leading his First Nation and others to key business purchases and developments. In 1995, the Yukon Chamber of Commerce recognized Paul as Businessman of the Year.

Yukoners and Canadians are indebted to Paul’s family and friends for sharing with us his time, energy and dedication to ensuring a better future. Love, tolerance, patience and collaboration were the hallmarks of his own path to reconciliation. His family also said the most enduring legacy that Paul bestowed were a few simple teachings: give more than you take, treat people and animals kindly and trust that there are no limits to how much you can love.

On July 8, 2021, Paul Birckel travelled to the spirit world followed shortly after by his wife of 61 years, Kathy Birckel.

Honourable senators, Paul Birckel, a Yukoner who helped to blaze a trail in a “Yukon that leads,” has led us, the Yukon and Canadian society to a better place.

To quote the memorial service program, “gunalchéesh.” Thank you. Mahsi’cho.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(j), I give notice that, later this day, I will move:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, April 5, 2022, at 2 p.m.

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is to the Government Representative in the Senate. It’s in reference to Minister Joly, who, before a committee in the other place, was responding to questions in regard to the government’s work in fighting back misinformation and propaganda. I quote what the minister said before that committee:

We’ve banned Russia Today and Sputnik on the broadcasting side. We’ve pushed digital platforms to also ban them, but we need to do more. . . .

Our mandate, and my mandate as foreign minister, is really to counter propaganda online. . . . They need to make sure that they recognize that states have jurisdiction over them, that they are not technological platforms but they’re content producers. It is our way, collectively, to make sure that we can really be able to have strong democracies in the future.

Government leader, in the letter to Minister Joly from Prime Minister Trudeau, where does it give her the mandate to push back on online propaganda in this country?

Senator Housakos: Government leader, there is absolutely no direct reference in Minister Joly’s letter from the Prime Minister that her mandate is to counter propaganda online. As I said in my speech on Bill S-237 the other day, the first job of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Canada is to defend the national interest and values we hold as Canadians, which include free speech. The answer to combatting foreign interference isn’t to censor our own citizens — not at all.

Leader, seeing as how Minister Joly thinks her mandate is to counter propaganda online, could you tell us this: How exactly does the minister in your government define propaganda? Does anyone in the NDP-Liberal government even know how Minister Joly defines it herself? How will we have assurances that there won’t be a line crossed here?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. This government — as all governments in Canada, I assume — is devoted to the principles of free speech as enshrined in our constitutional traditions and in our Charter. Any limitations on Canadians’ rights need to be prescribed by law, satisfy rigorous standards as applied by the courts and be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament as well when such laws come before us. If and when such laws come before us, I’m sure we will do our constitutional duty to make sure they respect our constitutional rights.

Hon. Rose-May Poirier: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Gold, yesterday the government announced the closure of Atlantic mackerel and commercial bait fisheries without any consultation with the fishermen.

Weeks before the fishing season is about to begin, the government blindsided fishermen. As the Maritime Fishermen’s Union said, this announcement illustrates a lack of respect for the expertise of the inshore fishermen and a lack of interest in the economy of rural Atlantic communities. Senator Gold, why did the government not consult with the fishermen before making a major decision that will affect their livelihood?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for underlining the importance to the Atlantic fishery and the impact of this decision.

The conservation and protection of our fish stocks are a priority for this government, as it was for previous governments. I’m assured that all decisions taken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are underpinned by sound science and the conclusions that can be drawn therefrom.

This was not an easy decision. The government recognizes the impact it will have on fish harvesters. As colleagues may know — and certainly, Senator Poirier, I’m sure you and your colleagues from the region do know — the mackerel and the Southern Gulf spring herring have been in a critical zone for more than a decade. This has implications for many species, such as tuna, salmon and cod, that depend on foraged fish as their food source.

Today’s decision aims to protect and regenerate these stocks to ensure a strong and healthy seafood sector for the generations to come.

Senator Poirier: Senator Gold, according to Martin Mallet, Director of the Maritime Fishermen’s Union, additional costs for fishermen could be as high as $10 million. Minister Joyce Murray also said there were no current plans for financial compensation — no consultation and no financial compensation weeks before they were set to hit the water. Senator Gold, why is the government not even considering financial compensation for potential loss to fishermen due to the government’s decision?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. I’m not in a position to confirm that the government is not considering it. It certainly has not made a decision, and if any such decision were made, it would be announced.

It is important to remind this chamber that this is a temporary moratorium. It was made because the situation was deemed urgent. Despite the impact in the short term, it was necessary to take this decision to protect the long-term viability of the fish stocks upon which the fishery depends.

[Translation]

Hon. René Cormier: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, currently in Canada, male blood donors who report having had sex with one or more other men in the past three months cannot donate blood.

This practice, which contributes to the stigma attached to HIV, is outdated, since it is clear that sexual behaviour, not a person’s sexual orientation, is what determines the level of risk of HIV transmission.

With that in mind, on December 15, 2021, Canadian Blood Services made a submission to Health Canada recommending a new approach to screen all donors for high-risk sexual behaviour that would replace the current practice of a three-month donor deferral period for all sexually active men who have sex with men.

The department’s target for the review of this submission was 90 days, so in theory, around March 15. However, we still have not received Health Canada’s decision.

Senator Gold, when can we expect Health Canada to announce its decision regarding this submission from Canadian Blood Services?

I understand that the actual review time may vary, depending on the completeness of the data provided and discussions with the organization, but please explain why the review of this submission is taking longer than the planned 90-day time frame.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for the question.

As I have mentioned several times, the Government of Canada continues to invest significant sums in improving defence capacity and resources, and it will continue to do so.

I have also mentioned several times that the agreement or deal — take your pick — between the Liberal Party and the NDP has nothing to do with the government’s commitment, which is clearly described in its 2017 document, to improving our military capacity in order to protect ourselves at home and defend our interests abroad.

As for the question, I do not have any information to suggest a link with military spending. We are awaiting the tabling of the budget to spell out exactly what the government has decided to do and clarify the issue of welcoming Ukrainian refugees.

Hon. René Cormier: Senator Gold, last week Reuters News Agency reported that bombing in Ukraine has led to the closure of many clinics specializing in the treatment of HIV/AIDS and that the distribution of antiretroviral drugs is at risk.

My question for you is the following. What kind of assistance for health care is the Government of Canada providing to the Ukrainian people at this time, and how is it helping to ensure that Ukrainians with HIV/AIDS can continue their treatment?

Hon. Marty Klyne: Senator Gold, my question is about gene‑edited seeds — an important and controversial topic in the realm of crop farming.

For those who are not familiar with the concept, gene editing refers to a set of genetic engineering techniques that can be used to add, remove or alter genetic sequences at precise locations in an organism’s genetic code. In other words, gene editing can be used to alter the DNA of seeds used in crop production.

It’s a bit different from genetically modified organisms, typically the result of adding foreign DNA into an organism’s genome.

There are benefits associated with gene editing. For example, using gene-editing tools can allow plant developers to improve the existing qualities of a seed and shorten the growth cycle of a given plant or crop.

However, Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have faced questions regarding a proposal to adjust how the use of gene-edited seeds is monitored and regulated. Many farmers and other organizations in the agricultural sector are concerned that the regulations should regard forward research and, in the absence of that research, may not go far enough to protect farmers or the natural environment.

For my part, I can certainly understand apprehension about unintended consequences and risk management where forward research may be warranted.

Senator Gold, this is a very complicated issue. Can you update this chamber on the status of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s plan to monitor the use of gene-edited seeds and if changes to these regulations to enhance transparency and accountability are forthcoming?