Text size: 1st Session, 42nd Parliament

Volume 150, Issue 269 Thursday, February 28, 2019

The Honourable George J. Furey, Speaker

THE SENATE Thursday, February 28, 2019

The Senate met at 1:30 p.m., the Speaker in the chair.

Prayers.

SENATORS’ STATEMENTS

Distinguished Visitor in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Right Honourable Joe Clark, former Prime Minister of Canada.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of guests of the Honourable Senator Harder, here to mark the fortieth anniversary of the signing of the Master Agreement for the Sponsorship of Refugees.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Master Agreement for the Sponsorship of Refugees

Fortieth Anniversary

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, as a former public servant and now as a senator, I hold a profound belief that government can be an agent of good.

There are few greater examples of this than on March 5, 1979, when the Government of Canada signed the first Master Agreement for the Sponsorship of Refugees, with the Mennonite Central Committee. This agreement provided for a unique humanitarian response to the crisis in war-torn Southeast Asia. It allowed individual Canadians to put into action the compassion they felt when faced with the horrific plight of desperate families in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, risking everything to flee to safety in small boats that were anything but safe.

When Canadians asked, “What can I do?” the agreement provided the answer. It allowed individuals to join with at least four others to sponsor a refugee family and bring them to Canada. Faith groups played a vital role in this arrangement by assuming the liability for the sponsoring groups and providing essential support.

Gordon Barnett, here in the gallery today, the government negotiator of the agreement, had been told to be tough when he sat down with Bill Janzen, also in the gallery today, and John Wieler, also here, and others from Mennonite Central Committee.

It’s hard to be a tough negotiator when the people you are negotiating with are so obviously driven by the desire to do good, no matter how much or how little the government was willing to give. The result? The government changed tactics and both sides negotiated an understanding that allowed for each party to do what it can do best.

Within five months of this first agreement, 28 national church organizations and Catholic and Anglican diocese had also signed master agreements. As sponsorship groups mushroomed across Canada, public servants across Southeast Asia and here in Ottawa showed creativity and compassion to deliver on its government’s commitments. Immigration officers travelled to 70 distant camps on beaches, islands and jungle clearings across seven countries to identify newcomers.

It is telling that this agreement has withstood the test of time to serve during the more recent Syrian refugee crisis. Also telling is that this agreement stood the test of political change. The Conservative government that came into office in June of 1979, led by the Right Honourable Joe Clark, recognized that good policy and good deeds are far stronger than the pull of partisan politics.

One month after taking office, the Progressive Conservative government of the Right Honourable Joe Clark tripled Canada’s commitment to welcoming 50,000 refugees over one year.

Honourable colleagues, time limits prevent me from sharing more of the pride that I feel and more of the stories that one could tell. As the former deputy Minister of Immigration and as the son of refugees who were sponsored themselves by the Mennonite Central Committee, the transformative impact the Master Agreement has had on Canada the boast beneficial result, not only in the lives of 327,000 privately-sponsored refugees who have come to Canada over the past 40 years but in allowing Canadians to express so eloquently their commitment to supporting those in need.

I hope you can join me in celebrating the fortieth anniversary of the first Master Agreement. In doing so, we celebrate all the good that is Canada and all the good that is in the hearts of Canadians.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

(1340)

Yellow Wings to Victory

Hon. Joseph A. Day (Leader of the Senate Liberals): Honourable senators, next year marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of the completion of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, a plan that was essential to the Allied victory in the Second World War.

Honourable senators will be aware of the important role of the air force in the Battle of Britain to protect Britain from the Nazi invasion that never happened because of the strong air force. They will also be aware of the protection of the soldiers landing on D-Day, the air protection that was provided, and how bomber command helped bring about the end of the Second World War as quickly as we were able.

At the beginning of the war, the Allies recognized the necessity of closing the air power gap between the allies and the Axis powers. The British Commonwealth Air Training Plan sought to close that gap, and Canada became the home of that plan. Our country played an integral role, so much so that then President Franklin Roosevelt called Canada the “aerodrome of democracy.”

Over the course of the war, the plan trained more than 130,000 pilots, observers, flight engineers and other air crew for the air forces of Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and other countries. One hundred airfields and 107 flight schools were built.

The Royal Canadian Air Force itself grew from 4,000 at the beginning of the war to more than 230,000 officers and non-commissioned officers, including more than 17,000 women.

In fact, every province hosted training and support facilities in almost 150 communities across Canada. My home province of New Brunswick hosted six training schools, two depots and one operational training unit. The airports of many modern-day cities and towns, like Brandon, Manitoba, and Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, were part of that original aerodrome infrastructure. Numerous military bases, like CFB Moose Jaw and CFB Portage La Prairie, were also once part of that plan.

The Canadian Aeronautical Preservation Association represents 25 museums and two historical societies. In honour of the anniversary of the training plan, it’s partnered with Next Frame Digital Productions to create a one-hour documentary and web-based interactive educational experience called Yellow Wings to Victory. I would encourage honourable senators to go to yellowwingstovictory.ca to learn more about this interactive program narrated by Mr. Tom Cochrane, who is also an honorary colonel of one of our air force bases. Thank you.

Master Agreement for the Sponsorship of Refugees

Fortieth Anniversary

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Honourable colleagues, 40 years ago, I arrived in this country as a foreign student in the hamlet of Metchosin, British Columbia. A few weeks after my arrival, I was enlisted by the local Anglican Church, St. Mary’s Metchosin, to be part of a welcoming party for a family of Vietnamese refugees that was due to arrive. It was because of my limited Cantonese language skills.

Forty years on, that family is immensely successful, fully integrated into our society and making contributions to our country. They and many other refugees that came during that period are part of the fabric of our society and contribute in ways that we could not have imagined 40 years ago.

We have already heard the contributions of many who have made the MCC Canada Master Agreement for the Sponsorship of Refugees possible. I want to pay tribute to our own colleague Senator Harder who was a big part of that program. He was, of course, an assistant to minister Flora MacDonald, the minister of external affairs at the time, and was instrumental in shaping the program and dealing with the logistics of welcoming the so-called “boat people” to this country.

[Translation]

Senator Harder would go on to help the refugees settle into their new lives by contributing to the overhaul of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

[English]

Colleagues, as we enter a new era of refugee movements and fresh challenges in the integration of new arrivals to our country, we will undoubtedly have to grapple with complex and unforeseen challenges in this set of refugee movements in the 21st century. We should not be daunted by these fresh challenges, but instead take to heart the admonition of former Prime Minister Right Honourable Joe Clark who, when faced with similar challenges, had this to say in the 1980s: “Go out and solve it.”

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Maeng-Ho Shin, Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to Canada, Colonel Chang Bae-Yoon, as well as members of the Korean War Commemorative Committee and Korean community leaders of Ottawa. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Martin.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Korea’s Proclamation of Independence

One Hundredth Anniversary

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, on March 1, 1919, 33 Korean cultural and religious leaders in Seoul read the Declaration of Independence, marking the beginning of a historic and courageous struggle by the Korean people for independence from Japanese colonialism. It was the start of a movement that would eventually see millions of Koreans stand up to their oppressors and fight for freedom.

March 1, 2019, is the 100th anniversary of this independence movement known as Samiljeol, a designated Day of Remembrance to commemorate the brave patriots who led the movement and to honour the thousands of lives that were lost. It is also an opportunity to remember the millions of Korean people who stood together against tyranny and oppression.

The movement generated unlikely martyrs and heroes. One such martyr was Yoo Gwan Soon, a high school student who spearheaded the independence movement in her hometown of Cheonan, bravely mobilizing thousands of people. Yoo Gwan Soon, whose spirit never capitulated, died in prison on September 28, 1920, her body wracked with torture. She is remembered as one of the most courageous of the 33 patriots of the independence movement.

During this tumultuous time in Korea, Dr. Francis William Schofield, a Canadian missionary, veterinarian and scholar, stood in solidarity and support with the Korean people. Dr. Schofield was well known for his activism and was a critic of Japanese colonial rule in Korea. He provided conclusive evidence of military oppression in Korea during this period and helped gain international attention by documenting the March 1 movement.

Dr. Schofield is symbolic of the deep and enduring loyalty and friendship between Canada and Korea, and Korea remembers him as a 34th patriot, along with the other 33. He is the only foreigner buried in the Korean National Cemetery in Seoul.

The dynamic Korea of today would not exist had it not been for the love and activism of Canadian missionaries like Dr. Schofield and the selfless sacrifices made by Canadian veterans of the Korean War who fought for freedom and peace over 65 years ago.

Honourable senators, I am honoured here today to stand in the presence of Ambassador Maeng-Ho Shin and other leaders of the community on the eve of the one-hundredth anniversary of Samiljeol, and mark this historic day in this chamber for Canada and Korea. Thank you.

Master Agreement for the Sponsorship of Refugees

Fortieth Anniversary

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I too rise to add my voice to others who are celebrating a made-in-Canada idea developed four decades ago. In fact, it is such a good idea with such long legs, that it is sprinting across the globe and taking Canada’s reputation to a new high because it engages not just institutions and governments, but ordinary people who want to do more than write a cheque in the face of a global displacement crisis.

From this wonderful initiative three narratives have emerged. First is the narrative of the refugees who are forced to uproot their families, homes and livelihoods to flee violence and persecution. Their paths to resettlement requires their patience, hard work and a great deal of humility. These are and will be strong new Canadians.

(1350)

Second is the narrative of the private sponsors, from faith groups to book clubs to mom and tots groups to business associations. Their efforts propel refugees to resettlement and equip them to integrate faster and better into Canadian society. As an example, in the working class Syrian family of 12 that I sponsored three years ago, the principal member is in the construction trades and has a job. He is very close to making a down payment on a house in Brampton and, most gloriously of all, will be very soon taking out their application for Canadian citizenship.

Finally, there is the often overlooked narrative of the public servant. We know public servants went beyond and will continue to go beyond the call of duty to get refugees to safety. The notion of the public servant as a public hero is not a common thread in Canada. It is thanks to them, the refugees and their sponsors, that we stand today to celebrate this modern day nation-building success story. Thank you.

[Translation]

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Parliamentary Budget Officer

Fiscal Analysis of the Interim F-18 Aircraft—Report Tabled

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, entitled Fiscal Analysis of the Interim F-18 Aircraft, pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, sbs. 79.2(2).

[English]

Study on Issues Pertaining to the Management of Systemic Risk in the Financial System, Domestically and Internationally

Thirtieth Report of Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee Tabled

Hon. Douglas Black: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the thirtieth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce entitled Ten Years After the Financial Crisis: An Update on Systemic Risks and I move that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

(On motion of Senator Black (Alberta), report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration

Thirty-fourth Report of Committee Presented

Hon. Sabi Marwah, Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, presented the following report:

Thursday, February 28, 2019

The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has the honour to present its

THIRTY-FOURTH REPORT

Your committee, which is authorized by the Rules of the Senate to consider financial and administrative matters, recommends that the following funds be released for fiscal year 2018-19.

Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Legislation)

General Expenses $ 6,000 Total $ 6,000

Respectfully submitted,

SABI MARWAH

Chair

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

(On motion of Senator Marwah, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

Agriculture and Forestry

Budget—Study on How the Value-added Food Sector Can be More Competitive in Global Markets—Fifteenth Report of Committee Adopted

Hon. Diane F. Griffin, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, presented the following report:

Thursday, February 28, 2019

The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has the honour to present its

FIFTEENTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized by the Senate on Thursday, February 15, 2018, to study how the value-added food sector can be more competitive in global markets, respectfully requests supplementary funds for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019.

Pursuant to Chapter 3:06, section 2(1)(c) of the Senate Administrative Rules, the budget submitted to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the report thereon of that committee are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

DIANE F. GRIFFIN

Chair

(For text of budget, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 4386.)

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

Hon. Diane F. Griffin: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(f), I move that the report be adopted now.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and report adopted.)

Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association

Bilateral Mission to the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, October 7-13, 2018—Report Tabled

Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association respecting its bilateral mission to Algiers and Tipasa, People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, from October 7 to 13, 2018.

Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Committee Authorized to Meet During Sitting of the Senate

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(a), I move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources have the power to meet at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, March 19, 2019, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 12-18(1) be suspended in relation thereto.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Fisheries and Oceans

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Meet During Sitting of the Senate

Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans have the power to meet on Tuesday, March 19, 2019, at 6 p.m., even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 12-18(1) be suspended in relation thereto.

QUESTION PERIOD

Prime Minister’s Office

SNC-Lavalin

Hon. Larry W. Smith (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Harder. Going back to my question yesterday about the Prime Minister’s consistent denial of pressure exerted upon the former Attorney General, we now know according to Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony he did in fact pressure and bully her on numerous occasions to reverse the director of public prosecution’s decision with respect to SNC-Lavalin.

She said:

For a period of approximately four months, between September and December of 2018, I experienced a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in my role as the attorney general of Canada, in an inappropriate effort to secure a deferred-prosecution agreement with SNC-Lavalin. These events involved 11 people (excluding myself and my political staff) – from the Prime Minister’s Office, the Privy Council Office, and the Office of the Minister of Finance.

She detailed multiple attempts by the Prime Minister to bully her into a decision, and, when asked if she would provide these text messages, phone calls and notes to the committee, Ms. Wilson-Raybould said she would take that into consideration.

Senator Harder, given Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s detailed and concise testimony and the Prime Minister’s changing narratives at press conferences, will he testify under oath and provide evidence of his side of the SNC-Lavalin scandal?

(1400)

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): Again, I thank the honourable senator for his question.

Before I get to the question, I just want to express the relief I felt when Mr. Clark walked out so he wouldn’t see one of his former assistants answer Question Period, as I prepared him for Question Period 40 years ago. So I thank you, sir, for leaving, which gets me to answering the question.

The Prime Minister has been clear from the beginning that his concerns and the concerns shared by other political and community leaders with respect to the potential impact on SNC-Lavalin has been spoken about forthrightly and clearly.

Certainly the government is pleased that the former minister was afforded the opportunity to speak at the appropriate committee yesterday. It is noteworthy that the former minister did not suggest that she was directed by the Prime Minister, did not suggest that any illegal actions were taken, but did speak to her views with respect to the interactions she had with a number of people.

The Prime Minister previously, and again last night, disputed the claims of the previous minister with regard to the extent to which he indicated his views.

With respect to the specific question of the Prime Minister’s appearance, that, of course, is a question for the committee and for the Prime Minister himself.

Senator Smith: Thank you, government leader. I won’t get into the narrative of jobs because it seems to be a narrative that’s been consistently discussed. There are two issues here: the issue of the rule of law and the issue of dealing with executives who abused whatever rights or privileges they had in negotiating deals that were not legal. We have to be clear and distinguish what those issues are.

It was clear from the testimony yesterday that Ms. Wilson-Raybould was unable to discuss details around certain meetings and conversations she had with the Prime Minister, his staff or cabinet. For example, when asked if she could discuss why she resigned from cabinet, she said she could not. When asked if she could discuss details of the cabinet meeting that took place on February 19, she said once again she could not. When asked if she would appear before the committee again, she said she would.

Senator Harder, will the Prime Minister remove all restrictions he has placed on the former Attorney General so she can provide full and complete testimony with respect to the scandal and give Canadians a clearer picture of what actually transpired?

Senator Harder: I thank the honourable senator for his question. He will know from my response to earlier questions that the order-in-council which relieved the former minister of certain constraints in testifying provided the broad guidance for her testimony, save for cabinet confidences and any intervention which could put at risk the prosecutions that are under way. Those were the guiding principles of the directive, and it was heartening to see that the former minister respected those thoroughly.

[Translation]

Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. We’ve learned many things over the past few days, about actions and statements that you believed were appropriate. However, we’ve also learned that some political considerations were raised, like the provincial election in Quebec and the Trudeau government’s chances of re-election.

Do you also think it’s appropriate to raise partisan political considerations when the Attorney General has to decide whether to intervene in a pending case?

[English]

Senator Harder: I thank the honourable senator for his question. I don’t think he should be surprised that decision making by governments involves political considerations. I would have thought that as a member of a former governing caucus he was well acquainted with that.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: I’d like to briefly remind you of a certain historical event, if I may. In 1965, Minister Guy Favreau, who was, incidentally, the member of Parliament for Papineau, resigned as Minister of Justice and Attorney General for having allowed political considerations to influence his decision to prosecute certain individuals. Will the Prime Minister follow in the footsteps of Guy Favreau, former minister and MP for Papineau, and submit his resignation, or is it his intention to cling onto his job?

[English]

Senator Harder: I thank the honourable senator for his minute of history. Let me simply comment that the events to which he alludes involved activities which were deemed to be inappropriate in respect of an inquiry that was under way and a police action that was under way. The former Minister of Justice and Attorney General yesterday confirmed, as has the Prime Minister, that nothing illegal has taken place.

Canadian Heritage

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Last week the CRTC issued a report which confirmed what many Canadians have already experienced, that Canada’s telecom providers engage in misleading sales practices that harm Canadian consumers, particularly vulnerable Canadians, including seniors, those with disabilities and those with language barriers. These misleading practices persist even though telecom providers have in place policies which supposedly prohibit these practices. Clearly many of these companies are not able to regulate themselves.

Is it time now for a more concerted approach on the part of the government, including effective regulation or legislation to protect Canadian consumers? And when can we expect this?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for her question. She will know from the response of the minister responsible, Minister Bains, that the government is studying the report. The government has consumer protection and consumer services as its highest priorities, ensuring that the technology is rolled out to communities and is competitively priced. The minister has undertaken not only to make the review but to reflect on recommendations that he might be bringing forward.

Public Services and Procurement

Phoenix Pay System

Hon. Frances Lankin: Honourable senators, my question is to the Government Representative and it is with respect to the Phoenix pay system.

I encountered a group of protesters today. I could see from their flags that they were members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I could see from their signs that they were protesting the continued failure of the Phoenix pay system, which for listeners is the pay system that automates the payment of public service workers for their hard work and their duties performed for our benefit as Canadians.

To the Government Representative, I looked at the history of this. It was in 1989 that the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney began analyzing options for replacing the legacy pay system. I read through the history that my staff pulled together for me. They found a great site. I urge all senators to google the Phoenix pay system history, Ottawa Citizen. They have a Wikipedia page. To read it is to be sad and outraged at the tragedy of multiple governments and the inability to fix this problem.

Today I see that we are almost 30 years later, and there are still public service workers working hard and not receiving pay or having the backlog cleared in a timely way.

Would you provide us with an update and the current status of the size of backlog and any errors? As I understand it, through 2018 that backlog continued to grow. Do you have an update that you could provide us with, please?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for her question. She will know that other senators and the senator herself have raised the issue of Phoenix over the course of the last almost three years. I can report — and I’m happy to provide a further update beyond the report I’m reflecting today — that the government has taken a number of actions to ensure that all employees get paid accurately and on time.

(1410)

I can sadly say that more than half of public servants are experiencing some form of pay issues, including people in my family.

We continue to take actions as a government on all fronts to resolve these issues and stabilize the pay system. Progress is being made through collaboration and innovative processes and additional resources the government has put in place not only to remediate the technology but also to ensure that there are more pay clerks reinstated. Those pay clerks were removed prematurely, and the capacity to deal with personal intervention was decreased.

I can report that the number of transactions waiting to be processed at the pay centre has decreased by nearly 160,000 since January 2018. Pay pods are providing better services to employees serviced in pay centres. These pay pod departments have seen a 29 per cent decrease in the number of transactions awaiting processing over the same time. By May 2019, the department expects that all 46 organizations served by the pay centre will have transitioned to pay pods.

As this work proceeds, employees are also encouraged to access, if they require continued emergency salary advances and priority payments.

I should also add that, as the tax season approaches, there are particular steps being taken to ensure additional collaboration with Revenue Canada and Revenu Québec to minimize tax-related complications for public servants who have pay issues.

This is a significant challenge. The government does not underestimate or otherwise make light of the impact this is having, but is taking all of the steps and more that hopefully can contribute to both the resolution of the immediate concerns and a long-term solution to the pay capacity of the Government of Canada.

Senator Lankin: I appreciate the information about the remediation steps being taken for the immediate concerns. Of course, the long-term issue remains. As I review from the history, the legacy system came from 30 years ago, and the situation is not yet fixed.

The federal public service is one of the wonderful things about this country. All of us know people and/or have people in our family, as I do too, who serve with such pride and nobility and dedication. For them, there’s tremendous hardship through this process.

The protest today marked the third anniversary of the launch of the Phoenix pay system, so the problems that people have been experiencing have persisted for three years. I think all of us, including yourself and, I’m sure, the government, sees it as intolerable and unconscionable.

I can’t help but note the ironic nature of the name of this project. Hopefully something comes out of these ashes.

I believe we need to continue to put a sharp focus on this issue and not let it drift into the background as other very pressing issues are before Canadians and the Canadian Parliament.

Would you undertake, Government Representative, to host a technical briefing for all senators, followed by an invitation, after your consultation with the leaders, to the minister to come and to speak to us again? I feel so compelled by the workers that I met today. I stand in solidarity with them and their concerns, not only the representatives who were on the street today, but the many Canadians who serve us every day. Would you undertake to host that technical briefing for us and then invite the minister to come?

Senator Harder: I thank the honourable senator for the suggestion, and I undertake to do just that.

Prime Minister’s Office

Media Communications

Hon. Linda Frum: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate on one of the pressing issues Canadians are indeed talking about today.

In her testimony yesterday, Ms. Wilson-Raybould said Katie Telford, Chief of Staff for the Prime Minister, promised to line up favourable op-eds to give the then-Attorney General cover if she agreed to issue a directive to reverse a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Senator Harder, is that a common practice of the PMO, to instruct pundits and editors to write and publish favourable op-eds for the government?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for the question. She will know from her acquaintance with the journalism profession that those attempts are rarely successful.

Let me simply say that the former minister has expressed her views with respect to the interactions that she’s had with a number of individuals. Again, I repeat that those individuals, by her own acknowledgment, did not engage in any form of direction or in any illegal activity.

Did they express the views that they held and the views of the Prime Minister and of other representatives of the government? Did they suggest that there were appropriate ways in which the actions that could be contemplated could be communicated to the public? Absolutely.

Senator Frum: Senator Harder, something that did not happen in my days in journalism but is happening now is that this government is ready to hand out half of a billion dollars to so-called qualified media outlets, and now we see that we have the Prime Minister’s right-hand woman openly bragging about her ability to use those same favoured media outlets for political cover.

Senator Harder, how can Canadians be confident that this promised aid to the media is not a way for the Trudeau Liberals to buy themselves political cover? How can Canadians trust Katie Telford with this file or, frankly, with any other file?

Senator Harder: Again, I want to say to the honourable senator that Katie Telford is a talented woman who does her job extraordinarily well.

With respect to the accusation that’s implied in the question, the honourable senator will know by the criteria with which funding for media is being contemplated, that any direction from ministers would be impossible to achieve.

SNC-Lavalin

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate, Senator Harder.

Yesterday, we heard from the former Attorney General, Jody Wilson-Raybould, that Prime Minister Trudeau’s closest advisor and principal secretary, Gerry Butts, told Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff that to save the SNC-Lavalin file, “. . . there is no solution . . . that does not involve . . . interference.” in the judicial process.

Senator Harder, your government knew very well that what they were doing was improper, unethical, immoral and probably illegal.

In answering a question to Senator Carignan ,you said that the former Attorney General claims that nothing in the process of what has occurred is illegal, and you’ve reiterated that. Of course, the Prime Minister is hugging that like an environmentalist hugs a tree.

Having said that, at the end of the day, it’s not incumbent on the Prime Minister, you or the Attorney General to determine what is criminal or not. It is up to the independent prosecutor’s office. There’s a reason why the former government created the independent prosecutor’s office in the judicial system, in order to have arm’s-length, independent and proper scrutiny in our judicial system.

I find it terrible, especially given the fact that the former Attorney General, in the very credible testimony she gave, said she felt severe anxiety from the continuous pressure that she was receiving from the Prime Minister’s Office, from the Minister of Finance and from the Clerk of the Privy Council.

It’s incumbent on us to stop this charade of trying to determine what’s legal or illegal and leave that to the proper authorities.

My question to you, government leader, is: The resignation of Gerry Butts, is it being investigated by the RCMP, and can you confirm or deny that there is an investigation of Mr. Butts by the RCMP?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I want to say a word about the long preamble and the assertions and allegations made therein. I find them offensive, and I find the accusations contained therein to be a distortion of both the testimony of the former minister and the comments of others, including the Prime Minister.

No, with respect to the question, I can neither confirm nor deny it.

Senator Housakos: Government leader, with a heavy heart I can tell you that Canadians find the behaviour of this Prime Minister and the government very offensive. Canadians want to have confidence in their institutions, particularly our judiciary system.

Yesterday, former Minister Wilson-Raybould twice refused to say she still has confidence in the Prime Minister. That’s not something I’m deducing. It was clear she was asked pointedly by a Liberal member if she still had confidence in the Prime Minister.

(1420)

Senator Harder, how can Canadians still have confidence in the Prime Minister if members of his own caucus don’t? How can this Prime Minister still govern the country with moral authority and, after his closest friend and adviser admitted that he wanted to interfere in a criminal trial in order to solve a political problem, how could we have any confidence in this government?

Senator Harder: Again, I believe that the question as posed is inaccurate, misleading and offensive. The Prime Minister has made clear that no illegal activity or no inappropriate direction was provided. The minister, in her testimony, confirmed that. She also spoke to, in her own words — and rightly so — how she interpreted the conversations and interactions she had with a number of people.

The Prime Minister has challenged the views as expressed by the former minister.

Let me simply say with respect to confidence that I continue to have confidence in this Prime Minister.

Veterans Affairs

Communications with Minister

Hon. Diane F. Griffin: Honourable senators, my question is for the Representative of the Government in the Senate.

On Wednesday, the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs heard from the Royal Canadian Legion and the Union of Veterans’ Affairs Employees about the impact of having 17 Ministers of Veterans Affairs since 1993. In their testimony, both organizations indicated they have yet to have any request for communication or meeting from the acting Minister of Veterans Affairs, namely the Minister of Defence, despite his having become acting minister on February 12.

According to the Royal Canadian Legion, when former Veterans Affairs Minister Wilson-Raybould took over, they received a courtesy call from her two days after her appointment.

Could you convey to the acting Minister of Veterans Affairs the request of the Royal Canadian Legion and the Union of Veterans’ Affairs Employees to have a meeting or any form of communication with the minister?

Veterans and employees of Veterans Affairs Canada need to be reassured by the Government of Canada that their concerns are valued and, more importantly, addressed.

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I would be happy to do so.

[Translation]

Prime Minister’s Office

SNC-Lavalin

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: On Tuesday, I asked you, as the Prime Minister’s representative, whether Prime Minister Trudeau still had the legitimacy to govern our country. In light of the revelations of the former Justice Minister, Ms. Jody Wilson-Raybould, whom he removed from the position of Attorney General because she refused to give in to pressure and harassment on the part of the Prime Minister and his entourage, do you still think, as you did on Tuesday, that he has the legitimacy to continue serving as Canada’s Prime Minister, having so flagrantly and shamefully disrespected the judiciary?

[English]

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): Let me simply say in response to the question that the Prime Minister has both the integrity and the mandate to continue in his position and to continue with the good work this government is doing.

[Translation]

Senator Dagenais: Government leader, are you saying that you are among those who question the very well-documented facts that the former Attorney General of Canada revealed yesterday, facts that prove this to be a bona fide case of political harassment intended to obstruct the course of justice?

[English]

Senator Harder: Again, I thank the honourable senator for his question. Let me remind this chamber, as I have on several occasions over the last two weeks, that it is not unusual for ministers and caucuses to discuss different points of view on different matters, and to express honestly and directly their concerns both to ministers and amongst ministers. That is hardly a surprise in a country as vast as ours and one in which democracy and cabinet government pervades.

Let me simply say again that it is the view of the Prime Minister that his discussions, and those of other officials in his government, with the former minister were entirely appropriate and reflective of the practices within a cabinet parliamentary system.

Privy Council Office

Role of the Clerk of the Privy Council

Hon. Denise Batters: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Harder, yesterday former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould gave explosive and devastating testimony about potential corruption infecting the highest echelons of this Trudeau government, including the Prime Minister, the PMO and the Clerk of the Privy Council.

You were the head of the Trudeau government’s transition team for that new government. In that role, you not only established the framework for relations between the PMO and PCO, but you played a key role in installing Michael Wernick as the Clerk of the Privy Council.

Similar to you, Senator Harder, Mr. Wernick had a long career in the public service before his appointment. As Privy Council Clerk, Wernick was to be non-partisan. He should have put a stop to any threatened interference with a major criminal prosecution. Instead, he did the PMO’s bidding and allegedly threatened Wilson-Raybould in an effort to interfere with prosecutorial independence. His implication was clear: Find a way to overturn the DPP’s decision or lose your job.

The Clerk of the Privy Council Office is supposed to be the pre-eminent, non-partisan civil servant in Canada. He is expected to behave with the highest ethical standards and uphold the rule of law. Michael Wernick has failed on all accounts. When will the Trudeau government demand his resignation?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): In response to the question, let me simply say a couple of things.

First of all, the question is factually in error. Mr. Wernick was appointed Clerk of the Privy Council well into the first year of the government’s mandate and long after transition had been completed. But that’s not really the important point to make in this.

The important point to make is that Michael Wernick is a public servant of great distinction who has served Canada for 37 years, who knows the bounds of appropriate interaction, tells truth to power, whether that power is the media or whether that power is parliamentarians. He spoke candidly and with force. I’m proud to know him as a friend and believe he is not only a good public servant, but he serves the best interests of Canadians.

The third point I would make is that the tone of the question is one that suggests this chamber is actually not as sober in its reflection as the committee yesterday, frankly, was in their questioning.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Batters, there is one minute left for Question Period.

Prime Minister’s Office

SNC-Lavalin

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Harder, Prime Minister Trudeau is trying to minimize this crisis of corruption in his government as an internal disagreement. It’s pretty clear from her damning testimony yesterday that the former Attorney General experienced things differently.

In her capacity as the AG, she made a firm decision not to overrule the DPP. Yet for the next four months, she had to fend off repeated unwanted pressure from powerful men, including the Prime Minister of Canada, his closest adviser and best friend, and the Clerk of the Privy Council. They all tried to wear her down and change her mind.

The feminist facade of this government is crackling like ice. Why won’t the men in the highest echelons of this fake feminist Trudeau government accept “no” for an answer from a woman?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): Let me simply compliment the honourable senator on watching a movie. I appreciate that. Let me simply say that the question is great rhetoric but is irrelevant to the circumstances we’re dealing with.

[Translation]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Business of the Senate

Hon. Diane Bellemare (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: Motion No. 252, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

Indigenous Languages Bill

Aboriginal Peoples Committee Authorized to Study Subject Matter

Hon. Diane Bellemare (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of February 27, 2019, moved:

That, in accordance with rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples be authorized to examine the subject matter of Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, introduced in the House of Commons on February 5, 2019, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate; and

That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than April 30, 2019.

She said: Honourable senators, you will recall that this motion pertains to Bill C-91 and calls on this chamber to authorize the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples to study Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, which was introduced on February 5, 2019.

(1430)

We have not yet received this bill from the other place, but it is a substantial bill. It has 24 pages and 50 clauses, and raises major issues. The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples would like to have time to thoroughly examine it.

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

[English]

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable colleagues, I rise briefly today to speak in support of this motion calling for a pre-study of Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages.

This is a bill that is vitally important to get right. With this ever-increasing slough of legislation we all know about, we need the time to do our jobs. A pre-study is a responsible way of taking advantage of the time available to the Aboriginal Peoples Committee at this moment.

As critic for the bill, I will speak to it during second and third reading. I would like to take a moment to say, as the senator for Nunavut, why I think it is so important that we study this bill.

I want to tell you that, happily, in Nunavut, where 86 per cent of the population are Inuit, 75 per cent of Inuit have Inuktut as their first language. According to Nunavut Tunngavik President Aluki Kotierk, during her February 26 committee testimony in the other place, however, she said:

Every year, the number of Inuktut speakers in Nunavut declines by 1 per cent.

Current language barriers not only hurt the dignity of unilingual elders during day-to-day transactions, such as banking, where they are made wholly reliant on English-speaking relatives, but they can also cause real harm.

In 2016, the Language Commissioner for Nunavut published a report entitled If You Cannot Communicate with Your Patient, Your Patient is Not Safe, which was reviewing the Qikiqtani General Hospital, Nunavut’s only hospital, located in Iqaluit. She told the story of a 15-year-old, Ileen Kooneeliusie in January of 2017, who passed away from tuberculosis. Despite going to the local health centre several times, the severity of her condition was not caught early enough to prevent her death. Her mother, Geela, strongly believes that if health workers had spoken Inuktut, her daughter would still be alive.

That’s just one tragic story. It highlights the real-life consequences of getting this bill wrong. We need to ensure the bill protects, promotes and revitalizes Indigenous languages throughout Canada for essential services and programs such as justice, health and education, which need to be offered in Indigenous languages, where numbers warrant.

I was disappointed to hear from leaders such as Ms. Kotierk and ITK President, Natan Obed, that this bill in its present form is viewed by Inuit as largely symbolic. Indeed, Ms. Kotierk stated that “symbols are important, but they fall short of what is needed and what is called for in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report.”

I am concerned that, during this pre-study, we study the consultation process that led to the bill. Ms. Kotierk said, following the tabling of the bill, that, notwithstanding all the rhetoric about co-development, this bill shows no measurable input, despite our best efforts to engage as partners. When I say “none,” I mean “none.” This issue must form an important part of the proposed pre-study.

Honourable senators, I want to make it clear to First Nations and Metis senators, and all of us who represent Indigenous minorities in the Senate, that the Inuit, whose language is relatively healthy compared to others — although it’s eroding — do recognize that First Nations and Metis face their own language issues and priorities. They fully support their efforts to secure legislative provisions that respond to that.

So NTI, working with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, wishes to play an active role in the parliamentary committee process. I would urge honourable senators to give the Aboriginal Peoples Committee the ability to study this bill soon so that we have a chance to ensure the bill is done right and accomplishes what all Indigenous people hope it can achieve. Thank you.

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

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder — shall I dispense?

Hon. Senators: Dispense.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Federal Sustainable Development Act

Time Allocation—Notice of Motion

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I wish to advise the Senate that I’ve been unable to reach an agreement with the representatives of recognized parties to allocate time to the motion to respond to the message from the House of Commons concerning the Senate’s amendments to Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, pursuant to rule 7-2, not more than a further six hours of debate be allocated for the consideration of the motion to respond to the message from the House of Commons concerning the Senate’s amendments to Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett: Point of order. Your Honour, I’m not sure who Senator Harder is referring to, but quite frankly, I would like to tell this chamber that he, our leader and I had an agreement that we would definitely call the question on this today.

Some Hon. Senators: Let’s do it.

Senator Plett: I would like him to withdraw that motion, unless Senator Woo or Senator Day say they don’t agree and that they haven’t been able to reach agreement. But we did, and I want it on the record that the loyal opposition agreed to call question on this today.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, points of order are actually out of order on notices of motions.

However, in order to provide us a little leeway here in an effort to try to solve this matter, I’ll call on Senator Harder and Senator Woo.

Senator Harder: Senators, this is a notice of motion. If and when we get to the message on Bill C-57 and if the chamber chooses to vote today, I’d be delighted.

With respect to the discussions I’ve had — and I’ve acknowledged that with the honourable senator — they were tied to other matters with respect to other legislation with which I indicated to him I could not agree.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Colleagues, the loyal and largest parliamentary group in the Senate can confirm that I was not consulted directly at all by the opposition on this alleged deal, but it was conveyed to me via Senator Harder. Part of that deal included a commitment to have a third reading vote on Bill C-69 on May 30. If, in fact, that is part of the deal, I can concur it should go ahead.

I also concur with the idea that, when we get to Bill C-57, there is a vote today on that bill, I would implore Senator Harder to withdraw his notice of motion.

Senator Plett: Thank you, Senator Woo. You said you had no discussions with the loyal opposition. I’m not sure why you would have discussions with the loyal opposition. You may be a large group of 65 independent, individual senators. We have no reason to want to have any negotiations with you. Negotiations are directed to the government from our side, as they should be from your side. They should all be directed to the government, not to the individual groups. We didn’t have discussions with Senator Day either. It is the Leader of the Government that we negotiate with.

(1440)

I would like that notice of motion withdrawn now, because we had an agreement. And, yes, they were tied to other things, yet Senator Harder came into my office, and his words were, “We have an agreement.” I didn’t like the entire agreement, but I said, “There is enough goodwill here that we will continue to go ahead.” I want that on the record. Those were my words: “There is enough goodwill here for us to go ahead.” For Senator Harder to infer we did not agree, I find offensive and I want it withdrawn.

Senator Harder: I can confirm that I did shake his hand, that we did reach an agreement. What he has neglected to comment on is a subsequent conversation in which he interpreted the obligations on both sides to such a point with respect to the consideration of another bill that I could not agree. I had agreed to an end date for third reading. He indicated to me that was the beginning of the third reading debate. That’s not a deal. My last words to the senator before he entered this chamber were, “We do not have a deal.”

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I’m going to cut off debate on this right now. This is a matter for leadership outside of the chamber. I’m going to have the table call the message. We will see where debate on Bill C-57 goes. The notice remains on the floor and can be withdrawn at any time.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): May I ask one point of clarification?

The Hon. the Speaker: Yes.

Senator Martin: If I am correct in listening to the debate that has happened, there was a notice of motion by Senator Harder. However, when Senator Woo briefly entered debate, he referenced Bill C-69. I just wanted to clarify this motion.

I’m a little bit worried about calling the question on Bill C-57 when there’s this sort of “set in motion,” when I was under the clear understanding of such an agreement. I’ve had discussions with my counterparts. I’m worried about what will happen if we continue at this point. Could I have a clarification?

The Hon. the Speaker: The clarification is very simple, Senator Martin. The notice of motion deals with Bill C-57 only.

Senator Martin: Yes. What I’m concerned about is Senator Woo’s reference to the other bill.

The Hon. the Speaker: I’m sorry, Senator Martin. Senator Woo did not move the motion. The motion was moved by Senator Harder. It clearly refers solely to Bill C-57.

Bill to Amend—Message from Commons—Motion for Non-Insistence Upon Senate Amendment—Debate

On the Order:

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

That the Senate do not insist on its amendment 2 to Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, to which the House of Commons has disagreed; and

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

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

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker: On debate, Senator Plett.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett: I am going to take this opportunity —

The Hon. the Speaker: I’m sorry, Senator Plett, but you have already spoken to Bill C-57.

Senator Plett: Not on Bill C-57 I haven’t. I asked questions on Bill C-57.

The Hon. the Speaker: The table informs me that you have already spoken. I know you haven’t spoken on debate, but you have moved an adjournment, which basically takes away your right to speak further if that motion was defeated, as it was.

Senator Martin, do you want to speak?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Yes. Sorry, Your Honour; I —

The Hon. the Speaker: If you will recall, there were many motions put forward with respect to this, as everybody will recall, during that long night we had a couple of days ago. You, as well, are in the same position as Senator Plett.

Senator Martin: May I speak on a point of clarification?

The Hon. the Speaker: Sure.

Senator Martin: Thank you. Or could Senator Plett speak on a point of clarification?

The Hon. the Speaker: Sure.

Senator Plett?

Senator Martin: I think it would be helpful if he spoke, if it’s okay with the chamber.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Senator Martin: It’s just a point of clarification. I will speak on the point of clarification.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Martin, please.

Senator Plett, would you like to speak on a point of clarification?

Senator Plett: Thank you. I will speak on a point of clarification.

Senator Harder again inferred that this was tied to other bills. My agreement with Senator Harder — Senator Smith’s and my agreement; the two of us were in his office — clearly referred to two bills: Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. When Senator Harder came into my office and said we had a deal, I asked him what the deal was. He told me what the deal was with regard to Bill C-69. I then asked him, “How about Bill C-48?” He said, “No, sorry.”

I don’t know whether his words were that he hadn’t understood or he had forgotten, but “No, not on Bill C-48.” I said, “Do I have your word, Senator Harder, that you would continue negotiations on Bill C-48?” And he said yes. I said, “Senator Harder, I will take you at your word; and even though we haven’t finished with Bill C-48, we will support moving Bill C-57 to question today.”

Now Senator Harder is saying, because of that, we did not have a deal. That is false. I want Senator Harder to withdraw his comments that he did not have agreement with that, because he did. We will allow this to go to question today because we are a caucus of our word, even if the government is not.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, again, this really is a matter for debate outside of the chamber and between the leaderships. I know you have put a question to Senator Harder. I’m going to allow Senator Harder to reply, and then, colleagues, we’re going to move on.

Senator Harder: I’ll be very brief.

I thank the honourable senator for allowing this message to come to a vote today. What he has neglected to inform this chamber — and I’m happy to do so — is that the agreement we reached with respect to Bill C-69 had a third reading vote to be held on May 30. When I, subsequent to the handshake, discussed this again with the senator, he said that was not his understanding and that it was that we would begin third reading on May 30, to which I said, “Then we do not have a deal.”

The Hon. the Speaker: Are honourable senators ready for the question on Bill C-57?

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Harder, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mitchell, that the Senate do not insist on its amendment to — may I dispense?

Hon. Senators: Dispense.

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

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the “yeas” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker: Do we have agreement on a bell?

Senator Plett: One hour.

The Hon. the Speaker: One-hour bell. The vote will take place at 3:47 p.m. Call in the senators.

(1540)

Time Allocation—Notice of Motion Withdrawn

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): Yes, Your Honour, with the consent of the chamber, I would ask that the motion, which I tabled notice of just before the bells rang, be withdrawn.

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

Hon Senators: Agreed.

(Notice of motion withdrawn.)

Bill to Amend—Message from Commons—Motion for Non-Insistence Upon Senate Amendment Adopted

Hon. Donald Neil Plett: Honourable senators, I would request leave that the vote be cancelled and that Bill C-57 be passed, on division.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Plett: On division.

(Motion agreed to, on division.)

(1550)

Criminal Code

Youth Criminal Justice Act

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Sinclair, seconded by the Honourable Senator Campbell, for the second reading of Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Hon. Linda Frum: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Bill C-75 is an enormous 200-page omnibus bill that includes major reforms to our criminal justice system. Although one of the stated objectives of the legislation is to reduce delays in Canada’s courts, it actually does little to address what is quickly rising to a crisis situation in Canada.

The most obvious solution to reducing delays in our justice system is to fill the 50-plus judicial vacancies that remain in Canada. It is shocking that this government finds it so difficult to fill these vacancies. More shocking yet is the recent revelation in The Globe and Mail that the Prime Minister’s Office has inserted itself into the vetting process, adding a layer of partisanship to these appointments where it absolutely does not belong.

To be clear, there is no legislation required to fill the stunning number of judicial vacancies in Canadian courts. All it takes is for the Minister of Justice to get on with doing his job without political interference from the PMO.

Bill C-75 is problematic in many ways, but I will highlight a few issues that I find particularly concerning. The first is the issue of hybridization. Hybridizing serious indictable-only offences by adding summary conviction as a sentencing option is not going to reduce court delays. In fact, the Canadian Bar Association has said that hybridization “would likely mean more cases will be heard in provincial court. This could result in further delays in those courts.” So not only will there be further delays, but now certain offences against children — for instance, the abduction of children under the age of 14 and 16 — are now eligible for the Crown to proceed by summary conviction.

Bill C-75 will saddle the provinces with additional judicial cases, inmates and rehabilitation costs. Senator Boisvenu asked the sponsor of the bill, Senator Sinclair, to provide us with the cost to provinces that will be a result of Bill C-75, and we are still waiting.

Furthermore, one of the offences being reclassified in Bill C-75 is the breach of long-term supervision orders. Long-term supervision orders apply to the most dangerous sexual predators in our society. These are individuals who are so dangerous that, after they complete their sentence they are subject to a long-term supervision order for up to 10 years, allowing the Correctional Service of Canada to supervise and support them with stringent conditions. With Bill C-75, the Crown will be able to proceed by summary conviction for a breach of long-term supervision.

In essence, the government is telling us that a breach of conditions of a long-term supervision is just a minor offence. No government that truly cares about the safety and welfare of our children would be so casual about the supervision of dangerous child predators, but that is what we get with Bill C-75.

This brings me to the issue of public safety. Canadians expect our justice system to take the actions of offenders seriously. It seems to me that this bill does not prioritize the public’s protection, nor does it take the actions of offenders as seriously as it should. For instance, Bill C-75 will legislate a “principle of restraint” for police and courts to ensure that “release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention.”

Allowing the accused to be released quickly without allowing for some primary consideration of the nature of the offence, and therefore whether or not that individual may be a danger to the public, is a serious red flag for Canadians. In particular, women who experience domestic violence have reasons to fear these proposed changes. The expectation of seeing the perpetrator being released after a short sentence will deter denunciation of domestic violence. Further, Bill C-75 loosens penalties on youth offenders when they break terms of sentencing or court orders.

Current provisions from the Conservative government’s Safe Streets and Communities Act require that the Attorney General consider whether it be appropriate to make application that a young person be liable to an adult sentence if that person has committed a serious violent offence. The current provisions were requested by the parents of victims, like the father and mother of Sébastien Lacasse. Sébastien was viciously attacked and killed in 2004 by a group of 10 criminals, three of whom were minors. They bludgeoned him, they used pepper spray, they trampled him while he was pleading for his life, and then they stabbed him several times. Bill C-75 will eliminate this mandatory consideration. To me there is not a clear rationale why this government would eliminate this consideration when it is in the public interest to do so.

Along the same lines, the repeal of the provisions in the Safe Streets and Communities Act with regard to lifting the publication ban on the name of the young offender means that the community is not made aware that very dangerous young people have been released back into the community. Bill C-75 will eliminate the option available to the Crown to have such publication bans lifted in such cases. I can’t imagine why the government doesn’t leave the discretion to the Crown when the public interest and public safety is at stake.

Finally, I’d like to make two observations about Bill C-75 that relate to the SNC-Lavalin affair. It is interesting to note that this bill, Bill C-75, to amend the Criminal Code, was tabled in the House of Commons only two days after the tabling of Bill C-74, the Budget Implementation Act, 2018. It was budget Bill C-74 and not criminal justice Bill C-75 which contained the amendments to the Criminal Code to establish the principle of deferred prosecution agreements. Why was that? Why did the government choose not to include those amendments in Bill C-75 where they logically belong, but rather shove them two days earlier into a budget bill? Was it a question of a timeline, or was it because then Minister of Justice, the extremely Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, would not agree to defend the text of the amendment on deferred prosecution agreements?

We don’t know the answers to these questions, but considering recent events and Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s status within the Liberal caucus, it’s certainly interesting to reflect back on that two-day period in March 2018 and try to understand how a criminal amendment ended up in a budget bill.

It is also interesting to note that among the offences for which Bill C-75 reduces penalties by adding summary conviction as a prosecutorial option, we have a series of offences for corruption of public officials. It may just be a coincidence and have nothing to do with the current scandal surrounding the use of deferred prosecution agreements, but one thing is clear: For this Liberal government, corruption is a crime not worth taking seriously.

It is for all these reasons, colleagues, that I believe Bill C-75 is deeply flawed and should be opposed. At minimum, I hope to see it receive extensive amendment at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

The Senate

Motion to Affect Question Period on March 19, 2019, Adopted

Hon. Diane Bellemare (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of February 27, 2019, moved:

That, in order to allow the Senate to receive a Minister of the Crown during Question Period as authorized by the Senate on December 10, 2015, and notwithstanding rule 4-7, when the Senate sits on Tuesday, March 19, 2019, Question Period shall begin at 3:30 p.m., with any proceedings then before the Senate being interrupted until the end of Question Period, which shall last a maximum of 40 minutes;

That, if a standing vote would conflict with the holding of Question Period at 3:30 p.m. on that day, the vote be postponed until immediately after the conclusion of Question Period;

That, if the bells are ringing for a vote at 3:30 p.m. on that day, they be interrupted for Question Period at that time, and resume thereafter for the balance of any time remaining; and

That, if the Senate concludes its business before 3:30 p.m. on that day, the sitting be suspended until that time for the purpose of holding Question Period.

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

(1600)

Hon. Donald Neil Plett: Your honour, I have one question for Senator Bellemare.

Could you tell us whether the minister has been chosen and, if so, who that is?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): Let me take that question, because I have been part of the discussions amongst leaders.

As I indicated to leaders the week we were back, the first minister who we did not receive because of the amendment that prevented the minister from coming was Minister Lametti.

The second minister we will receive in the week we return is Minister Rodriguez, who is responsible for the Indigenous languages bill. A number of senators have expressed an interest in that, and that was conveyed in the leaders’ meeting.

Senator Plett: Thank you.

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

Hon. Senators: Question.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Adjournment

Motion Adopted

Hon. Diane Bellemare (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): , pursuant to notice of February 27, 2019, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Monday, March 18, 2019, at 6 p.m.; and

That rule 3-3(1) be suspended on that day.

Senator Plett: I apologize, Your Honour, but I thought I heard yesterday, when Senator Bellemare moved the notice of motion, that it was 6:30. This says 6 p.m. Is 6 p.m. correct or is 6:30 correct?

Senator Bellemare: Senators, 6 p.m. is correct. That was an error.

Senator Plett: Thank you.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Committee Authorized to Travel—Motion in Amendment Withdrawn

Leave having been given to proceed to Other Business, Motions, Order No. 441:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Galvez, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moodie:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources have the power to travel within Canada, for the purpose of its examination and consideration of Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Simons, seconded by the Honourable Senator Duncan:

That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended by adding the following immediately after the word “Acts”:

“, and that the committee be instructed to report Bill C-69 to the Senate no later than Thursday, May 9, 2019”.

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 5-10(1), I ask for leave to withdraw my amendment. At its meeting this morning, our committee adopted a report date of May 9, and I am pleased to say my amendment to Motion No. 441 is now superfluous.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion in amendment withdrawn.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Debate now continues on the main motion. Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Hon. Senators: Question.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett: Your Honour, I will not spend a great amount of time debating this. We are in favour of this motion. I would like some clarification from Senator Galvez, but I have to do this, obviously, in debate.

When Senator Galvez spoke against her own motion here the other day, I rose and asked her a couple of questions. One of the things I said, and I will read from Hansard:

First of all, I find it strange that you make a motion and then spend 10 minutes speaking against your own motion. Usually when you present something, you support it.

I then asked her a question:

Did the committee vote on it, and was it agreed and adopted to travel?

Senator Galvez’s answer was:

There was a motion for travel that was not supported unanimously.

I now find that, in fact, is not correct. The vote on the travel motion was in public and it was unanimous.

Senator Galvez, on February 5, at the Energy Committee, Senator Simons made a motion. It reads:

Madam Chair, I move:

That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure [the steering committee], be instructed to develop a plan for deliberations on Bill C-69, including a plan for travel to hear from witnesses, with that travel to include plans for Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Western Canada.

The chair later said:

Now we are voting on the motion, as amended. Who votes in favour of the motion, as amended?

Again, the chair:

The motion carries unanimously. That’s perfect. Thank you very much.

I’m wondering whether, in light of that, Senator Galvez would like to correct the record and say, in fact, that the motion did pass unanimously.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, for clarity, it’s out of order for Senator Plett to directly ask questions of Senator Galvez. However, it is perfectly in order for Senator Plett to enter the debate and raise as many questions in that debate as he wishes.

Hon. Rosa Galvez: I want to make three short points.

Perhaps I made a mistake. I think two people were abstaining or in opposition. However, I’m happy there are public records. I hope that in all committees public records are there for the public. I am happy that has been corrected. I am sorry about that.

Yesterday, I didn’t say at any time that I wanted senators to vote against travel. On the contrary, I did mention that it would be good for the committee to go to the small communities that have been impacted, for example, the northern part of Alberta. That is how I explain my situation.

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

Hon. Senators: Question.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to, on division.)

Girl Guides of Canada Bill

Private Bill—Third Reading—Motion in Amendment—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mercer, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy, for the third reading of Bill S-1002, An Act respecting Girl Guides of Canada.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Dalphond, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dupuis:

That Bill S-1002 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended on page 8 by adding the following after line 17:

“16.1 (1) Directors of the Corporation are jointly and severally, or solidarily, liable to employees of the Corporation for all debts not exceeding six months’ wages payable to each employee for services performed for the Corporation while they are directors.

(2) A director is not liable under subsection (1) unless

(a) the Corporation has been sued for the debt within six months after it has become due and execution has been returned unsatisfied in whole or in part;

(b) the Corporation has commenced liquidation and dissolution proceedings or has been dissolved and a claim for the debt has been proved within six months after the earlier of the date of commencement of the liquidation and dissolution proceedings and the date of dissolution; or

(c) the Corporation has made an assignment or a receiving order has been made against it under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and a claim for the debt has been proved within six months after the date of the assignment or receiving order.

(3) A director, unless sued for a debt referred to in subsection (1) while a director or within two years after ceasing to be a director, is not liable under this section.

(4) If execution referred to in paragraph (2)(a) has issued, the amount recoverable from a director is the amount remaining unsatisfied after execution.

(5) A director who pays a debt referred to in subsection (1) that is proved in liquidation and dissolution or bankruptcy proceedings is subrogated to any priority that the employee would have been entitled to and, if a judgment has been obtained, the director is

(a) in Quebec, subrogated to the employee’s rights as declared in the judgment; and

(b) elsewhere in Canada, entitled to an assignment of the judgment.

(6) A director who has satisfied a claim under this section is entitled to recover from the other directors who were liable for the claim their respective shares.”.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to an important amendment that our esteemed colleague Senator Dalphond has raised and ask that it be adopted into Bill S-1002, An Act respecting Girl Guides of Canada.

Senator Dalphond’s amendment introduces a provision that applies to all other non-profit organizations and mirrors key protections that are incorporated under a critical piece of legislation, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act.

More specifically, Senator Dalphond’s amendment provides the 175 employees of Girl Guides of Canada with the same protection as employees of other non-profit corporations across Canada.

The Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation that provides thousands of Canadian not-for-profit institutions with legal protections essential to their governance. Including these provisions in Bill S-1002 will allow the Girl Guides of Canada-Guides du Canada equal footing as other similar modern institutions.

Senator Dalphond’s amendment also fulfils an understanding that was reached when Bill S-1002 was studied in the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee.

In committee, Senator Dalphond raised an important point that he posed to the officials of Girl Guides of Canada-Guides du Canada. Allow me to read a quote from the committee.

You made a compelling case for having a special piece of legislation. I can relate to the historical reasons and things you want to preserve, but you have carefully included provisions from Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act in your bill. They are word for word, with no change, but some are missing. A missing one that is of concern to me is the one related to unpaid wages and salaries. . . . I don’t understand why you have not reproduced in your bill the provision dealing with the liability of the director for wages and removing protections for the 175 employees of the corporation.

(1610)

In her response, director of governance for Girl Guides of Canada, Ms. Brenda Abrams, relayed to the committee that Girl Guides of Canada/Guides du Canada does not in any way oppose these protections from being included in Bill S-1002.

Honourable senators, Girl Guides Canada/Guides du Canada are in agreement with this amendment. In fact, they are in favour of taking extra precautionary measures to ensure they remain transparent and accountable to their employees.

I thank Senator Dalphond for helping to improve the bill and, more importantly, for protecting the rights of employees. Thank you, Senator Dalphond.

I ask honourable senators to adopt this motion into the bill to ensure that the employees of Girl Guides of Canada/Guides du Canada enjoy the same protections as other not-for-profit corporations.

(On motion of Senator Day, for Senator Mercer, debate adjourned.)

Emancipation Day Bill

Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bernard, seconded by the Honourable Senator Forest, for the second reading of Bill S-255, An Act proclaiming Emancipation Day.

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at second reading of Bill S-255, the Emancipation Day Act.

I hadn’t intended to speak about this legislation, in part because I felt our colleague and the sponsor of this bill, Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard, is such an outstanding voice on issues affecting African Canadians. Additionally, the broader human rights work she has done and continues to do is intimidatingly impressive. With a voice like that in this debate, what could I possibly add?

Of course, that is exactly the point.

Part of this bill’s preamble notes that:

. . . it is appropriate to recognize August 1 formally as Emancipation Day and to observe it as a poignant reminder of an abhorrent period in Canada’s history in order to allow Canadians to reflect upon the imperative to continue to commit to eliminating discrimination in all its forms . . .

It is equally important for those of us who have not and do not personally experience the effects of racism in their daily lives to reflect on these issues.

Senator Bernard was recently featured in a video on the Senate website. She was in conversation with one of our pages, O’Neal Ishimwe, discussing issues of race and identity in honour of African Heritage Month.

It’s a powerful video and I encourage all honourable senators to watch it. I must admit that it forced me to acknowledge my own privilege and, quite frankly, my own ignorance.

O’Neal spoke candidly and matter-of-factly about his reality: that as a young Black man he is always thinking about his race, about where he is walking, how he is walking and how he is dressed. Real life realities require him to always be thinking about these things in Canada, in Ottawa, in this day and age. It was a stark reminder that I do not, and have not, had those thoughts. I was grateful to see how O’Neal described an important reality of his daily life in a way that so jarringly contrasted with my own reality.

During this video, Senator Bernard and O’Neal discuss the importance of recognizing African Heritage Month specifically, and the difference between African Heritage Month and Black History Month. Yes, it is important to celebrate Black History. However, in Nova Scotia we recognize African Heritage in order to connect the realities faced by Black Canadians today to their ancestors’ enslavement, emancipation and survival. Honouring history helps us to build a more inclusive future.

Senator Mégie was also featured in a similar video with another of our wonderful pages, Priscilia Odia Kabengele. Their conversation was inspirational on every level and gave me hope that, when and where open minds exist, great opportunity flows for all Canadians.

Canadians like myself will also benefit from commemorating this historic day as it encourages us all to reflect on the imperative to commit to eliminating discrimination in all its forms. Those of us who do not face racial discrimination on a daily basis are not only privileged, but are the ones who must help spur change.

While I believe it is important for allies to spend more time listening than speaking, I also feel compelled to stand up and advocate for change. I would like to take a few minutes to reflect on our shared history and how far we still have to go.

As Canadians, I think we like to believe that we are good people. I like to believe that we are good people. We can be kind and compassionate and we are certainly full of a lot of “pleases,” “thank yous” and “I’m sorrys.” We must also acknowledge that, while this bill commemorates the abolition of slavery, we as Canadians are certainly not yet in a position to celebrate the abolition of racism in our country.

I grew up learning, with pride, that Black Loyalists fleeing the United States for Canada were given land so that they could escape to safety and build a life and that Canada was the safe destination at the end of the Underground Railroad. I was taught these heartwarming headlines. I slowly — much too slowly — came to learn that the details are not nearly so comforting.

In her sponsor’s speech, Senator Bernard reminded us all of Africville, a Black community in Halifax’s North End, established in 1749, the same time as our city. Starting in 1964, its residents were forcibly removed, suffering the trauma of seeing their homes bulldozed and their community demolished.

I say “reminded,” but I know there are many Canadians, particularly those outside of Nova Scotia, who may not have heard of Africville, nor learned of it in school. I was one of those Canadians, growing up in rural Ontario. This, too, is an example of the persistent racism that can be found in Canada: Whose stories are being told? Whose voices are we hearing? How can we do better? Bill S-255 provides an opportunity to address these important questions on an ongoing basis.

About nine years ago, the Mayor of Halifax finally offered a formal apology to the former residents of Africville and their descendants, noting that:

The repercussions of what happened to Africville linger to this day.

It is equally important to note that it is not just the repercussions which linger, but to understand that the root causes, including institutionalized and environmental racism, are still far too prevalent.

Africville may be one of the most visceral examples of the displacement of Black communities, but it is by no means the exception.

I was surprised when, in 2015, students at the Nova Scotia Community College launched an investigation into land titles in North Preston, a community of predominantly African-Nova Scotian residents near Halifax. I was surprised because what these students discovered, with shocking details, was that many families, who have lived on their land for centuries, don’t have a legal title and therefore are paying taxes on land that they cannot legally sell, they cannot mortgage and cannot will to their descendants.

Through the efforts of these students, national and even international attention was generated and it spurred the Government of Nova Scotia to help fund an initiative to assist these residents to get clear title to the land on which they live and on which their ancestors lived before them.

Honourable senators, that work is still ongoing. It remains a slow and frustrating process and should not be a situation that Canadians have to deal with in 2019.

These are not the only types of land issues that are happening in Black communities in Nova Scotia. As with many other places, gentrification is playing a role in the displacement, yet again, of African-Nova Scotians from their communities.

North End Halifax is one example, where changing demographics have resulted in marginalization, with the existing residents feeling pushed out of their own community.

Of course, simply having land rights or a community does not insulate one from other forms of racism.

Birchtown, a community on Nova Scotia’s South Shore, is where many Black Loyalists settled after the American Revolution. This area is the genesis of Black history in Nova Scotia and I understand that Senator Bernard’s family heritage in East Preston also reaches back to those earliest days of our province’s history.

In her speech on Bill S-255, Senator Coyle made reference to Birchtown being the largest settlement of free Blacks in North America, named after Brigadier General Samuel Birch, who was responsible for the creation of the Book of Negroes. As Senator Coyle told us:

. . . the good land went to the White Loyalists and the Black Loyalists were not given what had been promised to them.

Many left and resettled in Sierra Leone but those who stayed built a community there, one that was rich with history. A complicated history, yes, but still part of our history.

And yet in 1963, when Birchtown residents sought historical designation for their community, they were denied. Denying history may bring comfort to some, but causes further pain to those whose legitimate place in that history is not being recognized.

(1620)

In 1991 the Black Loyalist Heritage Society was incorporated. The same year saw an archaeological discovery of thousands of artifacts from the late 18th century. Finally, in 1996 the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board erected a plaque that recognized Birchtown as a “...proud symbol of the struggle by Blacks in the Maritimes and elsewhere for justice and dignity.”

Sadly, the struggle continues to this day. The Shelburne African Nova Scotia community is the site of a current research project into water-quality issues. Anecdotal evidence of the effect of the former Shelburne dump on the community is disconcerting. Louise Delisle, one of the members involved in the South End Environmental Injustice Society, doesn’t mince words when she says:

The majority of the Black men in the community have died of cancer. There’s a community of widows in Shelburne. That’s what it is.

I’m glad that work is now being done to investigate the effects of that dump on the community. Ms. Delisle cited the dump in a compelling CBC story last spring as yet another example of environmental racism. The more we learn from our past, the better equipped we are to proactively avoid these mistakes, rather than reactively deal with their fallout.

I’m grateful to my colleague Senator Bernard and hope to continue to benefit from her guidance in how I can contribute to the fight for justice which should not be an issue in a country that prides itself in being committed to the rule of law, respectful for all and to fulfilling the promise of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms adopted almost 37 years ago.

Honourable senators, today we’re still in Nova Scotia African Heritage Month — in the last minutes of it. The theme for this year is, “Our history is your history.” I can think of no better phrase to articulate why it is so important for us to recognize Emancipation Day and the extensive work that remains in order that we fulfill the promise of that Act, 185 years hence.

I was inspired to learn that we may be making progress when it comes to what our kids are learning. Recently, a group of junior high school students in Cole Harbour had the opportunity to learn more about the racism and injustice that some are experiencing. That is something I could have benefitted from 45 years ago when I was in junior high school. A Grade 9 student ably summed up the importance of expanding how we teach. She said:

When I asked my social studies teacher about the things we are learning, she said that it’s important to teach history so that history doesn’t repeat itself. But they never teach you about black history so I think if they did, there wouldn’t be as many racial issues.

Bill S-255 seeks to address this very point. Let’s ensure that we recognize our shared past so we can build a more inclusive future.

While I focused my remarks today on my own province of Nova Scotia, these issues are relevant to all of our provinces and territories. Honouring Emancipation Day nationally will not just be a day for African-Canadians; it’s a day for all of us.

I identify my own reflection in watching Senator Bernard’s interview with O’Neal as evidence of our collective job and how it is far from being done.

The Senate has a role in protecting marginalized groups and giving them a voice in Parliament. This is literally our job. This being Black History Month, I can think of no better celebration than for this Chamber to send this bill to committee and accept our collective responsibility and history. Thank you very much.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Victor Oh: Honourable senators, I rise on this last day of Black History Month, celebrated by Canadians every February, to speak on second reading of Bill S-255, an act proclaiming emancipation day. I thank Senator Bernard for introducing this important bill.

As Senator Bernard noted, it has been 184 years since the Slavery Abolition Act was passed. We are now in the International Decade for People of African Descent.

Bill S-255 designates August 1 as emancipation day to commemorate the abolition of slavery in Canada. Senator Bernard says:

Emancipation day is about learning our collective history — not rewriting the history, but telling a more complete history that includes the history of slavery in Canada.

As with the Black community, the contributions made and hardships suffered by many minorities in Canada were essentially erased from the pages of history. A more complete history should include those stories. Karen Cho is a fifth-generation Canadian of mixed heritage and film-maker of an award-winning film, “In the Shadow of Gold Mountain.” She stated that not one of her history books or social studies classes mentioned anything about the Chinese in Canada. As far as she knew, her Chinese side was the most foreign and least Canadian thing about her. This absence of the Chinese story in the narrative of Canada is both a symptom of history being told by those with the most power and privilege in society, and also the residue of the head tax and exclusion act’s dark legacy.

For long periods in our history, Black Canadians have been subject to slavery and discrimination. Unfortunately, even today, issues of unconscious bias, systemic discrimination and racist micro-aggressions persist. According to the 2018 PSAC’s Black History Month statement, Black Canadians make up only 3 per cent of the general population, but represent 10 per cent of the Canadian federal prison population Canadian federal prison population.

Black students face higher rates of suspensions and expulsions than other students. From 2015 to 2016, Black students in Halifax represented only 8 per cent of the total student body, but received 22.5 per cent of the total suspensions.

During the 2015 school year in Toronto, Black students represented 50 per cent of the expulsions while only 10 per cent of expulsions went to white students.

Black women in Canada face an unemployment rate of 11 per cent, which is more than double the national average. They earn $0.63 for every dollar earned by White men and $0.85 for every dollar earned by White women.

On April 12, 2018, the Ontario Human Rights Commission released a report entitled, “Interrupted childhoods: Over-representation of Indigenous and Black children in Ontario child welfare.” The OHRC inquiry found that Black children and youths are over-represented in admissions into care in many agencies in Ontario. By contrast, White children tended to be under-represented in the child welfare system.

The long-term damage caused by separating children from their family is undeniable. Concerns of racism and racial profiling are not figments of our imaginations. The statistics prove this. They are real.

(1630)

This is precisely why I support S-255, to help facilitate education, examine systemic racism and work to improve the lives of all Canadians.

This bill also provides a great platform to honour the story of everyday heroes of African descent across our nation. It is an opportunity to celebrate the values of perseverance and dignity that have defined the Black community in Canada for generations.

We can all agree on the importance of remembering the legacy and contribution made by Black Canadians in all areas of society. In public office, I’m very proud of my party’s own legacy. For example, the Honourable Lincoln Alexander who, over 50 years ago, became the first Black member of Parliament and went on to serve as the first Black cabinet minister. Later, of course, he served as lieutenant governor of the province of Ontario.

I also think of Douglas Jung, a decorated member of the Canadian Armed Forces, who was elected as the Conservative member of Vancouver Centre in 1957, the first Canadian of Chinese descent to serve as a member of Parliament. In fact, the first visible minority to serve in Parliament.

These are two examples of many here in Canada which characterize the pride, strength and dignity that have driven Canadians of diverse backgrounds to realize their ambitions in all fields of endeavour. Canada has been an arena where many groups of people have struggled for acceptance. As a member of the Chinese Canadian community, we know this all too well.

2019 marked 72 years since the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act — the only law in Canadian history to bar a specific ethnic group from coming to Canada. This community, which helped build the Pacific railway, faced exclusion once the railway was completed. Despite state-sanctioned discrimination, hundreds of Chinese Canadians fought in the Second World War in the Canadian Army, even though they were barred on racial grounds from joining the Royal Canadian Air Force and Royal Canadian Navy.

As for Black Canadians, many former slaves and Black Loyalists who fought on the Canadian side during the War of 1812 settled in places like Nova Scotia and southwestern Ontario where they and their descendants formed communities and 