Senator Martin: With respect to the shortage of military housing available to Canadian Forces members, General Eyre recently stated:

. . . we’re somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4,000 to 6,000 units short on our bases, which is also accentuating the housing problem.

Leader, your government says it will spend $55 million on residential housing for Canadian Armed Forces members this fiscal year. Committing funding is one thing, but getting shovels into the ground is another. How many new homes for military families will this funding support, and when are they expected to be built?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to celebrate the fourth annual Filipino Heritage Month in memory of our dear friend and former colleague the late Honourable Tobias Enverga Jr., who had been a true champion of the Filipino-Canadian community.

The month of June recognizes the contributions that Filipino Canadians have made to Canada and celebrates the Filipino history, culture and traditions that have been passed down through generations.

Filipino history in Canada dates back as far as the late 1800s, when mostly male migrants came and worked in the fishing, mining and forestry sectors in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. The first large wave of immigrant families would follow in the 1930s. The first Filipino Canadians were mainly women who worked as teachers, nurses and those who worked in the health sector. In later years, many immigrated to Canada and settled in large urban centres with more opportunities for jobs and communities to share their culture and start new lives in Canada. And today, Filipino Canadians are entrepreneurs, lawyers, accountants and contributing in nearly every sector within our nation.

According to Statistics Canada, Filipinos are the third-largest Asian immigrant community and one of the fastest growing ethnic communities in Canada.

During this Filipino Heritage Month, June 12 will be the one hundred and twenty-fourth anniversary of Filipino independence, a date that marks a momentous milestone for the Philippines and the heroic patriots who fought to end Spanish colonial rule, a path that would eventually lead to full independence in 1946 when the strong and vibrant country would realize true democracy and freedom.

Earlier today, I had the honour of attending the flag-raising ceremony on Parliament Hill on behalf of the Senate and as Vice-Chair of the Canada-Philippines Interparliamentary Group. Together with Ambassador Robles, Rosemer Enverga and her three daughters and members of the Filipino-Canadian community, we proudly raised the Philippine flag and unfurled the largest flag you have ever seen to show our sincere appreciation for the contributions that Filipino Canadians have made to Canada, and as a symbol of the deep friendship and diplomatic ties between our two countries.

This important ceremony was established on Parliament Hill by the late Senator Enverga, one of his proudest moments as a parliamentarian and now part of his enduring legacy.

Honourable senators, please join me in remembering our former colleague and in celebrating Filipino Heritage Month. In his words:

Mabuhay ang Philippines and mabuhay ang Canada!

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate. General Wayne Eyre, the Chief of the Defence Staff, recently said the cost of living and challenges in finding affordable accommodations are the top issues he is hearing from Canadian Forces members around the country. The lack of available housing in British Columbia has gotten so bad that last month Royal Canadian Air Force members at CFB Comox on Vancouver Island were told to consider contacting Habitat for Humanity if they were having significant difficulty finding adequate housing.

Leader, Habitat for Humanity has helped thousands of Canadian families in need, but it’s the Government of Canada’s responsibility to support our military families. Why were they referred to a charity to find housing?

Senator Martin: Thank you for that. Leader, in addition to refusing to provide information on how the initial $16 million will be allocated, the three departments I just mentioned also refused to provide the PBO with information on the ongoing tasks, staffing and costs associated with the implementation of Bill C-13.

The NDP-Liberal government clearly believes that it can limit debate, and it can brush off an officer of Parliament’s request for information, but this is ultimately taxpayers’ money.

Leader, why is your government being so secretive with this information? Will the NDP-Liberal government instruct these three departments to provide the PBO’s Office with the information needed to do their job?

Senator Martin: According to the B.C. Coroners Service, 582 people in my province died by suicide last year. How many of those lives could have been saved if Canada had one easy-to-remember, three-digit hotline number that they could have called?

Leader, for well over a year now, there has been a question on the Senate Order Paper asking for basic information about the work your government is undertaking on the 9-8-8 hotline. Have you collaborated with provinces and territories? How many public servants are working on this, and is a different number, rather than 9-8-8, being considered?

These questions and more have never been answered. Why is that, leader? Is it because you have no progress to report, or is it because the suicide prevention hotline is just not a priority for your government?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate also regards Bill C-13. Last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, released a report which looks into the financial cost of Bill C-13. This analysis was conducted at the request of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. The PBO report states that three departments — Canadian Heritage, Treasury Board and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada — all wrongfully refused to disclose how they will allocate $16 million set aside in the Economic and Fiscal Update 2021 for the initial implementation costs of Bill C-13.

Leader, as Senator Plett just pointed out, the NDP-Liberal government is limiting debate on this bill in the House committee and you’re also refusing to disclose information on Bill C-13 to the PBO. Could you tell us why?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my next question is for the government leader in the Senate and concerns a topic I’ve raised twice previously, but it hasn’t yet been answered: the serious matter of a national 9-8-8 suicide prevention hotline.

In December 2020, a motion from B.C. member of Parliament Todd Doherty to create this hotline unanimously passed in the other place. When I originally asked you about this, leader, I noted that given your government’s inaction on the motion to list Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRCG, as a terrorist entity, we would need to keep pressing the government to make the 9-8-8 hotline a reality. Little did I know then that I would be asking you the very same question, today, a year and a half later.

Leader, you’ve taken this question on notice twice before, in December 2020 and a year ago, in June 2021, and failed to provide an answer. What is your government’s plan and timetable to implement a national suicide prevention hotline?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is also for the government leader in the Senate. Last week’s report from the Auditor General shows that the NDP-Liberal government continues to fail our veterans when it comes to the timely processing of their applications for disability benefits. The Auditor General found that veterans applying for benefits for the first time wait an average of 39 weeks for a decision — more than double the service standard of 16 weeks. The report stated the service standard itself has not been met for seven years. As well, Veterans Affairs Canada doesn’t know if any of the initiatives taken recently to speed up processing have worked or whether they slowed down processing instead.

(1450)

Leader, why does your government continue to do such a poor job of providing our veterans with the benefits they earned in service to our country?

Senator Martin: I’m glad to hear it is a priority. However, leader, the Auditor General found that RCMP veterans wait significantly longer than Canadian Armed Forces veterans for decisions on their applications, with a wait time of 51 weeks versus 37 weeks. Women wait 24% longer than their male counterparts to have their applications processed. As well, francophone veterans, whom you mentioned, wait 21% longer than anglophones.

These ongoing discrepancies between different groups should not come as a surprise to this government. In fact, I raised the long wait for benefits faced by francophone veterans with Minister Petitpas Taylor during Question Period last month.

Will the NDP-Liberal government ever be able to improve service to all veterans, regardless of the group to which they belong, or does your government still believe, as the Prime Minister said in 2018, that veterans are asking for more than the government is able to give?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Minister Bibeau, business risk management programs are critical for farmers, and given the rising costs of production, farmers are bearing more risk this year than ever before. It seems as though your government has no intention to make these programs more timely, predictable or bankable. Instead you’re threatening to reduce access to farmers if they don’t comply with certain practices that your government thinks they should, without even consulting the industry. As we know, your government announced plans to cut GHG emissions from fertilizer use on farms by 30% without consulting the provinces, the agricultural sector or stakeholders.

Minister, why are you more focused on limiting access to the business risk management programs than actually improving them?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader. I’m going to return to the issue that I didn’t get to fully articulate yesterday regarding the government’s broken promise to provide $3.2 billion to the provinces and territories for the hiring of 7,500 new family doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners.

According to the B.C. College of Family Physicians, almost one million people in my province alone do not have a family doctor and are unable to get one — one million. Earlier this month, the Canadian Medical Association said the lack of access to family doctors is a growing crisis, and it urged all levels of government to address the issues that are “decimating primary care across the country.”

Leader, I will try again to ask, why did the NDP-Liberal budget fail to include this specific promise to fund 7,500 new doctors and nurses starting this fiscal year?

Senator Martin: As I’m sure you know, some Canadians who don’t have access to a family doctor will ultimately seek care at a hospital emergency room. This past weekend, three hospitals that serve smaller communities in different parts of B.C. closed their emergency rooms due to staff shortages. These types of closures are becoming a common occurrence.

On Monday, the mayor of Clearwater told CTV that their local hospital emergency room has been closed so many times in recent months that he can’t even keep track of the number of times this has happened.

Leader, does the NDP-Liberal government have any timeline for when it intends to fulfill its promise of 7,500 new doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners in Canada? And how did you determine that 7,500 was an adequate number?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is in regard to what is happening in my home province — and, I think, across Canada — regarding the shortage of family physicians. Leader, during last year’s federal election campaign, your government promised to provide $3.2 billion to the provinces and territories for the hiring of 7,500 new family doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners, beginning this fiscal year. However, the recent NDP-Liberal budget failed to include this commitment. Could you tell us why?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Leader, my question to you today concerns the status of the Canada disability benefit. Last week, the other place voted unanimously to adopt a motion calling on the government to put this benefit in place without delay. The NDP-Liberal government has previously supported motions and then did nothing to implement them, such as the motion regarding carrying forward lapsed funding at Veterans Affairs, and the motion to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity.

Leader, during Question Period in December, you told Senator Housakos that the government is, “. . . reviewing this important issue.” Is this benefit still under review? If so, how much longer will the review take?

You also told Senator Petitclerc last month that you would make inquiries with the government about the time frame for creating this benefit. What answer did you receive to your inquiries?

(1430)

Senator Martin: Last month, after the NDP-Liberal government once again failed to bring forward the Canada disability benefit, Kenzie McCurdy, with the accessibility group StopGap Ottawa, told CTV:

Look how quickly CERB went out. Why do they get it within a matter of months and people with disabilities can’t be helped before a three-year study and lots of promises and delayed action?

That’s a very good question, leader. What is your response to Kenzie? Why are Canadians with disabilities never a priority for this NDP-Liberal government?

Senator Martin: Speaking of solutions, I have another issue to take up with you. According to information released on Monday from the Canadian Real Estate Association, the average cost of a home in the greater Vancouver area went up about 19% between April 2021 and April 2022. In other parts of British Columbia, the increase was even worse. Over the same time frame, home prices went up by a third on Vancouver Island and in the Chilliwack area, and by more than 35% in the Fraser Valley.

Leader, yesterday you mentioned the creation of a tax-free, first-home savings account. As I’m sure you know, your government admits that it won’t be available for another year. How does that help those who dream of owning their own home now, especially first-time homebuyers in B.C.?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, today, I’m going to give you an opportunity to provide a better answer than you did yesterday when I asked you about the lack of details on changes to the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive. Last month’s budget provided no details on how the NDP-Liberal government will change this program or when these changes will be in effect.

This is a serious matter for Canadians. April’s record inflation, which Senator Plett referred to earlier, was largely driven by the cost of groceries and the cost of shelter. In fact, Statistics Canada revealed that in April, shelter costs rose at their highest pace since 1983 — almost 40 years ago.

Leader, when will Canadians learn how you will change the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive and on what date those changes come into effect?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is also for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

During the 2019 federal election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to eliminate the swipe fee on HST and GST for credit card transactions claiming this would save small businesses nearly $500 million annually. Following the NDP-Liberal budget last month, Dan Kelly of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business stated:

Despite an election promise in 2019 and a budget commitment in 2021, no progress has been made in reducing credit card fees for small business other than yet another round of consultation.

So, leader, why didn’t the NDP-Liberal government keep this promise to our local businesses? Why are you choosing more consultations instead of honouring the commitment you made to eliminate their credit card fees?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question for the government leader is a follow-up to the leader’s recent response to Senator Ataullahjan regarding the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive. Last month’s budget provided no details on how the NDP-Liberal government would change this program, or when these unknown changes will be in effect. The budget only says the government is exploring options on how to make the program more flexible and responsive for buyers, including single-led households.

Leader, potential first-time home buyers need assistance now. If the NDP-Liberal government is intent on keeping this failed program, why are you only promising vague changes at some unknown date?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-242, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act.

I would like to thank our colleague Senator Dennis Patterson for introducing this bill, which I hope will finally help motivate the government to take action on this important issue.

Senator Patterson’s bill proposes to create a legal disincentive for companies in order to encourage them not to disconnect Canadian communities, notably rural communities, from broadband infrastructure. In my view, this bill would finally ensure what many have been advising for a long time: namely, for the government to apply a “use it or lose it” approach to the allocation and development of spectrum. If we can finally achieve that, the bill would help ensure that spectrum allocation benefits rural parts of our country.

The problem, as Senator Patterson articulated in his speech, is that too many communities in this country, particularly rural communities, lack connectivity to broadband. For telecommunications companies to deliver wireless services like cell services or wireless broadband, they require sufficient spectrum to deliver high-quality wireless services.

As Senator Patterson stated, limitations on the availability of spectrum might affect the big telcos, but it also affected small businesses that are present in so many rural communities. In our increasingly digital world, these businesses require access to spectrum to stay competitive, and this is certain to become more critical in the years and decades ahead as we advance toward 5G and beyond.

Given that many innovative businesses can now effectively be located anywhere in Canada, we cannot afford to leave major parts of our country without an effective broadband infrastructure. The problem, as expressed by Senator Patterson, is that rural Canada is not well positioned for the implementation of 5G.

A large part of the problem is that we are faced with spectrum squatting. The government is responsible for auctioning off spectrum, and by doing so, it raises money for the federal government. The money raised is significant. Canada’s last auction of 3,500-megahertz spectrum generated a record $8.9 billion, with the country’s three dominant telecom companies accounting for more than 80% of the amount raised.

What are those funds being used for? Were the entire $9 billion to be allocated toward improving connectivity, could we address many or all of the problems related to ensuring equitable connectivity in Canada? Almost certainly.

However, we are likely to be disappointed were we to attempt to track how those funds are being allocated. I fear that this revenue is simply regarded as a cash cow to fuel ever more unaccountable spending by an unaccountable government.

There is also no evidence that much of the funds being taken in by government through spectrum auctions are being used to improve connectivity for Canadians.

And what of the importance, when it comes to public policy, of holding the buyers of spectrum to account?

The problem is that there is little incentive for many of the spectrum buyers to use it within a meaningful time frame. The reality is, as Senator Patterson pointed out, that less than 20% of rural spectrum is utilized by regional carriers. Companies either do not have the resources to deploy it or they decide, for strategic reasons, not to do so.

Senator Patterson is quite right in arguing that we require a policy environment where this spectrum squatting, as he has called it, is no longer permitted. In that context, we need to also consider what the implications of this spectrum squatting are for our most vulnerable communities.

As a recent Policy Options article by James Hobart and Cindy Woodhouse explained, “Many Indigenous communities in remote areas are digitally disconnected . . . .”

The United States government recently decided to give American Indigenous communities in rural areas priority access to unused and unassigned spectrum. Should Canada follow suit? Reflecting on this question, we need to consider the harsh reality that only 37% of rural and 24% of Indigenous communities have access to high-speed internet. We know that the lack of connectivity exacerbates socioeconomic inequities, including business opportunities, employment, education and physical and mental health.

If we are being honest about true reconciliation efforts for Indigenous peoples, this inequality must be addressed, and the government must take active measures to close these serious gaps for our most vulnerable communities. Addressing this inequality gap was a policy proposal in the Conservative Party election platform last year. The platform stated:

As technology continues to advance, the infrastructure of the future — broadband and 5G — will be increasingly critical to job creation.

The platform proposed to:

Build digital infrastructure to connect all of Canada to High-Speed Internet by 2025 . . . .

Accelerate the plan to get rural broadband built.

Speed up the spectrum auction process to get more spectrum into use and apply “use it or lose it” provisions to ensure that spectrum (particularly in rural areas) is actually developed . . . .

The current government has also made a commitment to the “use it or lose it” approach, and that commitment is incorporated in Minister Champagne’s mandate letter, which specifically directs the minister to:

Accelerate broadband delivery by implementing a “use it or lose it” approach to require those that have purchased rights to build broadband to meet broadband access milestones or risk losing their spectrum rights.

So we have widespread agreement that this should be done, yet we are simply not moving fast enough, and the gap is growing ever larger. We should be under no doubt that, due to the current government’s delays, Canada now has considerable catching up to do. According to University of Ottawa Professor Michael Geist, Canada is at the low end of countries when measured by mobile broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, ranking well below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average and ahead of only six other OECD countries. Canada also lags behind most OECD countries as measured by mobile data usage per broadband subscription.

(1630)

In contrast, 5G is already being rolled out in countries like Korea and Japan to name two. Japan has officially committed itself to the efficient and effective use of spectrum allocation to meet the needs of “Society 5.0” and beyond. Korea is already working ahead to 6G considerations, with government and universities engaged in planning and the study of applications for end users.

Canada’s sluggish approach will have major implications for Canada’s global competitiveness. Spectrum is a critical resource in the economy of today and of the future. In an article entitled “Governing Connectivity: How is Spectrum Policy Impacting the Lives of Canadians?” recently written in Policy Magazine by Helaina Gaspard, Alanna Sharman and Tianna Tischbein of the University of Ottawa, the authors noted that:

Spectrum has a direct or indirect role in most areas of industrial development and economic activity. From connectivity to medicine to transport and shipping, spectrum policy — the policies shaping how spectrum is allocated to different users and uses — has implications for economies and people.

As we develop this resource to make our country more competitive, we must ensure that the opportunity is available to Canadians in all parts of our country, including in rural and more remote areas. If we fail to do so, it will impact not only our economic competitiveness but also the government’s own ability to ensure effective online services in order to meet ministerial mandates. This is already evident in the health sector.

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, CAMH, for example, has found that a growing number of Canadians seeking mental health services have been unable to receive them.

According to the Indigenous Services Canada website, mental health providers “. . . must be enrolled with Express Scripts Canada . . .” an online health management tool:

As more and more services go online, Inuit and remote First Nations will not be able to access those critical, life-saving services. To exacerbate that, a survey released by the Canadian Institute for Health Information suggests that in 2019 through to 2020:

. . . half of Canadians waited for up to 1 month for ongoing counselling services in the community while 1 in 10 waited more than 4 months.

This critical lack of internet service must be addressed for the well-being of Canada’s remote communities. As the article written by Helaina Gaspard, Alanna Sharman and Tianna Tischbein pointed out:

If Canada wants to change outcomes in connectivity, it should start with consideration of how spectrum policy links to instruments and incentives (including subsidies) for deployment.

The authors further explained that:

How spectrum is allocated should then be about more than revenue generation alone, but about achieving the intended outcomes of spectrum, e.g., connectivity for all.

This is obviously vital for many of our social and health services, but it is also critical for all other areas of our economy. And it is crucial for our rural and remote areas.

I would argue that in the new economy that is being created because of the global pandemic, where Canadians are, and will be, working from home more than ever before, this is now crystal clear. This, then, is where Senator Patterson’s bill is very useful in establishing a legal framework for the policy outcome that the government claims it wants.

Specifically, Senator Patterson’s bill would do two things. First, it would clarify the minister’s powers to ensure the minister takes away licences when companies refuse to connect at least 50% of Canadians in a given licence area. Second, it would permit Canadians to sue companies that underinvest in connectivity.

As Senator Patterson noted, while the minister already technically has the power to take licences away from companies for underperformance, this principle would now be set out in law. The law would give the minister the explicit mandate to withdraw licences when it becomes clear that the company that bought the spectrum has no intention of using it.

For the company that fails in its responsibilities, there would then be an opportunity for a community or First Nation to seek compensation for that failure to address the loss in connectivity. With that, I believe it is vital that this legal and policy environment be put in place to impact the next spectrum auction which is scheduled for next year.

There are undoubtedly many dimensions to this proposed solution that need to be fully explored, and we should undertake to doing that during committee study. Sending this bill to committee should be our focus to light a fire on this issue.

Therefore, honourable senators, I hope that you will agree to supporting Bill S-242 at second reading. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Dean, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]