Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond, pursuant to notice of November 24, 2021, moved:

That the Senate:

1.recall that, despite the commitment found in section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to have a fully bilingual Constitution, as of today, of the 31 enactments that make up the Canadian Constitution, 22 are official only in their English version, including almost all of the Constitution Act, 1867; and

2.call upon the government to consider, in the context of the review of the Official Languages Act, the addition of a requirement to submit, every five years, a report detailing the efforts made to comply with section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, debate adjourned.)

(At 4:09 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, November 30, 2021, at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson introduced Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (property qualifications of Senators).

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

[English]

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(j), I move, seconded by the Honourable Senators Plett, Cordy and Griffin:

That, for the remainder of the current session, and notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice:

1.the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration elect three deputy chairs;

2.the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight, and the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament elect two deputy chairs;

3.if a committee has elected more than one deputy chair:

(a)the reference to the deputy chair in rule 12-18(2)(b)(ii) be understood as referring to all deputy chairs of the committee acting together;

(b)the reference to the deputy chair in rule 12-23(6) be understood as referring to any deputy chair of the committee acting alone; and

(c)any reference to the deputy chair of a committee in any policy or guideline be understood as referring to all deputy chairs acting together, until the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration decides otherwise;

4.the Standing Committee on National Security and Defence be composed of 12 senators, in addition to the ex officio members;

5.the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight be composed of four senators, in addition to the two external members; and

6.the Committee of Selection be a standing committee.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Senator Gold, I would like to come back to the brutal murder of Marylène Levesque, who was killed by a repeat offender who murdered his first wife in 2004. That murder, which sent shockwaves through Quebec and continues to do so, raises questions about the Department of Public Safety’s responsibility with regard to the murderer’s parole conditions.

You used to be a member of the Parole Board of Canada, so I am sure that you’ve seen the National Joint Board of Investigation’s report that pointed out many shortcomings with regard to the supervision of Eustachio Gallese, the murderer. Among other things, the report makes mention of the many visits he was allowed to make to a massage parlour, the board members’ lack of training and the many warning signs that were ignored by correctional officers and halfway houses. Nevertheless, these shortcomings were identified by the Auditor General of Canada in 2018. In her investigation report tabled on November 9, coroner Stéphanie Gamache recommended that this type of criminal be made to wear an electronic bracelet and added that the measures taken by the Parole Board and the Correctional Service of Canada following this tragedy were completely insufficient.

Senator Gold, on September 18, the federal government announced that it was going to compensate Marylène Levesque’s family. According to what I heard, they will be receiving a very substantial sum.

Can you confirm that the family was compensated and tell us how much they were given?

Hon. Tony Loffreda: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate, Senator Gold.

Let me begin by saying how pleased I am to be back here with you and to welcome our eight new colleagues.

[English]

A very warm welcome to all new senators.

[Translation]

My question is on francophone immigration. Last month, I co‑organized a meeting with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada to discuss matters having to do with francophone immigration in Canada.

We were reminded that the demographic weight of francophones outside Quebec is declining at an alarming rate. A big part of the solution could be immigration.

Two days ago, the government recommitted in its Speech from the Throne to amending the Official Languages Act.

Last June, the government tried to amend the legislation by introducing a bill that would:

provide that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is required to adopt a policy on francophone immigration;

Senator Gold, the minister does not have to wait until the Official Languages Act is amended to draft a solid plan. Can you assure us that the government, through its new Minister of Immigration, is committed to solidifying this plan immediately without waiting for future legislation to pass?

The government has an ambitious immigration program for the next few years and the francophonie has to be central to that commitment.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, honourable senator, and for your steadfast commitment and dedication to this cause, to the tragedy you spoke of, a tragedy that resonates with us all.

I’m not aware of any compensation or of an amount, but I’ll look into it and get back to you.

Senator Loffreda: Thank you for that answer.

Year after year, Canada fails to meet its target for new French-speaking immigrants. It has a lot of catching up to do, and it is urgent. In my view, it is high time that Canada committed to increasing francophone immigration to this country. We’re not the only ones wanting to recruit the best candidates.

Can you confirm that the government’s francophone immigration plan will include strategic marketing and an aggressive recruitment campaign in countries of the Francophonie?

A laissez-faire approach to francophone immigration is no longer good enough.

Senator Cordy: That would be great. I understand things are changing on the fly and many people are hoping it changes significantly before spring of 2022.

My supplementary question, Senator Gold, is this: Would you be able to provide us with clarity on the status of Canadians who are ineligible for vaccination in international travel? Specifically, I’m talking about younger Canadians who are under the age of 5. I know that after two years of the pandemic, many Canadian families are anxious to travel again as the world is beginning to open up.

More specifically, my question is about travelling to the United States with young children or grandchildren, as families start to consider spring travel. Will those under the age of 5 be allowed to enter the United States, as they will not be vaccinated?

Hon. Jim Quinn: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

As noted in the Speech from the Throne, our country is witnessing significant disruptions associated with severe weather events due to climate change. These have crippled our supply chains, as is evident from ongoing weather events in British Columbia and now in Atlantic Canada. Local marketplaces, and even those across Canada, are experiencing disruptions in Canada’s supply chain management which, of course, have a direct impact on the availability of essential consumer goods in local and national marketplaces. Global experts at COP26 outlined that our global community will experience more frequent and severe weather events that will disrupt the movement of these essential consumer goods.

Senator Gold, my question is this: What assurances can the government give Canadians that they are looking to provide made-in-Canada transportation options to safeguard the secure supply of essential goods for our country, given the reality of supply chain disruptions that will continue to occur due to climate change?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Senator, thank you for your question. Welcome, again, to the chamber.

The government is very aware of this serious situation that is caused by flooding and mudslides in B.C., as well as the impact of the weather disruptions on the East Coast and on transportation networks and supply chains. Working with key industry partners and members of the federal and provincial governments, the federal government has formed a joint Supply Chain Recovery Working Group to assess transport networks and plan in the short-term for prioritized movement of goods. I am assured that the government will continue to work closely with these partners to address the broader supply chain issues, including transportation.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Gold, Canadians continue to pay very high rates for home internet and wireless services. In 2019, the Government of Canada issued a policy direction to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to ensure that, when exercising its duties, the commission is “implementing the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives to promote competition, affordability, consumer interests and innovation.”

However, there are now three cabinet petitions asking the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry to overturn the CRTC decision to reverse its 2019 decision on wholesale rates. There is also a cabinet petition asking the Ministers of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) to review the 2021 decision to limit the access of mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs), which smaller providers have argued only benefit Canada’s largest providers.

My question is this: What concrete action is your government taking to ensure that CRTC decisions are in line with the government’s own 2019 policy direction? Will your government exercise its power to overrule decisions that are, in the end, harming Canadian consumers and small-business owners?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for raising this important issue. If we have learned anything from the pandemic, it is how important reliable and affordable mobile networks are to our well-being and prospects of recovery. The government remains committed to ensuring that all Canadians pay fair prices for reliable telecom and other services.

I will note, however, as honourable senators know, that the CRTC is an independent agency. The government remains committed to working with them and with all other stakeholders as the situation evolves. The government will work with stakeholders and others to drive investment that will make telecom services more affordable in Canada.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of November 24, 2021, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, November 30, 2021, at 2 p.m.

Hon. Kim Pate, pursuant to notice of November 24, 2021, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report on a road map for post-pandemic economic and social policy to address the human, social and financial costs of economic marginalization and inequality, when and if the committee is formed;

That, given recent calls for action from Indigenous, provincial, territorial and municipal jurisdictions, the committee examine in particular potential national approaches to inter-jurisdictional collaboration to implement a guaranteed livable basic income; and

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

She said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Motion No. 6 to authorize the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance to examine and report, no later than December 31, 2022, on a roadmap for post-pandemic economic recovery that incorporates the urgent need to address the human, social and financial costs of economic marginalization and inequality.

This pandemic has been likened to a storm at sea. While some of us are on a sturdy, multi-storey, well-serviced, stable ship with robust engines, others face the same waves without even a life preserver, let alone a rowboat minus the oars. This pandemic has not affected everyone equally.

During the first year of the pandemic, the financial situations of one in five Canadians, primarily those with incomes over $100,000, improved. People like us were relatively well protected. Our jobs and our income were never in peril because of the pandemic. Meanwhile, for far too many, the situation was dire. Canada’s unemployment rates skyrocketed to heights not seen since the Great Depression.

In responding to the pandemic, the government has stated that a healthy, resilient and vibrant economy is an economy “for all.” Canada’s economy does best when we uphold values of substantive equality, when the economy is inclusive and when no one is abandoned to poverty or prevented by poverty from contributing to their communities to their full potential.

The government created laudable financial supports, such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, to ensure safety and dignity for individuals and stability for economies. And yet, by design, these “life preservers” did not reach those most in need.

Those who were on social assistance and were unable to work prior to the implementation of CERB could not access the program, which offered previously employed folks $2,000 per month.

How do you think the average child leaving care fared in Toronto, for example, with $390 for housing and $343 for food every month, or how the average single mom fared each month in isolation trying to obtain housing for less than $700 and nutritious food for her and her children for $360 per month?

Too many of those who received the CERB also faced desperate financial situations. According to media reports, for people with disabilities and for close to 90,000 low-income seniors, drawing CERB in the past means that they now cannot access the full amounts of income supports they would usually rely on. The situation is particularly stark for many who received CERB in good faith, but now face repayment orders on top of receiving less of their usual entitlements. Their struggles echo those of other marginalized groups, particularly recipients of provincial and territorial social assistance and youth transitioning out of state child welfare “care.”

The pandemic policies excluded those most vulnerable and marginalized, leaving them in the lurch. The results are devastating from both a financial and a human and social perspective. Two in five Canadians — those with the least, those living in poverty — struggle every day with the stressful realities of hunger, housing and personal insecurity, in addition to the spectre of illness and homelessness.

This week, the government listed addressing child poverty as one of its priorities in the Speech from the Throne. According to the report card just released by Campaign 2000, more than 1.3 million children — nearly one in five of those who represent Canada’s future — are growing up in poverty, deprived of necessities and opportunities that have become intergenerational. The chasm between children who have and those who do not is wide and deep.

The Canada child benefit is also lifting fewer people out of poverty than when it was introduced. It is not providing sufficient support to those in profound poverty.

On the housing front, things are just as dire. More than 250,000 households in Canada have accumulated over $350 million in rental arrears since the onset of the pandemic. Though the National Housing Strategy aims to build 150,000 new units of housing over the next 10 years, approximately 235,000 individuals experience homelessness each year and 1.7 million households lack the housing they need.

Black and Indigenous peoples are 2.7 times more likely than the overall population to report incomes inadequate to allow them to pay rent. Of Indigenous people in urban centres, 1 in 15 will experience homelessness, compared to 1 in 128 for the general population.

Failing to address poverty also carries punitive economic costs for government and for all of us. Indeed, the cost of poverty in Ontario is conservatively estimated at $27.1 billion to $33 billion per year, and $72 billion to $84 billion per year in Canada in the forms of lost tax revenue, health care, prison and legal system costs.

Let’s consider poverty in the context of health care. Living in poverty doubles or triples the chances of developing diabetes and complications such as blindness and cardiovascular disease. On a human level, this is unacceptable. However, if that weren’t enough, poverty also results in an estimated additional $7.6 billion cost to the Canadian health care system.

And what about poverty in the context of the criminal legal system? Of women in prison, 80% are there for poverty-related crimes. The most common convictions for Indigenous women are theft under $5,000, theft over $5,000, fraud, and trafficking drugs or stolen goods. Most of the women convicted of violent “offences” are criminalized as a result of their attempts to negotiate poverty, violence and racism.

In this light, it is not surprising that the Public Health Agency of Canada stated in 2008 that:

. . . $1 invested in the early years saves between $3 and $9 in future spending on the health and criminal justice systems, as well as on social assistance. . . .

Honourable colleagues, despite these glaring inequities, the situation is remediable. We can work together to reduce these disparities. We can and we must work to find the best path forward. This study could help us to lead the way.

At the height of the pandemic in 2020, the National Finance Committee recommended, among other measures, examination of the potential of a guaranteed livable basic income to unite and align human, social and economic well-being. This study would allow the committee to delve into this question in an in-depth and expanded way, considering issues including the role of the federal government and the federal spending power in light of the intersection between federal, provincial and territorial responsibilities, programs and finances; the relationship between Indigenous nations and the federal government and economic approaches to decolonization; as well as issues of design and cost of programs, including potential examination of tax fairness and reform.

This study could allow us to examine how, for instance, here in Ontario, despite the pandemic, Dufferin County reduced chronic homelessness in its community by 50% thanks to a combination of housing allowances and support services; how Guelph and Wellington County reduced chronic youth homelessness by 43% during the first year of the pandemic; how London, Ontario, ended homelessness for veterans; and how Medicine Hat, Alberta, became the first city in Canada to end chronic homelessness.

This motion aims to map a way forward for inter-jurisdictional collaboration to economic recovery that prioritizes overall well-being, not merely GDP. Economic recovery must include poverty eradication within the context of social, gender and racial equality.

This month marks the fiftieth anniversary of the 1971 Croll report, from the Special Senate Committee on Poverty. This committee recommended that:

. . . the Government of Canada implement a Guaranteed Annual Income . . . on a . . . national basis . . . financed and administered by the Government of Canada.

Since then, the 1985 Royal Commission of the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada recommended:

. . . the provision of a Universal Income Security Program with relatively low guarantee levels and tax-back rates is an appropriate long-term goal for the Government of Canada and the provincial governments to pursue . . .

In 2008, former Conservative senator Hugh Segal and former Liberal Senator Art Eggleton championed guaranteed livable income in this chamber and beyond. As a result, the report of the Senate Subcommittee on Cities recommended a federal annual income replace the current provincial and social assistance schemes.

Just four years ago, this chamber passed Senator Eggleton’s motion calling on the government to support provincial, territorial and Indigenous initiatives aimed at evaluating the cost and impact of guaranteed livable income programs.

Two years ago, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls called on the government to implement this fiscally responsible step to addressing the needs of Indigenous women in order to assist them to escape violence, homelessness, prison and death.

Honourable colleagues, interest in a guaranteed livable basic income is far from new. What’s more, it’s absolutely doable. The Parliamentary Budget Officer provided one example of a way guaranteed livable basic income could be achieved at a net-zero cost. Dr. Evelyn Forget and other progressive economists have proposed additional approaches. In B.C., an incremental approach was advocated.

Virtually everyone agrees on replacing existing provincial and territorial social assistance programs with income-tested cash transfers that provide resources sufficient to live on. Prince Edward Island is looking for federal assistance to implement a basic income guarantee.

Over five years, a guaranteed livable income could increase GDP by between 1.6% and 2.4%, create between $46 billion and $80 billion in new government revenues, and create between 298,000 and 450,000 new jobs. The potential to increase economic growth and human well-being is obvious.

Honourable colleagues, two out of three people in Canada believe implementing a guaranteed livable income to ensure that everyone can afford basic necessities is the right thing to do. This motion reflects the reality that we must make additional effort to consider those who are too often left behind or forgotten when we think of national recovery.

Currently, acute financial problems can result in chronic poverty. It can happen to those who least expect it; those trying to escape violence in their homes; those expected to care for their children, elders or people with disabilities; those who lose their jobs; and those who have health challenges.

Poverty shortens life expectancy by some 21 years.

Poverty intersects with and worsens systemic racism in gendered ways. Racialized women are 48% more likely to be unemployed and earn 55.6% the income of non-racialized men.

Senators, the aim of this motion is to enable us in this place to do what we do so well: namely, taking into account the interests of those whose needs are not front and centre in the other place. Let’s work to ensure that every Canadian is considered as we map the road to recovery. I look forward to working with each and every one of you and to honouring the legacy of those who have gone before us as well as the interests of those who have yet to be considered.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum, pursuant to notice of November 24, 2021, moved:

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.

(On motion of Senator McCallum, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Pat Duncan: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(j), I move:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, for the remainder of the current session, the normal duration for Senators’ Statements be 18 minutes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?