Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for raising the issue of the court because I think it will also give me an opportunity to correct what I think is a slight misunderstanding of the provisions of this bill as it applies to the court.

To answer your question directly, no, I don’t believe that the issues that you have raised justify sending it to the Legal Committee, and I’ll explain why.

With respect to the judiciary, the provisions of this bill remove an exemption that existed for the Supreme Court of Canada that was placed in the original act and, at the time, was thought to be “temporary,” absolving the court as an institution from the same requirements that other superior courts had. That is, to give effect to the constitutionally protected rights of litigants to be heard and understood in the language of their choice without the aid of an interpreter. What is perhaps not understood — and I apologize, Senator Batters, if I’m putting words in your mouth, or others; I don’t mean to. But this does not mean that every judge appointed to the Supreme Court or any other Supreme Court must be bilingual, fluent or otherwise. That is not what the legislation requires. It is an institutional obligation on the court as an institution that when it hears cases, the litigants before the court must be ensured that they are able to address the court and be understood without the benefit of an interpreter.

I’ll give an example. It happens, happily, that the Supreme Court of Canada in today’s composition has nine judges — three from Quebec, three from Ontario, as is our practice, custom and law — who are all functionally bilingual, but it is not actually a requirement and wouldn’t be a requirement. It would be a requirement that the panel of judges who hears a case be a panel that is able to hear and understand testimony, whether in English or French, without the benefit of an interpreter. For example, the quorum for a case at the Supreme Court of Canada, as you know, is five. There is nothing in Bill C-13 that requires that every future judge, where it’s the Supreme Court or of any superior court — because those provisions have been in place for some long time — must be fluently bilingual. It is conceivable that a Supreme Court judge may be appointed if they only speak French and perhaps an Indigenous language. Although I don’t think there has been a unilingual French judge on the Supreme Court since Confederation, there have certainly been unilingual English judges. But that is not precluded by this so long as the court, as an institution, when it structures its panels — which is typically under the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice — has the ability to satisfy the institutional obligation that is now imposed upon the Supreme Court from which it had been exempted temporarily under the Official Languages Act of 30 years ago.

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, at second reading.

My support of this bill does not mean that I think it is a comprehensive solution for protecting the French language in Canada. However, it contains enough positive elements that it should not be dismissed out of hand either. In my opinion, Bill C-13 is a step forward that should be taken today, particularly given the fact that it took eight years for this update to be introduced.

That being said, I am no fool. Bill C-13 will not fix the demographic decline of French in Canada in just a few months or years. Francophone communities across the country are not just going to start getting all the services that have been promised in the new law in their language with the snap of a finger.

Bill C-13, as we received it in the Senate, will be a worthwhile tool, as long as the government gives our politicians and institutions the funding they need to meet the many commitments that will come into effect.

I would remind honourable senators that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has expressed doubts that the objectives set out in Bill C-13 will be achieved, given the rather modest amounts committed to that end in the most recent federal budget. Implementing and ensuring respect for the Official Languages Act in a country as big as Canada is a costly challenge.

Unfortunately, we must realize that the application of the provisions of Bill C-13 will become a significant economic issue in the years to come, and it will be our duty to remind the government of its commitments and obligations. As citizens and as politicians, we will have to ensure that the current government and those to follow will take concrete action to stop the demographic decline of francophones.

Canada’s Official Languages Act must not be a mere piece of paper to be bandied about only during an election campaign or even in regulatory or legal debates to demand that everyone’s rights be respected. Bill C-13 must be a way of life in Canada and must become, in time, a proud legislative achievement for a country that has become as multicultural as ours.

Although we have to be patient in some respects, at this point I am so pleased that Bill C-13 will grant a new right to work and be served in French in Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence across the country. Working and living in one’s own language in a bilingual country should not be a battle, but a way of being.

I also want to say how happy I am with the new powers that will be given to the Commissioner of Official Languages to compel and punish federal institutions that do not comply with the Official Languages Act. This is a major and, frankly, long‑awaited change. At last we will have new provisions that will greatly facilitate the application of the Official Languages Act.

Although I am satisfied with the new requirement for the government to appoint bilingual judges to the Supreme Court of Canada, I am nevertheless disappointed that this mandatory bilingualism will not apply to the Governor General of Canada or the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick. In my opinion, these two office-holders simply must be able to communicate with citizens in both official languages. However, it would appear that the 1982 Constitution prevented adding such provisions to the new version of Canada’s Official Languages Act. I find that quite unfortunate.

We will have to continue to rely on the current government to ensure that the two official languages’ criterion is applied to these appointments. Unfortunately, the latest appointments have demonstrated that a prime minister has the political ability to say certain things but then do the opposite.

I want to come back to the political aspect of passing Bill C-13. I’m pleased to see that all the members in the other place — with the exception of one, whom I will talk about later — voted in favour of Bill C-13. That means that 300 elected representatives from across the country have passed this bill to modernize our country’s Official Languages Act. I want to stress that 300 MPs from across Canada voted in favour of the bill; it’s very important to remember that.

I think it’s important to note here that all political parties in the other place voted in favour of Bill C-13 after obtaining meaningful amendments from the government. Clearly, the last-minute compromises and additions yielded significant results, given that the Government of Quebec expressed its satisfaction and desire to see Bill C-13 passed by the Senate before we rise for the summer, which is fast approaching.

Historically, language issues between Ottawa and Quebec have been very controversial. However, with this series of 11 amendments negotiated in good faith and included in the bill, we are seeing the emergence of a new political dynamic that we were not accustomed to.

Obviously, no one could argue with the fact that the federal government needed to intervene to stop the decline of one of the country’s two official languages, French. This decline is not just happening in Quebec.

In this context, any law or initiative to protect and promote the use of French in Canada must be commended and supported, whether it be at the federal or provincial level.

It became a national and cultural emergency to do something to ensure that the historic bilingual character of our country lives on.

When I go back a bit, there are two points that seem important to me in Quebec’s support for Bill C-13.

First, there is the tacit recognition of Quebec’s power to legislate in order to protect and promote French within its territory, while maintaining the rights of the province’s anglophone community.

Second, Bill C-13 now includes certain aspects of Quebec’s Charter of the French Language, which target federally regulated businesses that hire employees not only in Quebec but in all areas of the country with a strong francophone presence. Airlines, railways and banks will be particularly affected by these new provisions.

Bill C-13 is not one-sided. It regulates and guarantees rights and services to minority communities in Quebec and across the country, whether those communities are anglophone or francophone.

I think it is a shame to have to say this again, but francophones were just as involved as anglophones in founding Canada, and their language needs to be respected and protected. I am talking not just about Quebecers, but also about the Acadian community and every francophone community in Ontario, Manitoba and throughout our great country.

Unfortunately, at the risk of repeating myself, there will always be fringe politicians who see efforts to protect the French language as a threat to their right to live in English. We saw a fine example of that in the other place.

What surprises me is that some of them live in Quebec, including the only MP who voted against Bill C-13 in the other place and who wanted to get rid of the references to the Charter of the French Language because he is convinced that the Quebec government is bent on taking away anglophones’ rights.

I just want to say that that member and those who support him, whether overtly or covertly, have an especially insulting attitude toward francophone Quebecers. Why? Because they don’t seem to realize that, as anglophone Quebecers, they have access to two anglophone universities in Montreal, namely McGill University and Concordia University. They also have access to an anglophone university in Sherbrooke, Bishop’s University. They also have access to anglophone colleges and anglophone schools, and they even have a constitutionally protected school board.

When these anglophone Quebecers go out, shop or deal with the government, they can do it in their own language. If they need to go to court, they can do it in English, without restrictions, without interpreters and without delays. Do francophones get as many rights and public services when they are the minority in other provinces? I believe that you know the answer.

To close this chapter, I just want to remind them of the striking revelation from Air Canada’s president and CEO, Michael Rousseau, who confessed that he had lived in Montreal for 14 years without ever having to speak French.

I think that the MP’s attempt to marshal a political uprising against Bill C-13 because he believed that his language is under threat in Quebec was an act of political naivety. I believed that period was over.

Quebec’s anglophone community has always been treated better than francophone and Acadian communities in other provinces.

I would add that that has always been the case and will continue to be the case even after the passage of the new Official Languages Act.

In closing, I want my colleagues to remember that a language can’t survive unless it’s taught properly and spoken every day. It should not be a struggle to live and speak in French in Canada. It is a right, a constitutional right that must now be strengthened.

I therefore ask you to vote in favour of Bill C-13 when the time comes, and then to join me in remaining vigilant in order to ensure that its content is implemented as set out in the bill.

Thank you for listening.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, in any country, language — or languages, plural, in Canada — is the essence of our cultural expression, identity and strength.

In rising today to speak to Bill C-13, An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, I want to immediately recognize the important role that our two official languages, English and French, play in our country. I hope that this debate will continue to be constructive and calm, anchored in a sound understanding of the scope of the bill, the evolution of Canada’s demolinguistic situation and the need to act.

I won’t revisit the historical evolution of our language rights today, as Senator Cormier, the bill’s sponsor, skilfully walked us through that in his speech at second reading. He outlined the benefits this law brings to the country and, in particular, to its minority language communities. He also demonstrated the need for the reform proposed today in Bill C-13.

Let’s be clear about the scope of this bill. Bill C-13 seeks to promote and protect the French language, require bilingualism in federally regulated private businesses, support minority language communities and their institutions, both anglophone and francophone, all while recognizing the reality of Canada’s current linguistic dynamics.

Why is this reform necessary? The reality that can’t be ignored is that the French language is in decline throughout Canada. That is the unequivocal finding of the 2021 census. Across the country, French as the first official language spoken fell from 22.3% during the 2016 census to 21.4% in the 2021 census. The same trend can be observed in Quebec, the only majority francophone province, where French as the first language dropped from 83.7% in 2016 to 82.2% in 2021. By comparison, the use of English has increased steadily, rising from 74.8% to 75.5% of the total population of Canada between 2016 and today.

This is not a new phenomenon, but it confirms that the decline in the number of francophones in Canada is accelerating. This decline is hitting the Quebec nation and francophone communities outside Quebec particularly hard. Let’s face facts. Quebecers, but also Acadians and other francophones from New Brunswick, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and everywhere else, in short, all francophone communities in our country are negatively affected by this linguistic and demographic dynamic.

What solutions does Bill C-13 offer? Bill C-13 acknowledges this reality and promotes substantive equality of the two official languages. To achieve that, it proposes a tailored approach that is described as asymmetrical on many levels to promote and protect our two official languages, English and French, and it also pays particular attention to official language minority communities.

It is very important to clarify the situation. Treating the two official languages asymmetrically does not create injustice. Treating them symmetrically does. Given the situation we are in today and the data on the decline of the French language, it would be unfair and even inconsistent to pretend otherwise.

The principle of linguistic vulnerability is deeply rooted in the jurisprudence of our highest court. In Ford and Nguyen, the Supreme Court of Canada wrote, and I quote:

 . . . the general objective of protecting the French language is a legitimate one within the meaning of Oakes in view of the unique linguistic and cultural situation of the province of Quebec:

[T]he material amply establishes the importance of the legislative purpose reflected in the Charter of the French Language and that it is a response to a substantial and pressing need. . . . The vulnerable position of the French language in Quebec and Canada . . . .

The Supreme Court used a report from the Office québécois de la langue française on linguistic evolution to help justify its decision in Nguyen. That report states, and I quote:

In both the Canadian and North American contexts, French and English do not carry the same weight and are not subject to the same constraints in respect of the future. The durability of English in Canada and in North America is all but assured. That of French in Quebec, and particularly in the Montréal area, still depends to a large extent on its relationship with English and remains contingent upon various factors such as fecundity, the aging of the population, inter- and intraprovincial migration and language substitution.

The federal government’s decision to propose an asymmetrical approach to promoting and preserving our official languages in Bill C-13 is based on a solid factual and legal foundation.

[English]

It is also necessary to assert that an asymmetrical approach in favour of French is not synonymous with a loss of rights for English-speaking citizens, particularly minority anglophones in Quebec, whose situation is very dear to my heart. English‑speaking Quebecers will absolutely retain their rights under the Canadian and Quebec Charters. I could not tolerate my fellow English-speaking Quebecers having their rights endangered or infringed, but this is simply not the case.

Bill C-13 is, in fact, beneficial for the English-speaking minority in Quebec because it includes commitments to linguistic minorities such as advancing formal, non-formal and informal opportunities for members of English and French linguistic minority communities to pursue quality learning in their own language throughout their lives, including from early childhood to post-secondary education.

Furthermore, it should be remembered that Quebec — which is the most bilingual province in Canada because actually 44.5% of Quebecers are bilingual in French and English — offers fundamental rights and protections to its English-speaking communities in its own legislation. Our colleague Senator Dagenais eloquently referred to these protections. Those rights and privileges relate to education, administrative services, health services and others. The community also counts on strong and healthy institutions such as bilingual municipalities, hospitals and universities.

I think it is important to be reminded that Bill C-13 has no impact on those rights provided for in the Quebec charter and by the Quebec government, and that a debate on our Official Languages Act is not the place to discuss topics pertaining to Quebec politics or Quebec’s concept of living together.

Why is Bill C-13 such a historic bill? Bill C-13 is truly a historic realization because it comes from true collaboration between numerous stakeholders, including the federal government, the Quebec government and the representatives of linguistic minorities all around the country. All these actors came together in recognition for the need to reform the Official Languages Act. This bill is eagerly awaited all around the country and was adopted with quasi unanimity in the other place, a great achievement in itself.

As a senator from Quebec, I am happy to have witnessed such a great collaboration between the federal government and the Quebec government. Agreements between the two have sometimes been difficult to reach, to say the least, particularly when it comes to linguistic issues, but I am glad to have seen the two working toward a common objective, the promotion and protection of French all around Canada, an ideal in which I’m happy to see the Quebec government being a proactive actor.

This agreement is reflected in the amendments proposed at committee to clauses 54, 57 to 59 and 71 of the bill, relating to federally regulated private businesses, which is the focus, the main scope of this bill.

Bill C-13 will bring a new standard for those federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and in francophone areas, ensuring that those businesses respect both the rights of Quebecers to work in the official language of Quebec and the rights of French minorities to receive services in their native tongue, which is not actually the case. Today, the report tabled by the federal Commissioner of Official Languages is very probing with regard to this situation and this unfairness for francophones.

All of this is done without infringing on the rights of anglophones. Essentially, Bill C-13 recognizes that the federally regulated private sector has a role to play in order to promote and protect French.

Bill C-13 is far from being Quebec-centric but focuses, and rightly so, on French-speaking communities outside of Quebec. It will ensure that consumers can communicate with federally regulated private businesses in French and provide language‑of‑work rights for francophone employees all around Canada.

The bill, as I have said, specifically includes a commitment to support the vitality of official language minority communities, that is, francophone communities outside of Quebec and English‑speaking communities in Quebec.

What about Indigenous languages? Obviously, I recognize the need for protection and promotion of Indigenous languages and the rights of the Indigenous peoples who speak them. Having said that, I don’t believe the reform of the Official Languages Act proposed in Bill C-13 is the right avenue to address this issue. Promoting French doesn’t impede on the application of Indigenous languages or the rights of Indigenous communities to use them. Both can be done simultaneously. They are not mutually exclusive.

In 2019, we at the Senate passed the Indigenous Languages Act. This is what I believe to be the efficient and appropriate legal instrument to consider in regard to Indigenous languages. If reform is needed, and improvements are requested, the solution would be to work through this law again to further protect and promote Indigenous languages. As such, you will find in me an ally in the Senate.

Why is a bilingual country worth fighting for? I began my intervention by saying that bilingualism was fundamental for Canada’s culture and its identity. I believe it unequivocally. It is not only important within Canada; it’s also one of our main attributes on the international level. Our languages open doors for us everywhere we go. Thanks to the English language and our historical ties to Britain, we are members of the Commonwealth, where we exchange and promote our interests with 55 other countries and nations. Thanks to our French heritage, we are also members of the Francophonie with its 54 members, 7 associate members and 27 observers.

Those ties are essential for Canada. Each one of our two official languages allows us to exchange, trade, connect, share our culture and develop strong diplomatic ties. It also helps to attract immigrants, workers and students. It truly distinguishes us worldwide.

[Translation]

In conclusion, as you can see, I fully support the principle of Bill C-13, An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, and I urge you to refer it to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages as soon as possible. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the members of that committee for their excellent and intensive work on the pre‑study of the bill and the report they produced.

I will also answer a question a senator asked earlier about a committee chair sponsoring a bill. I can confirm that the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, with his trademark ethical sensitivity, has asked to step down from chairing that committee and has ensured that another senator will assume that position. The senator who asked that question also asked whether we knew of a situation where the sponsor of a bill was also the chair of the committee. I will reply by citing a recent event. The Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications and sponsor of Bill C-11 chaired the meetings where that committee studied that bill.

I am sure that when the members of the Official Languages Committee analyze this bill, they will put in the same high‑quality work on all the important aspects of the bill. Honourable colleagues, in conclusion, the changing demographics of our country point to an unequivocal decline in French. Bill C-13 is the fruit of a delicate collaboration, and it is necessary to ensure the equitable development of both of our official languages. It seeks to achieve equality and equity in the linguistic dynamic of our official languages. In this case, equality means that Canadians can be served by the federal government in the official language of their choice, regardless of what province they live in.

Francophones need this bill, but ultimately, Canada as a whole will benefit.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall these amendments be taken into consideration?

(On motion of Senator LaBoucane-Benson, amendments placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall these amendments be taken into consideration?

(On motion of Senator LaBoucane-Benson, amendments placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill with the following amendments, to which they desire the concurrence of the Senate:

1.Clause 2, pages 1 and 2:

(a)on page 1, add the following after line 16:

qu’il s’engage à adopter le principe de précaution, si bien qu’en cas de risques de dommages graves ou irréversibles, l’absence de certitude scientifique absolue ne doit pas servir de prétexte pour remettre à plus tard l’adoption de mesures effectives visant à prévenir la dégradation de l’environnement;”;

(b)on page 2, add the following after line 36:

“Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to openness, transparency and accountability in respect of the protection of the environment and human health;”;

(c)on page 2, add the following after line 41:

“Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing a risk-based approach to the assessment and management of chemical substances;”.

2.Clause 3, page 3:

(a)replace line 3, in the English version, with the following:

“not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective”;

(b)add the following after line 13:

3.Clause 4, page 3:

(a)add the following after line 28:

(b)add the following after line 28:

4.Clause 5, pages 3 and 4:

(a)on page 3, add the following after line 42:

(b)on page 4, replace line 9 with the following:

“intergenerational equity, according to which it is important to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs;”;

(c)on page 4, replace lines 13 and 14 with the following:

5.Clause 5.1, pages 4 and 5:

(a)replace line 27 on page 4 to line 3 on page 5 with the following:

(b)on page 5, replace lines 8 and 9 with the following:

“registry is publicly accessible and searchable and is in electronic form.”.

6.Clause 10, pages 6 and 7:

(a)replace line 26 on page 6 to line 23 on page 7 with the following:

(b)on page 7, replace lines 28 to 35 with the following:

7.Clause 10.1, pages 7 and 8: delete clause 10.1.

8.Clause 11.1, page 8: delete clause 11.1.

9.Clause 14, page 9:

(a)replace lines 9 to 15 with the following:

“81, add a substance to the Domestic Substances List if

(b)replace lines 18 to 27 with the following:

10.Clause 15, page 10:

(a)replace line 23 with the following:

“conditions, test procedures and laboratory practices to be followed for replacing, reducing or re-”;

(b)replace lines 26 to 28 with the following:

“classification of a substance as a substance that poses the highest risk.”.

11.Clause 16.1, page 12: replace lines 3 to 21 with the following:

12.Clause 19, pages 15 and 16:

(a)on page 15, replace line 25 with the following:

“and publish a plan with timelines”;

(b)on page 15, replace line 29 with the following:

(c)on page 15, replace lines 37 to 41 with the following:

“the development and timely incorporation of scientifically justified alternative methods and strategies in the testing and assessment of substances to replace, reduce or refine the use of vertebrate animals.”;

(d)on page 16, delete lines 1 and 2;

(e)on page 16, replace line 16 with the following:

“paragraph 68(a), including the manner in which the public may be provided with information regarding substances or products including, in the case of products, by labelling them.”;

(f)on page 16, add the following after line 30:

(g)renumber the subsections of section 73 and amend all references accordingly.

13.Clause 20, pages 17 and 18:

(a)on page 17, replace line 21 with the following:

(b)on page 17, replace lines 23 to 25 with the following:

“specified on the List, if

(c)on page 18, replace lines 1 to 4 with the following:

14.Clause 21, page 20: add the following after line 34:

15.Clause 22, page 21:

(a)replace line 26 with the following:

“amended and the reasons for the amendment in the Environmental Registry and in any other”;

(b)add the following after line 27:

16.Clause 29, page 24: replace line 37 with the following:

“respecting preventive or control actions, including actions that lead to the use of safer or more sustainable alternatives for the environment or human health, in relation to a”.

17.Clause 39, page 31:

(a)replace lines 2 to 17 with the following:

“106, add a living organism to the Domestic Substances List if

(b)replace lines 20 to 23 with the following:

“tion 105(1), 105.1(1) or 112(1) is not being manufactured in Canada or imported into Canada the Minister may delete the living”.

18.New clause 39.01, page 31: add the following after line 34:

19. Clause 39.1, pages 31 and 32: replace line 35 on page 31 to line 15 on page 32 with the following:

20.Clause 44.1, page 35: replace lines 21 to 25 with the following:

21.Clause 50, page 39: replace lines 14 to 16 with the following:

22.Clause 53, pages 40 and 41:

(a)on page 40, replace line 1 with the following:

(b)on page 40, replace line 14 with the following:

(c)on page 40, replace line 27 with the following:

(d)on page 41, add the following after line 29:

23.Clause 55, pages 41 and 42:

(a)on page 41, replace line 32 with the following:

(b)on page 42, delete lines 15 to 35.

24.Clause 57, pages 43 and 44: replace line 14 on page 43 to line 4 on page 44 with the following:

25.Clause 67.1, page 51: delete clause 67.1.

26.Schedule 1, page 53: delete the reference to “section 68.1” in the references after the heading “SCHEDULE 1”.

Hon. Marty Klyne moved second reading of Bill C-45, An Act to amend the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and to make a clarification relating to another Act.

He said: Honourable senators, on the unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people, I’m honoured to rise as sponsor of Bill C-45. This legislation amends the First Nations Fiscal Management Act of 2006, helping support economic reconciliation and greater prosperity for First Nations.

Bill C-45 contains important measures to enhance the statute’s opt-in fiscal frameworks for the 348 scheduled and participating First Nations and any new entrants. Most importantly, this bill will also create the First Nations infrastructure institute.

I will start today by situating this bill in the bigger picture of economic reconciliation. Then, in the second part of my speech, I will explain Bill C-45’s improvements in relation to tax authorities, financial management, economic information, borrowing and infrastructure development and maintenance. All of this sets the table for greater access to capital and mainstream funding and investments, as well as First Nations’ meaningful realization of social and economic rights and equity. In turn, this shift can help First Nations prosper, supporting the revitalization of languages, cultures and ceremonies.

In the big picture, the statute that this bill would amend is an alternative to the Indian Act framework and one that is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. Indeed, as the preamble notes, the bill will help implement multiple articles of UNDRIP. Essentially, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act provides participating First Nations with a legislative and institutional framework through which they can assert their jurisdiction in financial management, taxation and access to capital markets.

By enhancing this framework, also noted in the preamble, Bill C-45 responds to Call to Action 44 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in relation to self-determination and economic reconciliation. The preamble also acknowledges traditional Indigenous models of taxation and sharing, including the word taksis in the Chinook trading language.

It is of fundamental importance to me, as sponsor, to highlight that First Nations-led institutions led the co-development of Bill C-45 through six years of hard work and consultations, including engagement with the 348 participating First Nations.

On today’s commencement of Senate debate, congratulations to Ernie Daniels, President and CEO of the First Nations Finance Authority; Harold Calla, Executive Chair of the First Nations Financial Management Board; Manny Jules, Chief Commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission and Allan Claxton and Jason Calla of the First Nations Infrastructure Institute Development Board and their teams. Three of those organizations already exist under the act and will receive important modernization measures via this bill.

The legislation will also establish a fourth organization in relation to infrastructure. Along with the participating First Nations, this is their bill.

Thank you as well to Minister Miller and his team for advancing Bill C-45 on behalf of the government and to the other place for their unanimous support. I hope senators will join me in honouring these shared efforts and the consensus reflected in this bill by passing Bill C-45 before the summer.

This legislation is cause for optimism as our country works toward economic reconciliation. In 2021, with Bill C-15, Parliament upheld legal protection for Indigenous rights through UNDRIP. That historic change was a pivotal response to a long-term injustice. It restored Indigenous nations’ legal rights to self‑government, social and economic rights and equity regarding their lands, waters and resources, including for responsible development.

Again, that all aims toward prosperous communities and supporting flourishing languages, cultures and ceremonies.

The UNDRIP action plan is due to be released this June. Senators should expect an economic component further to the Indigenous Peoples Committee’s observations from two years ago. For example, I hope to see the action plan engaging with the National Indigenous Economic Strategy unveiled last year by a coalition of 25 Indigenous organizations and their 107 calls to economic prosperity.

Complementing the breakthrough of UNDRIP, Bill C-45 supports financial pathways to greater self-determination, prosperity and well-being for many First Nations. For example, this bill can help communities build and grow their tax base, raise revenue for services, regulate services, start or purchase businesses and invest in infrastructure to improve quality of life and support commercial opportunities. All such changes toward greater prosperity can go hand in hand with traditional knowledge, values and culture. Moreover, the changes in this bill can fully complement the realization of self-government via section 35 constitutional rights and UNDRIP.

Of note, Bill C-45 responds directly to issues raised by Senator Tannas on May 16 in our Senate inquiry celebrating success stories of Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs. Senator Tannas noted that First Nations businesses often don’t have access to capital to finance on-reserve assets. Bill C-45 enhances one avenue of financing by continuing to develop and support the First Nations Finance Authority, a lender to qualifying nations.

Before I get into the bill’s details in the second part of my speech, I will share two concrete examples of how the First Nations Fiscal Management Act can be a game changer.

My first example comes via Member of Parliament for Sydney—Victoria Jaime Battiste, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, who is the first Mi’kmaw member of Parliament. On debate in the other place, Mr. Battiste shared the following experience of Membertou First Nation in Cape Breton. About 10 years ago, Membertou received the First Nations Financial Management Board’s first-ever financial systems certification. That certification provided the community with access to long-term, affordable capital, allowing Membertou to refinance and reinvest in business developments. The results have included an $8.2-million elementary school, a 90-lot housing development and a $9.5-million highway interchange opening access to further commercial developments on Membertou’s land.

Membertou went on to build one of the largest sporting venues on Cape Breton as well as a state-of-the-art bowling alley.

That said, perhaps Membertou’s greatest economic achievement was the acquisition of Clearwater Seafoods in 2021. That $1-billion acquisition was achieved with six other First Nations, all part of the First Nations Finance Authority under this act. Membertou Development Corporation is now home to 12 corporate entities.

My second example of success under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act is Siksika Nation, east of Calgary. In 2016, Siksika Nation opened the long-awaited new Chief Crowfoot School. The original school suffered damages from flooding, was overcrowded and had heating problems. Thanks to Siksika Nation’s commitment to obtain First Nations Financial Management Board certification, it was able to access financing through the First Nations Financial Authority to build the new school. Today, Chief Crowfoot School offers students various services, including speech and language, a dental therapist, a family liaison, a parent-student support worker and weekly visits from an elder to share traditional and cultural teachings. Siksika language and culture are also offered for each grade to promote pride and respect for Siksika heritage.

This example is a social success, but it’s also an economic one, considering the brighter future these students will be able to access. Early in life, an excellent community-led education instills identity, pride and hope in these students in the Siksika Nation. First Nations in Canada need more stories like that across the country.

In addition, First Nations under this act have realized billions of dollars in investment and the assessed value of their reserve lands now exceeds $15 billion. Thousands of laws have been passed under the act, and 150 First Nations administrators have graduated from the Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics in Kamloops, B.C.

Loans to First Nations from the First Nations Finance Authority have resulted in the creation of over 20,000 jobs and an economic output of $4 billion through nine provinces and the Northwest Territories. On that point, I remind senators that, in 2021, Senator Harder’s Senate Prosperity Action Group noted a performance target of Indigenous businesses contributing $100 billion to the Canadian economy compared to the current estimated $32 billion. Let’s help reach that goal with Bill C-45.

At the House committee, Manny Jules of the First Nations Tax Commission quoted his father, Chief Clarence Jules, from 1965. His advice for First Nations was, “We must be able to move at the speed of business.” I can personally attest to this need for nimbleness in seizing economic opportunities from my experience in mainstream business as a corporate banker, commercial lender and as a developmental lender in Indigenous economic development.

However, colleagues, it is not only First Nations who can benefit from the First Nations Fiscal Management Act and the amendments in Bill C-45. This legislation can lead to shared opportunities and benefits for the entire country. For example, the act can support First Nations’ co-ownership of ventures developing critical minerals needed for the green transition, along with other net-zero capital located on First Nations’ territory. Bill C-45 will support more First Nations in being able to enjoy better interest rates when borrowing through the First Nations Finance Authority.

The journey toward economic reconciliation now offers Canadians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, generational opportunities for employment, partnerships, investments and environmental progress. To illustrate that, last year, RBC reported that Indigenous territories hold at least 56% of advanced critical minerals projects, 35% of top solar sites and 44% of better wind sites. Business leaders and investors should run, not walk, to consult Indigenous nations on those opportunities.

Colleagues, let’s turn to the details of Bill C-45. I begin with a quote from Harold Calla of the First Nations Financial Management Board at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, where he gave a good summary of the act and the bill.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it is now 6:00, and, pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until 8:00, when we will resume, unless it is your wish, honourable senators, to not see the clock.

Is it agreed to not see the clock?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, leave was not granted. The sitting is therefore suspended, and I will leave the chair until 8:00 p.m.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Klyne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Audette, for the second reading of Bill C-45, An Act to amend the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and to make a clarification relating to another Act.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it is now 6:00, and, pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until 8:00, when we will resume, unless it is your wish, honourable senators, to not see the clock.

Is it agreed to not see the clock?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-45, An Act to amend the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and to make a clarification relating to another Act.

Rarely does a bill cross our chamber that has received unanimous support in the other place, yet Bill C-45 has done just that. Partisanship has been set aside in recognition of the good work of the organizations this bill purports to expand and in acknowledgement of the important work Canada must still do to reconcile itself with its colonial past.

This bill will expand the roles of the three First Nations Fiscal Management Act institutions: the First Nations Financial Management Board, or FMB; the First Nations Tax Commission, or FNTC; and the First Nations Finance Authority, or FNFA. It will also establish a fourth institution, the First Nations infrastructure institute, or the FNII.

The First Nations Fiscal Management Act — or FMA — institutions are Indigenous-led organizations that aim to provide the resources, administrative tools and guidance to instill confidence in First Nations’ financial management and reporting systems to support economic and community development. The actions of the organizations support economic reconciliation and create pride in Indigenous ownership, nation building and Indigenous individuals’ self-actualization.

We all recognize the inherent right of Indigenous peoples to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions; to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.

Economic reconciliation is an important pillar in overall reconciliation. It represents Canada’s efforts to reverse the archaic and paternalistic Indian Act and its consequences that effectively removed First Nations from the national economy. Indigenous peoples want to address their own issues with their own resources and to return a sense of self-sufficiency and honour that has been stripped away by the paternalistic, archaic and irreparably broken Indian Act.

Reconciliation must be centred on the future of Indigenous peoples, and I am glad we have Indigenous-led organizations like the FMA institutions to lead the way. The FMA is the most successful First-Nations-led example of implementing First Nations jurisdiction through optional legislation, as within 15 years it has grown to the voluntary participation of nearly 300 First Nations from across Canada.

The FMA was founded on four basic principles and objectives that continue to guide policies, standards and proposals for institutional, fiscal and legislative changes.

First, through the First Nation institutionally supported jurisdiction, the FMA provides a framework and process to establish, implement and protect First Nation optional jurisdictions. Jurisdictional space is created for First Nations to occupy with their own legislation supported and protected by the FMA institutions. The FMA institutions provide knowledge, efficiencies, capacity and advocacy that individual First Nations would have difficulty achieving on their own. In this way, the FMA supports effective and applied self-determination for interested First Nations.

Second, the FMA supports First Nation economic growth through a strong First Nation investment climate. This investment climate is characterized by lower costs of doing business; standards to support increased trade and provide certainty; access to long-term capital; sustainable business grade infrastructure; available information to support investment, financial management and administrative capacity; and quality local services at a fair price.

Third, the FMA establishes a revenue-based fiscal relationship like other governments in Canada. Key features include a connection between clear revenue powers and expenditure jurisdictions, incentives for economic development, First Nations institutionally supported systems for transparency, statistics and accountability, and transfers to ensure national service and infrastructure quality standards.

Last, the FMA is an optional process for First Nations. This creates an institutional incentive for motivation and improvement and respects the self-determination of each First Nation.

With respect to the bill, it does several important things. First and foremost, it establishes a fourth institution under the FMA, the First Nations infrastructure institute, or FNII.

First Nations face a staggering infrastructure gap of at least $349.2 billion. Inaction will only make the problem worse, and it’s clear that top-down, government-driven programs have failed to respond to the massive need. At the House committee, Mr. Allan Claxton, Development Board Chair of the FNII, had this to say:

The problems with the current first nation infrastructure systems are well known. Infrastructure on reserves takes too long to develop, costs to much to build and does not last long enough because it’s not built up to the proper standards. This contributes to a series of poor health, social and economic outcomes.

He also said, “High-quality public infrastructure is important for the health and sustainability of our communities.”

The FNII’s mission would be to provide the skills and processes necessary to ensure Indigenous groups can effectively and efficiently plan, procure, own and manage infrastructure on their lands. Through FNII’s team, optional capacity support services would be available to all Indigenous governments and entities, including best practices for maximizing economic benefits not just for First Nations but for regional economies as well.

Bill C-45 also expands the First Nations Tax Commision, the FNTC, to support First Nations that choose to increase their fiscal powers beyond real property taxation. It would also open FNTC to be able to offer services to self-governing First Nations, municipalities and other orders of government.

The legislation would continue expanding and modernizing the services of the FMB, the Financial Management Board, to meet the needs of First Nations and other Indigenous groups and entities. This would be an optional pathway for tribal councils, modern treaty nations and self-governing groups to build their administrative, financial and governance capacity through the risk-managed support of the FMB, as 342 First Nations — 348 expected by the end of the week — have chosen to do. This legislation is a key step to the FMB being able to support innovative projects of collaborative entities such as the Meadow Lake Tribal Council, which is comprised of nine First Nations.

Mr. Harold Calla, Executive Chair of the FMB, summed it up during his testimony thus:

These amendments build on the achievements of Canada’s most successful piece of indigenous-led legislation. A huge part of this success lies in the FMA’s optionality for first nations that choose, on an individual basis by band council resolution, to be scheduled to the act. There are no financial enticements to do so, just an individual nation’s desire to have good financial management that is recognized to meet international standards, to be able to borrow from the First Nations Finance Authority or to levy local revenues to fund first nations government services.

With the passage of these amendments, nations will be able to choose expert advice and support for building and maintaining infrastructure. The optionality of this legislation also provides evidence of its success. Nearly 350 first nations have chosen, one by one, to be scheduled to the FMA. That is over 60% of the first nations that are part of the Indian Act.

The bill will also establish a statistical function within the FNTC and FMB. The socio-economic gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians is a barrier to economic reconciliation. A lack of readily available data and statistics makes the problem worse: Decision makers, such as the chiefs and councils in First Nations governments, do not have access to the kind of information they need to understand the causes, solutions and complexity of the socio-economic gap — and close it. By providing economic and fiscal data, all levels of government will be better informed.

Bill C-45 also would provide First Nations with additional powers to ensure compliance with their local revenue and service laws, such as enabling First Nations to apply to courts of competent jurisdiction for court orders directing persons or entities to comply with their local revenue and services laws and to collect amounts owing to the First Nations under their local revenue laws. It would allow First Nations to use these provisions to enforce all their local revenue laws, not just laws in respect of taxes, charges or fees. First Nations would be empowered to enforce their laws respecting the provision of services, including using “stop work” and “do work” orders and the discontinuance of services.

Finally, changes are proposed that would enable First Nations scheduled to the First Nations FMA to also be signatories to the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, the FNLM. 

Conservatives have long supported economic self-sufficiency and economic reconciliation as an essential off-ramp from the Indian Act. The 2021 Conservative election platform supported the creation of a First Nations infrastructure institute along the same lines as the one proposed in Bill C-45 and supported the expansion of FMA institutions’ mandates and powers to enhance the work they do in establishing accountability and transparency for First Nations.

Our 2019 Conservative election platform spoke to the importance of Indigenous communities accessing capital for economic development to reduce the socio-economic gap between their Indigenous and other Canadian communities.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-45 was passed in the House of Commons with all-party support. Amendments at committee were clarifying in nature and agreed to by the bill’s proponents. I know that the Senate will do its due diligence in scrutinizing Bill C-45, and I hope we will reach a similar conclusion.

It’s time for action, and it’s time to return a sense of self-sufficiency and honour to a people that have had it stripped away by the paternalistic, archaic and irreparably broken Indian Act. It’s time to restore to Indigenous people more control of their land, money and decision making.

Manny Jules, Chief Commissioner of the FNTC, in his closing testimony concluded with this comment:

Your support for these amendments demonstrates that my ancestors were right when they wrote in a letter to the prime minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in 1910, that by working together we can make each other “great and good.”

Thank you.

Hon. Marty Klyne: Colleagues, let’s now turn to the details of Bill C-45. I begin with a quote from Harold Calla, of the First Nations Financial Management Board, at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. He gave a good summary of the act and the bill:

These amendments build on the achievements of Canada’s most successful piece of Indigenous-led legislation. A huge part of this success lies in the FMA’s optionality for first nations that choose, on an individual basis by band council resolution, to be scheduled to the act. There are no financial enticements to do so, just an individual nation’s desire to have good financial management that is recognized to meet international standards, to be able to borrow from the First Nations Finance Authority or to levy local revenues to fund first nations government services.

Mr. Calla continued:

With the passage of these amendments, nations will be able to choose expert advice and support for building and maintaining infrastructure. The optionality of this legislation also provides evidence of its success. Nearly 350 first nations have chosen, one by one, to be scheduled to the FMA. That is over 60% of the first nations that are part of the Indian Act.

Specifically, Bill C-45 makes the following five proposals:

The first is expanding and strengthening the mandates of the First Nations Tax Commission and the First Nations Financial Management Board, such as letting them take on economic research and data-collection functions to facilitate evidence-based planning and decision making, enhancing their ability to offer advice in support of self-determination and granting them the authority to conduct their annual meetings virtually.

The second proposal is updating the chairperson position of the First Nations Financial Management Board to a full-time position, with accompanying compensation, and ensuring strong and diverse Indigenous representation on the board.

The third is combining two existing debt reserve funds — one to protect borrowing with local revenues such as property taxes, and the second for borrowing with other revenues like oil and gas — into a single fund relating to own-source revenues to simplify and lower the cost of pooled borrowing by First Nations. The changes also clarify that only borrowing members with outstanding loans can be called upon to replenish the safeguard fund in circumstances that it had to be used, in the event that multiple First Nations may default on their loans.

Proposal number four is enhancing First Nations’ authority to make and enforce laws, including expressly through court orders, regarding revenue collection and the provision of services on‑reserve. These changes will allow nations to create local revenue laws beyond real property taxation and/or to regulate services in relation to, for example, the provision of water, sewer, drainage, waste management, animal control, recreation, transportation, telecommunications and energy.

The final proposal is creating a fourth institution under the act called the First Nations infrastructure institute as a centre of excellence to help participating First Nations and other interested Indigenous groups access the necessary tools and resources to develop and maintain strong, sustainable infrastructure.

This last proposal aims to help close the $30-billion infrastructure gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. As Allan Claxton, Development Board Chair for this forthcoming institute, told the House of Commons Committee:

The problems with the current first nation infrastructure systems are well known. Infrastructure on reserves takes too long to develop, costs to much to build and does not last long enough because it’s not built up to the proper standards. This contributes to a series of poor health, social and economic outcomes.

We are proposing to establish the First Nations Infrastructure Institute . . . to tackle these problems.

FNII has been designed to build on the successes of the FMA model. It will also be optional to all first nations.

Senators, this institute will also be available to nations with self-governing and modern treaty agreements. In addition, the infrastructure institute can support Métis and Inuit projects should that be of interest to their communities, as eligibility for these types of service offerings would not be limited to those scheduled to the act to date.

At the House of Commons Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee, Minister Miller noted that the development board for the First Nations infrastructure institute has already set up a successful pilot project with the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation in southern Ontario. This First Nation is developing a feasibility study, business case and procurement options for water and waste water assets. The hope is that this is only the beginning of this initiative’s path to adequate infrastructure for First Nations, supporting the quality of life and economic opportunities that many Canadians take for granted. That is what economic reconciliation is all about.

To conclude, I remind this chamber that this consensus and opt-in bill is the product of extensive consultations and determined First Nations leadership. The other place passed Bill C-45 unanimously and expeditiously. The Senate should do the same.

On a personal note, I believe that Canada, as a nation of nations, is building up a head of steam to advance economic reconciliation. As obstacles are removed and rights are recognized, Indigenous nations, organizations, business leaders, entrepreneurs and youth are creating their own paths to success.

In the Senate, we have a part to play. The Prosperity Action Group’s 2021 report is a Senate policy initiative towards inclusive and sustainable wealth creation across Canada. The report aims to set the conditions whereby a rising tide lifts all ships and no one is left behind, including other racialized or marginalized communities.

In addition, senators from across the country are celebrating the success stories of Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs in an ongoing speech series in this chamber. I urge colleagues to add your voices to our inquiry, lifting up and heralding Indigenous businesses in your region.

Therefore, colleagues, let’s build on all this momentum by moving quickly and with a united spirit on Bill C-45. Together, let’s pass this legislation into law before the summer, making a powerful statement and bringing practical change towards economic reconciliation. Thank you, hiy kitatamîhin.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise today in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

When the Right Honourable Mary Simon stood in this chamber and delivered her speech, she spoke in Inuktitut. She opened her address urging action on reconciliation. She pushed us to move beyond platitudes and sound bites to actually achieve change. To quote Her Excellency:

Despite the profound pain, there is hope.

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. We need to embrace the diversity of Canada and demonstrate respect and understanding for all peoples every day.

Already, 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.

Colleagues, I believe that language is a vital aspect of culture and identity, so it is incumbent upon us to do our utmost to protect, promote and revitalize Indigenous languages.

When I was minister of education for the Northwest Territories, the Government of Canada, represented by the then Indian affairs and Northern development minister, the late Honourable John Munro, made a special trip to Yellowknife in 1982 to meet with our cabinet to inform us that Canada would take action to legislate official bilingualism in the Northwest Territories.

I remember telling Minister Munro in response that while the benefits of official bilingualism would be welcome in my constituency, where there is a significant francophone population, if the Government of Canada would not correspondingly support and recognize Indigenous languages also in need of recognition and support in the N.W.T., federal unilateral action would amount to a declaration of war. “We have more tanks than you do!” the minister told me, jokingly, but agreed to consider my plea for parallel federal support for Indigenous languages and helped authorize a meeting with the secretary of state to discuss ongoing federal support for Indigenous languages.

At that time, I served in our cabinet with the Honourable Richard Nerysoo, who was then Premier of the Northwest Territories. We came to Ottawa and negotiated with the then secretary of state, who was also our esteemed former colleague senator Serge Joyal, and came away with a contribution agreement for a significant $16 million to support Indigenous languages. This was the so-called Territorial Language Accord, which has since then continuously provided federal support for French language enhancement for our small percentage of French speakers in Nunavut — roughly 4% — and roughly equal support for the enhancement of Inuktut languages in Nunavut, the first languages of a significant majority of our 85% Inuit population.

For our part of the deal, the N.W.T. government passed the Official Languages Act, which recognized nine Indigenous languages in addition to French and English as the official Aboriginal languages of the territory. This carried over when the territory later divided, and Nunavut was created. Canada’s newest territory passed its own Official Languages Act in 2008, which recognized Inuktut, Inuinnaqtun, English and French as the official languages of Nunavut.

A key element of the Act is the inclusion of language in section 3, which states:

. . . the Official Languages of Nunavut have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in territorial institutions.

That same year, the Government of Nunavut passed the parallel Inuit Language Protection Act. The then minister of languages, the Honourable James Arreak, released a document entitled Uqausivut, which was meant to serve as a road map for language protection and revitalization for the territory. It explained how the Official Languages Act and the Inuit Language Protection Act would work in tandem to provide the legislative framework required to see Inuit languages flourish.

The document clearly laid out the intent of these bills by stating:

While respecting the equality of Official Languages, the Inuit Language Protection Act was designed specifically to ensure respect for unilingual Inuit, particularly Elders, to reverse language shift among youth, and to strengthen the use of Inuktut among all Nunavummiut. The Act was unanimously approved by the Members of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut in September 2008, and is now law in Nunavut.

As one of Canada’s founding languages, Inuktut is also an irreplaceable part of the national heritage, and contributes to the richness and diversity of life in this country. Canada recognized this fact, and the need to protect and support Inuktut, when it signed the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions in 2005, and, more recently, when it endorsed the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in November 2010.

The act requires, and I stress this, every organization — which includes by definition “a public sector body, municipality or private sector body,” and a “public sector body” means “a federal department, agency or institution” — to “provide, in the Inuit Language, . . . customer or client services that are available to the general public.”

The act goes on to say that every organization shall be bound by the language and signage obligations laid out in the act.

Sadly, honourable colleagues, this is not the reality we live in today in Nunavut. Inuit are not able to access federal government services in their preferred first language. During the Aboriginal Peoples Committee’s study of Bill C-91, the Indigenous Languages Act, former Nunavut languages commissioner Helen Klengenberg shared a legal opinion with the committee studying the Bill — an opinion which stated clearly that Canada was equally obligated to adhere to the Inuit Language Protection Act as an organization operating within the territory. Accordingly, the committee, with the support of this chamber, reinforced this by attempting to ensure that essential federal services could be provided in an Indigenous language with a reasonable qualification where numbers warrant. However, that amendment was removed in the House under the former majority Liberal government.

It is of great concern to me that the Government of Canada will not honour Nunavut’s Inuit Language Protection Act enacted by the duly elected Legislative Assembly of Nunavut. I often have to deal with complaints from unilingual Inuit who have problems accessing federal government services and programs.

There is no accommodation for the Inuit elders who face language barriers in accessing government programs now delivered through the Income Tax Act. This is partly why I believe that studies have shown that 30% of Nunavut residents — the highest proportion in the country — do not file tax returns. We all know those returns are difficult enough to access and understand for folks who speak English or French.

A very disturbing example of how the Inuit face prejudice — due to Canada’s failure to honour its clear obligations under the Nunavut Inuit Language Protection Act — came to my attention in the last federal election campaign in 2019. At a polling station in Iqaluit, the entire signage at the polling station was in English and in French only — with no signage whatsoever in the Inuktut language. An elder who was at the poll to vote complained to the staff about this blatant failure to respect the third official language — Inuktut — at the poll. She was given a pencil and asked to voluntarily translate the election signage, and handwrite the information on the sign into Inuktut.

When the Indigenous Languages Act was presented and studied in the Senate, Inuit participants in the committee study complained that while it was commendable that the bill addressed the weakened state of many Indigenous languages in Canada which are in danger of extinction due to small numbers of speakers and disuse, it is also essential that the federal Indigenous Languages Act address the needs of Indigenous languages which currently have a better footing and are being more widely used in daily life — recognizing that those languages, like Inuktut, should also be recognized and supported in the new legislation. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami’s efforts to have these unique needs of the Inuit, whose language is healthy compared, sadly, to many First Nations languages in Canada — which is recognized in the appendix that Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami proposed to be added to the bill — were not supported and not included in the bill. As Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated President Aluki Kotierk explained:

Nunavut Inuit, in close collaboration with others across Inuit Nunangat, have made every effort to work constructively with the Government of Canada to develop Bill C-91. Although we have attempted to engage in the process in good faith, this bill was, by no means, co-developed with Inuit.

Ms. Kotierk added:

This legislation, which is intended to help reverse the steady slide of Indigenous languages into disappearance, does not address issues of access to public services in Indigenous languages and does not reflect the needs which have been clearly communicated by Inuit.

While having the pleasure of hosting our colleague Senator Cormier in Iqaluit last week, I learned that the previously established funding amounts disbursed annually between Canada and the Northwest Territories — and now Canada and Nunavut — have persisted for all these years until recently. The last bilateral agreement for Nunavut was from 2016 to 2020 — a four-year agreement instead of the previous pattern of a five-year agreement. More recently, the renewed agreement has been reduced to two years.

There is a strong concern in the Government of Nunavut that the federal government will now be pushing, as they have done in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, to have Nunavut’s funding for official languages be sourced from the meagre national fund established under the Indigenous Languages Act — which is primarily geared to supporting struggling and threatened Indigenous languages. This would be contrary to the long-standing bilateral agreement between Canada and the Northwest Territories — and through the Northwest Territories, and now Nunavut — to respect French and English as official languages in our territories, but also it would seriously erode support for the Indigenous language of the majority of our population in Nunavut.

Colleagues, we have begun debating Bill C-13 this week. It’s a good day to talk about languages and the long-awaited amendments to the Official Languages Act which, of course, is primarily about Canada’s two official languages. But it was noted by Senator Gold, and others, that the bill also contains a non‑derogation clause to affirm that the bill will not derogate from the rights of Indigenous language speakers. That’s good, but we must be on guard to protect and enhance our Indigenous languages as well.

I’m pleased to have this opportunity, through my reply to the Throne Speech, to put on the public record — as one who personally knows the history of official languages and Indigenous languages in the Northwest Territories, and now Nunavut — my profound concern that Canada must honour the solemn agreement which was made over 40 years ago, where territorial governments accepted official bilingualism for the minority of its French-speaking citizens in return for Canada’s commitments to also provide corresponding support for the recognition and enhancement of Indigenous languages, including, in my territory, Inuktut.

Honourable senators, it’s not enough to say that we support Indigenous languages in theory. We need to ensure that the government follows through with the actions required in order to ensure that we continue to properly resource the measures necessary to provide that support. I, for one, will continue to push the Government of Canada to honour and respect the obligations that everyone doing business in Nunavut, including the federal government, has under the Inuit Language Protection Act.

I’m delighted that Senator Cormier was there with me in my constituency last week to learn about the importance of both Inuktut and Canada’s two official languages in Nunavut. I will count on him for support in this cause.

Thank you, honourable colleagues. Qujannamiik. Taima.

(On motion of Senator LaBoucane-Benson, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island), with a recommendation), presented in the Senate on May 17, 2023.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Colleagues, I’m well aware of the late hour, so I’ll ask for your attention for only a short period.

I rise to speak today on the principle of Bill S-241, the Jane Goodall act. As you know, this bill seeks to prohibit the practice of keeping in captivity over 800 species of wild animals, such as elephants and big cats, in Canada.

I’d like to draw your attention to a few points of interest that, in my opinion, should be thoroughly examined during the committee study.

[English]

Colleagues, I am aware that, in essence, S-241 is a good bill. In fact, most zoos, zoological institutions and animal welfare organizations generally agree with its objectives. In his speech at second reading, Senator Klyne eloquently presented Bill S-241 and its coalition of supporters as “a big tent that puts animals first.” I like this analogy and salute Senator Klyne’s openness to working hand in hand with zoological institutions for the benefit of animals.

I also take this opportunity to personally thank Senator Klyne for his compelling answers to the many questions I asked him further to my meetings with some stakeholders. I appreciate that you took the time, senator, to reassure me, which, in turn, will make for a shorter speech.

I’m reassured that the planned implementation of this bill is measured and balanced and doesn’t impose drastic action. For example, it proposes to phase out elephants in captivity, which will give zoos time to adapt while not forcing the 20 elephants currently in captivity in Canada to be taken out of what is sometimes the only habitat they have ever known. I know the Granby Zoo in Quebec has already begun this transition, and I salute them for their initiative.

However, after listening to the arguments made by senators in this chamber and being contacted by stakeholders, I can’t help but notice that some issues need to be addressed and clarified regarding this bill. Notably, I listened to Quebec stakeholders and heard their concerns. In Quebec, there are some major zoos and zoological institutions. As I have mentioned before, most of them support Bill S-241. Off the top of my head, I can think of the Zoo de Granby, the Montréal Biodôme, Parc Omega and the Zoo sauvage de Saint-Félicien.

There is also, however, one institution, Parc Safari, that has expressed some criticism and, I must say, some very valid concerns. Parc Safari is a unique institution in the sense that it has a very large area of land for the animals to roam in. In terms of land capacity, few can compare, either in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada. Parc Safari defines its mission as a means of conservation of endangered species, offering spaces and habitats as close as possible to the natural habitats of those animals. It is also a place to develop knowledge about those species and their reproduction. Over the years, Parc Safari has used its knowledge and experience to help endangered species reproduce, and they have sent some animals back into the wild — both in Canada and abroad — where nature intended them to be. That is not what I would qualify as a roadside zoo. On the contrary, it is rather a respectable institution dedicated to animal conservation.

It is important that zoological institutions like the Parc Safari be given a special status — one that recognizes their contributions to science and animal welfare and differentiates them from a regular zoo.

I know that Bill S-241 provides some solutions to this issue. In section 10.1(1), the bill would establish a legal framework for animal care organizations, and this framework recognizes the purpose of those organizations. Those chosen organizations would be designated by the minister and would have to promote wild animal welfare, support conservation, provide rehabilitation to injured or distressed animals, offer sanctuary to animals in need, conduct non-harmful scientific research and engage in public education. As well, they would have to satisfy numerous other eligibility criteria listed in section 10.1(2) of the bill.

I urge the committee to carefully study this section of the bill so that deserving organizations will be able to obtain this animal care organization status, which will ultimately benefit those captive animals.

It was also brought to my attention that provincial norms for zoos and animals in captivity can be widely different from one province to another. During my interaction with stakeholders, I was told that the Quebec ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food, which is the department responsible for caring for zoos, had recently imposed strict and rigorous conditions for animals in captivity. Many Quebec zoos have invested or are in the process of investing large sums of money to comply with those rigorous norms of the Quebec government. It seems unfair for those zoos and zoological institutions, after having invested large sums of money to comply with provincial captivity regulations, to lose this investment due to federal legislation making it illegal for some species to be held in captivity. I would like the committee to look at this situation and maybe for the federal government to work with the provinces to make the situation right and reassure those institutions that those investments will not have been made to no avail.

Colleagues, I support the principle of this bill. I believe that wild animals belong in the wild. I also believe they are entitled to respect and to a decent quality of life. I think Bill S-241, which has been on our Order Paper since March 24, 2022, will be overwhelmingly positive for animal protection and Canada’s reputation worldwide. That being said, we need to work in collaboration with zoological institutions and zoos for the benefit of animals. Those institutions still have a role to play in educating the public on endangered animals and the issues they face all around the world. Colleagues, I trust that the committee will thoroughly study these concerns, and I’m looking forward to their report to the Senate.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Brazeau, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the second reading of Bill S-254, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages).

Hon. Robert Black moved the adoption of the report.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Klyne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-241, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (great apes, elephants and certain other animals).

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I will also be brief considering the time, but I do want to say a few words about the bill that Senator Brazeau has introduced: Bill S-254, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages). I want to thank Senator Brazeau for bringing this legislation forward for our consideration and for his leadership on this important issue.

As indicated in the title of the bill, Bill S-254 will amend the Food and Drugs Act to require a warning label to be placed on alcoholic beverages. The legislation mandates four components for this labelling requirement. One, the label must indicate the volume of beverage that, in the opinion of the department of health, constitutes a standard drink. Two, it must note how many standard drinks are contained in the labelled package. Three, the label must indicate the number of standard drinks that, in the opinion of the department of health, should not be exceeded in order to avoid significant health risks. Finally, the label must include a warning from the department of health that there is a direct causal link between alcohol consumption and the development of fatal cancers.

Colleagues, I doubt that there is anyone in this chamber who has not seen first-hand the ravages of alcohol abuse. It has been mentioned by other senators who have spoken to this. It is a terrible scourge on our society which is all too common and extracts a heavy price from those who fall into its clutches.

We heard from a number of senators who shared their personal stories about their experiences, and I am certain that the rest of us could all add our own stories as well.

However, I want to point out that the objective of this legislation is not to launch a campaign against the consumption of alcohol or to revisit the question of prohibition. As Senator Brazeau said in his speech, he is not on his high, moral horse preaching abstinence, but rather he is concerned with reducing the number of cancers in Canada.

The preamble lays out the scope of this bill clearly in three statements. The first is that “ . . . Parliament recognizes that a direct causal link exists between alcohol consumption and the development of fatal cancers . . . .”

Next, the preamble states that:

 . . . in light of the serious public health risks posed by alcohol consumption, the public must have accurate and current health information in relation to alcohol consumption in order to make informed decisions about consuming alcohol . . . .

Finally, the preamble says, “ . . . affixing a warning label to alcoholic beverages is an effective way of making consumers aware of this health information . . . .”

On the first point, there is no debate. A direct causal link exists between alcohol and cancer, and although awareness of this fact remains low, this is not a new discovery. It has been 35 years since the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified alcohol as a Class I carcinogen. Literally hundreds of studies have confirmed this fact since then.

On the second point, there is also no debate. The public should have accurate and current information about the health risks of consuming alcohol. But for whatever reason, this is currently not the case. In fact, according to Cancer Care Ontario, only one third of Canadians are aware that they can lower their risk of cancer by reducing their alcohol consumption. Other studies put this number as low as 25%.

However, this is only one of the health risks when it comes to alcohol consumption. There are many others, such as damage to the liver, brain, heart and stomach; high blood pressure; reduced resistance to infection; decreased appetite; disturbed sleep patterns; anxiety; depression; suicidal depression; fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and more.

Canadians should be aware of these risks and understand how to minimize them. However, colleagues, whether a warning label is an appropriate and effective way of informing the consumer of the health risks associated with alcohol consumption remains an open question. At last count, there were at least 47 countries around the world that have already implemented health warning labels on alcohol products, including the United States, Australia, Portugal, France, Japan, Israel, Brazil and, of course, many more.

The United States has had health warning labels on alcohol products since 1988 when it passed the Alcohol Beverage Labeling Act. But whether Canada needs to follow suit is not clear for a couple of reasons. First of all, there is a significant lack of consensus on what constitutes a low-risk level of alcohol consumption. Only a few months ago, this number in Canada was 10 drinks per week for women and 15 drinks a week for men. Then, in August of last year, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Addiction recommended this be changed to two drinks a week regardless of your gender. The current recommendation in the United States and the U.K. is still 2 drinks a day, whereas in Australia it is 10 drinks per week.

Everybody claims to be basing their guidance on science, and yet there doesn’t seem to be a consensus on what the science says. One analysis notes:

In almost every well-conceived and controlled study done, it was found that when ex-drinkers were not included in the referent group (and the group consisted only of lifetime abstainers) . . . . there is a cardioprotective effect for regular light to moderate alcohol consumption.

The analysis also concluded that light to moderate consumption contributes significantly to reduced all-cause mortality.

Colleagues, from my own experience, my doctor has told me that one glass of wine per day will help my blood pressure. Two glasses of wine per day will increase my blood pressure. I had a perfect solution. I went and bought a larger glass, but he said that wasn’t the answer to my problem.

Now, I know there is a fair degree of disagreement on this issue. But that is just my point. It would be wrong to push ahead without first having a consensus on this science and the public buy-in.

It is clear that if you are looking for no risk, then you should not drink at all. But what is the appropriate level of alcohol consumption if a person is content with low risk? That answer is not clear.

The second reason for questioning whether health warning labels are an effective way of informing consumers about the risk of alcohol consumption is because the results of the current research on labelling are mixed. We are not venturing into uncharted waters here, colleagues. As I noted earlier, there were at least 47 countries around the world who have already implemented health warning labels on alcohol products. And it would be wise to consider their experience and learn from their efforts.

A recent study entitled Alcohol Health Warning Labels: A Rapid Review with Action Recommendations was published last September in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. The study reviewed the existing research on health warning labels located on alcohol containers and found 2,975 non-duplicate citations. This is a significant body of evidence from which they examined 382 articles and focused their final analysis on 122 research papers.

What their review showed is that simply slapping a label on alcohol containers is not necessarily a winning strategy. There is a spectrum of variables which needs to be considered when contemplating alcohol warning labels. One example is the label’s design: Where is the label located on the container? How much space does it use? What is the font size? What is the colour? Does it include a logo or an image? All of these were factors in the effectiveness of the label.

The results were not always what you think they might be. For example, they found that using shocking pictures such as those which we have all seen on cigarette packages are not necessarily effective.

. . . negative imagery should be used with caution, since it does not appear to be generally beneficial in influencing the behaviour of those viewing the label.

Part of the reason for this outcome was the issue of believability and acceptability. If the label was not believable or acceptable, it was less effective.

Furthermore, in addition to the design of the label, there is the question of content. What message do the text and images convey? Bill S-254 mandates four aspects of the content of the message, but there are many more which are also possible. What about the dangers alcohol consumption poses to pregnant mothers? What about impairment, risk of hypertension, liver disease or heart disease? What about warnings that alcohol can be addictive? When it comes to labelling alcohol, you could easily focus on any of these issues and all of them are important. So what do we do? In spite of all the data, there remains significant uncertainty. Quite simply, the research is not conclusive.

Alcohol labelling does not always bring the results you think it will. For example, negatively framed messages had the greatest influence on those who were heavier drinkers. With young drinkers, strong warnings have been found to have a boomerang effect where exposure to the warning actually led to a higher positive perception of the product. In fact, one 2009 study found that young adults used standard drink information to maximize rather than minimize their alcohol consumption. The label helped them decide where they would get the most bang for their buck and they ended up increasing their consumption rather than decreasing it. They mainly used the labels to identify drinks with the most alcohol and the lowest cost so they could drink less liquid, get intoxicated faster and spend less money. This finding was corroborated in a 2014 Canadian study where researchers found that 46% of participants said they would use standard drink labels to identify the least expensive alcohol.

Honourable senators, the obvious lesson here is that labelling does not always give you the outcome you would expect. Rather than giving us a conclusive path forward, the existing research seems to indicate that there is much that we do not know about alcohol warning labels.

However, colleagues, this bill does address a very important subject matter. I do not think any decisions should be made before it is examined at committee. I really believe, colleagues, this is a perfect bill for a thorough study at committee to hear from witnesses what their recommendations are.

With that, honourable senators, I would like to see this bill move to committee at the earliest opportunity so that the committee can do a thorough study and report back to us. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Moncion, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Batters, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wells, for the second reading of Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material).

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I’m very pleased to participate at second reading debate on Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. I want to thank Senator Batters for sponsoring this bill and for her work and advocacy on this file.

The protection of children against sexual abuse and exploitation of any kind has been a top priority of the government, and I am glad to lend my support and the support of the Government of Canada to Bill C-291, which will give us additional tools in putting an end to such abuses.

The protection of children against sexual abuse and exploitation is also a priority for the international community. The Government of Canada works closely with its international partners to combat online child sexual exploitation. I am also pleased that Canada is a state party to several international instruments that seek to protect children from sexual exploitation. These include the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as its Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography and the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime.

[Translation]

While it is incredibly disheartening, it should come as no surprise that the pandemic led to an increase in sexual offences against children, in part because new technology has made it even easier to commit these crimes. In the 2021-22 fiscal year, the RCMP’s National Child Exploitation Crime Centre received 81,799 complaints, disclosures, reports and requests for assistance relating to the sexual exploitation of children on the internet, representing a 56% increase over the previous fiscal year and a 854% increase compared to 2013-14.

[English]

As Senator Batters outlined in her speech, Statistics Canada police-reported crime data from 2020, which includes the first year of the pandemic, indicates that incidents of making or distributing child pornography had increased by 26% in 2021 compared to 2019. Possession of or accessing child pornography increased by 44% in 2021 compared to 2019, and represents a 146% increase since 2017. These numbers, colleagues, are profoundly disturbing.

We must take measures to fight sexual exploitation of children. Clearly, we need to have comprehensive and robust criminal laws against it, we need to have strong and effective law enforcement and we need to continue to advance and support measures that seek to support victims.

Canada’s existing laws against child pornography are amongst the strongest in the world. But even with that, we as legislators should always be assessing and reassessing if even these laws can be further strengthened. That is why I appreciate that Bill C-291 is before us now because I see it as trying to make a small but important change that will help us more accurately and effectively name and prevent child sexual exploitation through child pornography.

There has been, over the years, both domestically and internationally, a move away from the term “child pornography.” There is a view that the term child pornography is too similar to regular pornography, which is, of course, legal when made by consenting adults and does not constitute obscene material. Therefore, the trend is towards terms that are more descriptive of the harm of pornography when children are in any way involved.

The Terminology Guidelines for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, commonly known as the Luxembourg Guidelines, suggest using “child sexual exploitation material” as a more general term to encompass:

. . . material that sexualises and is exploitative to the child although it is not explicitly depicting the sexual abuse of a child.

[Translation]

Another example from the international context is Article 34 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires states parties to undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. This measure is set out in detail in the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. The protocol requires states parties to criminalize the production, distribution, transmission, importation, exportation, exploitation, offering, sale or possession of child pornography for the purposes set out in the convention.

[English]

Following that example is the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, of which Canada is a member, which established Voluntary Principles to Counter Online Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse.

Looking at domestic legislation from other countries, the question of terminology is not settled. Neither the United Kingdom nor Australia, who are both state parties to the Optional Protocol, use “child pornography” in their domestic legislation. The U.K. uses the term “indecent photographs,” and Australia uses the term “child abuse material.”

In short, many terms are used in international fora and by our international partners to mean the same kind of material — material that involves the sexual exploitation and abuse of children. Moving away from the terminology “child pornography” would not place Canada out of step in the international arena. However, when considering Canada’s broad Criminal Code definition and protections, it is important that any new term accurately describes what is already established in the jurisprudence and in the plain text of the provision itself.

The Criminal Code definition includes materials such as written and audio forms of child pornography that either advocate sexual activity with children or whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a child. This latter category of materials normalizes the sexualization of children and, in part, helps fuel the demand for child sexual abuse materials and therefore puts more children at risk.

Bill C-291 proposes to change the term “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material.” Although this is a simple change in terminology without substantive alteration to the definition, there is some complexity associated with it. For example, the Luxembourg Guidelines, in its foreword, recognize that changes to existing terms such as “child pornography” — especially established legal terms with a long history of judicial consideration — might cause confusion or hinder the prevention and elimination of child sexual exploitation if bad actors exploit legal technicalities. It is vitally important that any new term capture the full scope of Canada’s law as well as the jurisprudence on that term from the last 30 years.

[Translation]

I am aware that changing the terminology will also have repercussions on federal regulations and provincial and territorial laws in Canada. The term “child pornography” and the reference to section 163.1 of the Criminal Code appears in at least 50 provincial and territorial pieces of legislation. If the bill is passed, the provinces and territories may need some time to change their legislation to be consistent with the new terminology.

[English]

I want to conclude by expressing my thanks to the other place for providing us with an opportunity to review the Criminal Code’s definition of “child pornography” as well as the way that the provision is incorporated into both federal but also provincial and territorial legislation.

Once again, Senator Batters, thank you for accepting to sponsor this bill, and I hope we can refer this to committee as soon as possible. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C.:

That a Special Senate Committee on Human Capital and the Labour Market be appointed until the end of the current session, to which may be referred matters relating to human capital, labour markets, and employment generally;

That the committee be composed of nine members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, and that four members constitute a quorum; and

That the committee be empowered to inquire into and report on such matters as may be referred to it by the Senate; to send for persons, papers and records; to hear witnesses and to publish such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Simons, calling the attention of the Senate to the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face, and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between Canada’s municipalities and the federal government.

Hon. Marty Deacon: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the inquiry calling the attention of the Senate to the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face and to the importance of understanding and redefining relationships between Canada’s municipalities and the federal government.

I thank my colleague Senator Simons who introduced this inquiry, and, as I listened to her and others, I became more concerned about the issue. That is, the necessity of ensuring municipalities have the fiscal and political resources they need to lead Canada to a more prosperous, connected and innovative future.

Almost six years ago, as part of my installation as a senator I chose to represent the Region of Waterloo. This was a simple decision. I would represent seven municipalities and townships: They are connected and interrelated, and a regional approach was my best strategy. It also made me very accountable to quickly ensure I knew and understood the variety of needs across these townships. My understanding of these issues has certainly been put to the test several times.

I have made it a priority, like all of us, to know our community, the diversity of needs and the common issues, but, more importantly, the role and interconnection of each town and city. I have learned much from my meetings with seven mayors, along with well-known organizations large and small. My visits to 32 businesses and organizations during COVID were insightful beyond all measure.

The Region of Waterloo is comprised of three cities and four townships: The cities of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo, and the townships of North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot and Woolwich. This mid-sized community is in the heart of southwestern Ontario’s greenbelt. What I love is that we have the amenities of a large urban centre while maintaining the charm and character of a smaller rural community.

Imagine this for a moment: I can walk out my front door and continue to walk or cycle for a few minutes before I reach several university campuses, trails that can take me all the way to Guelph in the west or to Brantford or Hamilton in the south and deep into farming communities to the north. This is encompassed in one beautiful scenic trail system resulting in a community of communities connected by high-quality transit, cycling and walking trails with the captivating Grand River running throughout.

In a few kilometres, I can visit tech innovation hubs boasting the best and brightest talent from around the world, think tanks like the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics and the Centre for International Governance Innovation. If I cycle only a little further, I can travel back in time, moving quickly from award‑winning architecture to a peaceful rural landscape of dirt roads and the horse-and-buggy world of our Mennonites. I can even purchase fresh flowers, homemade sausages, maple syrup, apple butter, cheese and Mennonite furniture and quilts at the roadside or in the large markets.

The Grand River winds through most of the region, a total of 365 hectares. You can travel the Grand by canoe or by the Cambridge to Paris Rail Trail. Live theatre, museums and Canada’s longest continually operating farmers’ market can be found in this area.

Kitchener, in the central area, is the region’s largest city: industry, collaboration and entrepreneurship are at the heart of the city. Many festivals, including the buskers, line the streets during the summer.

The local museum, the Kitchener Museum and the Centre in the Square host top talent, artisans and performers from around the world. A few minutes down the road, Chicopee ski hill provides a great winter skiing, tubing and summer hiking experience.

I would like to highlight our four smaller townships as well. Natasha Salonen is the Mayor of Wilmot Township. She speaks very proudly of her community:

The people who live in Wilmot make me proudest of our township. It is not only a very small town feel with rural roots, but we are a community who comes together to support one another and make Wilmot such a wonderful place to live, work, play and raise a family.

She continues to describe the location along the Nith River beside larger cities. They provide the green space and agricultural industry to keep food on the table for those in Ontario. They are proud of their cultural events that draw people from afar, including the Mennonite Relief Sale, Moparfest and the New Hamburg Fall Fair.

We talked quite a bit about the relationship between municipal, provincial and federal governments. In Mayor Salonen’s words:

The relationship between municipalities and the federal government is foundational to ensure Canada remains such a wonderful country to live in. I would argue that the goals of all levels of government is to improve the lives and wellbeing of all Canadians. Having a close relationship is mutually beneficial as we can help each other. It is said that municipal is the level of government closest to the people and that as we fulfill our mandates, with strong federal ties, we can also provide unique insight into federal policy and programs that could be enhanced, are working or perhaps need to be created.

Moving along the Nith River, Sue Foxton is the Mayor of the Township of North Dumfries, known as the community of Ayr to many. The homes are unique. It is a peaceful area. Fireflies still flutter through the summer months. Ayr is one of the rare communities in Canada that still hosts a huge school fair every year, and 2024 will be the two hundredth year of this fair.

While they are a very proud hockey community, Mayor Foxton is most proud of the heart of her people. Regardless of hardship or success, this is a community that respects the space of everyone.

Recently, Ayr desperately needed a new arena. The goal was to raise $1 million. The community pulled together, became aware of how important this was to their kids and raised $2.5 million instead.

As the mayor puts it, “As we plan, as we prepare and respond, as we do, our children learn that they can do.”

When we look at the role that municipalities play, Mayor Foxton is very clear:

The strong, purposeful, and two-way connection with the federal government is essential to the forward building of our municipalities, but this is way more than monetary. We must see and know our leaders, our representatives — who are you? We have not had a senator in over 70 years. What does this mean for us? What could it mean? How does it amplify our communities and the important connections for our towns, our provinces and territories, our federal decision makers and back? Our elected officials must remember why they were elected, where they come from and remember the impact of every federal and provincial decision.

When I reached out to each community leader, I listened to them talk about trust, empathy, communication, consultation and the supreme importance of feeling connected and responsible to someone and something much bigger than themselves.

Some of this language is not new, but the stakes — the impact of poor decisions, of information and disinformation and of fatigue — have never been greater. Great sacrifice is made in leading municipalities, and this is something we can never forget.

Over the past month, I have had some very difficult conversations. Every mayor and municipal leader I spoke with was able to give very provocative examples of the impact of federal decisions that made their work difficult or outright impossible. I pushed this hard to make sure I understood what I heard. Overall, they observed better relationships with provincial and territorial premiers. The general belief is that this relationship really improved as an essential part of the pandemic and recovery. The concern, though, is whether the effort will be made to communicate, to have premiers meet and to have mayors and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities continue to be at the table. Or will we slow it down and revert to business as usual as time wears on?

For everyone one of us in the chamber, this inquiry reminds us of questions we may be asking ourselves over and over again: How are we making ourselves, as individuals and as a collective, accountable to and for our municipalities? How are we ensuring we are representing the needs of our communities and our municipalities? Are we consulting and inviting feedback that leads to a good bill review and follow-up process? Honestly, I believe we fall short on this promise to Canadians, but together we can really do something about this.

From my municipality discussions, housing, homelessness, treatment of seniors, end-of-life and long-term care, the welcoming of new Canadians, recent childcare announcements and services like food banks have all shared incredible stories of trying to patch together the best they can with limited resources and unanticipated announcements and legislation.

A few weeks ago, I visited the local Maison Sophia Reception House, a place that manages all the intake for hundreds of Afghan refugees, new Canadians and others. Something as simple as the facility, the hotel they stay in, the management and the facility not being able to get a commitment from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada — IRCC — for more than four months puts their success in deep jeopardy.

An already-challenged health care system is pushed to the brink as we know the most vulnerable new Canadians arrive with many physical and emotional health needs. The promise to bring in hundreds of thousands of new Canadians without seamless, well-communicated federal support at times sets families and communities up for failure.

These are a few small examples that highlight what works well for communities and where things can fall apart quite quickly. At present, the challenges around housing can be a prime example of this.

This past weekend, over 1,500 municipal elected officials came together in Toronto for the national Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference. Following this, I was reminded of all our common municipal challenges that come with a rapidly growing Canada. One of the biggest common threads was the priority for a new road map for a better-working country. The fiscal framework must be re-examined. The shoe no longer fits.

Municipalities want to lead to find the right tools to unlock the right kind of housing supply, to tackle homelessness, core infrastructure and climate change. The strongest message of the weekend was the message to the federal and provincial orders of government to continue to engage with municipalities in a national conversation regarding a new fiscal framework for municipalities. Their fiscal tools are simply outdated and are not designed to meet our modern challenges.

As parliamentarians, we all work hard to make sure we value our communities. We are trying to communicate the important links, the work we do and why we do the work we do, but this inquiry is about our municipalities. They must have the fiscal and political support to thrive while being efficient and effective. No matter the size of the municipality or the size of each one of your communities, the solution is the same: all governments working together in a respectful manner.

Municipalities are truly our first responders and are at the front lines of our politics. They are where business is done in our country. They are the economic engines of innovation for our confederation. Let us never forget this. Let us demonstrate that we understand this and that we all play an important role in the successes and struggles that are occurring every day from coast to coast to coast.

Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Boniface, calling the attention of the Senate to intimate partner violence, especially in rural areas across Canada, in response to the coroner’s inquest conducted in Renfrew County, Ontario.