The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, today’s sitting is once again taking place with senators across Canada attending by video conference as well as in the Senate Chamber.

In order to ensure an orderly sitting, I would like to remind you of a few guidelines to follow.

Senators on video conference are asked to have their microphones muted at all times unless recognized by name, and will be responsible for turning their microphones on and off during the sitting.

Before speaking, please wait until you are recognized by name. Once you have been recognized, please pause for a few seconds to let the audio signal catch up to you.

When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly, at a normal volume, and use the microphone attached to your headphones.

When speaking, please do not speak English on the French channel, and do not speak French on the English channel. If you plan to alternate from one language to another, you should turn interpretation off.

Should senators want to request the floor to raise a point of order, please unmute your microphone and say your name followed by “point of order.” This process can be used if senators are experiencing serious technical difficulties related to interpretation.

If you experience other technical challenges, please indicate this via the chat function at the bottom of your screen or by emailing ISD using the instructions in the confirmation email.

Please note that we may need to suspend at times as we need to ensure that all members are able to participate fully.

Video conference screens should not be copied, recorded or photographed. You may use and share official proceedings posted on the SenVu website for that purpose.

To avoid any confusion, however, I would ask senators to avoid posting any pictures of the public broadcast of our proceedings while the Senate is actually sitting. Otherwise, there may be uncertainty as to the source of the pictures and whether they were from the Zoom conference, which would not be permissible. I know colleagues would not want to cause such confusion.

Senators must set up in a private area and to be mindful of their surroundings so they do not inadvertently share any personal information or information that could be used to identify their location. Only senators should be visible.

Finally, to avoid the risk of acoustic shock to people listening on video conference, senators must avoid shouting.

Hon. Peter Harder moved second reading of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

He said: Honourable senators, I’m back, and perhaps more appropriately, it’s back. A few short months ago, having risen to seek support for Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, I stand again to reacquaint you with the particulars of the same bill in this new Parliament. Indeed, I was tempted to move fifth reading of the bill a few moments ago, but I didn’t want to inspire the Speaker’s ire. The bill is now known as Bill S-2, and I stand to move the bill.

Before moving forward, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. I do so in recognition of the remarks of the Governor General who noted, in the recent Speech from the Throne, that this acknowledgement is not merely a symbolic declaration but a real reflection of our history. I can think of no more important bill than the one before us, which speaks to the role of our Parliament as an occasion to follow the advice of the Governor General.

(1500)

Let me start by saying that the legislation and objectives laid out in Bill S-2 are precisely the same as those we voted on last spring. As you know, the bill did not come to a vote in the other place prior to the calling of the federal election, regrettably. This is an issue I’ll speak a little more about towards the end of my comments.

For the moment, though, I’d like to discuss the need for this bill and to outline its specifics, to both remind those who were here during the spring debate and to provide some detail to new senators sworn in just recently.

As I mentioned in the spring, this legislation would update the Parliament of Canada Act to better reflect the new reality here in the Senate. Those who are new to this place are no doubt familiar with the changes brought about in the aftermath of the 2015 election, given that this is the process that brought you here. Nonetheless, perhaps some history bears repeating to set the context.

Upon the implementation of the new appointment process of independent senators begun in 2016, many of us have spent much time looking for the most effective ways to organize ourselves in pursuit of our duties as reviewers of legislation and practitioners of sober second reflection.

During that period, of course, other senators, many of whom are here today, preferred sitting within established party caucuses. That approach had its organizational merits, of course, not the least of which was its ability to provide support to newcomers and to structure Senate debate. Nonetheless, the system was changing and, speaking for myself, the organizational task was a daunting one. There was no road map, and yet no shortage of advice on how best to go forward.

For example, some suggested that senators sit within regional caucuses for the purposes of establishing committee representation and the sharing of resources. Others wondered whether it might be better to establish affinity groups under which members would come together dependent on a particular issue.

While academics and policy experts debated these issues, senators were being appointed at a fairly regular pace. And one thing most would agree on was that the new members couldn’t function as 105 independent silos. So as more and more colleagues were appointed, senators began coming together in support of each other and subsequently organizing themselves into various groups.

While we’ve often been feeling our way since then — and frankly continue to do so — we have begun to put a new stamp on the institution. These efforts, through much trial and error and also through much goodwill, have led us to where we are today: a very different Senate with five separate groups but still operating in large part on the structure built for a very different time.

The bill we are now debating brings these realities into alignment with new legislation that attempts to treat all senators fairly and which provides this body with increased consultative powers.

To the credit of all senators, the upper chamber has recognized the changes occurring from within and acted upon them. There was a willingness among all members, including those who preferred a two-party arrangement, to make adjustments to the strict rules and procedures of the Senate towards a more modernized approach.

The core premise that all senators are equal led to the sensible review and modification of rules and practices in order to ensure committee seating for new colleagues and for the equitable treatment of all caucuses and groups in the Senate as they came into being. Bill S-2, as did Bill S-4 before it, is a bill that simply catches up to and cements into law many of the practices and sessional orders this chamber has already instituted.

Since 2016, 60 senators have been appointed through the independent, merit-based advisory board process. Also since then, three non-partisan groups have formed in the Senate: the Independent Senators Group, the Canadian Senators Group and the Progressive Senate Group.

As these groups established themselves, the Senate amended its internal rules to accommodate them and to provide them with research funding and committee assignments proportionate to their numbers. Along with the Conservative Party caucus and the Government Representative Office, Bill S-2 reflects a multi-dimensional Senate, and just as the other place provides its leadership in a multi-group chamber under this bill so will the Senate.

The proposed legislation also fulfills a policy commitment to update the act and reflect the Senate’s new, less partisan role. Amending the Parliament of Canada Act is a continuation of the commitment made by the Prime Minister when the establishment of the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments was announced in December 2015. That was the first step in a process that is now resulting in this legislative change to the act.

Before discussing the substance of the changes, I’d like to take a moment to thank and congratulate all senators, leaders and facilitators, especially Senators Plett, Woo, Cordy and Tannas, whose cooperative spirit has brought us to this point.

Prior to the drafting of Bill S-4 in the last Parliament, comprehensive consultations were held with all leaders, their perspectives were heard and the proposed legislation, then brought forward and now brought forward again, reflects those discussions. The government recognized its responsibility to consult with those who would be most affected by any changes to the act.

In general terms, Bill S-2 would extend official status to the new groups that have formed. It would include a spelled-out role in Senate governance and the appointment processes. Leaders of the groups would receive allowances commensurate with the relative number of seats held by their group in the Senate. More specifically, Bill S-2 would first ensure that the largest group outside the government or opposition caucuses would receive allowances equivalent to those provided to the opposition. The next two largest groups would receive approximately half of the allowances the opposition receives.

These new allowances would begin on July 1, 2022, and will assist the recognized parties or groups to fulfill their role of providing sober second advice.

Secondly, the bill amends the Parliament of Canada Act and makes consequential and related amendments to other acts that allow the leader or facilitator of all recognized parties and groups in the Senate to make membership changes to the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. This would simply confirm what currently exists.

As well, the bill provides that all leaders are consulted on appointments of the following officers or agents of Parliament: the Senate Ethics Officer, the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner and the Parliamentary Budget Officer. All leaders’ input would also be required regarding the appointment of senators to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, NSICOP. The appointments of these officers and agents are crucial to the functioning of government and, by extrapolation, the country.

Third, Bill S-2 would amend the Emergencies Act to provide that at least one senator from each group be represented on any parliamentary committee that is formed under this act. Currently, the Emergencies Act requires that a parliamentary review committee of both the House and Senate be established for the purpose of reviewing the government’s exercise of these powers following the declaration of an emergency. Under the current statute, the membership of this committee includes at least one member from each recognized party in the House of Commons and at least one senator from each party in the Senate. The formal recognition of the ISG, PSG and CSG proposed in Bill S-2 would allow each group a seat on this important body.

Finally, Bill S-2 will add the titles of Government Representative in the Senate, Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate and Government Liaison, where appropriate, to reflect the current model of the Government Representative Office. Again, this confirms what is already in practice.

(1510)

Bill S-2 would also propose to retain leadership allowances for the government and the opposition — five positions each — and provides leadership allowances for the three other largest recognized parties or groups — four positions each.

Because Bill S-2 deals with the Senate’s institutional framework and organizational processes, the government has determined, rightly in my view, that this bill should originate in the Senate and that it should be discussed and debated here first since we are the members most affected by these changes. That was why Bill S-4 started here in the last Parliament.

Now, because of the long-standing conventions of not permitting the Senate to expend public funds, Bill S-2 contains a non-appropriation clause, which would only permit the bill to be brought into force once monies have been appropriated by Parliament. Passing this bill in the Senate and moving it forward to the other place will allow the proper chamber to introduce the legislation necessary to finalize the amendments. This has been a long time in the making. The Senate demand for such legislation began several years ago. I can personally attest to that and have the bruises to prove it. It is in the interest of all senators to move Bill S-2 forward so that it can be sent to the other place as soon as possible. We mustn’t waste the opportunity.

But I would be remiss if I did not take this occasion to address the fact that we find ourselves dealing with this bill after just having done so a few months ago. The last month of the last Parliament we dealt with it, and now the first month of the new Parliament we’re back to dealing with it.

The original Bill S-4 required significant review, discussion, consultation and accommodation amongst all groups within the Senate. In large part, we succeeded in our mission and dispatched Bill S-4 to the other place. We are being given a second chance to do the same with Bill S-2, and this time with the expectation that the Parliament of Canada Act will be studied, put to a vote in the other place, and finally have the act reflected in the reality of the Senate of the 21st century.

It took two parliaments for changes to the act to come forward. It is a reflection of the accommodations we have made over many years. To have worked so hard and pursued our own due diligence and then not to have the bill come forward to the other place was a disappointment to me and, I expect, to many others in this chamber.

I look forward to a respectful review of this legislation in the other place, just as I know that bills coming from the other place will be treated with thoughtfulness and respect by this chamber.

But, colleagues, Bill S-2 is a considerate piece of legislation. It provides for equal treatment of leadership and reinforces the equality afforded to all groups in terms of consultation; something currently occurring in practice but not cemented into law.

Bill S-2 can be considered an evolutionary piece of legislation. It need not be revolutionary to meet our demands. The government is not mandating changes within this legislation. Rather, Bill S-2 can be described as a permissive bill — not a prescriptive one — which, coincidentally, is exactly how we get most things done in this chamber.

Finally, Bill S-2 is not by any means the last word on Senate reform or modernization. It is, however, the legislative change that we need to move forward and address other practices within the competence of the chamber itself that will advance further modernization. This bill reflects what we are, and it doesn’t preclude any further changes to reflect what Canadians want the Senate to be in the future. Thank you.

Senator Omidvar: Senator Pate, thank you for your ongoing advocacy for reform of the criminal justice system. At committee, when we discussed criminal justice reforms in various aspects, the model of the Nordic countries has always been held out to us. My question is: Will we be the trailblazers with this bill or will we follow the lead of other jurisdictions?

Senator Pate: Thank you for that question. We wouldn’t be trailblazers. As I mentioned, there are countries like Germany, New Zealand and others that already have record suspension. You mentioned the Nordic countries. Places like Portugal have essentially created record expiry processes, but they don’t call them that. I think we would have a lot to learn in terms of what kinds of approaches if we didn’t want to take this approach. But what we are proposing in this bill is a streamlined way of allowing records to expire that has been actually suggested by the government.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator McCallum, it’s now six o’clock. Unfortunately, I’m obliged to interrupt you. Pursuant to rule 3-3(1) and the order adopted in November 2021, I’m obliged to leave the chair unless there is leave to continue. Accordingly, the session is suspended until 7 p.m. You will be given the balance of your time when we return.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

(1900)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mégie, for the second reading of Bill S-218, An Act to amend the Department for Women and Gender Equality Act.

Senator Patterson: Senator Gold, speaking of surveillance, Canada has known for years that we need to modernize the outdated North Warning System. In 2016, the defence policy where Canada tabled Strong, Secure, Engaged placed emphasis on defence innovation and long-term investments in defence. Renewing the North Warning System was included in the last mandate letter, and on August 14, 2021, a joint statement between the U.S. and Canada underscored the importance of upgrading and modernizing our outdated defence infrastructure command and control systems.

Right now, we don’t even have the capacity for the over-the-horizon monitoring to watch for hypersonic missiles, which we know China and Russia have. My question, Senator Gold, is what is the specific timeline your government has set to complete this critical security upgrade, and what concrete steps have been taken since the directive in 2016 to renew the North Warning System?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): The Government of Canada is committed to doing what it needs to do to safeguard Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic. It’s committed to equipping the Royal Canadian Navy with the ships they need to serve Canadians in safeguarding Canada’s Arctic sovereignty.

I have been advised the government is acquiring six Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships, two having already been delivered with a third in the water, which will deliver armed surveillance of Canada’s waters, including in the Arctic. The ships will be there to assert Canadian sovereignty in these regions. While the first ship recently crossed the Northwest Passage, the government looks forward to the first operational deployment of the second ship in 2022 as part of Operation NANOOK, which contributes to Arctic security and is a key part of the Canada-U.S. defence relationship.

Furthermore, the government is making investments to increase our ability to operate in the Arctic, including conducting joint exercises and enhancing surveillance and intelligence capabilities in that region.

Senator Gold: With respect to your question on a specific timeline, I do not have the answer. I will ask the government and report back, but there are a number of points I would like to underline.

First of all, as I mentioned, Canada is collaborating closely with the United States on the deployment of technologies to improve Arctic surveillance, including the renewal of the North Warning System. I have also been advised the government is investing more than $100 million in the All Domain Situational Awareness Science and Technology Program, which will also contribute to our security and sovereignty in the North. This program aims to produce innovative solutions to the challenges of surveillance in the North and improve our continental defence.

Furthermore, while our work with the United States to modernize the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, will further augment our Northern capabilities, the new Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships are designed to operate in Northern waters, once again adding to our capability in that area.

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): My next question is for the Government Representative in the Senate and has to do with another big problem facing our economy.

The Quebec Retail Council recently stated that there was an unprecedented number of jobs to be filled in various sectors across the province. There are more than 20,000 job vacancies. The Manufacturiers et Exportateurs du Québec association has said that the labour shortage is the main barrier to Quebec’s economic recovery and that Quebec manufacturers have lost $18 billion over the past two years, which is a direct consequence of this shortage.

Last week’s Throne Speech made no mention of the labour shortages in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

Why is that, leader? Is it because the Trudeau government does not want to acknowledge the problem or because you have no plan to address it?

Senator Gold: The government’s plans, activities and actions through this period and going forward are not talking points. They are concrete steps to assist Canadians. I will not hide behind the constitutional jurisdiction over businesses, employment and labour, all of which are provincial. The government is working with provincial and territorial counterparts to address this problem, which we all recognize is a serious problem.

That said, this chamber should rest assured that the government continues to take the well-being of small businesses seriously, whether in our province or elsewhere in Canada, and will work with its partners to attempt to make life better for them.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): As Government Representative in the Senate, and at the risk of repeating myself, I have to say neither of those.

As part of Budget 2021, the government invested in helping workers reskill to meet the needs of employers. I have been told that the government has a plan to address this labour shortage by welcoming talented workers to Canada, keeping experienced workers in the workforce, boosting the participation of diverse Canadians in the skilled trades and address the specific needs of evolving sectors.

The problem in the sector that you mentioned is clearly not just a problem in Quebec, but elsewhere as well.

The Government of Canada will continue to work on this issue with its provincial and territorial partners.

[English]

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, I rise today to pay tribute to our friend and colleague, the Honourable Rob Black. Last week, the senator for Ontario was celebrated at the Canadian Western Agribition in Regina, Saskatchewan, as one of Canada’s top 50 most influential leaders in agriculture. He was recognized in the “Designated Hitters” category of leaders that you go to when you really need a home run.

Senator Black’s tireless, lifelong dedication to supporting Canadian agriculture — both on and off Parliament Hill — amounts to a staggering effort to strengthen the sector. Generations to come will be able to enjoy the fruits of his labour.

Indeed, earlier this year, he was named 2021 Produce Champion by the Canadian Produce Marketing Association for advancing the priorities of its members and the fresh fruit and vegetable industry.

A vital and little-known way that we as senators do our jobs is by meeting with people in our home provinces to encourage a lively exchange between Canadians and their senators.

Senator Black went above and beyond to stay engaged with the rural regions throughout the pandemic. He spent last summer touring farms and agricultural facilities all over Ontario, as well as in Acme and in Lethbridge, Alberta. He has plans to visit more rural communities across the Prairies, the Maritimes and the Territories when it is safe to do so.

Senator Black’s advocacy for rural regions and agriculture, while considering all Canadians, has earned the confidence and support of an entire industry.

Rob, your CSG colleagues are proud to serve with you in the Senate of Canada. Congratulations on your two well-deserved national awards.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Patterson: Senator McCallum, you talked about balance, but you’ve given a bit of a litany of woe about resource developments and Indigenous peoples in the country. Would you agree that there are some places in some regions, including my region of Nunavut and maybe even the oil sands, where Indigenous people get a fair share of revenues, where the land is taken care of, where they have secured decent and fair agreements on employment and business opportunities? Are there not some places where things are working well in this country?

Senator McCallum: Yes, there are. If you remember when I introduced this motion, I said we’re going to look at the negative and positive impacts of resource extraction. And it is those positive impacts that we haven’t heard of, and many people didn’t know about the negative impacts. So we will be studying both, and hopefully the witnesses that we bring will demonstrate that balance that we need to see and the recommendations that they’re going to bring forward, and have the country know that we can work together when we have examples of good relationships. Thank you.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: If I may ask a quick question.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you, Senator Housakos, for this worthwhile initiative.

[English]

There are three bills the Senate has adopted that you are certainly modelling your bill on: the Framework on Palliative Care in Canada Act adopted in December 2017, the Federal Framework on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act adopted June 2018, and the National Framework for Diabetes Act adopted in June 2021.

Do you have any indications or results from these bills? Maybe not the one on diabetes that came in just before we broke for the election, but the bills adopted in 2017 and 2018 all have the same deadlines you have: 12 months for a framework and 18 months to report to the House and the Senate. Do you have any information about how these frameworks have, in fact, been implemented?

Senator Housakos: I’m not aware of each and every one of them. I know, regarding the one on PTSD, that the government was a little bit tardy on meeting the timelines, but they did have the national conference and did table a report in Parliament in regard to that particular motion.

When it comes to motions, as you know, they are suggestions we make to the government, and we hope the government finds it in their benevolence to embrace them.

In this particular instance, one of the reasons why Senator Boehm and I decided to put it into a bill is it comes with more veracity of weight than just a simple motion. But in all fairness, we’ve tried to make this a non-prescriptive as possible, giving the government all the flexibility it would need.

We are just looking to move the sticks forward incrementally, as they say in football, pointing it in the right direction and shaking the tree a little bit. We find that successive governments have been reticent in tackling this issue, so we feel passing this bill in this state in a flexible and cooperative way will encourage the government to take the baton and run with it, as they have with most motions, even if, as in the case of PTSD, they were delayed six or seven months.

Senator Patterson: Thank you. I agree.

(On motion of Senator Galvez, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ngo, seconded by the Honourable Senator Patterson:

That the Senate note that, by adopting the Journey to Freedom Day Act on April 23, 2015, and taking into account the first two elements of the preamble of the said Act, the Parliament of Canada unequivocally recognized violations of:

(a)the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam and its protocols (Paris Peace Accords); and

(b)the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam; and

That the Senate urge the Government of Canada to call upon six or more of the current parties to the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam, which include Canada, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Poland, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, amongst others, to agree to the reconvention of the International Conference on Viet-Nam pursuant to Article 7(b) of the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam in order to settle disputes between the signatory parties due to the violations of the terms of the Paris Peace Accords and the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam.

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, we now find ourselves, unbelievably, on the last day of November. I did not want to let the month pass without acknowledging, in this place, National Indigenous Veterans Day, which was November 8, and Remembrance Day on November 11. It is important that we continue to honour and remember those Canadians as well as those First Nations and Métis people who bravely served in the Canadian military. I am particularly proud of contributions made to the Armed Forces by my father, Private Lauchie MacKinnon, and my brother, Commander Charlie MacKinnon, during their time in service.

Throughout my time in the Senate and working with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I have had the opportunity to travel to many countries where I met with many of our incredible service men and women. Despite the many horrors of war and the toll it takes, not only on their physical bodies but on their mental health as well, these Canadians choose to serve. Their families also sacrifice in not having their loved ones near. Of course, with texting, Zoom, MS Teams and even email, things are much different than they were back in my father’s time when a letter home across the Atlantic could take weeks or months to arrive.

Honourable senators, last year I became an ambassador for VETS Canada. I am honoured to support this wonderful organization that aims to help veterans in need. VETS Canada was started in 2010 in Halifax by Jim Lowther, himself a veteran, to keep veterans who were living on the streets in high-risk situations from slipping through the cracks. Since then, he and his wife, Debbie, and a small team have grown the organization to provide aid of all sorts to veterans in need, including anything from groceries or helping to pay a power bill to emotional and mental-health support. They operate from coast to coast to coast with three drop-in support centres across the country and over 1,400 active volunteers.

One of the most successful initiatives run by VETS Canada has been the Guitars for Vets program. This program matches veterans or still-serving members who suffer from PTSD or other service-related disabilities with a gently used guitar, and it provides them with 10 free lessons with a guitar teacher online in order to put “the healing power of music in the hands of heroes.”

Earlier this month, I had the good fortune to attend a Guitars for Vets program in Halifax and to witness first-hand its profound impact. In this Circle of Service event, veterans were able to express themselves musically through songs they had written or learned to play through the Guitars for Vets program. The guest teacher and artist that day was Alan Doyle of Great Big Sea. Alan Doyle and Speaker Furey’s son Premier Andrew Furey were instrumental in starting the Dollar a Day Foundation, which provides funding to front line mental health and addictions programs across Canada. I thank them for their community spirit. This foundation provides funding to Guitars for Vets.

Honourable senators, I encourage you to check out VETS Canada and Guitars for Vets to see the valuable work they are doing. It is important that we not just acknowledge our veterans and their service on two designated days in the month of November, but that we do so all year round.

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Honourable senators, before I begin I would like to offer my condolences to the families of Senator Keating and Senator Forest-Niesing, as well as to our colleague Senator Seidman who lost her husband earlier this month.

Welcome to our eight new colleagues in this chamber. I offer you my congratulations and support as you begin your journey here in the Senate.

Today I rise to celebrate National Child Day, which took place on November 20. This year marks three decades since Canada made the commitment to actively ensure that all children in our land are treated with dignity and respect, and that all have the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Although this was already a significant challenge, it is much worsened by the pandemic and Canada continues to fall short. I would like to thank all the parents, families, teachers, activists and organizations who have worked night and day to ensure the well-being of our children and youth. We appreciate all that you do.

I want to thank and acknowledge our children for being our sources of joy, pride and motivation. Thank you for wearing masks and washing your hands, for staying home when it was nice out and for giving your grandparents space to keep them safe.

Thank you to our young people. Many of you put your own health on the line so that essential businesses could operate during this pandemic. Many of you did not really get to fully enjoy the final years of high school, spending time with friends and loved ones. I hope you know that your sacrifice has made a difference.

As parliamentarians, we must remember that all issues we face are children’s issues. We must remember that it is our responsibility to serve our children and to create a better Canada for them. We can be proud of the progress that has been made in health care in particular, the advancements in telehealth for children and the vaccines that are now available across the country for children aged 5 to 11.

Yet there is more to be done. A recent report from Campaign 2000 found that, in 2019, nearly one in five children continue to live in poverty — one in five children, colleagues. We must do better.

As we begin the Forty-fourth Parliament, let’s place children in the centre of every policy so that they are not left out. And once more, thank you to all our kids for all that you do every day.

Meegwetch, thank you.

[Translation]