Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. I understand that the General Social Survey, or GSS, aims to collect data on social trends to provide up-to-date information on social policy issues, and that it includes the Survey on Giving, Volunteering and Participating, or SGVP, providing a comprehensive overview of the contributions Canadians make by donating both time and money.

I’m advised that the SGVP involves a partnership of numerous federal government departments as well, importantly, of voluntary sector organizations, including the University of Ottawa, Imagine Canada and Volunteer Canada. The modernization efforts to which I alluded would take place through those partnerships, and any updates with regard to data collection and the rest will be forthcoming in due course.

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

I will not repeat the answers I have now given several times today.

Canada is a strong ally of Ukraine, and the strength of our support was reinforced during President Zelenskyy’s visit. That will continue, despite this very unfortunate circumstance.

The important thing is that Canada and democratic allies across the world stand in solidarity with Ukraine, continue to provide them with the material resources, diplomatic and humanitarian support and all necessary military support in order that they can resist the aggression and reclaim their proper territory.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, senator, for highlighting Canada’s first-ever National Adaptation Strategy. It was launched earlier this year, as you point out, and is designed to help communities across this country.

The strategy aims to transform the way governments, communities and individual Canadians work in partnership to prepare for and reduce risks of climate change through coordinated, ambitious action.

I understand, senator, that the targets to which you refer are to be attained in provincial health jurisdictions. Although the draft strategy was released for comment in November 2022 — prior to its official launch in June of 2023 — you might agree with me that there has been very little time in these short months to achieve a fruitful measure of progress. I’m sure that the federal government and the provincial jurisdictions will provide Canadians with progress updates in due course.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Canada’s immigration policy is designed to provide opportunities for those around the world who want to participate in the growth and development of our country and help it and prosper, as it has from generations of immigrants — many of their children and grandchildren are in this chamber.

There’s no doubt that the challenges that Canadians face — including those who have recently arrived for affordable housing — is a serious one that the government is addressing in several important respects. It will continue to do so for the benefit of Canadians.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Senator Gold, this year and for the first time, there will be a designated Health Day at COP 28 in recognition that climate change is the single most significant global health threat. The World Health Organization estimates that an additional 250,000 people will die each year because of climate change impacts such as rising temperatures, extreme weather events, air and water pollution, increased spread of diseases and food insecurity, not to mention the impact on mental health.

Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy recognizes the health impacts of climate change on individuals, as well as the capacity of health systems when flooding, extreme heat or wildfires negatively affect health facilities.

Two targets of the adaptation strategy for the health sector are, one, implementing evidence-based adaptation measures to protect health from extreme heat by 2026; and, two, identifying risks, developing adaptation plans and measuring progress regarding climate resilience in health systems by 2030.

Senator Gold, I realize the strategy is relatively new, but the challenge is urgent. Could you tell us what progress, if any, is being made toward meeting these targets?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): There is a difference between parliamentary language — as well as the parliamentary privilege that surrounds our statements in Parliament — and the statements that one may make outside of Parliament.

Minister Miller is more than capable of addressing these issues himself, and it’s not my intention to comment any further on the remarks that he may have made in that regard.

The Hon. the Speaker: The time for Question Period has expired.

Was that supplementary?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, last spring, I was admonished for saying the Prime Minister and his former Minister, Marco Mendicino lied to Canadians about the prison transfer of Paul Bernardo. I was prevented from using the word that best describes this Prime Minister.

Last week, Senator Gold, you scolded me for using the term “made-up rapporteur,” saying it was an insult, even though the Prime Minister made up the former governor general’s job and title.

Leader, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has recently used language online and in an interview to describe his colleague — the Leader of the Official Opposition, Pierre Poilievre — that he definitely cannot repeat in Parliament, yet no one from your government has condemned Minister Miller or said he should apologize.

Why is that, leader? Is that a double standard?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to second reading of Bill S-13, an Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

It has been a few months since Senator LaBoucane-Benson spoke to this legislation on June 20, so allow me to provide you with a bit of an overview to refresh your memory.

Bill S-13 will, first of all, amend the Interpretation Act to include a non-derogation clause on upholding the Aboriginal and treaty rights found in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. That clause will read as follows:

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.

In addition to establishing a blanket non-derogation clause, or NDC, Bill S-13 will remove the existing non-derogation clauses from 26 different pieces of legislation. Only three existing laws with non-derogation clauses will retain those NDCs.

On the surface, the government’s rationale for this legislation is, by and large, solid.

First of all, the legislation will provide a uniform standard for the interpretation of all federal legislation. By including a blanket non-derogation clause in the Interpretation Act, all federal laws will be read as including an NDC.

Second, the legislation will create a standardized non-derogation clause.

NDCs have been added to legislation in an ad hoc manner for decades. They first began to show up in a small number of federal laws in the 1970s and early 1980s — although at that time they obviously did not reference the Constitution Act, 1982. After the patriation of the Constitution Act and the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982, NDCs once again started to be included in federal legislation in 1986.

Over the years, the wording of these NDCs has changed. And while nobody has advocated that NDCs should be used to either extend or diminish existing rights, the arguments have gone back and forth regarding whether that might be the real-world outcome.

For example, when the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs studied this issue between 2003 and 2007, they noted in their report that they “. . . heard significantly divergent testimony from government and non-government witnesses with respect to the purpose and effect of non-derogation clauses.”

Indigenous groups saw the inclusion of NDCs:

. . . as a minimum stipulation that the law should be interpreted so as not to negatively affect their constitutional Aboriginal and treaty rights.

On the other hand, Justice officials “. . . considered these clauses largely superfluous reminders of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

The committee noted that as the wording of the NDCs began to be changed, Indigenous groups became concerned that because of the lack of consistency in the wording:

. . . the courts would or could attribute different interpretations to differently worded non-derogation clauses in order to make sense of the differences in various statutes.

As a result of this testimony, the Senate Legal Committee recommended that the government introduce a standardized non‑derogation clause, which is what Bill S-13 will do.

The third component of the government’s rationale for this bill is that amending the Interpretation Act to include a blanket NDC will remove “. . . the need for Indigenous peoples to press for NDCs whenever the government introduces legislation.”

There are clear advantages to this. However, I would note there is also a counter-argument for what has been called “continual reiteration” of non-derogation clauses rather than utilizing a single statement. Since the non-derogation clause primarily serves as a reminder of existing rights and does not confer any new rights, repeating a standardized non-derogation in every piece of legislation may be more effective than a single iteration, which is soon out of sight and out of mind.

The fourth part of the government’s rationale is that including an NDC in the Interpretation Act helps to fulfill an obligation under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which requires that measures be taken to ensure the consistency of laws with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Colleagues, in principle, I believe that we can all support these objectives. As noted in both the 2007 Senate report and the government’s 2022 What We Have Learned report, Indigenous peoples have been asking that the federal Interpretation Act be amended to include an NDC for many years.

However, rather than being celebrated, it is my view that this legislation should be recognized for what it is: an acknowledgement of the repeated and systemic failure of Canadian governments to honour Aboriginal and treaty rights.

How else do we explain such a bill? First, we had the treaties. Then the treaties were followed by court decisions that insisted those treaties must be honoured. Then we introduced the Charter of Rights, which affirmed that treaty rights are actual rights and must be respected. Following that, Parliament adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which requires that:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

And yet, in spite of all these measures, we somehow still need a blanket non-derogation clause. I can’t help but think that if the Government of Canada simply started honouring Aboriginal and treaty rights, we would no longer need to repeatedly layer statutory declarations on top of each other in order to try to compel the government to do what it agreed to do in the first place.

Do not misunderstand me; I do not blame our Indigenous peoples for wanting this non-derogation clause. I blame the government that it is needed at all. I support this bill in principle, but I am not convinced that a fifth “for greater certainty” layer is going to provide any more certainty to Indigenous peoples than the previous four layers.

Let me illustrate my concern with a simple example: Right now, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs is studying Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), otherwise known as the gun control bill. This legislation will enact significant changes that will have serious detrimental impacts on law-abiding gun owners in Canada, including the treaty rights of Indigenous peoples. Yet, in spite of this, the government completely failed to consult with Indigenous peoples, and is instead charging ahead. I noted this in my speech on Bill C-21 when I mentioned the following question that was posed to the officials during my critic’s briefing on the bill: “With whom did you consult?” When the officials were asked to describe their process of consulting with Indigenous peoples, they turned and looked for answers from the representative who was from Minister Mendicino’s office. Departmental officials did say they had consulted on the previous bill — Bill C-21 — which died on the Order Paper, but they engaged in no such consultation with Indigenous peoples in advance of introducing this bill, which has different provisions from the previous bill.

Subsequent to my critic’s briefing, officials sent my office a list of meetings they held with Indigenous groups after the bill was introduced. In other words, those were meetings held between January and May of this year. But that, colleagues, was months after Bill C-21 had been introduced, and only occurred after public opposition to the government’s amendments had arisen. As on so many other occasions, Indigenous peoples were only an afterthought. That makes a mockery out of the claim that when it comes to Indigenous peoples, it is “nothing about us without us.” Even though Indigenous peoples have treaty rights, even though the courts have upheld these rights, even though the Charter affirms these rights and even though the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act passed by Parliament compels the government to consult with Indigenous peoples in order to “. . . obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them,” the government is still failing to consult and respect Indigenous rights.

Now we have Bill S-13 in front of us, which says that Bill C-21 should:

 . . . 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.

Yet, Bill C-21 does nothing of the sort. We may as well pass a law that says, “Plumbers should be construed as lawyers.” I think they would make better lawyers. Saying it is so does not make it so.

Colleagues, I support the intent of this legislation, but I question the value it will bring when we have a government that has repeatedly demonstrated it will flout the law whenever that might be to its advantage. I hope this legislation will be very carefully studied at committee to ensure that it has the support of Indigenous peoples — that the government claims it does — and that it will achieve the objectives it is designed to achieve.

Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, Senator Jaffer has made a written declaration of private interest regarding Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management) and in accordance with rule 15-7, the declaration shall be recorded in the Journals of the Senate.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-13, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?

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

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

Hon. Lucie Moncion, pursuant to notice of June 13, 2023, moved:

That, in light of the adoption of the Financial Policy for Senate Committees by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on June 1, 2023, the Senate Administrative Rules be amended in Chapter 3:05

(a)by repealing the heading before section 1, section 1, subsections 10(2) and (3) and section 11; and

(b)by replacing the heading before section 2 and subsections 2(1) and (2) with the following:

“Committee Budgets

(a) adopted by the committee;

(b) submitted by the committee to the Internal Economy Committee for its consideration; and

(c) presented to the Senate by committee report, with the budget and a report of the Internal Economy Committee attached.

(2) A budget prepared for the purposes of subsection (1) must contain a detailed estimate of the committee’s special expenses for the fiscal year.”; and

That the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any necessary technical, editorial, grammatical, or other required, non-substantive changes to the Senate Administrative Rules as a result of these amendments, including the updating of cross-references and the renumbering of provisions.

She said: Honourable senators, this motion proposes consequential changes to the Senate Administrative Rules that are necessary to implement a new financial policy for Senate committees, which was adopted by the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on June 1, 2023. The new policy will come into force at the end of September 2023.

[Translation]

I want to point out that this policy compiles into one comprehensive document long-standing decisions, policies, practices and guidelines of the Internal Economy Committee that apply to Senate committees in the area of financial management and committee budgets. Most of these measures are nothing new and will be familiar to senators who have participated in committee travel activities in the past.

[English]

The new policy streamlines the committee budget process to reflect the activity-based budgeting system that has been in place for over 10 years. It also replaces outdated financial reports on committee expenditures with the new legislative requirement for proactive disclosure. I would also note that last week, the Senate adopted changes to the Rules of the Senate, which also repealed obsolete sessional financial reports. Committees will continue to post quarterly, public, proactive disclosure reports, along with an annual report, which follow the fiscal years on the Senate of Canada website. These changes are simply to align our Senate Administrative Rules with the new policy, and will help ensure that the Senate continues to inform the public about spending by its committees in an open and transparent manner.

Thank you again, colleagues, for your consent.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Would Senator Moncion take a question?

I assume there was a subcommittee that reviewed these policies. Which subcommittee was it, senator?

Senator Moncion: It’s the subcommittee that reviews all policies — well, it depends on the matter. This one was the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, under the budgets. We looked at the whole policy, and we tweaked it because most of the policies in the Senate now have been reviewed. Some of them are 10 or 15 years old. This was an older one, so we streamlined and looked at this. The Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets was the committee that looked at it.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McPhedran, seconded by the Honourable Senator White, for the second reading of Bill S-201, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Regulation Adapting the Canada Elections Act for the Purposes of a Referendum (voting age).

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

(On motion of Senator LaBoucane-Benson, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.)

Leave having been given to proceed to Motions, Order No. 131:

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

(On motion of Senator LaBoucane-Benson, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.)

Leave having been given to proceed to Motions, Order No. 131:

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(At 3:34 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)