Hon. Kim Pate: I will continue.

The Faro Mine is just one example of a larger issue that extends beyond its specific case. Across Canada, we have witnessed the troubling pattern of resource development companies declaring bankruptcy and leaving behind contaminated sites, burdening taxpayers with the responsibility of remediation. This issue is not limited to the Faro Mine; it resonates with the challenges faced in provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, where the proliferation of orphaned oil and gas wells has become a significant concern. These orphaned wells, left behind by both financially and morally bankrupt companies, pose environmental risks and financial liabilities that ultimately fall on public funds. It is crucial that we address this systemic issue, reinforcing the principle of the “polluter pays” to hold companies accountable for the environmental consequences of their operations and to protect taxpayers from bearing the brunt of remediation costs.

The Faro Mine is situated on traditional lands of the Kaska and Selkirk First Nations, and the remediation project must prioritize the concerns and aspirations of these communities. Meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indigenous peoples are paramount to ensure that their rights, interests and cultural heritage are respected throughout the remediation process.

It is wrong to force the development of the economy of a town or region to a “decontamination economy.” This thinking is captive to the broken window fallacy and entraps communities in the boom-bust cycle that has already ensnared the economies of some entire provinces that are now desperately seeking to diversify. While the decontamination economy can provide short-term economic benefits, we must also explore sustainable and diversified economic opportunities for the long-term well-being of these communities.

One striking realization is that while we grapple with the consequences of past mining activities, new mining projects adjacent to the old Faro Mine are already under way. This serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need to reinforce the “polluter pays” principle and hold resource development companies accountable for the environmental impact of their operations.

Another key proposal within Bill C-47 is the Canada Growth Fund. With a budget of $15 billion, the fund is designed to attract private capital and stimulate investment in low‑carbon projects, technologies, businesses and supply chains.

However, there are concerns regarding the lack of clarity surrounding the criteria used to allocate funds to specific projects. It is important for the government to provide transparent guidelines and selection criteria to ensure that investments made through the fund align with Canada’s environmental objectives and climate commitments so that it can contribute effectively to the transition to a clean economy.

The decision to entrust the management of the fund’s assets to the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, or PSP Investments, has also raised questions among members of the National Finance Committee concerning the independence of PSP or, in my case, the absence of their commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. PSP Investments continues to invest in fossil fuel companies without a clear decarbonization plan, undermining the purpose of the fund. Additionally, the presence of a corporate director of Imperial Oil on the PSP board of directors reveals appearance and potential conflict of interest, according to corporate governance experts.

In light of these issues, it is crucial for the government to address these concerns, provide clarity on investment criteria, manage potential conflicts of interest, establish performance indicators and ensure transparent and accountable governance. This will not only enhance public confidence in the fund but also strengthen its ability to attract private capital and drive the growth of Canada’s clean economy.

The third and final issue I would like to raise is the expansion of OSFI’s mandate to determine whether financial institutions have adequate policies and procedures to protect themselves against threats to their integrity and security.

Omnibus bills, which encompass both fiscal and non-fiscal items, have been employed as a strategic tactic by governments to pass significant legislation. Bill C-47 is no exception, featuring a wide array of provisions including amendments to the Criminal Code and electoral laws.

The expansion of OSFI’s mandate is worth noting because such a significant amendment would typically be the subject of a separate bill, allowing for public consultation and stakeholder input. OSFI’s mandate, as it stands, has garnered widespread agreement among experts in sustainable finance that it needs revision to incorporate considerations of environmental, sustainability and social factors, including climate risk. It is essential to align the oversight of our financial sector with emerging risks identified by reputable international organizations like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. While the bill alludes to these risks, including the mention of one specific risk, it leaves room for ambiguity that could potentially pose challenges if legally contested. Furthermore, the absence of an associated budget allocation for this aspect raises further concerns.

Colleagues, climate change represents a significant threat to the integrity and security of our financial sector. CSIS has warned us that climate change could undermine global critical infrastructure, threaten health and safety, create new scarcity and spark global competition and that it might open the door to regional or international conflicts. As we strive to transition to a low-carbon economy and mitigate the risks associated with climate change, it is essential that our financial institutions are well equipped to assess and manage these risks.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-47 acknowledge the importance of protecting financial institutions from various threats, and it is only logical that climate change, with its far-reaching implications, is considered among those threats.

I encourage you to vote in favour of passing Bill C-47 because Canadians need stability and increased trust in our democratic system, but it is up to us parliamentarians to scrutinize and reflect in efficient ways on the expenditure of taxpayer funds.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[Translation]

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to a specific section of Bill C-47, the budget implementation bill.

In this bill, division 34 of part 4 amends section 347 of the Criminal Code in order to lower to 35% the criminal rate of interest, in accordance with generally accepted actuarial practices and principles.

As many of you know, this is an issue I have been endeavouring to fix for a very long time, nearly 10 years.

Hon. Paula Simons: Tansi.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-47, or the budget implementation act — specifically Division 23 of Part 4, which deals with the air passenger bill of rights.

For days now, I’ve had this famous quote from Shakespeare’s Richard III stuck in my head, and I’ll stick it in your heads now:

Now is the winter of our discontent

Made glorious summer by this son of York,

And all the clouds that loured upon our house

In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.

I think it’s because this has been a winter of deep discontent for Canadian air travellers. But then, it was also an autumn of discontent, and a spring of discontent; alas, I see little evidence that the clouds are breaking or that the glorious sunny summer of air travel is upon us.

When the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic shut down airports and radically reduced air passenger demand, airlines and airports took much of their service off-line. Starting Canada’s air system back up again after that shutdown has not been easy. There are labour shortages at every pinch point: We don’t have enough air traffic controllers. We don’t have enough pilots. We don’t have enough security screeners. We don’t have enough ground crews, flight crews, baggage handlers or passenger service agents.

Airport and airline executives keep telling us that things are getting better. But we — senators — who travel so much, know intimately that the air travel experience is still nothing like it was before the pandemic struck. Flights are chronically delayed or cancelled. That’s if you’re lucky enough to find a flight since many smaller centres — and by “small,” I’m also including cities as “non-small” as Ottawa and Edmonton — have lost many of their direct flights, compelling flyers to change planes in already overwhelmed Toronto and Montreal airports. And when flights are delayed or cancelled and connections are missed, it often feels as if the airlines have simply abandoned frustrated and frightened passengers to their fates.

Senators, who fly so often, are often lucky enough to rack up enough travel points to qualify for a chance to call a special “elite” customer service line to get help. But most passengers have no such access to assistance. When your flight home for Christmas gets cancelled and all you get when you call is a recorded announcement telling you someone will get back to you in three days, no wonder overwhelmed passengers often lash out, taking out their fury on cabin crews and gate agents who themselves have neither the answers nor the authority to fix passenger problems.

Everybody understands that sometimes unexpected things happen. I think Canadians could deal with such crises relatively calmly if they got timely answers and real support from airlines when things went wrong. Airlines can’t control the weather. They can, however, control the number of passenger agents and customer service agents to help stressed and distressed people when things go awry. To blame everything on the weather in a country where we have rather a lot of weather is insufficient.

It’s a terrible system to navigate for people who don’t fly often, like grandmothers going to visit grandchildren, students returning home from campus, families going on vacation or people who need to be on time for a wedding or a funeral. The most heart-rending scene I witnessed this winter was a woman who was desperate to get from Edmonton to Cape Breton, where her mother was on her death bed. The scream of anguish she let out when she realized our flight was extremely delayed and she would miss her connection to Sydney and not get home in time to see her mother one last time — that scream haunts me still.

But it’s also a terrible system for frequent flyers who need to travel for work and can’t reliably get to their meetings or conferences. It’s not just an inconvenience we can shrug off; it’s a drag on our economy and a blight on our international reputation.

I have anecdotes. You have anecdotes. Heck, complaining about our most recent travel stories is one of the things that bonds senators from all corners of this chamber. But you don’t need to rely on anecdotes to understand the scale and scope of the problem. During our hearings on Bill C-47, our Transport and Communications Committee heard that publicly available, monthly on-time performance data shows that Toronto Pearson, Montréal-Trudeau and Vancouver International consistently underperform compared to comparable U.S. airports like Seattle, Detroit and Chicago O’Hare. About 1.5 to 2 flights out of every 10 at comparable U.S. airports are delayed. In Canada, we have closer to 4 flights out of every 10 delayed at Canada’s three largest airports. That means that if we’re lucky, 60% of flights depart on time.

We do have an air passenger bill of rights, which allows passengers to complain if they don’t get satisfaction from the airlines in resolving their issues. Our committee heard from witnesses that people flying in Canada filed some 40,000 official formal complaints about their treatment by the airlines last year alone. But the complaint system is totally broken. As of last month, there was a backlog of 46,000 complaints, which would suggest that virtually none of the 40,000 people who complained last year has had their issue resolved — unsurprising since, on average, it takes the Canadian Transportation Agency a full 18 months to resolve a complaint. A backlog of 46,000 complaints is bureaucracy at its most absurd — consumer justice delayed and denied. If we’re honest, we have to recognize that those 46,000 complaints are just the tip of the iceberg. Most Canadians who’ve had terrible travel misadventures don’t even bother to file a complaint, either because they don’t know the complaint system exists or because, with cool-eyed cynicism — no, make that world-weary realism — they recognize the reality that filing a complaint in a system like this accomplishes next to nothing.

Therefore, I was more than a little thrilled to learn that the government was updating the bill of rights in an effort to give aggrieved passengers a little more support and recourse.

In her testimony before our committee, France Pégeot, Chair and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Transportation Agency, attempted to explain how this proposed new system would be better than the ineffective and inefficient system we now “enjoy.”

Under the status quo, passenger entitlements depend on how a flight disruption is categorized: within airline control, within airline control but required for safety or outside airline control. This has made it difficult for passengers to understand their rights, and it makes the regulations difficult to enforce.

Bill C-47 would eliminate the three categories of flight disruptions. Under the new and simplified framework, air carriers would be required to compensate passengers unless there were exceptional situations. What’s an exceptional situation? We don’t know yet. The Canadian Transportation Agency will define the term later in regulations. But what we do know is that as soon at the provisions of Bill C-47 come into force, the burden of proof will be shifted. Right now, passengers must prove that they have a right to compensation. Under the new rules, the onus would flip. Airlines will now have to prove that they don’t have to pay compensation.

Bill C-47 would also attempt to deal with the overwhelming number of complaints by streamlining the claim resolution process. Under the proposed new rules, each complaint would need to be resolved in 120 days — a far cry from the current 18‑month timeline. On top of that, the Canadian Transportation Agency would also be allowed to recover the cost of air passenger complaints from the airlines, which should encourage airlines to address customer complaints directly with travellers as soon as possible.

The bill would also allow passengers to file claims not just for lost luggage but for luggage that disappears and goes on holiday for days or weeks or months. Companies that don’t comply could now be fined up to $250,000, a significant increase from the previous maximum of $25,000.

It sounds great. But there are serious questions about whether the changes will accomplish much at all.

During our committee hearings, for example, I asked Madame Pégeot about what these new rules would mean for people who get trapped on airplanes on the tarmac for hours and hours, whether because of bad weather, a shortage of available gates and ground crew or some combination. I myself got stuck on the Montreal runway for almost seven hours last June, exactly a year ago, and I know lots of you, my Senate colleagues, have had similar experiences.

Here was my question to Madame Pégeot:

Oftentimes in Canada a flight is delayed because of weather conditions, for which the airline takes no responsibility. But it has been the experience of many Canadians that the airlines provide them with nothing — no food, no water, no arrangement of accommodation — if they are forced to overnight some place. In the worst instances, people have been trapped on planes for 7, 8, 12 or 18 hours, unable to access food, water or working toilets.

Can you tell us what will be the rights of passengers in conditions where they have been denied humanitarian access to food, water and working toilets for up to 15, 18 hours?

Here was her answer:

Under the current regulatory framework, when the situation is outside the power of the company, like you said, a weather event, there is no obligation for the airline to provide assistance, whether it be food or accommodation for passengers. The current legislation before Parliament does not address that issue. But we note it, and that’s certainly something that we can look into, as we would have to — assuming the legislation goes through — review the regulation.

That seems a rather large issue to have left out.

The bill also does not seem to have any provisions to let people off the plane to get a breath of air or use a working toilet after they have been stuck waiting for a gate and ground crew for hours and hours.

Gábor Lukács is the President of Air Passenger Rights, Canada’s independent, non-profit organization of volunteers devoted to empowering travellers. Before our committee, Mr. Lukács testified that Bill C-47 perpetuates existing loopholes and will create a new one. In spite of the government promises to the contrary, he told us, “. . . the bill retains the “required for safety reasons” excuse for airlines to avoid paying passengers compensation.” He called this a “. . . made-in-Canada loophole . . .” that has “. . . unnecessarily and disproportionately complicated adjudication of disputes between passengers and airlines. . . .” Since, he noted, all the evidence for the reasons for a flight disruption is in the airlines’ exclusive control, passengers are at a great disadvantage in enforcing their rights to compensation. And while he and his group are concerned about the complaint backlogs currently, he also argued that this new system of fast-tracking complaints could backfire and strip some passengers of their full rights to adjudication.

In the meantime, we’ve heard plenty of anger from those in the air travel sector who have told us in hearings and meetings that these changes will raise prices, reduce the number of flights on offer and be a particularly heavy burden on small, regional airlines that serve our smaller regional airports. They also complain that they shouldn’t be held responsible for delays that are a knock-on effect caused by NAV CANADA’s air travel control systems or other hold-ups at the airport.

I wish I could tell you definitively if I think this new complaints system will work. Unfortunately, by wrapping all these changes inside this Turducken of an omnibus bill, the government severely limited the work our committee could do to unpack the details. I understand the urgency to get these changes enacted, if not for this summer, then at least in time for the fall and winter travel season. Packing them into the budget is undoubtedly efficient in the short term. I dearly wish, though, that these changes had come to us in a stand-alone bill and that we’d had more time to study them properly.

Disciplining the airlines for bad customer service — emotionally satisfying though that feels — is not enough to fix our snarled-up air travel system. We need to address the shortage of highly skilled pilots by finding a way to make expensive training programs more accessible and affordable. We need to reinvest in our airport infrastructure to make our airports more comfortable and user-friendly for passengers and airlines alike. We need to ensure that NAV CANADA, the private company that provides air traffic control services, has the necessary capacity to do its job. We need to encourage competition so that passengers are not held hostage to one or two airlines. We also need to come up with integrated, coherent emergency plans to deal with the extreme weather events to ensure that our airports and airlines are able to deal with the new realities of climate change.

COVID is not the only thing that has turned our world upside-down. We need to get ready to build an air service system robust and flexible enough to serve our magnificent, complicated, sprawling country with both convenience and compassion.

Thank you, hiy hiy.

Hon. Pat Duncan: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to third reading of Bill C-47.

As senators may know, Part 4, Division 20 of the bill contains amendments to the Yukon Act. The specific section amending the Yukon Act is related to the management and remediation efforts of the abandoned Faro Mine. It is notable that on the one hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary of the Yukon Act receiving Royal Assent in the Senate of Canada on June 13, 1898, we are discussing an amendment to the same act. This is proof that the Yukon Act — which is considered by Yukoners as our constitution — is a living, dynamic document, reflective of our times and the growth and development of the territory.

Although I will be discussing the constitutional development of the Yukon Act in greater detail once I initiate my inquiry on it, I do think it is appropriate at this time to provide a brief refresher on the constitutional significance of the Yukon Act and amendments to it, such as I’m discussing today.

The act was discussed 125 years ago. It provided for the appointment by Canada of a commissioner and an appointed territorial council to oversee the administration of the Yukon. The population of the region had exploded due to the Klondike Gold Rush, and Ottawa felt a need to set up a local administration to ensure peace, order and good government, and the regulation of liquor. The appointed council and commissioner acted on behalf of, and under the control of, Ottawa.

Moving ahead to 1979, then-Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Jake Epp authored a letter to the commissioner of the Yukon Territory advising her that she was to take the direction of the duly elected territorial council and:

request the Territorial Government Leader that he shall constitute and appoint a body known as the Cabinet or the Executive Council which will have as its members those elected representatives of the Territorial Council who are designated from time to time by the Government Leader who enjoys the confidence of the Council.

The letter included that the commissioner was no longer to be part of the council. In other words, in plain language, the first territorial cabinet was formed from a duly, democratically elected legislative assembly, a legislative assembly elected on party lines. Today, the Yukon remains the only territory with party politics.

The Epp letter was issued at the time when former Yukon senator the Honourable Ione Christensen was the commissioner.

Honourable senators, as significant as that event was, members of the National Finance Committee with whom I have had the honour to work will appreciate the importance of following the money. As important as the Epp letter was, although not enshrined in the Yukon Act, more significant to my mind, as a former finance minister, was an event in 1985: the establishment of the Territorial Formula Financing arrangement.

Previously, the commissioner would go to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development every year, cap in hand, and say, “Please, may we have enough money to run the territory for you?” With the advent of the Territorial Formula Financing arrangement, we became partners at the table on a similar footing to the provinces with their equalization payments.

Although the Yukon now had control over our finances, it was the Devolution Transfer Agreement, or DTA, wherein we truly became the masters of our own house. The Devolution Transfer Agreement gave the territory land- and resource-management responsibilities. The initial agreement was signed in 2001 by myself on behalf of the Yukon, and its implementation took place in 2003.

The DTA negotiations included many discussions about the remediation of the Faro Mine site. Once the largest open pit lead‑zinc mine in the world, the Faro Mine officially opened in 1969. After nearly 30 years of operations under different ownership and having formed more than 30% of the Yukon economy, the last owners declared bankruptcy and abandoned the mine in 1998.

Seventy million tonnes of tailings and 320 million tonnes of waste rock with the potential to leach metals and acid into the surrounding land and water were left behind. The amounts spent by Canada on the remediation of the Faro Mine site clearly show the significance of the cleanup. Last fiscal year, Canada spent over $86 million on remediation, and care and maintenance costs. For the previous two years, $92 million and $103 million were spent, respectively.

Referencing back to the formula financing arrangement, clearly with a territorial budget of $535.5 million in 2001, the Yukon could not carry the financial burden of the Faro Mine cleanup. Yet the DTA was supposed to make us masters of our own house, which leads us to the changes in Bill C-47.

The DTA identified the Faro Mine as a shared responsibility between the federal and territorial governments. Canada was financially responsible for care and maintenance and for the development and implementation of longer-term remediation plans, while the Yukon was responsible for carrying out the activities.

The arrangement soon led to major challenges in the Yukon government’s ability to influence the direction, scope, scheduling and budget of the project. The net result for contractors working in the field was delayed payments and a very frustrating process. In 2020, a transitional agreement was entered into for the federal government to carry out interim care and maintenance under delegated authority from the Yukon Minister of the Environment.

This amendment to the Yukon Act would remove the need for that delegation. It would put the governance of the project, financial responsibility for the remediation and statutory power to manage risks at the site in a single federal minister.

Honourable senators, providing this background is not the complete picture. I would like to outline for you the essential role of Yukon First Nations. While June 13 is the one hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary of the Yukon Act, honourable senators have heard me speak earlier this year to the fiftieth anniversary of Together Today for our Children Tomorrow.

In 1993, the Yukon and Canada signed the Umbrella Final Agreement, or UFA. Since then, 11 of 14 Yukon First Nations have concluded self-government and land claim agreements. The UFA included chapter 12, which provided for the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, or YESAA, a development assessment process that is referenced in Bill C-69, which received Royal Assent in June 2019.

It is important to include the development of YESAA as part of the UFA and the Canada-Yukon-Council of Yukon First Nations agreement, and is appropriate in discussing such items as the remediation of the Faro Mine site. YESAA provides for the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, a regime that evaluates all development projects — everything from highway right-of-ways to mines to ensure First Nations rights, the environment and the social and economic development of the territory are appropriately recognized and reviewed before development proceeds.

I will reference the timeline for the Faro Mine Remediation Project. In 2003, an oversight committee formed involving key representatives from the Government of Yukon, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Kaska and Selkirk First Nations to help develop the remediation plan. From 2002 to 2004, technical consultation sessions were held to gather input from First Nation communities. In 2006-08, the remediation options were refined following a series of consultation sessions involving the Kaska, Selkirk First Nation, the Town of Faro, governments and regulatory agencies and scrutiny by independent experts. In 2009, the remediation option was selected and signed off by Canada, the Yukon government, the Kaska and the Selkirk First Nations.

These are examples of how the government-to-government-to-government relationships work today with YESAA and on such important items as the Faro Mine Remediation Project.

Part of the Faro Mine Remediation Project is the Rose Creek diversion project. Rose Creek is located in the traditional territory of the Ross River Dena Council and the Liard First Nation. Ross River Dena Council and Liard First Nations are also two First Nations who have not completed land claim agreements with Yukon and Canada.

Stephen Mead, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Mineral Resources and Geoscience Services at the Yukon government told the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources about the success story of this particular part of the remediation project.

Fifteen years ago he was standing on the face of a dam when the water was coming out of a rock where it hadn’t before. There was a creek or a river that the tailings had been put in through the decades of mining. The river, at a very early part of the system, had been diverted around the tailings. The river is called Rose Creek. New contamination appeared from waste rock that hadn’t been in place before. There was a need to do some large-scale upgrades, changes and improvements to make sure the clean water flowing across the site was kept clean.

The Ross River Dena Council, to whom the area has been the main hunting, medicinal gathering and culturally important area for millennia, is very engaged in this project and has been for many years. They play a vital role in guiding the decisions made on that site. The river and Rose Creek itself have particular significance. Mr. Mead said:

There was a part of that creek where, as long as oral history can track, people gathered to collect water to make special medicinal tea. That was literally in that Rose Creek component of the system. It was very important for that work to get done in that regard.

The reason for this discussion and this amendment to the Yukon Act in Bill C-47 is because of work such as what has occurred at the Rose Creek diversion.

The people who are most affected by this amendment are those on the ground involved in the cleanup. This amendment ensures timely payment, as the contractors are dealing with one administration rather than several.

Senators, I would be remiss in offering sober second thought to the provisions in the Yukon Act if I did not also offer the opinion that the amendment is interpreted by some as a potential step backward from our devolution agreement and changes to the Yukon Act by the House of Commons voted in this place in 2002.

I appreciate that concern raised and I vividly recall the back and forth regarding the responsibility for the remediation required at the Faro Mine site. Should we, the Yukon, take it on when Canada permitted the project and, quite honestly, reaped the benefits in millions of tax dollars and mineral royalties during the mine’s operation between 1969 and 1998, and who really should be responsible for that cleanup?

On the other hand, having worked so hard to be masters of our own house in settling land claims and negotiating a devolution transfer agreement, should we really be giving Canada back control over the land in this change to the Yukon Act? As I said, some see it as a step backward in the political evolution of the territory.

This amendment allows for Canada to uphold its responsibility and allow for the federal funding to flow smoothly, with less administrative burden for both governments. And it is on this specific site only.

Indigenous rights are maintained, as all works at the Faro site have to go through the YESAA regime, which ensures the role of First Nations and First Nation governments. I would also add that the Yukon Act section 56(1) ensures that the Yukon government must be consulted before any amendments to the act are introduced. Just as we are reminded of the strength of the voice of a duly elected House of Commons, I am reminded that the Yukon government, in supporting this amendment, are the duly elected representatives of the population who have requested this amendment to their constitution.

Colleagues, I appreciate the time you have given me tonight to explain the background behind this amendment to the Yukon Act. I thank you for your time and attention. I would express to you my support for the amendment to the Yukon Act in Part 4, Division 20 of Bill C-47. I, along with the duly elected Yukon government and our member in the other place support this initiative and commend it to the chamber. Gùnáłchîsh, mahsi’cho, thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I want to take just a few minutes to go back to Ms. Harriet Solloway’s appearance at Committee of the Whole and explain our position on her appointment as the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. During her appearance, I was quite concerned by some of Ms. Solloway’s answers.

First of all, the process for her appointment does not appear to have been at all a serious one. She admitted that she had a 10‑minute conversation with the President of the Treasury Board, Minister Mona Fortier. The minister called her from the airport, and Ms. Solloway is under the impression that the minister was focusing on her ability to speak French. This is not a serious effort at due diligence, colleagues.

Secondly, from the answers that we got, it does not look like Ms. Solloway was tested on her vision of the work of the commission, the challenges it poses or how she is equipped to meet those challenges. With this government’s track record for appointments, one would expect Minister Fortier to do more than a 10-minute call from the airport to test the level of conversational French of a candidate. However, I must say, having had this window into the hiring process of the Trudeau government, we can now certainly understand better why some of their previous appointments have fared so poorly.

But in addition, colleagues, to the clear shortcomings in the process, I was also alarmed to hear that Ms. Solloway will be faced with a steep learning curve on this job. I have no doubt in her personal and professional qualities, but from the evidence we received from her, one has to wonder how it was decided that she would be the best candidate for this position. She admitted not knowing the Canadian public sector, having been outside the country since 1996.

She was questioned by several senators, including myself, on her plans for the commission. While we cannot expect candidates to come up with a detailed plan when they appear in front of Parliament, we can expect to be given a general understanding of how the candidate will approach their role. Otherwise, I am not sure how we can assess whether the nominee is well-suited for this position.

Ms. Solloway said it very clearly: She has no general plan for this position and no plan for specific issues raised by senators. And from the answers given to Senator Cardozo, she does not seem to fully understand the role and the functioning of the commission.

Colleagues, we do not feel that we are in a position to stop the appointment of Ms. Solloway, but we felt it was important to put our observations and concerns on the record. For this reason, we will not stand in the way of this appointment, but we will certainly only allow it to go ahead on division.

Thank you.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of June 8, 2023, moved:

That, in accordance with subsection 39(1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (S.C. 2005, c. 46), the Senate approve the appointment of Ms. Harriet Solloway as Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) moved second reading of Bill S-13, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

She said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to take the floor today to begin second reading of Bill S-13, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

The bill proposes, quite simply, to make a single addition to the federal Interpretation Act, which is the law that guides the interpretation of all other federal laws. The Interpretation Act sets out a single uniform standard for reading all acts of Parliament. It includes things like an explanation of what preambles are for and how to apply coming-into-force provisions. If Bill S-13 is adopted, it will also include this:

Every enactment is to be construed as upholding the Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and not as abrogating or derogating from them.

This is what is known as a “non-derogation clause.” Currently, several dozen Canadian laws include a clause like this, such as the Fisheries Act, the Firearms Act, the Species at Risk Act and many others.

But some laws have them, and others don’t. Over the past 40 years, these clauses have been added to various bills in an ad hoc manner. Often, Indigenous peoples have had to advocate for their inclusion during the parliamentary process, meaning these clauses were often tacked on at committee and are often phrased differently in different acts.

Bill S-13 proposes to remove the non-derogation clause from most laws that currently have one and instead add this provision to the Interpretation Act to create a uniform standard for the interpretation of all federal laws. In other words, if Bill S-13 is adopted, it will be as though every act of Parliament has the same non-derogation clause, ensuring that all federal laws and regulations are interpreted to uphold and not diminish the rights of Indigenous peoples as affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Indigenous organizations have been advocating for this for many years, colleagues. The specific engagement process that led to this bill began in 2020, when officials from the Department of Justice Canada initiated preliminary discussions with certain key partners.

In December 2020, a targeted consultation process was launched. The goal of the early part of this process was to inform Indigenous partners of the initiative, provide opportunities for input and fulfill statutory requirements of the Yukon Act and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, both of which require consultation before they can be amended.

This targeted process revealed that there was considerable support among Indigenous partners for the proposed amendment to the federal Interpretation Act. In December 2021, the Minister of Justice announced a second phase to undertake broader consultation and cooperation consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or UNDRIP Act, passed in 2021.

Meetings were held throughout 2022 to consider options and discuss potential legislative approaches. More than 70 meetings were held with Indigenous peoples and their representative organizations, and more than 45 written submissions were received from Indigenous peoples and their representative organizations. The process respected the distinctions-based approach requested by Indigenous partners. Most meetings were bilateral so that partners could focus directly on what was most important and relevant to them.

The final phase of consultation and cooperation began with the posting of a draft legislative proposal on the Department of Justice Canada website from March 1, 2023, to April 14, 2023. This method of proceeding allowed for further transparency in the consultation and cooperation process.

One of the main points of discussion that arose during consultations was the specific wording of the new provision in the Interpretation Act. In particular, some partners wanted to include the term “Indigenous peoples,” while others maintained that there was a need to use the expression “Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada,” which is the wording of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Ultimately, Bill S-13 reflects a compromise. It refers to “. . . the Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous peoples . . . .” with a clarification that the term “Indigenous peoples” has the same meaning as “. . . aboriginal peoples of Canada. . . ” in the Constitution.

Another point of discussion was what to do with existing non‑derogation clauses in other legislation. In the end, most Indigenous partners preferred repealing all of the other existing ones to achieve the objective of having one single non-derogation clause applied consistently and uniformly to all federal laws. That is the approach Bill S-13 proposes with three notable exceptions: the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, the shíshálh Nation Self-Government Act and the Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Act. In these three cases, the acts directly involve particular First Nations that wanted to keep the non-derogation clause specific to them. Their wishes are being respected.

This approach of having one overarching non-derogation clause in the Interpretation Act and generally repealing the rest is also in keeping with the recommendation of the 2007 report from the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, entitled, Taking Section 35 Rights Seriously: Non‑derogation Clauses relating to Aboriginal and treaty rights.

I note that our colleague Senator Jaffer is the one remaining member of that committee still in our chamber today, so this has, obviously, been a long time coming, and I hope this is a satisfying moment for Senator Jaffer, in particular. Colleagues, this should also be a satisfying moment for Indigenous people and all Canadians.

By passing this bill, we promote compliance with the UNDRIP Act, which requires that measures be taken to ensure that the laws of Canada be consistent with the United Nations declaration. We would be eliminating the need for Indigenous peoples to press for a new non-derogation clause each time Parliament considers new legislation potentially affecting their section 35 rights, and we would be underscoring the importance of section 35 rights phrased in both the positive and the negative. With Bill S-13 in place, all laws adopted by the Parliament of Canada will be interpreted so as to uphold Indigenous rights, and no federal law could be interpreted as derogating from them.

Indigenous peoples have been pushing for this ever since section 35 was added to the Canadian Constitution over 40 years ago. Indigenous peoples came to the Senate 16 years ago to make their pitch, and I would just like to take a moment to acknowledge all the chiefs, leaders, Indigenous lawyers and Indigenous scholars who have asked for this change to the Interpretation Act for years. Particularly, I am thinking about the late Harold Cardinal. I would love to have a coffee with him right now to talk about this change and how monumental it is.

For the last three years, Indigenous peoples have been working with the government through extensive and cooperative consultations to finally make this happen. This bill is one more step on the road to reconciliation, and it is a major one, because it affects every existing and future federal law.

As the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs wrote back in 2007:

. . . non-derogation clauses serve the important purpose of expressing to all Parliament’s clear intention that legislation is to be interpreted and implemented consistently with section 35.

. . . we find it preferable, in the interests of upholding the honour of the Crown, to make inclusion of a non-derogation clause in all legislation the default position through the insertion of a provision in the Interpretation Act . . . .

That is exactly what this bill proposes to do. Given where we’re at in the calendar, the Government Representative Office, or GRO, will work with the Department of Justice to schedule a technical briefing early in the fall. In the meantime, I encourage you to reach out to me or to my office to discuss this bill further, and I hope all honourable senators will support it when we return in September.

Hiy hiy.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Yussuff, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the second reading of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. David Richards: Honourable senators, I am going to speak to Bill C-21. However, before I start, I want you to know that I have six police officers, one judge and two lawyers in my extended family, so I agree with the rule of law. Except for stealing chocolate milk from the creamery when I was a child, I have kept my nose pretty clean — but I have some problems with this bill. I think it’s a bill that targets rural Canadians.

Senator D. Patterson: Hear, hear.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-13(2), I move:

That the Senate do now adjourn.