Senator Miville-Dechêne: When Minister O’Regan spoke yesterday in the House of Commons, he spoke to exactly my question. He said that Bill S-211 means that you have to look to the supply chain. But now, when I think government legislation will come on, it’s okay — you look now, he would say to companies, “What are you doing about it?”

It seems that they want to push the law a bit further in asking the companies to get rid of forced labour. Is that what you understand from this upcoming legislation?

[Translation]

Senator McCallum: Yes.

Senator Plett: Senator Gold, again, you don’t need to explain why this bill is important. We understand that, which is why it passed unanimously in the other place. That is not the argument. You don’t need to sell the bill to me; we will likely support it in this place.

The fact of the matter is that it is misleading. Don’t tell me it is not misleading. You’re saying it is a grocery rebate, when, in fact, a senior who goes and spends that money on tools at The Home Depot or on golf clubs or whatever the case may be — and I’m not suggesting that there is anything nefarious about what the government is doing, but call it what it is.

It is not a grocery rebate, so why is it called a grocery rebate? Every part of your answer, Senator Gold, was exactly what you heard Senator Batters say under her breath: “a PR game.”

That is what the term “grocery rebate” is, so you don’t need to sell your bill. Senator Lankin will help you answer this, if you need help — she is already helping you — but tell us why you are calling it a grocery rebate when it is not a grocery rebate?

That’s all I want to know. I don’t want you to sell the bill to me; I will vote for it.

Senator Gold: Thank goodness for that.

Senator Gold: Senator Plett, I am going to keep a promise to myself today to not get drawn into this, so I am just going to say this: I have answered your question.

This initiative was in response to the continuing rising cost of groceries that affects moderate- and low-income Canadians. Putting food on the table for yourself and your family is one of the most basic human needs — that and shelter — and the government is doing its part to help Canadians. It is delivering it through the fastest, most efficient and dignified mechanism it can, as any responsible government would and should do.

It is not a PR exercise. This is an exercise in helping Canadians. Those who need it the most know that this is going to help them. With all due respect, I am not going to be distracted or misled by rhetoric around how it is named or — and I am answering the question.

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, I rise today to pay tribute to the Honourable Lorna Milne. Lorna passed away on March 1 of this year, in Brampton, Ontario.

Lorna was appointed to the Senate of Canada by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in 1995 and served until her retirement in 2009. Lorna was the Senate vice-chair of the national Liberal caucus from 2006 to 2009 and the president of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association from 2004 to 2008. During her time in the Senate, she had been the chair of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament when the position of Senate Ethics Officer was created upon the committee’s recommendation. She also chaired the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and was instrumental in passing Bill S-18 which allowed any historical census data prior to 2001 to be released to the public, and, in the following years, this allowed Canadians to decide whether they wanted their information to be released or not.

Lorna had a keen interest in genealogy — this included her own family history certainly, but also the accumulation and preservation of Canadian history and the history of Canadians. She was heavily involved for many years with the Ontario Genealogical Society, and in 2002, she was named its honorary patron.

Her time in the Senate was not Lorna’s first foray into public service. You could say that she had always been a community builder. In the 1980s, she was the president of the North Peel unit of the Canadian Cancer Society, as well as a coordinator of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, and she spent years on the board of the Brampton YM/YWCA.

Another passion of Lorna’s was pressed glass, particularly early Canadian pressed glass. She was an expert on the subject and an active member of the Glasfax association. There is something to be said for admiring the everyday beauty in things that might be otherwise overlooked. What one person might consider purely functional and insignificant, Lorna could hold up to the light and appreciate all the colours reflected in it and its intricate designs. This, honourable senators, is a rare but special ability.

My deepest condolences to Lorna’s family and friends on the loss of such a cherished wife, mother and grandmother. I am sure that she will be deeply missed, but also that you are left with a lifetime of wonderful memories. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: I rise today to draw your attention to the future of Wellington Street. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reinvent, reimagine and reinvigorate what is arguably the most important street in our country — the street in front of our Parliament Buildings to which all Canadians send their representatives — in order to turn it from a busy traffic corridor to a people place that focuses on who we are.

As a long-time resident of Ottawa, this is an issue that I have been working on for some time. I see the potential to make this an exciting destination for local residents and tourists alike.

In February of this year, the City of Ottawa voted to reopen Wellington Street to traffic, and earlier this month, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement Helena Jaczek informed the Mayor of Ottawa of the federal interest in purchasing the street to make it part of the Parliamentary Precinct, and asked for negotiations to this effect.

It is worth noting that over the decades, the federal government has purchased or expropriated many properties as it expanded the Parliamentary Precinct to advance the smooth functioning of our democracy. Instead, much to my disappointment, I see that in recent days the City of Ottawa has been spending thousands of dollars on repainting the lines, reinstalling traffic lights and removing the concrete security barriers. Sadly, this does not bode well for good faith negotiations.

In the coming days, I will be releasing a discussion paper which I have developed with former Ottawa municipal councillor Mathieu Fleury — putting forward a positive and exciting vision of a new, open and welcoming plaza on Wellington Street that is open to people and closed to vehicular traffic.

[Translation]

We hope that this paper will help both the federal and municipal governments imagine a Parliamentary Precinct that is built not around cars, buses and trucks, but around history, people and pride in our country and our nation’s capital.

[English]

Colleagues, I will share this paper with you in both official languages in the coming days, and I welcome all of the discussion that it may create. Thank you.

Senator Gold: First of all, senator, thank you for your question. Thank you for underlining the challenges that are facing all Canadians affected by this strike.

The position of this government is, has been and will continue to be to support the collective bargaining process. It has confidence in this process, in its negotiators and in the leadership of the unions to try to reach an appropriate negotiated settlement.

It is true that strikes are disruptive. It is true that there has been and may continue to be inconvenience to Canadians. The government is committed to being transparent about these matters and the impact on services. Essential federal services, which protect the safety and security of the public, are continuing and will continue to be delivered. This includes payments for Old Age Security, Canada Pension Plan, Child Care Benefit, veterans’ and unemployment insurance. Other services may be partially or indeed fully disrupted, and that includes Service Canada centres, passports and the like.

It is not business as usual. The government’s priority is to support the collective bargaining process in the hope that a negotiated settlement can be reached soon.

Senator Housakos: I know that you do not accept my assertion and that you cannot answer my question. However, the reality is that while you’ve spent like drunken sailors, the result should be that every single pothole in the company should be filled, infrastructure should be pristine, all Canadians should have doctors, our health care system should be accelerating, our education system should be the best in the country and we should have passports arriving at our homes within minutes. I could go on and on, but these are some facts that you’re just not willing to accept.

I’ll give you a few more facts. Government leader, right now the average Canadian spends over $2,000 per month in rent. In the Greater Toronto Area it is over $3,000 per month. This year, families will spend $1,065 more in groceries. The truth of the matter is that this is a result of the government’s free spending style with no fiscal anchor.

The truth is that you came into power in 2015 promising to be the government that would defend working-class and middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join the middle class. When you look at these statistics, your government and its policies have pummelled the middle class and poured pain on the poor in this country.

The question is simple: Will you apologize — you, the Prime Minister and Minister Freeland — for the pain that has been bestowed on the middle class and the poor, and will you finally acknowledge that you have to change course vis-à-vis your fiscal policies?

Senator Gold: The government is not going to apologize for helping Canadians. You listed a litany of issues — potholes, health care — many of which are outside of provincial jurisdiction. Of course, it is the privilege of the opposition to say what they want without having to offer real solutions.

Here is what the Government of Canada has done to offer solutions: As part of Bill C-46, the government has offered a grocery rebate to 11 million Canadian households — which I will be speaking to later today and which I hope we will debate.

The government is providing $2 billion to provinces to assist them with health care challenges — provincial jurisdiction, federal assistance.

The government has struck agreements in principle with nine provinces in terms of health care transfers, representing a huge injection of funds into the provincial coffers — again, in areas of provincial jurisdiction but of benefit to Canadians.

In addition, the government has provided assistance to Canadians — which I have catalogued on earlier occasions — to help them with challenges based on rising rents, not only in Toronto but elsewhere in the country. The government has also provided assistance to deal with the impact that inflation has had. Happily, inflation is coming down, but the government knows and appreciates that Canadians are still struggling to make ends meet. That is why the government is there. These are the facts that matter to Canadians.

[Translation]

Senator Cormier: I hope the minister will be able to clarify this.

Senator Gold, on April 15, Radio-Canada reported on an unfortunate case where a Canadian’s organ donation was rejected because of his sexual orientation.

According to Health Canada’s rules, men who had a same-sex relationship in the five years prior to a possible donation can’t donate their organs.

In response, Health Canada says it is committed to reviewing the Safety of Human Cells, Tissues and Organs for Transplantation Regulations and to supporting scientifically based, non-discriminatory donation policies in Canada.

Senator Gold, my question is simple: Is the review of these regulations indeed under way?

Senator Osler: The federal government found a willing partner in Prince Edward Island. Beginning in 2021, the two governments have been working toward universal pharmacare. In Budget 2022, there was a funding promise of $35 million over four years to build upon the agreement with P.E.I.

Senator Gold, as you mentioned, the government is currently negotiating bilateral health care agreements with the provinces individually. Is it building upon the P.E.I. experience and making universal pharmacare part of those bilateral health care negotiations?

Senator Carignan: I’m sure you understand, Senator Gold, that the victims have been waiting for over 43 years. How long does the government intend to take before responding to the request for extradition from a friendly nation with a justice system befitting the major democratic countries?

Senator Gold: I don’t know when the decision will be made. The Government of Canada and its ally, France, both have systems that, despite their differences, are democratic, open and transparent. As soon as the decision is ready for publication, I will share it here in this chamber.

[English]

Senator Gold: It is my understanding that these provisions currently appear both in Bill C-46 and in the budget implementation act, which we will be debating. If and when this bill passes, there are provisions that will be removed from the budget implementation act, but they are accounted for in budgets in one form or another. When we pass this bill — if we do, and I hope we will — it will be able to be removed from the budget implementation act.

Senator Gold: Thank you for both questions, senator. I’m not sure that I have the precise level in regard to your latter question. These are the questions that will be easily answered, I would assume, in the first meeting of the committee that is called upon to study this bill — where officials will be present. If that will not happen quickly, I will try to obtain the answer and report back to the chamber. I look forward to the study at committee of this bill, and those questions, of course, will be answered competently by the officials.

Senator Gold: I’m really perplexed by the question. You started by talking about adding regulations, senator, and then you talked about changing the title of the bill.

This bill is simple. It provides direct assistance to 11 million households with up to a total of $467 for eligible couples with two children. It provides money directly to the provinces to top up the considerable federal contributions that are already made to the health care system.

I am going to refrain from commenting on the insinuations that Canadians who would be eligible for this would spend the funds on vacations or irresponsibly. Again — again, we have —

Senator Gold: Again, the position of this government is that it has confidence in Canadians to exercise responsible decisions, and it is also deeply committed to helping those who really need help putting groceries on their table and feeding their families and to provide that assistance as quickly as possible.

You are perfectly willing to vote against this bill, which I hope you do not do, because you don’t like the title. I have explained as clearly as I can to you and to whomever is listening what the purpose of this bill is.

I have been as clear as clear can be. Canadians who are watching this will know exactly what this bill is about and exactly what will be provided to those most in need.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Audette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mégie, for the second reading of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Senator Brazeau: Thank you very much for your questions. With respect to the membership numbers of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Assembly of First Nations does not have individual members; the Métis National Council has individual members and organizations, but with respect to the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, they are made up of provincial affiliate organizations, which are predominantly strong in Eastern Canada right now. The Métis National Council is stronger in the West for historical and other reasons.

I’ll try to answer your question with respect to my experience. In the early 2000s, the former Martin government had decided at that time — leading up to the negotiations that led to the Kelowna Accord, which never happened — that they just wanted to deal with the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami because at that time, those organizations were also looking at our Constitution and saying, “Here is the definition; therefore, we have a monopoly on representation.”

Not every Indigenous person in Canada relates to these organizations. Having said that, there are many who do. To have one Indigenous organization — again, 20 years ago I had to fight my way into council or federation meetings. I had to storm in there at one point because we were being excluded. Why are we being excluded?

I say “we” as Indigenous peoples collectively. We have five organizations — not three, not four, not two and not one — five. Is that so hard to comprehend? There are five organizations that the government also helped create.