The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I am, after consulting the Speaker, ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by Senator McCallum on October 19, concerning government motion 132.

Senator McCallum referred to rule 13-4 in her question of privilege, but I would note that there is a specific provision dealing with notices given during Routine Proceedings. Rule 4-11(2) states that:

A Senator may raise a question of privilege relating to:

(a)a notice given during Routine Proceedings only at the time the order is first called for consideration.

This point only rarely comes up, but it is the provision that must be taken into account when dealing with questions of privilege concerning items on notice. In the particular case we are dealing with, the result is the same, and the issue was raised at the proper time, but this need not always be the case.

In terms of the substance of the issue, we are guided by the four criteria set out in rule 13-2(1) when considering a question of privilege. All the criteria must be met.

The first criterion is that the matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity. Senator McCallum raised her concerns as soon as possible after notice was given, so this requirement has been met.

The second and third criteria require that a question of privilege “directly concern the privileges of the Senate, any of its committees or any Senator”, and that it “be raised to correct a grave and serious breach”. When considering these criteria, we must consider the fact that privilege exists to allow us to fulfil our duties as senators. This point has been made in various rulings, including those of May 23, 2013; February 24, 2016; March 22, 2018; and October 29, 2020. The Speaker has noted “… that the privileges and rights exercised by the Senate itself take precedence over those of individual senators”. The rights and privileges of an individual senator can therefore be restricted by the Senate.

Perhaps the most fundamental right of the Senate is control over its internal affairs, including its Rules and how proceedings are conducted. The Senate itself adopted its Rules, and the Senate can vary from them as it sees fit. This is what we regularly do by deciding to only sit on Mondays or Fridays when necessary, and by adopting sessional orders concerning the 4 p.m. adjournment on Wednesdays.

Senator Gold’s motion proposes another such variation. It would change the normal time of adjournment on Thursdays. Adopting this motion would be an exercise by the Senate of its fundamental right to regulate its proceedings.

In terms of the fourth criterion — that there must be no alternate parliamentary process reasonably available to pursuing a question of privilege — the issues raised are most appropriately dealt with in debate on the motion itself. Senators may indeed have concerns, as Senator McCallum expressed, that such a proposal could unduly restrict opportunities to debate non‑government business. While this motion was the result of discussions between the leaders and facilitators, every senator can now enter into debate, argue for or against the proposal, and vote for or against it. Amendments can be moved. Only if the motion is accepted by the Senate itself — exercising its fundamental right to govern its proceedings — does the proposal become binding.

There is, therefore, no question of privilege, and debate can continue.

On the Order:

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

That, for the remainder of the current session and notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, when the Senate sits on a Thursday, it stand adjourned at the later of 6 p.m. or the end of Government Business, as if that time were, for all purposes, the ordinary time of adjournment provided for in rule 3-4.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Government Motion No. 132. I would like to begin by registering concern over the limiting of debate. Any time we move to limit debate in this place, we set a dangerous precedent for ourselves while simultaneously sending a poor message to Canadians.

Colleagues, through Motion No. 132, the Government Representative Office proposes to adjourn the Senate at the later of 6 p.m. or the end of Government Business on every Thursday for the remainder of the current session — further limiting our debate in this place.

In debate on the question of privilege that I initiated on this matter on October 19, it was raised that, perhaps, I did not understand the intent and ramifications of this motion — possibly thinking that it meant non-government bills would no longer be considered on Thursdays. I would like to assure all honourable colleagues that my understanding of the outcome of this motion was clear, and I remain as concerned about it today as I was when I raised my question of privilege.

At the time, we were moving to a vote on this matter with no debate or explanation for its rationale. If I hadn’t raised my question of privilege, we would not have received any information from the government on the matter.

Honourable senators, in Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, the Supreme Court of Canada stated:

Parliamentary privilege in the Canadian context is the sum of the privileges, immunities and powers enjoyed by the Senate, the House of Commons and provincial legislative assemblies, and by each member individually, without which they could not discharge their functions . . . .

In the Senate, there has historically been no focus on the absence of Indigenous people’s issues, and that is what I am attempting to change through my work, which is being adversely impacted through limiting debate.

Colleagues, in his remarks on October 19, Senator Gold stated that we may continue to do non-government business on many Thursdays — pointing to the possibility that this motion could conceivably see many Thursdays when we do not deal with non‑government business at all.

Senator Gold also went on to state — I am paraphrasing — that there will come a time when we will become consumed with Government Business. That will probably take us well into the evenings on Thursdays.

It is a well-established fact that as we get closer to the breaks in December and June, the pace and timing surrounding Government Business picks up rapidly. Many of us would concede that these weeks, or months, necessitate a write-off of Other Business as Government Business takes precedence. When this onslaught of Government Business commences, will we still be excusing senators to travel home on Thursdays, or will we be expected to stay?

Colleagues, in acknowledging that there are already months of the year when we legitimately cannot meaningfully get to non-government business, does that not mean, then, that we should be placing a premium on dealing with such non-government business while we have the opportunity to do so? Instead, Motion No. 132 further sacrifices what time has been set aside to deal with these critical matters.

It should also be stated that the expectation of our reformed Senate is an increased diversity in our representation and, therefore, in the work that we do. In the article, “Birds of a Feather? Loyalty and Partisanship in the Reformed Canadian Senate,” the authors state that recent Senate appointments have led to an increase in gender and racial diversity. They go on to state that the two main functions of the Senate are complementary: the protection of political minorities and the provision of legislative review. In this way, the protection of political minorities is actualized by promoting minority interests in amending, defeating or even creating legislation. However, we are unable to adequately perform these functions if non‑government business continues to be seen as non-vital, and, accordingly, the gaps in legislation will continue to grow.

Honourable senators, Senator Gold estimated that there were 75 Senate public bills on the Order Paper, excluding a large number of non-government motions and inquiries, all of which also raise various matters of great importance.

While it is true that the number of items under these various rubrics may be larger than they have traditionally or historically been, that is simply the result and function of the modern Senate that we all pride ourselves in having worked to establish.

Given that we are seeing an uptick in senators bringing forward matters of critical import to those communities and regions they serve, how can we justify meeting this increase in items to be considered with a corresponding decrease in the time we spend considering them?

Colleagues, expectations of a reformed Senate would organically see heightened activity in the legislative process. There is nothing wrong with the number of interventions being made, but there is something wrong when leadership restricts the process of dealing with these interventions by not allowing them to receive a vote, by not assigning a critic, by not allowing committees to sit with regularity while the Senate sits, by refusing the option of hybrid sittings and by limiting the number of hours to debate specific items.

Honourable senators, the ultimate justification for Motion No. 132, as alluded to, was predicated on a discussion at the leadership table of needing to ensure that senators could get home in a timely manner. One of the reasons and benefits of the Senate not sitting on Mondays and Fridays is so that those may serve as travel days, ensuring we can move between our regions and Ottawa in order to be home and in the community — uninterrupted — for the weekends.

The fact of the matter remains that on sitting weeks, we are typically scheduled to sit three days a week. We know that due to various committee and caucus group meetings — that must also be fit into these three days — the Senate typically only begins sitting at 2 p.m. We also know that the Senate adjourns early on Wednesdays to allow for further committee meetings to occur in the evenings. To now propose that we also adjourn early on Thursdays is, frankly, hard to justify when we realistically have such precious little time in the Senate to begin with.

Colleagues, for all intents and purposes, Motion No. 132 indicates that senators are agreeable to the fact that Other Business can be adequately dealt with, reliably, one day a week — on Tuesdays — with the hope and prayer that we may be able to squeeze some of these items in before early adjournment on Wednesdays and Thursdays.

Honourable senators, as it is fundamental to the overall argument that I am hoping to make, I would like to reiterate the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in the 2014 Senate reference question. As part of their judgment, and found within paragraphs 15 and 16 of their ruling respectively, the court affirmed the role of the Senate in assuring:

. . . the regions that their voices would continue to be heard in the legislative process even though they might become minorities within the overall population of Canada . . . .

Colleagues, I would also like to specifically read paragraph 16 of this 2014 Supreme Court ruling, as it states:

Over time, the Senate also came to represent various groups that were under-represented in the House of Commons. It served as a forum for ethnic, gender, religious, linguistic, and Aboriginal groups that did not always have a meaningful opportunity to present their views through the popular democratic process . . . .

Taken together, honourable senators, the Supreme Court has struck the heart of the work that we do here, and that we are intended to do here. We serve to fill issues that are not well served in the other place by providing a voice and a platform for those populations who have been — and who remain — underserved in our wider population.

Colleagues, we must always be mindful of the responsibilities that are inherent to the position of senator. These include the following:

The first is expectations of the highest standard of conduct as a role model to maintaining public confidence and trust. How can this be claimed if we are seriously considering cutting off Senate debate on a sitting day to enable senators to travel home on Thursdays when we have the privilege of travel time on Mondays and Fridays? Many senators already leave early on Thursdays.

The second is communicating and engaging in public debates while seeking to genuinely understand and respect the view of other senators who bring voices to the floor — when these voices have never previously been given the opportunity to do so. As senators, we all benefit from the interventions of one another in understanding myriad issues that arise in this chamber. Limiting debate effectively limits us all.

The third is carrying out senatorial duties with diligence and in the public interest. This entails not only making space for regional and under-represented issues, but also making adequate time to hear and debate these issues. Additionally, this entails ensuring legislation is permitted to come to a vote once debate has been exhausted, and transcending the partisan posturing that has led to historical inefficiencies in our operations.

The fourth is promoting constitutional legal requirements, values and goals, including equality and freedom from unlawful discrimination. Many of the non-governmental items on the floor deal with historical and current institutional, geographical and environmental racism — issues never before broached in this place. By limiting debate on these and similar items — items that are underpinned by constitutional legal requirements — we are forcing certain groups, including First Nations, to be continually reliant on courts and litigation to enforce their constitutional rights.

I thank colleagues for listening, and I appeal to each of you to act so that we collectively do the right thing in ensuring that we do not further restrict and limit debate on non-government business.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the message from the House of Commons:

Wednesday, October 18, 2023

EXTRACT, —

That,

(a)the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying be re-appointed, in accordance with Recommendation 13 in the second report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying;

(b)five members of the Senate and 10 members of the House of Commons be members of the committee, including five members of the House of Commons from the governing party, three members of the House of Commons from the official opposition, and two members of the House of Commons from the opposition who are not members of the official opposition, with two Chairs of which the House Co‑Chair shall be from the governing party and the Senate Co-Chair shall be determined by the Senate;

(c)in addition to the Co-Chairs, the committee shall elect three vice-chairs from the House, of whom the first vice-chair shall be from the Conservative Party of Canada, the second vice-chair shall be from the Bloc Québécois and the third vice-chair shall be from the New Democratic Party;

(d)the quorum of the committee be eight members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses and one member of the governing party in the House, one from the opposition in the House and one member of the Senate are represented, and that the Joint Chairs be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six members are present, so long as both Houses and one member of the governing party in the House, one member from the opposition in the House and one member of the Senate are represented;

(e)the House of Commons members be named by their respective whip by depositing with the Clerk of the House the list of their members to serve on the committee no later than five sitting days after the adoption of this motion;

(f)changes to the membership of the committee, on the part of the House of Commons, be effective immediately after notification by the relevant whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House;

(g)membership substitutions, on the part of the House of Commons, be permitted, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2);

(h)where applicable to a special joint committee, the provisions relating to hybrid committee proceedings contained in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons shall also apply to the committee;

(i)the committee have the power to:

(i)sit during sittings and adjournments of the House,

(ii)report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee,

(iii)retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel,

(iv)appoint, from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed appropriate and to delegate to such subcommittees, all or any of its powers, except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons,

(v)authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings and that public proceedings be made available to the public via the Parliament of Canada’s websites;

(j)the committee submit a final report of its review, including any recommendations, to Parliament no later than January 31, 2024; and

(k)following the presentation of the final report in both Houses, the committee shall expire; and

that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, members to act on the proposed special joint committee.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) moved:

That:

(a)the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying be re-appointed, in accordance with Recommendation 13 in the second report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying;

(b)the committee be composed of five members of the Senate, including one senator from the Opposition, two senators from the Independent Senators Group, one senator from the Canadian Senators Group, and one senator from the Progressive Senate Group, and ten members of the House of Commons, with two chairs, of whom the Senate co-chair shall be from the Opposition and the House co-chair shall be from the governing party;

(c)in addition to the co-chairs, there be one deputy chair from the Senate, from the Independent Senators Group and three vice-chairs from the House;

(d)the quorum of the committee be eight members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both houses are represented and that one member from the Senate, one member of the governing party in the House, and one member from the opposition in the House are present and that the co-chairs be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the publication thereof, whenever six members are present, so long as both houses are represented and that one member of the Senate, one member of the governing party in the House and one member from the opposition in the House are present;

(e)the five senators to be members of the committee be named by means of a notice signed by their respective leader or facilitator, or their respective designates, and filed with the Clerk of the Senate no later than 5:00 p.m. on the day after this motion is adopted, failing which, the leader or facilitator, and, in the case of the Independent Senators Group, the deputy facilitator if appropriate, of any party or group identified in paragraph (b) that has not filed the name of a senator with the Clerk of the Senate, shall be deemed to be named to the committee, with the names of the senators named as members being recorded in the Journals of the Senate;

(f)for greater certainty, changes to the membership of the committee on the part of the Senate be made in accordance with rule 12-5;

(g)for greater certainty, the provisions of the order adopted by the Senate on October 17, 2023, respecting the participation of senators in hybrid meetings of joint committees until June 30, 2024, apply to senators on this committee;

(h)the committee have the power to:

(i)meet during sittings and adjournments of the Senate;

(ii)report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to publish such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee;

(iii)retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel; and

(iv)authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its public proceedings and to make them available to the public via the Parliament of Canada’s websites;

(i)the committee submit a final report of its review, including a statement of any recommended changes, to Parliament no later than January 31, 2024;

(j)following the tabling of the final report in both houses, the committee expire; and

(k)a report of the committee may be deposited with the Clerk of the Senate at any time the Senate stands adjourned, and that any report so deposited may be deposited electronically, with the report being deemed to have been presented or tabled in the Senate; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are senators ready for the question?

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

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

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Colleagues, I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am delivering my remarks on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

I rise today to speak in support of Bill C‑282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management) at second reading.

I don’t want to reiterate the arguments put forward by the bill’s sponsor, Senator Gerba, or by Senator Forest, because they ably explained why we have supply management and what it’s supposed to achieve.

I also know that the topic of dairy, egg and poultry supply management can be polarizing for many Canadians. Why should we pay more for imported cheese and eggs, milk and poultry? That’s certainly a legitimate question.

Many economists, including my husband, are against supply management, particularly if they like certain types of French cheese that we can’t get here.

I’m an economist too, but I don’t feel that economic theory is grounds for me to reject Canada’s system out of hand.

I don’t think I’m adequately informed to make definitive statements about supply management and the fact that its costs clearly outweigh the associated benefits. I think it’s a complex and highly regulated system, and I don’t think we should attack it unless we really know what we’re talking about.

In my speech, I will try to convince you that we need to vote in favour of Bill C‑282 quickly.

Why? Because this bill is not a vote on supply management, but on a matter of principle. The principle is this: Do we want to remove from the free trade negotiations institutional aspects that set us apart as a country, as in the case of Canadian cultural industries and our social programs?

I’m now getting to the substantive part of my speech.

Bill C‑282 is just a few lines long. It amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act so that the Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot make certain commitments on behalf of the government to increase the import of dairy products, eggs or poultry or reduce the tariffs.

In short, the bill prohibits the minister from negotiating, on behalf of the government, free trade agreements on the back of supply management.

Why is such an effort being made in support of supply management? It is simple: This system, based on controlling production, prices and imports, is complex and worth a lot of money, more than $36 billion — in fact, nearly $37 billion. I’ll come back to that.

If Canadians want to change this system, they can. I suggest they do so with transparent choices and decisions that are made in the context of a public debate.

At first glance, this supply management system works quite well and has proven effective in ensuring the stability of local supply for essential goods, which was its objective.

Tackling this issue indirectly through free trade negotiations lacks legitimacy because the stakes are high. The public policy choices made in the 1970s can really only be called into question in the context of other, fully informed public policy choices. As others before me have said, the supply management system was put in place in the 1970s in response to issues of overproduction that were driving down the prices of certain essential goods and threatening the viability of Canadian farms.

Before I go on, I’d like to share a little personal anecdote. Senator Cotter often prefaces an argument with a little personal anecdote that always manages to capture my attention. I’m drawing my inspiration from him.

My father was a taxi owner and driver for a long time, until I was 10. He was a professional driver and proud of it. He worked long hours and enjoyed being self-employed. That’s why he owned his own cab.

Then, as now, the taxi industry was heavily regulated and adhered to supply management principles. A person could not then, and cannot now, just hang out their shingle as a taxi driver. That was before Uber. Supply was strictly regulated by the availability of a limited number of taxi vehicle permits. My father bought a taxi permit that allowed him to operate a taxi in the city of Montreal. A taxi driver like my dad needed a driver’s licence, a vehicle and a taxi permit. The price of a taxi permit varied depending on the economy, but there was always a limited number of permits.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, economic activity in Canada had slowed considerably, and my father, who was the breadwinner of the family, was having trouble covering the costs of his taxi and earning enough money to feed his family of four children. The cost of taxi permits was starting to drop. It was normal. There was less activity and things were more difficult. My father got the idea to sell his Montreal taxi permit before the price dropped too much and to buy a less expensive permit from a small neighbouring town so that he could continue to work long hours driving a cab and keep himself out of debt. I have very strong memories of those conversations because my mother was very concerned about that decision.

In the end, it took a long time for the taxi industry to recover from the recession in the early 1960s, and my father had to sell the second taxi permit and stop driving a taxi. Despite his long hours of work, he was unable to cover the costs of his business.

This period had a profound effect on me and helped me to better understand the workings of the taxi industry and the basis for supply management a little better. In this case, it was about controlling the service offering by issuing a limited number of taxi permits.

When I was doing my master’s at the University of Western Ontario, it helped me pass an exam, when most of my peers didn’t understand the question. Obviously, supply management is a complex issue.

You’re probably wondering what this has to do with Bill C‑282. The connection is simple. Farmers in the dairy, egg and poultry sectors also need to buy a permit to produce. These are basically production quotas. These production quotas are limited in number. When the government issued them in 1970 to limit production, they were distributed free of charge. Over time, as farms have changed hands, quotas have become more valuable. Today, quotas are traded monthly based on the price of supply and demand.

As such, farmers can’t simply decide to produce milk, eggs or poultry. They must first buy production quotas, much like taxis need a licence. For a medium-sized farm in Quebec, production quotas can be worth around $1.5 million. If I remember correctly, that’s for a farm with 64 cows. This $1.5-million investment for a production quota doesn’t take into account the value of the animals, the farm or the land.

That is why production quotas are considered financial assets. To indirectly undermine the supply management system through free trade agreements that open the market to imports is to gamble with the farming assets and financial arrangements of Canadian farms. It is an important aspect because the farmers go into debt to buy quotas.

Honourable colleagues, as Senator Gerba and Senator Forest explained so well, supply management of dairy products, eggs and poultry rests on three pillars: production quotas, price control and import control. It is clear that market liberalization through free trade agreements will have an impact on the price of products and on the value of the production quotas.

Supply management of the dairy, egg and poultry sectors is a complex system, especially because of the underlying regulation. This sector is very important to Canada.

According to a 2018 Library of Parliament study using 2017 data, the sector represents some 350,000 jobs, $29.6 billion in production and almost $7 billion in government revenue. There’s more, though. In 2017, the value of production quotas was almost $37 million. That is the total value of supply management, and that amount is spread out across all the provinces in all our senatorial divisions.

For example, in Ontario, quota value is $14 billion. In Quebec, it’s about $10 billion.

In the West — British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba — it’s $11 billion in financial assets. In the Maritimes, it’s $2 billion. That’s nothing to sneeze at.

When we open the Canadian market to foreign producers that are heavily subsidized by their own governments, that disrupts our system. We don’t know how serious the unexpected consequences of that can be.

That’s why I support this bill, which prevents the Minister of Foreign Affairs from making concessions during free trade negotiations. The supply management system is too complex to be part of the back-and-forth of free trade negotiations. In my opinion, it is far too valuable.

For all these reasons, I will be voting in favour of the bill, and I invite you to do the same, regardless of your position on supply management.

As you know, the vote at second reading of a bill is on the principle of the bill. The question is, do we agree with the principle of this bill? Now, this legislation stems from the general principle that we don’t want to transform our institutions, whether cultural, social or economic. In this case, it is within the context of free trade agreements.

By the way, I’d like to remind everyone that this bill passed third reading in the other place and was supported by all four party leaders.

It doesn’t seem legitimate to me to vote against this bill at second reading.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[English]

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Housakos, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ataullahjan, for the second reading of Bill S-204, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff (goods from Xinjiang).

Hon Senators: Agreed.

(Debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Loffreda, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moncion, for the second reading of Bill S-259, An Act to designate the month of March as Hellenic Heritage Month.

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Honourable senators, I note that this item is at day 15 and I’m not prepared to speak to it. Therefore, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 4-15(3), I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my time.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gerba, seconded by the Honourable Senator Klyne, for the second reading of Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: No extension is granted, and your time has expired.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Deacon (Nova Scotia), seconded by the Honourable Senator Smith:

That the Senate call on the Government of Canada to replace its outdated program delivery and information technology systems by urgently accelerating the implementation of user-friendly, digital solutions that transform the public service delivery experience of Canadians, and ultimately reduce the cost of program delivery.

Hon. Senators: No.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, we have 33 seconds left. Senator Bellemare, if you would like to answer questions, you will have to ask for five more minutes.

[Translation]

Senator Bellemare, would you like to ask for five more minutes?

Hon. Tony Dean: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Colin Deacon’s motion calling upon the Government of Canada to reform its program delivery and information technology systems by urgently accelerating the implementation of user-friendly digital solutions, to transform the public service delivery experience of Canadians while at the same time reducing costs. I support Senator Colin Deacon’s motion, colleagues. I imagine most of you do too.

I would like to speak this afternoon about the context of reforming public services more generally and to share my own experience in leading public service reforms as a former head of Ontario’s public service. I’m going to start with a public service delivery reform story and then draw some pointers that I think are important in the context of Senator Deacon’s motion.

Shortly after the first election of former premier of Ontario Dalton McGuinty in 2003, he tasked me with addressing some pressing public service delivery issues, including reducing wait times for key health care procedures, such as cardiac and cancer surgeries; improving standardized student test scores and reducing high school dropout rates; and addressing severe backlogs in the issuance of birth certificates. All of these things were subsequently accomplished. Today, I’m going to focus on the issuance of birth certificates because it goes directly to the benefits of digitization.

In 2004, colleagues, wait times for birth certificates in Ontario had reached nine months, causing analogies to be made with the time frame — you know what I’m going to say about the romantic evening. The former premier, though, was understandably not amused. Public service delivery had become a political issue. The public service team, led by former deputy minister Michelle DiEmanuele, who is the current head of Ontario’s public service, mapped the process chain and found that the birth certificate process was entirely paper-based, with applications arriving by mail in Toronto, being shipped by van to Thunder Bay for processing and driven back south to Toronto for final shipping out to applicants. Tougher security protocols, which had been tightened after the 9/11 attacks two years earlier, made things worse.

The team quickly concluded that digitizing the process could reduce processing times from months to days and reduce costs from dollars per transaction to cents per transaction. The cost was initially around $5 or $6 per transaction. It also provided the opportunity to redeploy staff to higher value-added work. I said, “Let’s do it.” I had a chat with the premier, and off we went.

In less than a year, the new system was launched after two or three offline test runs.

Wait times for birth certificates in Ontario were reduced from 9 months to 14 days, with an option for an expedited 7-day service delivery with a money-back guarantee if that was not met. This, understandably, became a popular service — and I’m not exaggerating — with complaint letters quickly being overtaken by thank-you letters, a rare occurrence in public service organizations.

What can we learn from this?

First, it helps if a transformation priority is a premier’s priority or a prime minister’s priority because that makes it a priority for the head of the public service.

Second, just like in any other organization, one of the key jobs for leaders is to identify big challenges and fix them or positively identify big opportunities and seize them.

Third, human resources leadership capacity is critical. This is a function that was and, I think, still is routinely underappreciated where it should be elevated. It is a key success factor in leading and managing change. The most important HR decision we made at that time was, instead of going out to consulting companies, to recruit a seasoned IT manager from one of Canada’s largest phone service providers who had led that company’s transition from paper-based to digitized public service delivery.

Fourth, we needed the right people working on these priorities — this was not just another job — so we assigned enthusiastic reformers who see the opportunity to change public services for the better. Believe me, there is no end of public servants with these skills who are waiting to be asked at every level of government, including the federal government. They just need to be asked and they need to be tasked.

If that was possible, what about reforming applications and access to birth registration at the municipal level, which is a precondition for birth certificates, driver’s licences, health card renewals and social insurance numbers at the federal level, which are, in turn, a precondition for passport applications, obviously, and other federal government services?

Colleagues, many of these services are now available online or in joined-up service centres such as Service New Brunswick, Service BC, Service Alberta and ServiceOntario. Other provinces and territories have similar service centres.

Colleagues, bringing Canada to this table joined up service delivery through digital means and through joined-up one-door, one-window service centres and was the last hurdle in making this multi-jurisdictional.

Following a frank meeting between Ontario’s then-head of public service and a senior minister representing the federal government of the day, the key logjam to bringing the federal government together with the province and the municipalities was solved. Everyone’s flag would be on the rooftop, and everybody’s name plate would be on the front door. That’s what it took eventually because it was about visibility, an understandable concern.

What did we learn from these reform initiatives? Just like everywhere else, leadership and expectation-setting from political leaders are important drivers of change initiatives. Virtuous reform initiatives focused on improving public services attract supporters and activists in the public service organizations, and breakthroughs happen. The tumbler locks, the combination falls into place, the lock opens, and change happens.

As we have heard, digitization reduces cost from dollars to cents per transaction.

Most importantly, improving public service delivery — and this has been proven — increases citizens’ confidence in government. Numbers don’t matter as much as consumers’, customers’ and citizens’ expectations and experiences at the focal point of delivery. They look at things like this: How long do I have to wait on the phone or in line for a public service or cancer care? Do I have confidence in my teachers? Is my kid’s school clean? How long do I have to wait for other medical services? I’ve mentioned cardiac, but what about hips, knees and eye surgeries?

Colleagues, improving public services is the right thing to do.

Lastly, I want to touch on something that is very important, particularly when we look at federal national organizations. This is true not only of Canada but also of other countries, and it’s certainly true of other federations.

Scale, obviously, matters. When we were creating this empowered service delivery organization, ServiceOntario, I wanted to know why New Brunswick was ahead of us. Why did New Brunswick beat us to the punch on this, and a couple of other smaller jurisdictions as well? It took a lot to get answers to this question. They had entrepreneurial leaders, of course, but part of the answer was that New Brunswick is relatively small, and the smaller the jurisdiction, the faster and easier it is to implement change.

Scale tends to be important internationally, too, with smaller countries and subnational jurisdictions advancing ahead of national governments. For example, Australian states, just like Canadian provinces, have been entrepreneurial in relation to their national counterparts. Those are two countries that public service colleagues and political leaders around the world look to for public service success stories. That includes at the federal level, colleagues.

The same is true in Europe. Smaller and recently modernizing countries are often ahead of their larger counterparts. Lithuania is a prime example of that, as is Albania.

But the U.K. has come a long way also — it is a large country with a large national government — especially with the digitization of passport renewals and, for a lengthy period of time, with automated income tax processing for those in regular employment.

As many of you know, regular workers earning hourly incomes and salaried employees can choose not to file tax returns. They are otherwise automated, and you simply receive a refund or an order for payment of deficits.

So, colleagues, yes, we must expect more from our federal government, and we know it can deliver. We’ve seen this with the rollout of the Canada Child Benefit, which has lifted almost 400,000 children out of poverty since 2016.

Here is another anecdote. When I was in the public service, we used to call poverty an intractable problem — too thorny to fix, too big to wrap our arms around — until poverty became too expensive. We then started to figure out how to tackle it. The Child Benefit is a terrific example of lifting large numbers of needy people out of poverty. It is the same with the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors. There will be myriad other examples.

Finally, it is important to highlight the work of the Institute for Citizen-Centred Service, formed decades ago by a group of federal and Ontario public servants, which still produces periodic benchmarking reports on key aspects of public service delivery. Some of my former federal colleagues around the room will recognize this.

Colleagues, we can be proud of our public servants working at all levels across this country. They are as hard-working and as entrepreneurial as those working in other sectors of the economy, but they — perhaps understandably — work in risk-averse environments. Colleagues, we have to send the right signals. We just have to unleash that entrepreneurial talent, and we can get, in a relatively short space of time, to where Senator Deacon would like us to be.

For every one of the stories of successful public service reform I’ve mentioned tonight there are countless more, but there is also much more to do. I thank Senator Deacon for opening up this important conversation. Thank you.

Hon. David M. Arnot: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of Senator Simons’ inquiry into the challenges and opportunities of Canadian municipalities. I thank Senator Simons for giving this chamber the opportunity to reflect on this timely and critical topic. I add my voice to those of our colleagues, using my home province of Saskatchewan as a lens to frame my observations.

As with other jurisdictions, legislation compels municipalities in Saskatchewan to provide good government, services and facilities, all while fostering economic, social and environmental well-being and ensuring public safety. These purposes seem straightforward and unobjectionable. Why do we need this inquiry?

Over the course of the summer, I reached out, met with and listened to municipal leaders. These leaders are true champions for their communities, they are committed and they are driven to serve the public. They are pursuing large projects like new public libraries, event centres and partnerships to promote post-secondary education.

Like all other municipalities in Canada, Saskatchewan’s communities are also facing real, hard truths. In addition to the kinds of projects that could be considered jewels, they are creating — partnering — to offer warming shelters in parks, rapid access programs, overdose outreach teams and counselling for children, youth, and caregivers. They are responding to the significant social, safety and economic challenges related to mental health and addictions; toxic and contaminated drug supplies; domestic violence and sexually transmitted and blood‑borne infections.

Municipal governments are increasingly taking on responsibility for long-standing social challenges, many of which are exacerbated by the rising costs of shelter, food and fuel. They are having to replace aging infrastructure that is more costly than ever to repair and replace. Municipalities are responding to these hard realities with and without the support of federal and provincial governments.

His Worship Mayor Charlie Clark, the Mayor of Saskatoon, observed that:

We currently have a patchwork of funding programs that provide very little predictability or ability to plan. Cities are being called more and more to step outside our spheres of control to meet the needs of our communities, as we take on more responsibilities being downloaded onto us.

Federal-provincial and federal-territorial partnerships have been a long-standing pathway to achieve social and infrastructure objectives. For example, the Investing in Canada Plan is a 12‑year, $188-billion investment strategy that started in 2016. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that this program has likely:

. . . contributed to increase municipal capital spending, but not provincial capital spending. . . . funding from the federal government probably displaced provincial investments . . . .

Municipal leaders are acting within — and sometimes beyond — the constraints of their mandate and resources. They are making hard choices for two reasons. One, they cannot operate with a deficit, and two, their ability to tax residents was not designed for and cannot keep pace with current realities.

Municipalities are at the forefront of service provision and their costs to operate and respond to their residents is increasing. Citizens are dealing with year-over-year cost of living increases and a consumer price index that has seen an almost 4% increase in the last twelve months. Municipalities are responding to these price increases — gas and fuel costs, for instance — and declining housing availability, which in turn amplifies addictions, mental health concerns and homelessness. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has, for example, long called for federal investment in programs that address both housing and chronic homelessness, particularly for our most vulnerable populations.

In my home community of Saskatoon, 550 people are known to be experiencing homelessness, an increase of 15% since 2018. This is believed to be a very conservative estimate. Of those, 83% identify as Indigenous and 49% said they experience chronic homelessness. Saskatchewan reported a 14.8% increase in housing starts between September 2022 and September 2023, a 1.6% year-over-year comparison.

While this is a welcome shift, the current inventory level of housing in Saskatchewan is exceptionally low. Just weeks ago, the Saskatchewan Realtors Association reported that housing inventory is the lowest it has been since 2009. The Saskatchewan Housing Continuum Network projected a need for more than 100,000 housing units by 2030 based on expected population growth over the next eight years.

To be clear, municipal leaders are builders. They are proud of their people, their community and their province. What they want is better relationships with and between their province and the federal government so that communities and people can succeed.

His Worship Mayor Charlie Clark told me that he supports:

. . . [the] exploration of a new funding and governance model for cities that will reflect the urban reality of Canada, today. [that] so much of what determines the well-being of our country — the health of our citizens, our climate, our economy, our democracy — plays out on the streets of our cities. [because, as he observes, cities] have the least flexibility in terms of revenue and jurisdictional authority to be able to address these challenges and meet the needs of our citizens. [And further,] the urgency of addressing these issues, especially in terms of having tools to address aging infrastructure needs, responding to the climate challenge, building a new era of urban truth and reconciliation, and stopping the growing crisis of homelessness and addictions.

These sentiments were echoed in a letter to me from Her Worship Sandra Masters, Mayor of Regina. She further amplified the relationship between climate change, infrastructure and resources:

Climate adaption continues to be a focus of the City of Regina as we work towards becoming a renewable, net‑zero community by 2050. Rebuilding and retrofitting infrastructure to meet net-zero requirements is no small feat and requires substantial funding. Furthermore, infrastructure renewal directly impacts our capacity to address other municipal issues of infrastructure. We value federal programs such as the Canada Community-Building Fund and the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program and would welcome direct access to alternate flexible funding programs . . . .

 — from the federal government.

The need for funding and revenue streams is common to all Canadian municipalities. Cities, towns and villages across Canada are responsible for 60% of the infrastructure in Canada.

In my province, the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association, or SUMA, has stated that projects, including critical infrastructure projects, are going over budget because of the cost of construction and labour shortages. Projects are being cancelled, and there is increased rescoping and phasing in taking place.

For example, bids for road and sidewalk improvements are 30% higher than they were in 2021, just two years ago. There has been at least a 6% increase in construction costs, as well. Urban municipalities are looking for — and use — federal infrastructure grants to meet their obligations.

Ms. Randy Goulden, President of SUMA, told me that her home community, the city of Yorkton, with a population of 25,000 people, is facing significant challenges with its water system. It has been denied funding on several occasions by infrastructure programs. President Goulden believes that longer funding time frames are needed to address the looming infrastructure gaps in urban municipalities. Together, the cities of Saskatoon and Regina represent over 40% of the Saskatchewan population of 1.1 million people.

However, the social and resource-related issues are not unique to urban settings. More than 30% of Saskatchewan’s population lives in rural areas. Mr. Ray Orb, President of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, told me that the needs of the people he serves are somewhat different. There is a focus on land, water and transportation, which enable jobs that are connected to Saskatchewan’s agricultural economy.

The drought crisis from this past summer, for example, is increasing demands to get water where it is needed. A lack of infrastructure means that that is not happening, and 70% of the available fresh water in Saskatchewan cannot be accessed for agricultural purposes as a result.

Federal programs that offer even two-thirds funding that could help with such challenges are often out of reach for rural municipalities. The one-third financial contribution required of rural municipalities is not fiscally possible because of their limited tax bases. Of all the things that would help rural municipalities, it was not programs or money that Mr. Orb highlighted. He called for better communication and better consultation, as well as direct involvement by municipalities in the federal-provincial discussions that affect them.

Colleagues, I believe our country is ready for direct dialogue. Indeed, Canada needs it. As I was told by municipal leadership:

Canada will only thrive if our cities and communities can thrive. [That it] is time to build a financing and governance model that enables that to happen . . . .

 — in a modern era.

What are the solutions? It has been argued, convincingly, that the constitutional doctrine that municipalities are “creatures of the provinces” is a legal fiction. That is, the real and prominent place in the Canadian state that municipalities hold must be recognized. I believe it is our role, as senators, to consider the practicalities as well as the legalities in this inquiry. This inquiry recognizes the real, practical importance of municipalities to the fabric of our country.

Of course, the provinces are rightly protective of their authority. It is also true that the federal government has the ability and the tools — if not the obligation — to work with provinces and municipalities. Relationships are the lifeblood of our municipalities. Good relationships ensure success. Local leaders know this.

In a municipality, no matter if you are the mayor, the reeve or a councillor, you cannot avoid questions about taxes, services or roads in the grocery store checkout line. In other words, accountability between residents and the civic leadership is part of the day-to-day; it is baked in.

Canadians should expect no less of our federal, provincial and municipal relationships. I have said many times that the health and well-being of communities is directly related to the health and well-being of all communities that comprise the whole. Canadians want and deserve healthy communities and healthy municipalities.

These acute issues need identification and solutions. I support the inquiry, and I look forward to its report.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Colin Deacon: Senator Dean, thank you for bringing your excellent experience to this debate. I wonder if you could speak briefly about the need to change policies, regulations and practices in order to achieve those efficiencies. You can’t digitize the old cow paths; you have to change how you do things. Can you speak to that? Thank you.

Hon. Éric Forest: Will the honourable senator take a question?