Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The Constitution, as you know, requires a review of the federal election map every decade to reflect the changes in our population. This process — this redistribution — is completely independent and non-partisan. It is conducted by the electoral boundaries commissions that are appointed at arm’s length from the government. But the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act does provide a process for members of Parliament to raise concerns about proposed changes.

My understanding is that the Procedure and House Affairs Committee in the other place is currently considering these objections that you raised in respect of Ontario.

I believe Canadians can continue to have confidence in our electoral boundaries process. It is recognized around the world as a model of fairness and of our democratic values.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: second reading of Bill C-46, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

[English]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. Despite all the time that has passed, it is always appropriate to pay tribute to the victims of this tragic and horrific attack, which hits close to home for me. I hope that everyone in this chamber and in Canada feels moved by what happened.

The Government of Canada received the request for extradition. It is being examined, and the decision will be communicated to the public as soon as it has been made.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Senator Gold, I’m interested in a provision included within the budget that speaks to the possibility of employee ownership. It provides the structure for a group of employees to buy out a small company — in many cases where the owner is retiring and is going to sell the company.

We’ve heard from people who have worked on developing that proposal that similar provisions exist in the U.K., the U.S. and other places, and that they are very effective in drawing future and more investment into the economy, as well as effective in boosting the economy. However, there needs to be a series of incentives that are in there for the benefit of the owner who is selling. Otherwise, it is “sell today and get your money today.” If it will be paid over a period of time, which employee ownership provisions allow for, there has to be an incentive for this to work most effectively for the owner, for the employees and for the economy.

Can you comment on the government’s position with respect to such incentives? They are not included in the bill, and it is not clear to us that the provision will be effective without them.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I have one brief question, Senator Gold.

The government claims that this is a grocery rebate, even though the payment is not tied to any actual expenditures. In fact, it does not need to be spent on groceries, and it requires no submission of receipts to show that you ever bought groceries. It is not a rebate, and it has nothing to do with groceries.

Can you explain why your government has chosen to call this a grocery rebate? Isn’t that a little misleading, as is somewhat typical of this government? Can you tell us why they would call it a “grocery rebate” when it has nothing to do with groceries?

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Gold, perhaps I missed it, but what did you say the total cost of this particular bill is?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Colleagues, we will have some decorum, and we will continue this debate.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question.

The impetus for providing assistance to Canadians was very much a function of the rising cost of groceries, a rise that continued even when global inflation came down through the combination of efforts of the Bank of Canada, the government and the operation of our economy more generally.

It is not misleading to identify this particular assistance as a grocery rebate, because that was really what was at the heart of it.

However, what the government chose to do was to deliver it in the most efficient, effective and dignified way to those Canadians and households — half of Canadian seniors — with moderate incomes.

It would be wrong to ask people who are struggling to pay their bills to not only continue to struggle but to keep their IGA clips for their litres of milk. This is the most efficient and quick way to get it into the hands of Canadians who need it most. It is designed to help them with the cost of groceries, and this government’s position is that it would be completely wrong to demand that; we’re not talking about huge sums of money. This is a prudent and practical way to assist, in some measure, those households. Nobody believes that this will solve the problem of the rising cost of groceries, whether it is a family of one, a single person or a family of five. It is help that the government can afford to provide and is happy to provide.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Senator Gold, we are talking about the grocery rebate, and I have to tell you that on my street the other day, I saw a senior go to Canadian Tire and buy a lot of tools. They could have used their grocery rebate to buy the tools, but I was looking at him, and he looked pretty healthy to me — well-fed. I am assuming he had eaten and that he had bought groceries as of late.

Is the government going to say he should not be eating because he bought some tools, or can he use the grocery rebate to rebate the groceries he bought, the prices of which are going up astronomically?

Do they apply to the groceries that he bought?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Order.

An Hon. Senator: Hear, hear.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question.

This government is of the view that Canadians make responsible choices in their lives and that it is not the business of government to tell them what to do.

It is the business of government to help Canadians when they are in need, and in this regard, the position of this government is the same as the traditional position — or at least the position of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and, I would hope, the Conservative Party of Canada of today — and that is that we trust Canadians to make responsible decisions when they are given the benefit of either assistance or tax breaks.

We trust Canadians. We know that those who are in need will use the money responsibly for their families, and in this moment in time in our country, they need help putting food on their tables.

Hon. Hassan Yussuff: Senator Brazeau, would you take a question?

Hon. Denise Batters: Thank you, Senator Brazeau, for spelling that out.

Am I correct that of those five Indigenous organizations you spoke of, four are included in this bill on the council, but the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is not? I also believe that they were inserted as an amendment at one point in the House of Commons process, and then, all of a sudden, I think that amendment was taken out. Could you shed a little bit of light on that?

As well, could you tell us your understanding of the approximate number of people that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples represents? Thank you.

Hon. Patrick Brazeau: Honourable senators, we’re already on Bill C-29, so we are moving at lightning speed here.

I have just a couple of comments on Bill C-29. In the preamble, it states:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with Indigenous peoples through renewed nation-to-nation, government-to-government and Inuit-Crown relationships based on recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership . . . .

Colleagues, that sounds very nice. Those are beautiful words. I have seen this before and I have seen it too often.

If we move along to clause 10 of the proposed bill, we have the proposed directors of the board of this new organization, namely representatives of the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council and the Native Women’s Association of Canada.

Colleagues, the last time that I checked, there were five recognized and funded national Indigenous organizations in Canada. I don’t know if it’s by design or just a simple omission, but there is no proposition to have on this board any member of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which I used to lead as national chief.

Like I said, section 35 of the Constitution gives us a definition of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. It says that the term “aboriginal peoples of Canada includes . . .” — is not limited to, but includes — “. . . the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.”

Now, it doesn’t say that these peoples are going to be represented specifically by Indigenous organizations.

Colleagues, for those who don’t know, on June 11, 2008, the former government and the former prime minister offered an apology in the House of Commons. I was able to be there, along with four other Indigenous leaders at the time.

On June 12, 2008, the next day, Indigenous leaders were to give speeches in the Senate — on the original Senate floor. Colleagues, I had to fight my way to make sure that I was able to speak the next day because we were not on the list. The Senate at the time had to introduce a motion to allow the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples to speak.

I do not know what is going on with political parties, but they are playing partisanship politics with Indigenous peoples. There will be a time where I will speak more in depth about the political relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Government of Canada since Confederation. But, colleagues, I think that when this bill goes to committee, it is absolutely necessary that the Minister of Indian Affairs appear before the committee — not bureaucrats — and tell us why they have excluded one of the national Indigenous organizations, one that has been in existence since 1971.

For those of you who do not know, we often talk about the “big three” organizations: the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Assembly of First Nations and the Métis National Council. Well, colleagues, the Métis National Council came out of what was originally called the Native Council of Canada, which is the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples today. Many of the people who are on the Métis National Council today broke off from the Native Council of Canada in the 1980s.

I will just remind you, colleagues, that, in my view, being a former elected Indigenous leader of an organization in this country, there are five organizations, and it is up to the minister to tell us why he has excluded one of them. If there is an exclusion of one recognized Indigenous organization, I fail to see how there is any respect, cooperation or partnership here.

At the end of the day, these organizations are not the organizations that are going to be negotiating nation-to-nation partnerships with the Government of Canada. They don’t have that right. They are Indigenous organizations, so this nation-to-nation concept is not going to happen with those organizations. The nation-to-nation concept will happen with the Algonquin nation, the Mi’kmaq nation, et cetera.

To conclude, these five Indigenous organizations — four, in particular — were created because of the 1969 white paper that was introduced by the current Prime Minister’s father. We must not forget that these organizations are also funded by the Government of Canada. It is unfortunate that I have to say this, but if these organizations decide not to play ball with the government of the day, sometimes they are punished. I certainly hope this is not the case for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. They are one of the recognized organizations, and they deserve to be there. If they are not there, hopefully we’ll hear from the minister as to exactly what the reason or reasons are why this organization, which has been around since 1971, has not been included. Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 6:54 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, May 2, 2023, at 2 p.m.)

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Michèle Audette: Thank you very much for your presentation, senator. Would you agree that we are now mature enough in this chamber for the committee to get together to study important issues, like the Supreme Court decision? Not many people know that there was a time when only five organizations were recognized. Through the diversity of the First Peoples, the First Nations, I want to be represented by my own community. However, I don’t want to overshadow anyone. Our diversity is distinct, and certain things belong to each of us. The decisions we make here will have an impact on the important organizations that work with First Nations, Inuit and Métis.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, I rise to speak on Bill S-201.

Before I make my points, it is worthwhile to put a little bit of background on the record.

The bill was introduced here in this chamber on November 24, 2021. The concept — in a number of bills — has an interesting history that I think bears consideration.

The bill was introduced the last time — before this time — in the Senate in the last session. It was sent to Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for study, but the committee had no meetings because of dissolution. This is the third time — maybe the charm — that Senator McPhedran has introduced this particular bill in the Senate.

What is interesting, though, is that this bill has been introduced in the House of Commons nine times through introductions and reinstatements after prorogation, dissolution, et cetera. In all of the nine times, it has made it to second reading once. That actually happened in this session of Parliament.

The House of Commons version of this bill is called Bill C-210. On September 28, 2022, the House defeated Bill C-210 at second reading by a healthy margin, 77 for and 246 against.

Again, this is the only version of this bill that made it to second reading in nine attempts in the House. All this is to say that the House of Commons has, on nine separate occasions, made it pretty clear that they are not inclined to support this idea, including defeating the proposal at second reading in this particular Parliament with these same MPs who are there now. That is some background I thought was interesting enough to be put on the record as we considered the second reading of Bill S-201.

It is also worth reminding us all that when the Senate passes a bill at second reading, it has effectively agreed to the principle of the bill and that they wish to send it to committee for further study and scrutiny. The alternative to passing at second reading is to vote no. We always have the opportunity at second reading to vote no. That would be a signal that we don’t accept the principle of the bill.

I will read from page 131 of Senate Procedures in Practice:

Debate at second reading focuses on the principle or merits of the bill. This debate is intended to address questions such as: “Is the bill good policy?,” “Is it worth pursuing further?” and “Will it be a good law?” The general issues raised in the bill, and not the specific content of its parts and clauses. . . .

It is rare for the Senate to defeat bills at second reading, but I would submit to you, senators, that if there were ever a bill that we should consider defeating at second reading, it is this one. And I will outline my concerns.

The first one is the practicality of it. We have a limited amount of time in committees to study private members’ bills, so I question why we would spend time studying a bill on a subject that has already been defeated in the other place on this exact same topic with the exact same MPs sitting in their chairs in the House of Commons.

There is a legality question as well. If we pass this bill all the way over there, it would likely be ruled out of order, because there is a concept of something called “prior question.” You can’t ask the same question again in the same session of Parliament. So it’s at least likely that the Speaker would rule the bill out of order and we would have wasted a bunch of time — committee time, debate time — on something that the House would send back to us saying, “We have already considered this. What are you doing?”

Third is the principle. I believe the subject matter of this bill is not one that the Senate should be initiating. It deals with elections to the House of Commons, and we should reserve ourselves to sober second thought on matters that pertain to federal elections. It is, in my mind, disrespectful for the Senate to proactively seek change to election processes for members of Parliament, but that’s my opinion.

Again, given that the very elected colleagues who populate the House of Commons right now have recently rejected this proposal by an overwhelming majority, I think they would question our respect as well.

Colleagues, it gives me no pleasure to present such a negative position on a bill proposed by one of our honourable senators, but there are situations, I think, where we as a Senate need to take some decisive action on matters like this. I know that Senator McPhedran would like to see this bill come to a vote. In fact, she has been asking, through scrolls, over the past number of months as to when we might be ready to vote on the bill. I am ready to vote no on this bill whenever it pleases the Senate to call the question, including today. Thank you.