Hon. Donna Dasko: Senator Harder, will you take another question?

Senator Harder: Certainly.

Senator McPhedran: Can you assure me that this bill will not in any way dilute the equal treatment of unaffiliated senators?

Senator Harder: Senator, I see no way in which this bill does that. Yes, I can give that assurance. This bill does not address that issue, and therefore the framework for dealing with unaffiliated senators remains what it is.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum moved second reading of Bill S-218, An Act to amend the Department for Women and Gender Equality Act.

She said: Honourable senators, I would like to begin by highlighting why this slight but powerful and timely piece of legislation is so critical. This bill would enshrine the requirement for the Minister for Women and Gender Equality to table a statement that sets out potential effects of the bill on women, and particularly Indigenous women. This gender-based analysis or statement would be a requirement for every future piece of legislation to assess the gender-specific impacts of policies, legislation and programs on women and men. This allows decision makers to consider gender differences.

You will note specific mention within this bill to Indigenous women. I have heard the concern of some in this chamber that this excluded other women of colour, the disability community, et cetera. That is not so. I would like to illustrate the importance of referencing Indigenous women by referring to an analogy from page 151 of Kimberlé Crenshaw’s Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex:

Imagine a basement which contains all people who are disadvantaged on the basis of race, sex, class, sexual preference, age and/or physical ability. These people are stacked — feet standing on shoulders — with those on the bottom being disadvantaged by the full array of factors, up to the very top, where the heads of all those disadvantaged by a singular factor brush up against the ceiling. Their ceiling is actually the floor above which only those who are not disadvantaged in any way reside. In efforts to correct some aspects of domination, those above the ceiling admit from the basement only those who can say that “but for” the ceiling, they too would be in the upper room. A hatch is developed through which those placed immediately below can crawl. Yet this hatch is generally available only to those who — due to the singularity of their burden and their otherwise privileged position relative to those below — are in the position to crawl through. Those who are multiply-burdened are generally left below unless they can somehow pull themselves into the groups that are permitted to squeeze through the hatch.

As parliamentarians, will our efforts facilitate the inclusion only of those who are positioned to squeeze through this hatch or those for whom it can be said that when those at the bottom enter, we all enter? What is the ceiling that, as parliamentarians, we need to pay particular attention to? Would applying a gender-lens analysis affect this ceiling for many? It is important to know, as this ceiling prevents many from getting to the upper room and thereby having the privilege of substantive equality in their lives.

Honourable senators, it is important to ask ourselves why this bill is necessary in the first place. Why do many of our ministers continue to shirk their mandates that require them to apply gender-based analysis to government bills? Why has there been inaction and presumed indifference to the equality of women, highlighted by the fact that the application of this analysis is anything but routine, timely and thorough?

Honourable senators, why do I concentrate particularly on Indigenous women in this bill? Gender-based analysis, as it is currently haphazardly applied, applies to citizens whose history and context are understood by Canadian society — non-Indigenous women who live in settings that normally do not generate further marginalization or interjurisdictional gaps. However, in looking at the bills that we have recently passed, Parliament continues to place marginalized people at a disadvantage socially, politically and economically.

On the ladder of marginalized people who want to get through to the top floor, First Nations women continually place at the very bottom, especially First Nations women who have multiple forms of disadvantage, some tied to legislation which only they toil under, such as the Indian Act. Why is that? Why do people resist the idea of removing the obstacles unique to First Nations women and their descendants? If we move one rung up, does it place First Nations women in a better situation? Or does the inherent intersectionality of these obstacles work in a concerted effort to prevent progress?

If society continues to leave Indigenous women without protection while it protects others through the current gender-based analysis, then what does that say about us as a society, especially after the recent report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls? What is the greatest obstacle for First Nations women? There are many: race, gender, disability, lack of education, unemployability, homelessness, violence in its many forms, loss of self-determination and self-government, loss of identity, lack of safe neighbourhoods, oppression through laws and policies bolstered by the Indian Act. Removal of one or even five of these obstacles would still leave Indigenous women sidelined by society.

These obstacles require political solutions, as they are politically engineered barriers. In the book Residential Schools and Indigenous Peoples: From Genocide via Education to the Possibilities for Processes of Truth, Restitution, Reconciliation, and Reclamation, edited by Stephen James Minton, one of the authors Dr. Natahnee Nuay Winder quotes a poem by Tanaya Winder entitled Extraction, 2018. This resonates with me as it represents a glimpse into the “felt” or emotional experiences of residential school.

Before I was born they tried to silence us,

pierced our tongues with needles then taught

our then-girls-grandmothers how to sew

like machines. Even then, they saw our bodies

as land, full of resources

waiting to be extracted and exploited. . . .

For as long as I can remember, we’ve been stolen:

from reservation to Industrial boarding schools

and today our girls, women, and two-spirit still go missing

and murdered. I could find no word for this.

But yáakwi is to sink or disappear. Where is it we fall?

When did we first start vanishing?

In the same book, Dr. Winder states that:

Residential schools were based on a model for the extraction and assimilation of Indigenous peoples from their communities, families, and traditional territories.

Dr. Winder goes on to say, as stated by an Anishinaabe writer, scholar and activist Leanne Betasamosake Simpson:

….[t]he act of extraction removes all of the relationships that give whatever is being extracted meaning. Extracting is taking. Actually, extracting is stealing – it is taking without consent, without thought, care or even knowledge of the impacts that extraction has on the other living things in that environment. That’s always been a part of colonialism and conquest.

Honourable senators, the challenges facing First Nations women require special attention. Why? I have previously spoken on the effects of residential school based on my first-hand experience and what was extracted from our lives. In the book From Treaty Peoples to Treaty Nation by Greg Poelzer and Ken Coates, the author states:

Consider the exceptionally large number of Aboriginal men incarcerated in the Canadian prison system, and then consider how much of the responsibility for family and community has fallen on the shoulders of wives, partners, daughters, aunts, and grandmothers.

They go on to say:

Women are the bedrock of those communities, even as they bear the brunt of the crises and social pathologies that affect Aboriginal populations. Women provide much strength to Indigenous peoples in Canada; they must play a pivotal role in laying out a strategy for the future.

Colleagues, healing is a continuous process for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples who are doing the hard work to ensure that legislation no longer marginalizes Indigenous peoples, communities and particularly First Nations women, through assimilation and/or extraction.

As senators, we make decisions and amendments to these pieces of legislation that affect Canadians. All of the work we do, in reality, affects Canadians, and using a gender lens while we undertake this duty helps us to consider the full impact of federal bills and initiatives from the perspectives of diverse people and to identify potential challenges at an early stage.

It was through this lens that I saw the negative impacts that resource extraction specifically had on Indigenous women with Bill C-69. We all knew that the impacts of resource extraction did not affect everyone equally and that a certain segment of the population — the Indigenous women — were affected differently. It was our responsibility to know what barriers existed that impeded equality. It was also critical that we didn’t, and don’t, reinforce historical inequities.

With the reference “particularly Indigenous women,” this bill aims to mitigate some of the shortcomings of a single-axis perspective of disadvantage by facilitating the inclusion of those who stand at the intersection of multiple sources of disadvantage, and thereby include the voices which can best articulate the shortcomings and considerations that are relevant to their situation; in this case, First Nations, Métis, Inuit and non-status women.

The First Nations, Métis, Inuit and non-status women have been and remain inordinately affected by the social conditions in which they live because these social conditions were shaped and continue to be shaped directly or indirectly by the Indian Act. The social conditions that affect First Nations, Métis, Inuit and non-status not only include features of individuals and households such as income, educational attainment, family structure, housing and transportation resources, but also features of communities, both on and off reserve, such as the prevalence and depth of poverty, residential and geographic segregation, rates of crime, accessibility of safe places to play and exercise, availability of transportation for jobs that provide a living wage, welfare status, availability of good schools and sources of nutritious food.

As was evident through testimony on Bill C-69, countless resource extraction sites, toxic waste disposal and environmental degradation are situated near Indigenous communities. No other group has had to experience living with ongoing trauma from so many institutions. Martha Cabrera, who works on trauma recovery programs in Nicaragua, describes it best when she refers to her society as multiply wounded, multiply traumatized and multiply grieving after experiencing several decades of conflict. The ongoing collective multiplied trauma and grieving and grieving can be witnessed through the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, children in care, over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples, suicide, sex trafficking, environmental and climate degradation, increased cancers and mental health issues.

Honourable senators, in getting back to the bill itself, the statements generated by this bill would indicate whether or not there are potential effects of the bill on women, and particularly Indigenous women, and if so what those effects are.

This statement would be tabled in the house in which the government bill originated no later than two sitting days after the bill is introduced. Furthermore, this bill would also require a gender-lensed analysis to be undertaken by the minister for all private members’ bills once they are referred to committee within their respective house of Parliament. This stage of committee referral was chosen as a statement trigger for PMB, as it is indicative that a bill is meaningfully progressing through its house. For PMB, the analysis must be tabled in the house of origin no later than 10 sitting days after a bill is introduced.

To close any loopholes, the minister would finally be required to table an additional statement on amendments that are made to a bill, theoretically ensuring that any potential effects on women are identified from first reading to Royal Assent. Of equal importance is the requirement of the minister to publish every statement on the departmental website, making them accessible to all Canadians.

The enhanced responsibility bestowed upon the minister has recent precedent. Specifically, a similar clause is used in section 4.2(1) of the Department of Justice Act, which requires that minister to ascertain whether any of the provisions of new legislation are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That minister is also required to report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.

It has previously been insinuated that this Charter Statement would encompass gender analysis for government bills, and this is incorrect. To be clear, Charter Statements do not list all of the possible implications of a bill, that a bill could have on the rights and freedoms described in the Charter. Rather, they focus on only the biggest and most immediately apparent impacts on Charter rights. An analysis under Bill S-219, in contrast, requires that a focus be put on how the proposed legislation impacts women and Indigenous women specifically, which could serve to ensure the rights of all groups, that all groups are not overlooked in broader analyses of proposed legislation. Moreover, since Aboriginal rights are not contained within the Charter, Charter Statements do not outline the impact a bill would have on these rights. Nor would Charter Statements necessarily address equality issues with respect to these rights that could be impacted by a bill.

Colleagues, I would now like to address why this bill does not mention any specific instruments through which to undertake this analysis. The bill does not expressly mention gender-based analysis, the Charter, the Beijing Declaration or any other tool: domestic or international. The reason for that is one of prudence. I wanted to ensure that this bill is protected against change, essentially rendering it future-proof. If a statute were to mention the government’s gender-based analysis and a new or better technique is developed, the statute would need to be amended to keep it current. The bill, in giving discretion to the minister, ensures that analyses undertaken do not fall out of step with trends in policy analysis. The minister will be expected to use the most current and relevant means of undertaking this gender-lensed analysis, whether that be other statutes, legislation, declarations, agreements, treaties and so on.

Any time you give discretion to the minister, there is a risk that a narrow-minded minister could interpret this provision in an under-inclusive way. However, that is where Parliament plays a role in questioning and pressing the minister on their statement if it becomes evident that they only engage in this responsibility in a half-hearted way.

Colleagues, in the 2015 Fall Reports of the Auditor General of Canada under Report 1 — Implementing Gender-Based Analysis, the finding was that:

Overall, we found that in the 20 years since the government committed to applying gender-based analysis (GBA) to its policy decisions, a GBA framework has been implemented in only some federal departments and agencies. In the departments and agencies that have implemented a GBA framework, we found that the analyses performed were not always complete and that the quality of the analyses was not consistent. This finding is similar to our finding in 2009.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Would Senator Pate take a question?

Senator Pate: Absolutely.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator McCallum, do you have a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Griffin, would you take a question?

Senator Griffin: Certainly.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I should thank Senator Dasko for her mention of our wonderful B.C. wines, but I know Canada should be proud of its wine industry. Thank you, Senator Black.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean:

That the Senate of Canada:

(a)acknowledge that racism, in all its forms, was a cornerstone upon which the residential school system was created;

(b)acknowledge that racism, discrimination and abuse were rampant within the residential school system;

(c)acknowledge that the residential school system, created for the malevolent purpose of assimilation, has had profound and continuing negative impacts on Indigenous lives, cultures and languages; and

(d)apologize unreservedly for Canada’s role in the establishment of the residential school system, as well as its resulting adverse impacts, the effects of which are still seen and felt by countless Indigenous peoples and communities today.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Senator Patterson, do you have a question for Senator McCallum? There is only a minute and a half left.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Senator McCallum, would you take a question?

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Senator Housakos, would you take a question?

Senator Housakos: Absolutely.

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: I have a question for the sponsor of the bill.

[English]

Hon. Paula Simons: Senator Miville-Dechêne, would you take a question?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Certainly, Senator Simons.

[English]

Hon. Robert Black moved second reading of Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada, which seeks to establish the Saturday of the August long weekend as Food Day in Canada.

First, I would like to thank my colleague the Honourable Senator Diane Griffin for tabling this bill on my behalf in the Senate last week.

I have risen on a number of occasions to highlight the important role of our local farmers, producers and processors, and the roles they play in ensuring Canadians have access to safe, nutritious and affordable foods. The food day in Canada act represents an opportunity to celebrate those same farmers, producers and processors, and to highlight and appreciate the diverse and nutritious food products that we all have access to.

At the outset, I would like to pay tribute to a great “agvocate” whom many of my colleagues on the Agriculture and Forestry Committee will remember: Anita Stewart, a founder of Food Day Canada. Anita was a food activist, a cookbook author and the first Food Laureate at the University of Guelph. She was a champion of local food and the stories behind that food. Sadly, Anita passed away last year at the age of 73 after losing her battle with pancreatic cancer.

While I’ve introduced the food day in Canada act to establish a national day, the first Food Day Canada was born from Anita’s concern for beef farmers during the 2003 bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, crisis. That year, she organized what she called the world’s longest barbecue, where she invited her network of friends, farmers and chefs to share their recipes using Canadian beef.

It evolved into what we know now as Food Day Canada, where Canadian food is promoted, celebrated and shared across this country.

I had the privilege of collaborating with Anita on a number of occasions and found her to be a staunch supporter of the Canadian agricultural industry. Her spirit and passion for Canadian cuisine from coast to coast to coast and the people who grew, harvested and cooked it was unrivalled. Anita was a trailblazer who made a tremendous impact on the health and well-being of our Canadian food system. She will be missed by all who knew her, and her memory lives on in the legacy of her recipes, her family and Food Day Canada.

Her legacy of celebrating Canadian cuisine is part of the reason I have chosen to introduce this bill. She inspired me and many others with the way in which she loved Canadian ingredients, recipes and dishes. I hope that by establishing a food day in Canada, Canadians for generations to come will have the opportunity not only to learn about the many foods grown and produced in Canada but also about Anita and the way she honoured Canada through food.

(2000)

Today, Food Day Canada embodies a celebration of Canadian culture, cuisine and ingredients. Farmers, chefs and restaurateurs and organizations from coast to coast to coast honour this annual event each summer.

While things weren’t quite “normal,” due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we still saw a huge outpouring of support for Food Day Canada this past summer. Chefs from leading establishments such as Jason Bangerter from Cambridge’s Langdon Hall and Anthony Walsh of Oliver & Bonacini participated as friends of Food Day Canada. Restaurants big and small from across the country, including Champlain Restaurant at Le Château Frontenac in Quebec City; Fauna, just a few blocks away from Parliament Hill on Bank Street here in Ottawa; Toronto’s award-winning Canoe; the Yellow Door Bistro in Calgary; and Vancouver’s Forage all highlighted local cuisine in honour of Anita and Food Day Canada.

Individuals also had the opportunity to sign the Food Day Canada pledge to shine a light on Canadian food and farming. I proudly took that pledge to cook and eat like a Canadian. In addition to many individuals supporting Food Day Canada by taking this pledge, 47 iconic landmarks, including the clock tower in Charlottetown, the Elora Gorge near my home in Wellington County, Niagara Falls, the CN Tower, Halifax’s city hall and Calgary Tower were lit in Canada’s red and white to honour our farmers, fishers, chefs and home cooks.

As many of you know, I have been involved in the agricultural arena for most of my life. I am proud that Canadian farmers are known to be among those who produce some of the safest, highest-quality food that feeds not only our country, but the world.

In fact, the Canadian agricultural sector is one of our nation’s oldest industries. Today, agriculture and agri-food in Canada represent a multi-billion-dollar annual business and a vibrant network of farmers, their farm families and workers, as well as many agricultural organizations.

From coast to coast to coast, our agricultural community is busy producing top-quality food products. We are known worldwide for potatoes from Prince Edward Island, beef from Alberta, maple syrup from Quebec, peaches from Ontario, wine from British Columbia and wheat from the prairies, among many other things. Canada is a leader in agriculture, and will continue to be, with the right support.

At this time, I must express that I was extremely disappointed again this year by the lack of attention to Canadian agriculture in last week’s Speech from the Throne. The government frequently speaks about its commitment to agriculture, yet the sector never seems to make the cut into their top priorities.

I am incredibly disheartened to share that the term “agriculture” was not mentioned a single time in this year’s speech. To me, this is unimaginable given not only the importance of agriculture in the daily lives of each of us and all Canadians, but also the way in which food security and sovereignty have been highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Furthermore, agriculture is intrinsically connected to so many other areas that have been highlighted by the government as priorities, most notably their focus on the effects of climate change and the environment. Farmers are stewards of our land, and they must play a role in our fight against climate change. In fact, farmers often face the brunt of climate change, as Canadian agriculture suffers greatly from the effects.

For example, the frequency of extreme weather events has doubled since the 1990s. There has been an increase in floods, droughts, forest fires and storms that, unsurprisingly, interfere with planting and harvest and disproportionately affects farms of all sizes. We have seen over the past few weeks just how devastating the effects of extreme weather can be, as floods ravaged British Columbia’s agricultural heartland, destroying lives and livelihoods.

Time and time again I have highlighted the way in which farmers have risen to the challenge of addressing climate change. Many have already introduced greener methods of farming. However, they are rarely acknowledged for doing so, or supported in any way.

Canada’s agricultural community knows they have a critical role to play in preserving ecosystems and resources, as well as in minimizing the environmental impacts of their activities through the implementation of beneficial agricultural practices. In order to be truly successful in their fight against climate change, Canadian agricultural producers and food processors will need the government’s support in transitioning their operations to be more sustainable, and they will also require the government and the public’s support while they seek to change decades-old and decades-long practices and procedures.

It is clear that agriculture plays a major role in Canada. And, in spite of facing unimaginable challenges over the past few years — from the issues relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, to widespread destruction by extreme weather — our farmers, producers and processors remain resilient. I am confident that this industry will continue to play an important role, especially in the post-pandemic economic recovery. The only thing they need now is our support. We can start showing our support here in the red chamber by establishing food day in Canada.

As I’ve mentioned, food day in Canada calls attention to our agricultural industry and the pride we share in growing food. Canada is one of the largest producers and exporters of agricultural products in the world. From the huge wheat fields and cattle ranches in Canada’s prairies to the field crop, dairy, fruit and vegetable farms across the country, our farmers, producers and processors have something for everyone.

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen our nation come together in support of one another, including in support of Canadian-made food. I have been delighted to see the interest in learning where, how and who grows our food skyrocket in the past months.

I am confident that, if we choose to establish food day in Canada, Canadians from all walks of life will have the opportunity to learn more about the bountiful foods that are grown in our soils and the many types of livestock that are raised on our farms. This day will give Canadians, young and old, an opportunity to thank the farmers who put food on our tables each and every day.

Honourable colleagues, food day in Canada is a national event for all Canadians to join together in celebration of our food and the people who make it happen, from farms to our forks. I am hopeful that this speech is just the first step in establishing a national celebration of our agricultural community.

This past summer, I found myself in Ottawa over the August long weekend. I took the opportunity to celebrate Food Day Canada that Saturday evening by visiting restaurants that showcased local ingredients. That said, how you celebrate food day in Canada every summer is up to you — visit a local restaurant, create your own mouth-watering moments, or get inspired by some delicious Canadian ingredients. Just make sure to have fun and show your pride for the local Canadian food that we enjoy.

Honourable colleagues, you know I am, and always will be, an “AGvocate.” Agriculture is what I know best and will remain my primary focus as long as I serve Canadians in the red chamber.

I know that it was always Anita’s dream to have a national day established. She worked tirelessly over the course of her life to highlight not only the wonderful food and ingredients that are grown in Canada, but also the farmers, producers and processors responsible for it. I hope you will take this opportunity to recognize the hard work of our agricultural community by establishing and celebrating food day in Canada with me.

I hope that we can send Bill S-227 to the Agriculture and Forestry Committee for further review, pass it in this chamber and then send it to the other place in quick fashion.

Thank you, meegwetch.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Senator Patterson, I’m sorry. I have to interrupt you as it’s nine o’clock. You will have the balance of your time when this item is called.

(At 9 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on November 25, 2021, the Senate adjourned until 2 p.m., tomorrow.)

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): My question is also for the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and it concerns the impact of the catastrophic flooding and landslides in various communities across my home province of B.C. Even before the current emergency began, local businesses in B.C. were dealing with the ramifications of the pandemic on their operations. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, as of last week, only 37% of small businesses are earning their normal revenue or higher here in B.C. The outlook is now much worse for many businesses in small and remote communities devastated by the flooding. Leader, what is your government doing specifically to support the immediate needs of small businesses affected by catastrophic flooding in British Columbia?

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.