Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, I am speaking to you today from the unceded land of the Mi’kmaq people.

Honourable senators, leadership can come from the most unsuspected places. It need not be loud. It need not be boastful, but instead a quiet dignity that, once recognized and given an opportunity to flourish, can be an inspiration to all. Such was the life and political career of Alexa McDonough. Sadly, Alexa passed away on January 15 of this year. Although she suffered a lengthy struggle with Alzheimer’s disease over the past number of years, our memories of her life and achievements remain intact.

Alexa’s early career was spent as a social worker in Nova Scotia. This work offered her an exposure to the true needs and social dilemmas experienced by many, and insight into the gaps between work on the ground and corresponding policies. While this knowledge would be what would propel her into a career of politics, in truth her involvement with social activism began much earlier. She was exposed to progressive politics by her father, a businessperson, Lloyd Shaw.

At the age of 14, Alexa led her church group in publicizing the conditions of Africville, a low-income, predominantly Black neighbourhood in Halifax.

After graduating from Dalhousie University, Alexa became a social worker. In 1979 and 1980, she made her first bid at electoral politics, running for the New Democrats in the riding of Halifax, though unsuccessfully. Later that same year, despite not having a seat in the provincial house of assembly, Alexa made a bid for leadership of the Nova Scotia NDP party, which she handily won. The following election, she won a seat representing the district of Chebucto. She spent the next three years as a caucus of one. She was the only woman in the Nova Scotia Legislature.

Alexa was not one to shy away from the difficulties she faced in this position, and she spoke out often about the misogynistic and sexist personal attacks she endured, even highlighting the lack of a separate women’s washroom for MLAs. She held this position until she resigned in 1994.

Although having left with no expectations of what the future might hold, she decided to put her name forward for the leadership of the federal NDP party in 1995. Again, seemingly defying odds, she was successful. She won her first seat in the House of Commons in 1997. She held the position of leader until 2003, and she retired from elected politics in 2008.

Throughout her political career, Alexa remained a champion for strong social programs and gender equality. In 2009, she was announced as interim president of Mount Saint Vincent University. That same year Alexa was appointed an Officer of the Order of Canada, and received the Order of Nova Scotia in 2012.

Underestimated at every turn, honourable senators, nevertheless, she persisted. This determination and, indeed, Alexa’s life as a whole, serve as an inspiration to all Canadians and particularly to Canadian women.

My thoughts are with her family and friends. I know they are proud of the legacy of leadership that is Alexa McDonough’s.

Honourable senators, a true measure of the legacy of Alexa McDonough was one of her life’s lessons to her sons, Travis and Justin. That was, “How you treat people who can do nothing in return is the ultimate judge of your character.” That is, I believe, a lesson for each of us. Thank you.

Senator Boisvenu: I would remind you that in the past six and a half years, the Liberal government has not introduced or proposed a single bill to improve the lives and rights of victims of crime. The article I mentioned earlier also pointed out that the five-year review of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights was scheduled for 2020 but still has not been completed by the government.

When will the government do its job and complete the review of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Senator Tannas, would you take a question? Thank you for raising this important issue and for getting us all to think about the importance of our constitutional responsibilities.

First, if some senators, including members of your caucus and other senators in this chamber, have determined that they will no longer give leave of the sort that you’re describing — that we indulged ourselves in before the Christmas break — why would this motion still be necessary? If senators don’t give leave, we would never be in a situation where we would have to rush a bill through.

Second, while I have the floor, if we retain the power to not give leave at all stages of debate, and retain the power to adjourn debates, we are in fact exercising our rights and therefore would not be in a situation where bills would be rushed.

In that scenario, where we are exercising the normal rules we have, we would be in a situation where the government can make the case for the urgency of a bill through the second-reading speech, which is much more substantial than a brief intervention during the 20-minute debate you have proposed. I’m asking if the current Rules already give us the ability to avoid the sorts of problems you have rightly raised with all of us.

Senator Tannas: The issue for a number of us is that the current rules don’t really allow for a shortened period of time. We have “two days hence.” We have all of the things that drag out the move to committee, all of the steps that drag out the procedures in the House over a number of days at a minimum.

We might not be prepared to give leave, because for many of us, leave is difficult. It is a gun to your head. If you are an individual senator and your group has negotiated leave, or you’re under group influence to provide leave — not to say anything, in other words — and the negotiation has taken place somewhere else, behind closed doors, it looks odd to members of the public to have everybody sitting silently while a bill goes through the stages.

If we’re not going to give leave and we think that leave is part of the problem of enabling legislation, then we must have something to at least replace leave that’s transparent, debatable and subject to vote in a reasonable amount of time to set us on a different track but to do it publicly.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare: Senator Tannas, you propose to use a motion that would seek to avoid the situations we encountered in the past, where we wound up facing measures that prevented us from studying the bill.

If a management committee were tasked with standardizing our approach to government bills, as we have already done for other bills, don’t you think that it would give us more weight than the House of Commons, and that it would allow us to plan for such emergencies? Wouldn’t such a committee, which would actually be a standing committee, also allow us to deal with these emergencies? Have you thought of that?

[English]

Senator Tannas: Where we have had managed debates on bills, a time frame hasn’t been the issue. We haven’t been up against June or up against Christmas when we have typically done it.

It has been on issues that are large, complex and extremely important. I think that is the place for which we should save managed bills: those instances when we may or may not agree on what the outcome ought to be, but we agree they are large, complex and important. That is where the role of either management agreements or a management committee could be.

I am instinctively nervous about a committee that would start managing all of our business here. It could easily lead to abuse, particularly in majority situations. I’m not saying we have that now, but, in the Senate’s history, we will. I’m not keen on the idea that every bill goes through a management committee permanently. I know there are others who are, and that’s a debate for another day.

What I’m interested in is trying to find a solution to the issue that seems to keep coming up where the House of Commons drops bills in our lap on their way out the door to go on their break. That forecloses any potential for us to make amendments or improvements and forces us into a situation where we are going to essentially rubber-stamp something. That is the issue I want to discuss today. It’s around Christmas and June. Thank you.

Senator Gold: Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I expect I’ll have more to say when I enter into debate.

Let me concede or admit that I feel strongly in our inherent flexibility in the Senate, in the flexibility of our Rules and our practices within which the chamber has always operated.

As many of you will know, and I’m looking at our honourable colleague Senator Plett, there is no lack of tools to slow things down — whether it’s government legislation or any legislation — if senators believe that it’s not in the public interest to do so. That leads me to my question.

I’m going to note that for the private members’ bills and public bills passed in the Senate last June, the timelines outlined in your motion were not respected by the Senate — far from it. Let me give you the list: Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (bereavement leave); Bill C-228, An Act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism; Bill C-237, An Act to establish a national framework for diabetes; Bill S-211, An Act to establish International Mother Language Day; Bill S-230, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians); Bill C-210, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (organ and tissue donors); and Bill C-208, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (transfer of small business or family farm or fishing corporation).

Senator Tannas, were these bills expedited because there was a lack of procedural tools for senators to delay things and discharge our duty, or was it simply because the Senate collectively decided that these bills were in the public interest?

Senator Tannas: I think some senators did decide they were in the public interest, but to be open and honest, Senator Gold, a number of them involved political deals that were made in either the House of Commons or here in the Senate in order to pass this or to get that passed or to agree this was important or not important. It was a series of deals that were made that put those through.

We can say that those were good. Those of us who supported those bills were thrilled, but at the end of the day on some of those bills, we may or may not have done ourselves any favour or have discharged our duty.

Again, we’re talking about government bills. You specifically would have this tool in the Rules rather than a make-it-up-as-we-go-along tool that involves leave and pre-negotiated motions outside of this room. That’s what I’m interested in dealing with so that we stay focused on our job of good scrutiny of legislation in a thorough but timely fashion.

[Translation]

Senator Saint-Germain: You’ve sparked such an interesting conversation, and you seem to think that, so far, the Senate Rules and practices have not enabled us to separate urgent bills from non-urgent bills and have prevented us from providing serious, thorough, sober second thought on certain bills.

Do you think that the pre-studies that our Rules allow us to authorize also help us get ahead on our study of bills in some cases? Do you think that avenue could be beneficial in some potentially urgent situations, although not in every case, and could help us avoid simply rubber-stamping a bill? Do you think pre-studies are a tool and practice that we should make use of as much as possible?

[English]

Senator Tannas: Yes, I believe in pre-studies, and we have done them on a number of bills. I would say that part of the frustration a number of us had at Christmastime involved a bill that was pre-studied and, literally hours before it arrived here, it grew a whole new section that had never been studied and was dropped in. So sometimes even with our best intentions, politics in the House come into play.

I think that the more tools we can have within our Rules, like pre-study — there is a process by which we approve that — the better. And rather than always defaulting to negotiations and operating with leave or through other means that aren’t transparent and aren’t necessarily thoughtful — at least as far as the public sees — the more we can avoid that and incorporate things in our Rules.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, I rise today in Mi’kma’ki to pay tribute to the late Alexa McDonough. Upon learning of her passing on January 15, I posted the following on social media:

Joining my fellow Nova Scotians and admirers of Alexa McDonough from coast to coast to coast, in singing the praises and mourning the painful loss of this remarkable, accomplished woman.

Alexa blazed a wide welcoming trail, creating space for so many to pursue progress for our society, be it through politics, social activism, her beloved field of social work, education or any other pathway toward human betterment.

What mattered to Alexa was making a positive difference, especially for the most vulnerable and excluded and doing that with integrity, kindness, respect and a genuine commitment to inclusion.

I feel so fortunate to have known Alexa and to have learned from and been supported by this iconic leader and most memorably, this very warm loving human being.

A trailblazing leader of both the New Democratic Party of Nova Scotia and the federal NDP, Alexa used her power and influence for good. Whether it was standing up for Donald Marshall, Jr. when he was wrongly convicted, for the families of the victims of Westray Mine disaster, for Maher Arar, for health care workers, for single mothers, Alexa was consistent and dogged in her pursuit of justice.

In the wake of the 9/11 tragedy and the ensuing Islamophobia hysteria, Alexa said in Parliament:

We need Canadians to know that Osama is a Canadian name, that Mohammed is a Canadian name and that worshipping in a mosque is a Canadian tradition.

Alexa was on the right side of history, even if she took stands that were not popular at the time.

Colleagues, Alexa’s scalp must have been riddled with scars from the glass ceilings she broke through and her hands calloused from repeatedly breaking new ground with and for so many.

Honourable senators, Alexa McDonough’s legacy lives on in the life we enjoy today in our province and country, in the legions of young women and girls she inspired and supported — women like Alexis MacDonald, Flora Murphy, Megan Leslie, Sionnach Hendra, Betsy MacDonald, Moraig MacGillivray and her namesake Lindsay Alexa Murphy, for whom she was safety in the storm.

She lives on in her dear friends, in her brother Robbie Shaw and in the beautiful family she nurtured and was so proud of: her sons Justin and Travis and her precious, precious grandchildren Abbie Jean, Lauchlan, Taylor, Saoirse, Elizabeth, Griffin and Charlie. Alexa loved and was loved. May she rest in peace knowing what a difference she has made. Thank you.

Hon. Victor Oh: Honourable senators, I rise today to mark the occasion of Lunar New Year, a holiday that began on February 1 and is celebrated to February 15.

This year we celebrate the Year of the Tiger, which according to the zodiac calendar represents courage, strength, and generosity — traits we should embrace as we navigate the new challenges and opportunities in 2022.

The Lunar New Year is one of the most important festivals in traditional Asian culture. Beyond the transition of zodiac signs, it is a time for celebration with loved ones and an occasion to reflect on the past while we also contemplate the future.

During this time of reflection, we ought to remember the contribution of Canadians of Asian descent and their role in helping to turn Canada into this prosperous country.

This contribution came with challenges — such as the Chinese Immigration Act and the Chinese Exclusion Act — yet our community demonstrates steadfast resilience and perseverance as we embark on the Year of the Tiger.

I ask that you take pause to acknowledge our past while celebrating the achievements of Canadians of Chinese descent. This year the Lunar New Year also coincides with the Winter Olympics in Beijing, allowing Canadians and the global community to share in the celebration of the Lunar New Year. These games are an opportunity for the world to come together through the unifying power of sport. It is also a time for our Canadian athletes to shine on the world stage and for us to celebrate their dedication and achievements.

Colleagues, in recognition of these two important events, I ask that you join me in wishing everyone a happy and prosperous Lunar New Year as we continue to cheer on Team Canada. Thank you.

Hon. David M. Wells (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, respecting the Speaker’s memo from November 20, I’ll be removing my mask and have notified my colleagues.

Honourable colleagues, I rise today to pay tribute to Newfoundland and Labrador businessman and humanitarian, the late Harry Steele. Although Mr. Steele is considered one of Newfoundland and Labrador’s most successful entrepreneurs, he was better known for his down-to-earth character and kindness. Harry Steele died January 28, 2022, at the age of 92.

Our limit of three minutes could never be enough time to truly give proper acknowledgment to all of Mr. Steele’s achievements and untold kindnesses to his community. Harry Steele was well known for successful investments in numerous sectors, including transportation, hospitality and broadcasting.

Born in the small fishing village of Musgrave Harbour on Newfoundland’s northeast coast, Mr. Steele came from humble beginnings, and despite his enormous success and significant contribution to society, he maintained that humility throughout his life.

With the help of a small grant and a modest sum he made as a member of the University Naval Training Division, Harry Steele headed to St. John’s where he earned a Bachelor of Education in 1953. Instead of pursuing a career in education, he joined the navy, serving more than 20 years, and retired from his final posting in Gander in 1974 at the rank of Lieutenant-Commander, which gave Mr. Steele the respected and enduring nickname The Commander.

It was during this service that he turned his attention to commercial enterprise with the purchase of a small hotel in Gander called The Albatross. The Albatross Hotel remained under his ownership until his passing.

Before retiring from the military, Mr. Steele started purchasing shares in Eastern Provincial Airways in the 1970s, which was a small struggling airline. The Newfoundland-based airline served all of Atlantic Canada. He eventually acquired control of the company and sold it to Canadian Pacific Airlines in 1984.

In 1981 Mr. Steele founded Newfoundland Capital Corporation, a transportation and communications company that owned newspapers and radio stations across the country. He also owned Universal Helicopters for over three decades until selling it in 2013. Following the sale of Universal Helicopters, he was quoted as humbly saying:

I’m just an ordinary stiff. Some people can see things coming from afar. I never did. I just adjust and adapt to what happens.

In 1992, Harry Steele was made an Officer of the Order of Canada. In 2002, after the sale of his printing and publishing assets, he took a step back and retired to his home in Gander; however, true to form, Mr. Steele did not completely leave behind all aspects of his empire he worked so hard to establish. It was only up until a few years before his passing that Mr. Steele would frequently drop by The Albatross to see that his customers and staff were being taken care of.

Although his mark on Newfoundland and Labrador was enormous, equally was his heart. His impact on all my province as well as his personal and business contributions in Gander have now been memorialized in the town’s community centre that bears his name. The contributions, both well known and little known, from Harry Steele were such that in 2018 I was honoured to award him a Senate sesquicentennial medal, which was accepted on his behalf by his son John Steele at Government House in St. John’s.

Harry Steele will be deeply missed by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians — indeed all Canadians — but mostly by his wife Catherine, three sons Peter, Rob and John and the greater Steele family. Honourable senators, today the Senate of Canada recognizes the immeasurable impact and countless contributions of Mr. Harry Steele.

Hon. Bev Busson: Honourable senators, I rise today with great pleasure to cheer on our Canadian Olympians and to acknowledge and celebrate Olympian Micah Zandee-Hart, from beautiful Saanichton, British Columbia. This wonderful 25‑year‑old made history in Beijing when she became the first B.C.-born player to play for Canada’s women’s national hockey team at the Winter Olympics. Micah began playing hockey as a little girl on a boys’ rep team as there were no girls’ teams at the time. Micah has always wanted to represent Canada at the Olympics, ever since she watched the women’s team go for gold in Salt Lake City in 2002. Well, Micah, your dream has come true.

Micah Zandee-Hart has had many career achievements in sport, among which she played in the International Ice Hockey Federation Women’s World Championships in 2019, where she and Canada took the bronze medal. In 2020, the world championships were cancelled due to the pandemic. In 2021, Micah Zandee-Hart missed the world championships due to a shoulder injury — an injury serious enough to require surgery. That did not set her back, for she is now a Canadian Olympian.

The Canadian women’s hockey team opened the Winter Olympics against Switzerland on February 2. Since then, they have faced Finland, the Russian Olympic Committee and the United States, remaining undefeated in the preliminary rounds.

As a British Columbian, I’m especially proud and delighted to know that Micah is inspiring our young athletes to participate in and aspire to become great in their sport — and by extension achievers in all the aspects of life. Micah, please know that British Columbia and all of Canada will rise together, celebrate together and cheer for you and all our Olympians in the days to come. Have fun, enjoy the experience and go for gold. Thank you, meegwetch.

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

Whereas on October 21, 1880, the Government of Canada entered into a contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Syndicate for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway;

Whereas, by clause 16 of the 1880 Canadian Pacific Railway contract, the federal government agreed to give a tax exemption to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company;

Whereas, in 1905, the Parliament of Canada passed the Saskatchewan Act, which created the Province of Saskatchewan;

Whereas section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act refers to clause 16 of the 1880 Canadian Pacific Railway Contract;

Whereas the Canadian Pacific Railway was completed on November 6, 1885, with the Last Spike at Craigellachie, and has been operating as a going concern for 136 years;

Whereas, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has paid applicable taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan since the Province was established in 1905;

Whereas it would be unfair to the residents of Saskatchewan if a major corporation were exempt from certain provincial taxes, casting that tax burden onto the residents of Saskatchewan;

Whereas it would be unfair to other businesses operating in Saskatchewan, including small businesses, if a major corporation were exempt from certain provincial taxes, giving that corporation a significant competitive advantage over those other businesses, to the detriment of farmers, consumers and producers in the Province;

Whereas it would not be consistent with Saskatchewan’s position as an equal partner in Confederation if there were restrictions on its taxing powers that do not apply to other provinces;

Whereas on August 29, 1966, the then President of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Ian D. Sinclair, advised the then federal Minister of Transport, Jack Pickersgill, that the Board of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had no objection to constitutional amendments to eliminate the tax exemption;

Whereas section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies;

Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, on November 29, 2021, adopted a resolution authorizing an amendment to the Constitution of Canada;

Now, therefore, the Senate resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the annexed schedule.

SCHEDULE

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

1.Section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act is repealed.

2.The repeal of section 24 is deemed to have been made on August 29, 1966, and is retroactive to that date.

CITATION

3.This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, [year of proclamation] (Saskatchewan Act).

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) introduced Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID-19 response and other measures).

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. René Cormier: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to examine and report on Francophone immigration to minority communities;

That, given that the federal government plans to develop an ambitious national Francophone immigration strategy, the committee be authorized to:

a)review the progress on the target for French-speaking immigrants settling outside of Quebec;

b)study the factors that support or undermine the ability of French-speaking immigrants to settle in Francophone minority communities;

c)study the factors that support or undermine the ability of Canada’s current immigration programs and measures to maintain the demographic weight of the French-speaking population;

d)study the measures and programs implemented by the Government of Canada to recruit, welcome and integrate French-speaking immigrants, refugees and foreign students;

e)study the impact of these measures and programs on the development and vitality of English-speaking communities in Quebec; and

f)identify ways to increase support for this sector and to ensure that the Government of Canada’s objectives can be met; and

That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than March 31, 2023, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

[English]

Hon. Tony Dean: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be authorized to examine and report on issues relating to security and defence in the Arctic, including Canada’s military infrastructure and security capabilities; and

That the committee report to the Senate no later than June 30, 2023, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings until 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to examine and report on matters relating to transport and communications generally, including:

(a)transport and communications by any means;

(b)tourist traffic;

(c)common carriers; and

(d)navigation, shipping and navigable waters; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than September 30, 2025, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I would like to say it’s good to be back here in the chamber again, asking the government leader questions, but I think I would be lying if I said that. But it is good to see all of you. It is good to see all of you, especially those of you in the chamber.

Leader, on Sunday the City of Ottawa declared a state of emergency due to the ongoing demonstrations. Protests have spread beyond Ottawa to cities in other provinces as well. While all this was happening on the weekend, Canada’s prime minister was nowhere to be found, in hiding. Then, last night, when he finally showed up in the other place to speak during the emergency debate, he had nothing constructive to offer on how to resolve the situation peacefully and unite us as Canadians once again.

Last night, government leader, the leader of the official opposition asked the Prime Minister to sit down with her and other party leaders to find a solution — not to meet with the truckers, not to meet with the demonstrators, but to meet with all leaders. He ignored her request.

Leader, if the Prime Minister cannot even sit down with a fellow parliamentarian to discuss this, how does the Prime Minister expect to end this impasse?

Senator Plett: I see nothing has changed over the holidays. You ask a question, and you get an answer that does not even come close to addressing the situation.

Speaking of the National War Memorial, I hope you also took note of all the flowers planted and the guards that the demonstrators have put there.

Leader, after the Prime Minister did his groundhog imitation and turned up again in the House of Commons, he showed no leadership. Canada needs leadership, and we are not getting it from this divisive Prime Minister.

The Trudeau government announced several weeks ago that it intends to extend the vaccine mandate to include interprovincial trucking. Leader, who would enforce this at the provincial borders? The RCMP? Provincial police? Municipal councillors?

Can you confirm, leader, that this foolish idea is now off the table?

Senator Gold: The Government of Canada, in consultation and working with provincial, territorial and municipal governments and others is doing whatever needs to be done to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. Decisions as to what additional measures or relaxation of measures are under active discussion and will be communicated when the decisions are made.