Senator Gold: I think it’s important for senators to understand — they certainly don’t want to revisit the hours I spent the other day — that at such time as the act, the proclamation, was invoked, the measures were in place and enforced. At such time as the government decided it was no longer necessary, those measures ceased. However, actions taken during the period that were authorized by the regulations promulgated under the Emergencies Act remain subject to those terms.

The government, as prudent as it was in deciding to invoke the Emergencies Act and as responsible as it was in determining — as it had been stating and I had been repeating — based upon the advice of police, law enforcement, the intelligence community and other advisers, that it was no longer required, this chamber should be assured that the government can proceed responsibly and prudently with regard to matters you questioned.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, senator, for your question and for underlining the importance of accessible child care to all citizens of Canada regardless of where they live. My understanding is that the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Minister Gould, is currently waiting for the Province of Ontario to submit their action plan so that the federal government can understand how Ontario plans to spend the money — $10.2 billion — that has been offered to Ontario under this plan.

Honourable senators, this is an important accountability measure. The government needs to be assured that the families will actually see reductions in cost. We need to see that the number of spaces will be increased and that early childhood education will be properly supported. It’s also an important transparency measure. Ontarians and all Canadians need to know how public money is being spent.

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, I rise today with deep sadness for the citizens of Ukraine and also for the rest of the free world. I am worried about the people of Ukraine, including relatives that I — and many of us in this chamber and across our free and prosperous country — have living there.

This morning, I looked at a map. It showed places where missile and air attacks had targeted. Kyiv, Lviv and just outside of Ternopil. My family is there.

We are witnessing a criminal act against Ukraine — an attack on the international rule of law, an attack on the values all those who live in democratic freedom must resist. Although our resistance is coming late, it must be fulsome and impactful, and it must happen now.

The invasion comes as no surprise. It is not the result of an impulsive act by an unhinged mind but the cunning culmination of years of preparation — years during which we and the free world could have acted but did not, years during which the signs were clearly there for us to see but did not see, or, maybe worse, chose not to see, or, maybe even worse, aided and abetted. It was no surprise that, earlier this week, Trump praised the genius of Putin, and Fox News attacked Canada and fawned over Russia.

Sadly, many Canadians may not realize just how real dictators operate. Russia has long been actively destabilizing Western democracies, including Canada, often by interfering in elections and stoking the flames of populism and libertarianism. As the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and DisinfoWatch have pointed out, during this pandemic Russia has been amplifying anti-vaccine rhetoric, pushing narratives that question the existence of COVID, the legitimacy of Canadian public health protocols, the safety of vaccines and inciting people to attack public health measures that were designed to protect them and their communities.

My family knows these techniques all too well. The destabilization of legitimate governments that stand in the way of Russian interests has always been a hallmark of that regime. My ties are deep in Ukraine. My parents were World War II refugees. They knew real tyranny. They lost everything. Most of my relatives were sent to the gulag. Those who survived were cast aside on the scrap heap of life. Some clawed their way back; others did not.

Honourable senators, let’s see Russia for what it is. Let’s make sure it does not destabilize our country and the international rule of law. We need to stand with Ukraine, and we need to act today, not tomorrow.

As the Ukrainian national anthem says, Ukraine’s freedom has not yet perished.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Kutcher spoke in Ukrainian.]

Let’s do all that we can to prove that phrase correct. Thank you and d’akuju.

Hon. Denise Batters: Honourable senators, I rise today to condemn Russia for its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. We are all horrified by the images streaming from Ukraine in the hours since this invasion. It’s a country under siege from all directions. All at once, its citizens are cowering in subway tunnels and people are gathered together with heads bowed in prayer because there seem to be no other options at this point.

As the granddaughter of Ukrainian immigrants who sought refuge in Canada 100 years ago, I feel this invasion deep in my soul. I visited Ukraine in 2014 as an observer for the presidential elections that year. I was struck then by the deep gratitude of Ukrainian people for their burgeoning democracy and was touched by the elderly women from Ukrainian villages who brought fresh flowers from their gardens to the polling station to give thanks for the opportunity to express their democratic right to vote. I am thinking of those elderly women in Ukraine today, honourable senators.

Canada cannot abandon Ukraine’s citizens to the madman Vladimir Putin. We must condemn, in the strongest possible terms, Putin’s brutal and entirely unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, and we condemn Putin’s flagrant disregard for Russia’s obligations under international law. But we must do more than just stand by and condemn the evil acts of the dictator Putin. Canada must act now to stand up for a peaceful and free Ukraine.

For years, Ukrainian authorities have been pleading with Canada for defensive arms, but the Trudeau government did not provide them. It only agreed to provide some defensive arms on the eve of the invasion. They were provided so late that I do not know if they will even reach Ukrainian soldiers in the field. Now Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has asked every able Ukrainian citizen to take up arms themselves against Putin’s forces. The Trudeau government’s delay and virtue signalling are ineffective in the face of such a monumental threat.

On February 13, the Prime Minister tweeted, “ . . . we’ll keep standing strong in support of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.” That was the same day that Canadian trainers in Ukraine headed for the Polish border and Canada was evacuating its embassy in Kyiv. What have all these words and those uttered by other Western leaders meant for the Ukrainian people? We can see the results of that today, and it breaks my heart.

The least we can do now is open our borders to the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who are now fleeing their country. The official opposition will support this motion, but I implore our Canadian government to understand that this is not the time for weak words. It is our moral duty to act now to help the people of Ukraine.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Batters spoke in Ukrainian.]

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Gold, and it is about child care. Now that Nunavut has struck a deal on child care with the federal government, that leaves my home province, Ontario, as the only jurisdiction not to sign on to the federal government’s $10-a-day child care. It also happens to be the most populous province in Canada, along with the rather dubious distinction of having the most expensive child care. Parents in Ontario pay upward of $2,000 a month for child care, whereas other jurisdictions are paying as little as $10 a day.

Of course, Senator Gold, you understand what an impact that has, particularly on low-income Canadians, because holding down a job without affordable child care becomes impossible. Can you please give us an update on where the negotiations stand, what some of the hurdles are and when we can expect an agreement to be signed?

Senator Omidvar: Senator Gold, do you have any idea if there is a deadline for getting this agreement signed?

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: My question is for Senator Gold, the Government Representative in the Senate. As Senator Deacon said earlier, our Olympic athletes are returning to Canada with an impressive haul of 26 medals, including four golds. We are very proud of them, we congratulate them and we support them. In Canada, as in many countries, our medallists receive a bonus, a performance award. In Canada, we are talking about $20,000 for a gold medal, $15,000 for a silver medal and $10,000 for a bronze medal.

Meanwhile, our 49 Paralympic athletes are nine days away from the games for which they have been training for years. When they return, we will be proud of them too. We will applaud them just as we applauded today in this chamber. The government will congratulate them, but will they receive a performance award? No. They will receive absolutely nothing, no matter what colour medal they win.

I myself experienced this injustice in 2008 and, sadly, this has not yet been fixed. Senator Gold, it’s easy to say that the Canadian Olympic Committee has more resources than the Paralympic Committee, but that does not justify this unequal treatment. Other countries have found solutions, including the United States, Italy, Singapore and many others. This is discrimination based on disability and, you will agree, that has no place in Canada.

Senator Gold, do you agree that this situation is unacceptable and that Paralympic athletes deserve the same treatment as Olympic athletes? Can you reassure me and assure me that now that we have a new Minister of Sport, the government will do everything in its power to correct this injustice?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Senator Gold, with the Emergencies Act now rescinded, the review process has been halted. It appears there is no longer a legal requirement for the government to provide Parliament, including this chamber, with the confidential documents or information that triggered the invocation of the act. Reflecting the concerns of my colleague, Senator Tannas, who asked you the other day about this issue, can we have some assurance that this chamber will be included in any forthcoming review process so that we might have access to the crucial information that I just referenced?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, senator. I am ashamed to admit that I was not aware that our athletes are being treated differently, as you described. I’ll look into it. I’ll speak to the Minister of Sport, who is the MP in my riding, in the Eastern Townships, and I will try to get back to you with more information as soon as possible.

[English]

Senator Griffin: Yes, I understand what the official is saying. I come back to my point: The law is the law. We have a chance here to correct it very efficiently and expeditiously. Let’s do it. It can go to committee. We can vote on sending it to committee today. The committee can meet next week. The committee can report back to this chamber and, theoretically, by Thursday, it can be out of this chamber and back over to the House of Commons.

I’m not sure where their break week lands — I know theirs is not always the same as ours — but the point is that they can fix it quickly and relatively easily via this act, or very shortly via the budget implementation act, and make it retroactive. It wouldn’t be the first time governments have ever done something like that.

Thank you for the question.

Hon. Leo Housakos: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In his speech on Tuesday morning Senator Gold said: “. . . I think the government is owed a certain degree of deference vis-à-vis the security assessment it has made.” Every honourable senator can see the security situation on Monday night when the votes were taken in the other place was just as it was on Wednesday afternoon when the Prime Minister reversed himself. The state of the blockade, the protesters and the border were all the same. We were told that we owe the government deference, but everyone could see the reality of the situation for themselves. We also saw yesterday a number of Trudeau-appointed senators standing on their feet in this place defending these Draconian measures and, of course, they were seeing enemies of the state lurking around every corner.

So, leader, what will be the impact of this sorry episode if, God forbid, Canada faces a real catastrophe in a week, in a month, in a year? How will pulling out the sledgehammer in this instance help if we’re to face a truly national emergency?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Let me try to be clear and measured.

What I said and explained on far too many occasions was simply that the government relies not only on information that is public and was public when it made the decision on February 14 but also, and properly so — especially as members who have been on the government side would understand — on information from police authorities and others. That’s the first point.

Second, anyone who actually watched what happened on the ground, whether on Friday, Saturday or Sunday in Ottawa, I think would agree that the police acted with restraint and with responsibility. Their behaviour was exemplary, as many have noted in this house and you know to whom I refer. These were not Draconian measures. They were measures, and measured measures to deal with a serious crisis.

That leads me to the final point to your question. You talked about what Canada will do when there is a real catastrophe. Others have said there was no need for this in the first place.

The belittling of the impact of this occupation of Ottawa on the residents and the city, the harm caused to individuals, the abuse that people had to endure, the impact on our economy, on our credibility as a trading nation and the risks that the government felt it had to assess, properly and responsibly, to make sure that the risks of returning blockades, whether to bridges in Windsor or elsewhere or any other port of entry or occupations in this city or any other city — until and unless the government was satisfied as it came to be satisfied, taking the advice that it’s been taking all the way through, it kept these measures in place for our collective well-being.

This was a real crisis. Ask anybody who suffered. Ask anybody who couldn’t go to work because their plants were shut down for want of parts. Ask anybody who was walking the streets and vilified and harassed and assaulted verbally because they were wearing a mask, they were a person of colour or because they were going to obtain health care. Here you’ll allow me to speak as a human being, not simply as a Government Representative. We can disagree whether or not the measures were appropriate or not. We can disagree whether they lasted too long. Clearly, there’s a division of opinion here, although I was very gratified to hear — I’m entitled, with all due respect, to continue to finish my answer.

Senator Plett: No.

Senator Gold: I am finishing an answer and I expect the respect that I accord you when you ask me questions.

It offends me as a human being for the damage and harm to the individuals and to our country to be so belittled. On that I’ll close.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I rise today to tell you what you already know. The world changed last night and not for the better. The shameless, unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine by Russia goes against all norms and rules under international law and previous agreements and violates the United Nations Charter. It defies all decent civilized behaviour and must be resoundingly condemned. This invasion was meticulously planned, and entreaties by Russia to achieve a diplomatic solution were deeply cynical and malign. That the largest country in the world by territory should seek to redraw established agreed-upon international borders through a war of aggression to gain more territory, as Russia did by invading and annexing Crimea in early 2014, is beyond credulity. It reflects Vladimir Putin’s twisted need to rewrite history and is redolent of expansionism by might not seen since Hitler’s Germany.

I support the measures taken by our government and the concerted efforts taken by G7 countries under the current German presidency, as well as NATO partners to put pressure on and take action against the autocratic regime of Mr. Putin. There has been much talk of tyrants lately, colleagues. He is one.

My own personal involvement with Russia began when I joined our foreign service. At the time, it was the Soviet Union. I watched, and like many, was encouraged by the advent of glasnost, perestroika; all those new words we learned that signified change and an opening to a freer society in Russia in 1989.

I worked with former prime minister Jean Chrétien toward the 1995 G7 summit in Halifax where then Russian president Boris Yeltsin was invited to join for a meeting. This was an important initiative that eventually led to the creation of the G8. It was felt by all that the days of bellicosity were resigned to the history books, and there were many common projects and initiatives on which we could work together.

I had the honour of being former prime minister Stephen Harper’s personal representative, or sherpa, for what became the last G8 summit in June 2013 at Lough Erne, Northern Ireland. Mr. Harper had just visited Dublin and had made some controversial comments about the value of discussion at the G8 where one member was clearly out of step. Indeed, I recall Mr. Putin dominating the foreign policy discussion with his singular view of the crisis in Syria, to the exclusion of almost any other topic. Leaders were exasperated and Mr. Harper was proven correct.

It was Russia’s turn to host the G8 in Sochi in 2014. I attended one sherpa meeting in Moscow in January and then it was all over. Russia had invaded and taken Crimea and had installed proxy forces in the Donbas region of Ukraine. At Mr. Harper’s request, G7 leaders met on the margins of the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague in March, where I also served as sherpa, and a decision was taken. The G8 again became the G7, working together for common global purpose.

What we have seen, colleagues, is Russia moving from global pariah to partner and back to pariah. Its actions are unjustified, unacceptable and reprehensible.

Let us all stand together to condemn this outrageous violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence.

Let us all stand together in support of the legitimate government of Ukraine and the strong and resilient people of Ukraine. Thank you.

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, I am an Edmontonian. I begin that way because in Edmonton we are all honorary Ukrainians of one kind or another, but just like so many Edmontonians, my own family roots in Ukraine run deep.

My mother, Oli Dyck, was born in Ukraine in a German Mennonite colony called Felsenbach in the province of Dnipropetrovsk. My father’s mother, Reisa Hardashnikov, was born and raised in the Jewish community in Poltava. The tides of history brought my Jewish family and my German family from Ukraine to Alberta. But this wasn’t entirely an accident since German, Ukrainian and Jewish immigration to Alberta were intimately intertwined.

Today, whatever our roots, we need to unite as Canadians in the face of utterly illegitimate Russian aggression to stand with our Ukrainian-Canadian friends and relations in this time of terror and uncertainty.

But we can’t just say “we stand with Ukraine” unless there is a real commitment behind those words, a commitment to sanction Russia in real terms, a commitment for Canada to work with NATO and its other allies to let the Putin government know, in meaningful terms, that this act of war is not something we will countenance.

There are actions we must take here to insulate ourselves from more subtle kinds of Russian aggression — from the sophisticated propaganda campaign already under way on Facebook and Twitter, designed to undermine our resolve and undermine the truth. We must push back against the Russian propaganda and disinformation on platforms such as RT and Fox News. Because make no mistake: This war isn’t just being fought on the ground in Ukraine; it’s being fought in the blogosphere, on social media and on cable television. And in a borderless online world, Canada, so far away from Kyiv, is a battleground too.

We must arm ourselves with common sense and common resolve. As Senator Boehm has said, our world changed overnight. It is time for us to wake up and stand together and stand on guard for Canada, Ukraine and the world we care for.

Thank you, hiy hiy.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, on January 19, Orillia lost a treasured member of our community. Michael Allen Westover Jones died after a battle with Parkinson’s disease.

Michael was a devoted husband, beloved son, brother, uncle, mentor and friend. He was an internationally recognized leadership educator, facilitator, and a gifted pianist who combined his music and storytelling to inspire and challenge his audiences.

Michael was born in Bramshott, England, in a military hospital during World War II, raised in the Kitchener-Waterloo area and spent the last 35 years in Orillia.

Michael played a key role in helping me develop a Truth and Reconciliation round table and contributed to its growth during the past two and a half years. He supported our regular gatherings with his wise counsel and his expertise in facilitation and sparking dialogue. With Elder John Rice, the two became a formidable team.

Michael devoted his time and energy to many other local projects, including facilitating action towards creating a city commons here in Orillia. He believed deeply that healthy communities need a sense of place, and said it didn’t have to be a physical place, but that it helped.

A celebration of Michael’s life took place on February 9. The ceremony included some of his music and favourite poetry. Friends and family shared stories and memories highlighting the humble, gentle way he touched their lives and helped them discover and share their gifts. Michael authored three books on reimagining leadership: Artful Leadership, Creating an Imaginative Life and, most recently, The Soul of Place. In this book, readers are invited to be the soul of place through their presence, inspiring transformation through a pathway of homecoming, belonging, “regenerativity” and transformative celebration. Michael was also a Juno-nominated composer who recorded 17 albums.

I send my deepest condolences to Judy, his wife of 47 years, his mother Laura, and siblings Myron, Chris and Lisa.

Dear Michael, you will be missed.

Meegwetch, thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Downe, do you have a question?

Senator Richards: Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

Leave having been given to revert to Other Business, Motions, Order No. 12:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to examine and report on the cumulative positive and negative impacts of resource extraction and development, and their effects on environmental, economic and social considerations, when and if the committee is formed; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2022.

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of Motion No. 12 introduced by Senator McCallum requesting that the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to examine and report on the cumulative positive and negative impacts of resource extraction and development, and their effects on environmental, economic and social considerations.

I’m convinced this study could bring great value in understanding the overall impacts of resource extraction and development in Canada. I say “overall impacts” because Canadians, and especially parliamentarians, are often bombarded by the one-sided promotion of the positive contributions of resource extraction, namely on Canada’s GDP, employment and government revenues.

Next to these amplified voices, communities, NGOs and academics can barely pierce through the noise to present other aspects, positive or negative, and have to resort to protests to get media attention.

I have been teaching engineering students how to conduct and complete environmental impact assessments for almost 30 years. A project that considers and integrates the needs of a host community from its early conception and design will result in a project that is technically sound, cost-efficient, safe, prosperous for all and healthy for the community and the environment. On the contrary, a project that is conceived independently without considering community issues puts at risk the implementation of the entire project and will most certainly create irritants and opposition, which can lead to wasting important investments. Nobody wants this, yet this is still what happens so often.

Effective and successful decision making requires in-depth analysis assessing economic, technical, social and environmental factors with equal consideration.

This study proposal is important because it will encourage conversation around the type of development we want as Canadians. For that, we need to study what happens before, during and after resource-extraction projects arrive in communities. Who benefits? How are communities impacted? If there are negative impacts, what attenuation or compensation measures are being deployed? Is everybody happy with the project?

As parliamentarians, we do our best work when we approach issues holistically, taking into consideration every factor — positive, negative, but also neutral — and making well-informed decisions backed by in-depth studies.

[Translation]

I’ll reiterate one of the points I made during the previous Parliament. The ignorance that prevails when decisions are being made about resource extraction results in the unequal distribution of profits and losses. Some people might think that doesn’t happen or happens only in developing countries, but that’s not true. My work took me to many places around the world and most of the provinces in Canada specifically to address situations involving negotiations with stakeholders, impact mitigation, contamination clean-up, human exposure to toxic products and many other very serious situations.

Here’s one of hundreds of examples. The people of Limoilou, which is in Quebec City, were exposed to wind-borne nickel particles from activities at the Port of Quebec. Neither government nor the industry deny it. The government’s proposed solution is to okay a higher exposure level, a decision that is making headlines these days. It wants to increase the limit to 60 times the current allowable level. Knowing that, esteemed colleagues, would you go live in Limoilou?

Quite often, too much focus is placed on the economic advantages. From 2014 to 2019, the oil and gas industry achieved record production while reducing its workforce by 23%. This industry receives billions of dollars in subsidies every year. It recently received $1.7 billion in public funds to clean up abandoned wells. However, that money did not increase the number of wells that were cleaned up, because companies just used the government’s money for the clean-up efforts rather than their own. Whatever happened to the polluter pays principle?

What is more, the industry is on the verge of getting approval to discharge 1.4 trillion litres of liquid effluent into the environment in areas where Indigenous people live. Humans do not drink oil or its pollutants. We need clean air and clean water to survive.

Other impacts include climate instability, because of greenhouse gas emissions, and the destabilization of our economy, because of extreme weather events. Just think of the destruction caused by the recent flooding in B.C. and Newfoundland and the impact these floods had on supply chains and inflation.

As senators, we have a responsibility to understand the positive, negative and neutral effects in order to be better legislators and promote the well-being of all Canadians.

[English]

Colleagues, I have worked all my career with industry in several areas, from infrastructure to mining and the oil and gas sector. Please believe me, I understand the value of engineering work in increasing the quality of life, and I see how society trusts engineers to help build resilience and reduce vulnerability in adapting infrastructure to extreme weather events brought by climate change. Of course I know that.

We can make intelligent, holistic decisions when we analyze all the impacts — positive, negative, cumulative, direct, indirect. It would be for the benefit of our communities and our industries. When the needs of our communities are addressed, industry can thrive instead of fighting Canadians.

I encourage you to support this motion so we can offer the federal government and all Canadians a thoughtful and balanced study on successful extractive resource development. Thank you, meegwetch.