The Hon. the Speaker: Do you have an answer to the question, Senator Galvez?

[English]

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

With all due respect, the government is not dragging its feet. The government recognizes that this is a very serious situation. I’ll continue to make representations to the government to ensure that the right steps are taken for the well-being of the citizens in the area and for the environment.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I just wanted to remind you that, according to Rule 4-8(1):

During Question Period, a Senator may, without notice, ask a question of:

(c) a committee chair, on a matter relating to the activities of the committee.

I’d like to remind senators that you have to ask a question on a matter relating to the activities of the committee.

Do you have a supplementary question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I just wanted to remind you that, according to Rule 4-8(1):

During Question Period, a Senator may, without notice, ask a question of:

(c) a committee chair, on a matter relating to the activities of the committee.

I’d like to remind senators that you have to ask a question on a matter relating to the activities of the committee.

Do you have a supplementary question?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Thank you, Madam Speaker. All the very best in your new job. You’re off to a good start here.

I have a question for Senator Gold. The constitutional role of the Senate is to study and, if need be, amend legislation and to be judicious in that work, yet we are constantly hit with arbitrary government timelines, such as time allocation on Bill C-11 or the BIA — budget implementation act — programming motion. It undermines our obligations as senators. The BIA is an omnibus bill that includes potentially dozens of stand-alone legislative initiatives, such as the Canada innovation corporation act; major amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, with a massive overhaul to the complaints resolution process, which witnesses have already said is not viable; changes to the Patent Act; the Canada Elections Act; the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and unilateral action on the extension of equalization.

Senator Gold, do you truly believe that the time frame given us to study a bill injected with such issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget is appropriate? Do you believe our rights and privileges are being respected as senators in this chamber of sober second thought?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for underlining the risks that proliferation and the talk of the deployment of nuclear weapons pose for our real security and psychological security.

The Prime Minister, as we know, is in South Korea and is meeting with his counterparts. I have every expectation that this and many other subjects will be the matter of serious discussion amongst the participants.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Plett, I’m sorry, but the time for Question Period has expired.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. As I’ve mentioned before in this chamber, the government has appointed more than 600 judges since November 2015. Judges, like senators, have mandatory retirement at 75, according to the Constitution, so there will be a certain number of vacancies created just by the passage of time.

The government has put into place a system to ensure that those who apply for judicial appointments are vetted by an independent judicial advisory committee to ensure that the best candidates are brought forward for consideration by the minister, candidates who reflect the needs of the judiciary and also the makeup of the country. Minister Lametti continues to work seriously and diligently to ensure that the remaining vacant posts are filled.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): My next question, government leader, is a follow-up to my questions on Thursday regarding changes to our passports. Minister Fraser was at the announcement last week. He is currently presiding over a backlog of more than 2 million applications at the immigration department. As you know, leader, Senator Ataullahjan has recently questioned you about the extremely long wait for visas to visit Canada.

Minister Gould is responsible for Service Canada, which has trouble providing basic services to Canadians, including processing passports. This time last year, they were calling in the police to disperse people camped out overnight in the hopes of getting their passport. In retrospect, we see that the Trudeau government was working at that time to change the passport’s design instead of putting in effort where it was truly needed.

Leader, don’t these ministers have better things to do?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Your Honour, I’d like to add my voice to all the congratulatory remarks today. I am really happy to see you in the chair.

My question is to the government leader and is a follow-up to Senator Boisvenu’s recent questions on the Trudeau government’s ongoing failure to make judicial appointments.

When Minister Lametti was sworn in as Minister of Justice in January 2019, there were 58 federal judicial vacancies across Canada. According to the government’s own statistics, as of May 1, the number of vacancies has grown to 88.

A year ago, an answer was provided to a written question on our Order Paper regarding the new judicial positions created under the 2017, 2018 and 2019 federal budgets. The answer at that time showed that 26 positions had not been created.

Leader, I have two questions: How many of the judicial positions announced in those budgets still remain unfilled, and why does Minister Lametti find it so hard to do this basic component of his job to fill judicial vacancies?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. As I’ve mentioned before in this chamber, the government has appointed more than 600 judges since November 2015. Judges, like senators, have mandatory retirement at 75, according to the Constitution, so there will be a certain number of vacancies created just by the passage of time.

The government has put into place a system to ensure that those who apply for judicial appointments are vetted by an independent judicial advisory committee to ensure that the best candidates are brought forward for consideration by the minister, candidates who reflect the needs of the judiciary and also the makeup of the country. Minister Lametti continues to work seriously and diligently to ensure that the remaining vacant posts are filled.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. The ministers are working hard to fulfill their responsibilities and to fulfill the mandates that the Prime Minister gave to them. That includes providing an enhanced and more secure passport for Canadians to reduce the risks of fraud. It also includes putting into place measures — which are in place, are bearing fruit and will continue to bear fruit — to expedite the process for both visas and passport applications.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Plett, I’m sorry, but the time for Question Period has expired.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Let me add my voice of congratulations to you on your appointment, Your Honour. We look forward to your steady and calm leadership.

Here is a really important government bill, Bill C-22. The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology studied Bill C-22 over the course of 10 meetings, with 7 meetings of testimony from 44 witnesses. In addition to witness testimony heard during the meetings, the committee also received 48 briefs, seven follow-ups and two letters.

The committee wishes to acknowledge and thank the many Canadians who took the time to communicate with us and educate us about their lived experiences with disabilities, as well as share their perspectives on Bill C-22. Their thoughts have greatly helped inform the committee’s work during this study.

At the outset of the study, the committee was informed by the Honourable Carla Qualtrough, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, of the amount of work and consultation that had gone into the bill that we were studying. The minister shared an enduring commitment to “Nothing Without Us” which has involved — and will continue to involve — the disability community in the development and implementation of the proposed Canada disability benefit.

The committee was also informed of the importance of carefully considering any and all amendments, as amending the bill would require it to go back, necessarily, to the House of Commons.

It was with this great consideration that the committee is reporting the bill with amendments.

The committee heard concerns from many witnesses about the possibility of the benefit being clawed back when interacting with other benefits and income supports, including private insurance providers.

Hart Schwartz, adjunct professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, stated:

It’s no benefit if private insurers throughout the country in different provinces can set-off the amount so that effectively you get no disability benefit at all.

The committee, therefore, adopted an amendment to clause 9 using wording similar to that suggested by several witnesses and endorsed by trial lawyers’ associations across Canada. The amendment specifies that the benefit cannot be recovered or retained in whole or in part under the terms of any contract, insurance plan or similar instrument.

Throughout the study, the witnesses expressed the importance of an explicit appeals process contained within the statute. We heard from Adrian Merdzan of the Income Security Advocacy Centre that the risk of not providing an appeals process in the statute is that it could “permit the creation of an inaccessible appeal mechanism” in the future. The committee, therefore, adopted an amendment creating a new clause 10.1 which would allow a person, or someone applying on their behalf, to appeal the minister’s decisions regarding their eligibility or the amount of the benefit.

Bill C-22 was amended by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to require the Governor-in-Council to take into consideration the official poverty line as defined by the Market Basket Measure.

The committee heard, however, that persons with disabilities often experience higher costs of living than the average. Krista Carr, Executive Vice-President of Inclusion Canada, stated, “We need to recognize that people with disabilities have additional costs that even go beyond.” Sometimes it’s up to 30% or 40% more.

The committee also heard that despite the “Nothing Without Us” approach and widespread consultations across Canada, there remain marginalized people with disabilities and organizations that face additional barriers to consultation and inclusion. Jheanelle Anderson, Vice-Chair of the ASE Community Foundation for Black Canadians with Disability, shared that “intersecting identities really impact your experience with disability.”

For these reasons, the committee adopted an amendment to clause 11, adding that the Governor-in-Council must consider the additional costs associated with living with a disability; the challenges faced by those living with a disability in earning an income from work; the intersectional needs of disadvantaged individuals and groups; and Canada’s international human rights obligations.

As a consequence of this amendment, the committee also adopted an amendment to the preamble, recognizing that persons with disabilities may face additional barriers because of their gender, racialized or Indigenous status or other intersecting statuses.

All witnesses before the committee agreed that the Canada disability benefit should be paid out to eligible individuals as soon as possible. Glen Hoos, Director of Communications for the Down Syndrome Resource Foundation, put it this way when he said that “the money should start flowing as soon as possible — or sooner.”

For this reason, the committee adopted an amendment to clause 11 requiring that, within 12 months of the coming into force of the bill, the Governor-in-Council must make the necessary regulations to begin paying the benefit.

The House committee had amended the coming-into-force date of this act as “no later than the first anniversary of the day on which it receives royal assent.” However, it did not grant authority to anyone. An official from Employment and Social Development Canada informed us that the “no later than” doesn’t have any way to be implemented as no authority has been given to the Governor-in-Council to actually bring the law into force earlier than the first anniversary.

The committee, therefore, adopted an amendment enabling the Governor-in-Council to fix a date no later than one year after Royal Assent.

In addition to these amendments, the committee has also made seven observations, including recommending that in addition to the “Nothing Without Us” consultative process around designing and implementing the Canada disability benefit, the disability community should be represented in all its diversity, with space made for the most marginalized voices to be equally involved in all stages of the decision-making process.

We note the concern that the benefit is limited to working-age persons with disabilities, which may perpetuate poverty amongst persons with disabilities over the age of 65, particularly women, and that with Old Age Security becoming available at 65, seniors with disabilities may experience a reduction in income.

We are recommending that persons with mental illnesses be explicitly involved in the drafting of regulations to ensure that the spectrum of disability, including episodic disability due to mental illness, is considered.

We are stressing the importance of respecting the necessary autonomy of persons with disabilities to live their life with dignity, as well as acknowledging that financial security is one way to help prevent certain types of violence against a person with a disability, and we are recommending that the benefit’s eligibility be determined by an individual’s income rather than that of their family or household unit.

Colleagues, I wish to thank all members of the Senate Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee who gave their undivided attention to this important bill and also our excellent committee clerk, Emily Barrette, and the Library of Parliament analyst, Laura Blackmore, for supporting our work to this point. Thank you, Your Honour.

Hon. Ratna Omidvarmoved the adoption of the report.

She said: Let me add my voice of congratulations to you on your appointment, Your Honour. We look forward to your steady and calm leadership.

Here is a really important government bill, Bill C-22. The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology studied Bill C-22 over the course of 10 meetings, with 7 meetings of testimony from 44 witnesses. In addition to witness testimony heard during the meetings, the committee also received 48 briefs, seven follow-ups and two letters.

The committee wishes to acknowledge and thank the many Canadians who took the time to communicate with us and educate us about their lived experiences with disabilities, as well as share their perspectives on Bill C-22. Their thoughts have greatly helped inform the committee’s work during this study.

At the outset of the study, the committee was informed by the Honourable Carla Qualtrough, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, of the amount of work and consultation that had gone into the bill that we were studying. The minister shared an enduring commitment to “Nothing Without Us” which has involved — and will continue to involve — the disability community in the development and implementation of the proposed Canada disability benefit.

The committee was also informed of the importance of carefully considering any and all amendments, as amending the bill would require it to go back, necessarily, to the House of Commons.

It was with this great consideration that the committee is reporting the bill with amendments.

The committee heard concerns from many witnesses about the possibility of the benefit being clawed back when interacting with other benefits and income supports, including private insurance providers.

Hart Schwartz, adjunct professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, stated:

It’s no benefit if private insurers throughout the country in different provinces can set-off the amount so that effectively you get no disability benefit at all.

The committee, therefore, adopted an amendment to clause 9 using wording similar to that suggested by several witnesses and endorsed by trial lawyers’ associations across Canada. The amendment specifies that the benefit cannot be recovered or retained in whole or in part under the terms of any contract, insurance plan or similar instrument.

Throughout the study, the witnesses expressed the importance of an explicit appeals process contained within the statute. We heard from Adrian Merdzan of the Income Security Advocacy Centre that the risk of not providing an appeals process in the statute is that it could “permit the creation of an inaccessible appeal mechanism” in the future. The committee, therefore, adopted an amendment creating a new clause 10.1 which would allow a person, or someone applying on their behalf, to appeal the minister’s decisions regarding their eligibility or the amount of the benefit.

Bill C-22 was amended by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to require the Governor-in-Council to take into consideration the official poverty line as defined by the Market Basket Measure.

The committee heard, however, that persons with disabilities often experience higher costs of living than the average. Krista Carr, Executive Vice-President of Inclusion Canada, stated, “We need to recognize that people with disabilities have additional costs that even go beyond.” Sometimes it’s up to 30% or 40% more.

The committee also heard that despite the “Nothing Without Us” approach and widespread consultations across Canada, there remain marginalized people with disabilities and organizations that face additional barriers to consultation and inclusion. Jheanelle Anderson, Vice-Chair of the ASE Community Foundation for Black Canadians with Disability, shared that “intersecting identities really impact your experience with disability.”

For these reasons, the committee adopted an amendment to clause 11, adding that the Governor-in-Council must consider the additional costs associated with living with a disability; the challenges faced by those living with a disability in earning an income from work; the intersectional needs of disadvantaged individuals and groups; and Canada’s international human rights obligations.

As a consequence of this amendment, the committee also adopted an amendment to the preamble, recognizing that persons with disabilities may face additional barriers because of their gender, racialized or Indigenous status or other intersecting statuses.

All witnesses before the committee agreed that the Canada disability benefit should be paid out to eligible individuals as soon as possible. Glen Hoos, Director of Communications for the Down Syndrome Resource Foundation, put it this way when he said that “the money should start flowing as soon as possible — or sooner.”

For this reason, the committee adopted an amendment to clause 11 requiring that, within 12 months of the coming into force of the bill, the Governor-in-Council must make the necessary regulations to begin paying the benefit.

The House committee had amended the coming-into-force date of this act as “no later than the first anniversary of the day on which it receives royal assent.” However, it did not grant authority to anyone. An official from Employment and Social Development Canada informed us that the “no later than” doesn’t have any way to be implemented as no authority has been given to the Governor-in-Council to actually bring the law into force earlier than the first anniversary.

The committee, therefore, adopted an amendment enabling the Governor-in-Council to fix a date no later than one year after Royal Assent.

In addition to these amendments, the committee has also made seven observations, including recommending that in addition to the “Nothing Without Us” consultative process around designing and implementing the Canada disability benefit, the disability community should be represented in all its diversity, with space made for the most marginalized voices to be equally involved in all stages of the decision-making process.

We note the concern that the benefit is limited to working-age persons with disabilities, which may perpetuate poverty amongst persons with disabilities over the age of 65, particularly women, and that with Old Age Security becoming available at 65, seniors with disabilities may experience a reduction in income.

We are recommending that persons with mental illnesses be explicitly involved in the drafting of regulations to ensure that the spectrum of disability, including episodic disability due to mental illness, is considered.

We are stressing the importance of respecting the necessary autonomy of persons with disabilities to live their life with dignity, as well as acknowledging that financial security is one way to help prevent certain types of violence against a person with a disability, and we are recommending that the benefit’s eligibility be determined by an individual’s income rather than that of their family or household unit.

Colleagues, I wish to thank all members of the Senate Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee who gave their undivided attention to this important bill and also our excellent committee clerk, Emily Barrette, and the Library of Parliament analyst, Laura Blackmore, for supporting our work to this point. Thank you, Your Honour.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answers to the following oral questions:

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on February 15, 2023, by the Honourable Senator Martin, concerning the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on March 22, 2023, by the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., concerning social media.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on March 28, 2023, by the Honourable Senator McPhedran, concerning the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Yonah Martin on February 15, 2023)

The public consultation period formally closed on March 31, 2023; however, as a result of stakeholder interest, Infrastructure Canada officials continued to meet with interested parties and to receive written submissions into April. External stakeholder engagement for the legislative review of the operations and provisions of the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act began November 8, 2022, when it was communicated broadly at a Federal, Provincial and Territorial meeting attended by Ministers, Deputy Ministers and other officials. As part of their work, Infrastructure Canada officials sent numerous meeting invitations to a broad range of stakeholders including lenders, developers, government partners (municipal and provincial), Indigenous groups, and various organizations including the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and have held meetings and roundtables with those that accepted.

Information on the legislative review, including how the broader public and other interested parties can share their views, was made available on the Infrastructure Canada and Consulting with Canadians websites with a deadline of March 31, 2023. The review was also promoted on the Department’s social media and through third parties as available.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Claude Carignan on March 22, 2023)

The Policy on Communications and Federal Identity (https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=30683) and its supporting Directive on the Management of Communications (https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=30682&section=procedure&p=D) do not prescribe the type of media used in GC advertising. Departments are responsible for managing their advertising campaign budgets including the choice of media which is determined based on campaign objectives, target audience, timing, and budget.

Departments are still permitted to advertise on TikTok should they determine that this is a necessary platform on which to reach Canadians. Departments are not required to have an account on TikTok to advertise on the platform.

While the Government has decided to prevent the use of TikTok on government mobile devices, Canadians and Canadian organizations must make an informed decision on using the application based on their own needs and risk-assessments.

To help with these decisions, Communications Security Establishment’s Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre) recently published updated advice and guidance regarding the use of personal social media. This publication is in addition to the Cyber Centre’s still relevant advice and guidance on security considerations that should be considered when using social media in an organization (https://www.cyber.gc.ca/en/guidance/security-considerations-when-using-social-media-your-organization-itsm10066).

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Marilou McPhedran on March 28,2023)

Canada has a proven track record in supporting gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls. In implementing the Feminist International Assistance Policy, Canada has substantially increased its investments in advancing gender equality and helped contribute to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development continues to recognize Canada as its top bilateral donor in terms of share of aid supporting gender equality.

Canada’s international assistance under this policy has achieved life-saving results and helped to improve the lives of women and girls. However, Global Affairs Canada agrees with the Office of the Auditor General that the Department must do better at reporting on and communicating these results. Global Affairs Canada’s management action plan will clearly outline the actions we are taking to address the gaps identified in the report.

This includes putting in place a system for information on results enabling the Department to better track and report, conducting a review of performance indicators to ensure that Canada is reflecting the results achieved, reporting more thoroughly on the cumulative impacts of international assistance projects and further considering intersecting identity factors when conducting project-level gender-equality assessments.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Thank you, Your Honour, and I also offer you my congratulations.

Before I start, I want to thank James Campbell from my office for all the help he has given me over these past few years.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Government Motion No. 1, which conveys the Senate of Canada’s thanks to Her Excellency, the Governor General of Canada, for delivering the Speech from the Throne.

One of the main themes of this Throne Speech delivered in November of 2021 was a renewed pledge and commitment to the importance of reconciliation. This, of course, is not a surprise given Prime Minister Trudeau has boldly stated that there is no more important relationship to him and to Canada than the one with First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples in Canada.

This Throne Speech was perhaps more meaningful on the topic of reconciliation as it was delivered by Her Excellency Mary Simon, an Inuk woman who, as we all know, is the first Indigenous Governor General in Canada’s history. I agreed with our Governor General’s words when Her Excellency stated:

. . . I have seen how Canadians are committed to reconciliation. Indigenous Peoples are reclaiming our history, stories, culture and language through action. Non‑Indigenous Peoples are coming to understand and accept the true impact of the past and the pain suffered by generations of Indigenous Peoples. Together they are walking the path towards reconciliation.

Honourable senators, although Her Excellency was speaking to the acts of reconciliation that are, indeed, occurring across Canada, I see glimmers of this same hope and shared vision for a better and more equitable future within our very own chamber. There is perhaps no greater example of this than the unprecedented action of this chamber in passing a motion of acknowledgement and apology for the role that the Senate of Canada played in the creation of the residential school system.

As you know, colleagues, I have delivered speeches in this chamber that were, for me, very emotional. They examined profoundly difficult aspects of my life, yet they allowed me to grow and to strengthen through the very sharing of these stories. As you may recall, these speeches dealt with issues including residential school, unmarked graves and corporal punishment. They confronted loss of language, loss of culture and loss of self.

Despite these moments of vulnerability and pain, I have always been met with support and compassion from all corners of this chamber. Indigenous and non-Indigenous senators alike have demonstrated a sincere willingness to listen, understand and challenge their own preconceived notions of both the history of this country as well as their understanding of the First Peoples who called this land home.

Colleagues, I acknowledge that many of these conversations are difficult to have. Much of this difficulty rests with the fact that many of these conversations are new. They are unfamiliar, and with that unfamiliarity comes an uncomfortableness that must be embraced. I have seen, by and large, a willingness for this chamber to embrace new ways of knowing, thinking and seeing the world.

As Canadians across this great country and within this great chamber continue to come to grips with the history of the First Peoples and the intergenerational trauma they carry with them to this day, there has been a prevailing sense of guilt. Guilt in the belief that this country should have known better than to create and sustain such horrifically discriminatory policies. Guilt that they, as Canadians, should have known better the history of the land they call home.

Honourable senators, to that, I would like to restate the following words of Her Excellency Mary Simon within the Speech from the Throne:

We must turn the guilt we carry into action.

Action on reconciliation.

Action on our collective health and well-being.

Action on climate change.

It is absolutely critical, colleagues, that we subscribe to the importance of promoting reconciliation and a more just, fair and equitable future for all who call this land home. Unless and until we seize every opportunity to champion this cause, we will continue to see indicators of overall population health, known as the social determinants, lag further and further behind for First Nations in Canada. Governor General Mary Simon affirmed these very sentiments when she read:

Reconciliation requires a whole-of-government approach, breaking down barriers, and rethinking how to accelerate our work.

. . . the Government is committed to closing the gaps that far too many First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities still face today.

To this end, Her Excellency also stated that Canadians:

. . . want bold, concrete solutions to meet the other challenges we face.

Growing an economy that works for everyone.

Fighting climate change.

Moving forward on the path of reconciliation.

Making sure our communities are safe, healthy, and inclusive.

Honourable senators, within the Throne Speech, Her Excellency expounded upon some of these issues we are facing as a nation — in some cases existential issues — and the path forward that we must take to come out the other side. When speaking to issues of the environment, the Governor General stated:

Protecting our land and oceans will address biodiversity loss. In this work, the Government will continue to strengthen its partnership with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis, to protect nature and respect their traditional knowledge.

When speaking to racism and discrimination — massive and insidious issues in our society — the Governor General said:

When someone in our country is targeted because of their gender, or who they love, or where they come from, the way they pray, the language they speak, or the colour of their skin, we are all diminished.

Everyone should be — and feel — safe.

The Government will continue combatting hate and racism, including with a renewed Anti-Racism Strategy.

She continued:

Canadians understand that equity, justice, and diversity are the means and the ends to living together.

Fighting systemic racism, sexism, discrimination, misconduct, and abuse, including in our core institutions, will remain a key priority.

Honourable senators, these are profound words and they are lofty goals. Despite that fact, we must resolve to work towards them, as they are critical outcomes that simply must be achieved, not only for a better today but for a better future for those to come seven generations from now.

To this end, there are many items that exist before us today for consideration and debate in this chamber that would be critical tools in achieving these goals. There are items that affirm gender equity, items that seek to mitigate harms to our environment, items that look at addressing racism in the health care systems and items that aim to address environmental racism across this country. Colleagues, these are items that are not only critical to reconciliation; they are critical in the fundamental sense of the word in that, in many cases, they are matters of life and death.

Issues of reconciliation, issues of discrimination, issues of climate action and issues of environmental stewardship are not bartering chips. They are not frivolous matters that we can afford to have caught up in partisan gamesmanship or political bickering. No. They are issues that are critical to the survival and well-being of the most vulnerable in our society. They are issues that are critical to the very survival and well-being of the land, the animals and the environment in which we all live.

When items of this nature are left to toil without resolution, we must look in the mirror and ask ourselves why that is so. There is so much potential in this chamber to do infinite good, yet far too often we stand in our own way, to the detriment of all who call this land home.

I would like to close, honourable senators, by once again quoting Her Excellency the Right Honourable Mary Simon in the Speech from the Throne:

There is hope in the every day. Reconciliation is not a single act, nor does it have an end date. It is a lifelong journey of healing, respect and understanding.

As such, colleagues, I urge that we collectively embrace our role as agents of change and commit to upholding the principle of reconciliation as a core and guiding value as we each go about fulfilling the vital role bestowed upon us as members of Canada’s upper house.

Kinanâskomitin. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill, as amended, be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Cotter, bill, as amended, placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the following Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada:

To Her Excellency the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY:

We, Her Majesty’s most loyal and dutiful subjects, the Senate of Canada in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

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