Text size: 1st Session, 42nd Parliament

Volume 150, Issue 216 Wednesday, June 6, 2018

The Honourable George J. Furey, Speaker

THE SENATE Wednesday, June 6, 2018

The Senate met at 2 p.m., the Speaker in the chair.

Prayers.

Diplomatic Relations with Iran

SENATORS’ STATEMENTS

Hon. Linda Frum: Honourable senators, on June 3, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei posted a tweet calling for the genocide of the Jewish people. The tweet read, “Our stance against Israel is the same stance we have always taken. Israel is a malignant cancerous tumour in the west Asian region that has to be removed and eradicated: it is possible and it will happen.”

This reprehensible call demonstrates yet again the depravity of the Iranian regime. Honourable senators, these were not hollow words. Yesterday the Palestinian Authority acknowledged that Tehran is fully financing and coordinating the deadly Hamas incursions on the Gaza border. This includes the most recent tactic of attaching fire bombs to kites in Gaza and launching them into Israeli farmland, causing millions of dollars in damage and putting Israeli lives at risk.

If this was not troubling enough, in an act of blackmail, the head of Iran’s atomic agency confirmed that Ayatollah Khamenei ordered officials to step up uranium enrichment if the JCPOA nuclear deal fails.

Combined, these recent events should form a strong reminder, if one was needed, that the current regime in Iran is not one worthy of re-engagement negotiations and is not one that should ever be described as moderate. It is clear that the decision of the Government of Canada to sever diplomatic ties in 2013 was the right one.

I ask all honourable senators to join me in demanding that the Government of Canada continue to suspend ties with Iran until such time as there is a regime change.

The Late Dwight Dorey

Hon. Dan Christmas: Honourable colleagues, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of the late Dwight Dorey, a fellow Nova Scotian, a proud Mi’kmaq activist and a distinguished leader who made an indelible mark on Indigenous public policy in this country.

It has been said that “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.” I can tell you that pretty much sums up the life and times of Dwight Dorey.

I first met Dwight over 30 years ago in Nova Scotia, where he served then as the Vice-President of the Native Council of Nova Scotia. In 1985, the Supreme Court of Canada had just ruled in its Simon decision, which ultimately asserted and affirmed Mi’kmaq treaty rights for the first time in Canadian history.

Dwight was one in a small group of Mi’kmaq leaders who were seeking to have our treaty rights recognized and implemented. We were all facing an uphill battle in dealing with the problems with Nova Scotia at the time, and we had been working without success through diplomatic channels. Finally, in the face of continued resistance from the provincial government, Dwight passionately convinced the Mi’kmaq leadership to undertake its own peaceful moose harvest protest, resulting in his own arrest and that of 15 other Mi’kmaq harvesters.

In the midst of their lengthy trial, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ruled in another treaty rights case of some Mi’kmaq fishermen that had resulted in the affirmation of the Aboriginal right to fish for food.

Dwight got the ball rolling, convinced others to join the crusade, and the resulting critical mass helped change the future of the Mi’kmaq Nation in Nova Scotia.

Such passion and determination seem a long way off from Dwight’s humble beginnings. Born in rural Nova Scotia, he was a high school dropout who, when later choosing to follow a path in Indigenous politics, decided to pursue higher education and obtained a master’s degree in Canadian studies from Carleton University.

His career in Indigenous politics was a prolific one, in his capacity as Vice-President of the Native Council of Nova Scotia, as band councillor for his home community of Millbrook First Nation, and then serving a total of four terms as the National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

It was while at CAP that Dwight was instrumental in shepherding the case of Daniels v. Canada on behalf of his predecessor at CAP, the late Harry Daniels. Dwight was on the steps of the Supreme Court of Canada the day the court issued its decision in the Daniels case in 2016 — a truly historic ruling for non-status and Metis people in Canada.

But Dwight’s greatest legacy will be his warmth, his kindness, his mirth and his kind and caring heart. Also, we give thanks for his incredible courage as he bravely faced the scourge of ALS, which took him from us far too soon.

He leaves behind his grown children, Crystal and Christopher, and friends too numerous to number, both at home in Nova Scotia and here in Ottawa, his home away from home.

Godspeed, Dwight Dorey. Wela’lioq.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Christmas spoke in Mi’kmaw.]

You will always live on in the hearts and memories of your Mi’kmaq brothers and sisters.

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Ms. Sonia L’Heureux, Parliamentary Librarian of Canada, who will be retiring later this month. She is accompanied by her spouse, Gerry Davies.

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Indigenous youth leaders of “Indigenize the Senate 2018”: Colette Trudeau of British Columbia, Spirit River Striped Wolf of Alberta, Rae-Anne Harper of Saskatchewan, Amanda Fredlund of Manitoba, Theoren Swappie of Quebec, Kayla Bernard of Nova Scotia, Kieran McMonagle of Ontario, Bryanna Brown of Newfoundland and Labrador and Ruth Kaviok of Nunavut. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Dyck.

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Youth Indigenize the Senate 2018

Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck: Honourable senators, it is my pleasure to introduce some very special guests in the gallery today. The Aboriginal Peoples Committee is launching the third edition of our Youth Indigenize the Senate program, which brings young Indigenous community leaders from across the country to Ottawa so that we can listen to them and learn from their experiences. This year they will be helping us with our committee’s study on the nature of a new relationship between Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples.

Spirit River Striped Wolf is a 24-year-old First Nations man from Alberta and a political science student at Mount Royal University in Calgary. He is an advocate for indigenizing on entrepreneurship. He is heavily involved in his community campus, including through the Iniskim Centre, which increases awareness of distinct Indigenous cultures and offers services to support Indigenous students.

Rae-Anne Harper is a Plains Cree woman with Metis roots from Onion Lake Cree Nation in Saskatchewan. Completing a Native studies degree in Lloydminster, she is president of her Aboriginal youth council and coordinates youth programs and camps for at-risk, urban Indigenous youth.

Amanda Fredlund is Dene from Manitoba and is the Co-President of the University of Manitoba’s Aboriginal Students Association. An accomplished and published photographer majoring in Native studies, she has been the driving force behind countless workshops and celebrations of Indigenous cultures, including pow-wow demonstrations and sweat lodges.

(1410)

Kieran McMonagle is a 28-year-old Metis woman and a graduation coach with the Keewatin Patricia District School Board in western Ontario, whose work supports over 300 Indigenous students and families. She draws inspiration from her making positive change for Indigenous youth, and this year she will see her first cohort of students graduate.

Bryanna Brown, a 20-year-old Inuk woman, has worked with Indigenous groups in her home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, including with the Traditions and Transitions Research Partnership and the Labrador Aboriginal Training Partnership. She is active in her community and has helped to organize an international Inuit research conference.

Spirit River, Rae-Anne, Amanda, Kieran and Bryanna, welcome to the Senate of Canada.

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of May Teague and Russell Teague. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator McCallum.

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Youth Indigenize the Senate 2018

Hon. Sandra M. Lovelace Nicholas: Honourable senators, I also would like to rise to welcome the Indigenous youth leaders who have generously agreed to join us here so we can benefit from their wisdom and experiences. Please excuse me if I mispronounce your names. I will apologize now.

Theoren Swappie is an 18-year-old First Nations man who overcame a difficult upbringing to become a role model for young people in his community in northern Quebec. He works at Naskapi Radio and participates in healing and youth activities as often as possible.

Ruth Kaviok is a 20-year-old Inuk woman from Nunavik on the western rim of Hudson Bay. She was the Inuktitut valedictorian of her high school and winner of Samara’s Everyday Political Citizen award. She is creating a plan for a hydroponics greenhouse business to provide for a community with affordable, fresh produce.

Colette Trudeau is a Metis musician from Matsqui, British Columbia. As program director for the Métis Nation of British Columbia, she works to ensure the sustainability of the Metis Nation through youth governance and the creation of community-based programs and services.

Kayla Bernard is a 22-year-old First Nations woman from Ontario. She is a mental health advocate as well a strong supporter of youth and Indigenous peoples. The Dalhousie University student hopes to use her education to bring her therapeutic recreation training to isolated communities across Canada. She shares her own personal struggle with youth and shows them there is always hope.

Theoren, Ruth, Colette and Kayla, welcome to the Senate of Canada.

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Tim Jackson. He is accompanied by members from SHAD. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Deacon.

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

SHAD Program

Hon. Marty Deacon: Good afternoon, honourable senators. Today I rise to welcome and share the arrival of the leadership team and student alumni of SHAD to the Senate of Canada.

SHAD is an organization you might all like to know about. It is an award-winning enrichment and entrepreneur program, and network, that empowers exceptional high school students at a pivotal point in their secondary education. Each student will have the opportunity to recognize their own capabilities and envision their extraordinary potential as tomorrow’s leaders, disruptors and change-makers.

How does SHAD do this? Each year, SHAD provides the opportunity for more than 900 students from across Canada and internationally to attend their STEAM-based — science, technology, engineering, arts and math — month-long program. That is 30 days of amazing young people challenging each other, away from home, and truly having the opportunity to take risks and make mistakes while learning.

Each student visits a new part of Canada, experiences life at university and even learns how to found a start-up.

I have attended SHAD before. It is an academic, leadership and high-energy magical mix.

These high school students are in residence in one of your Canada host universities. When finished, these students become part of an impressive SHAD network. I have spoken to students whose academic lives were changed by this experience over 25 years ago. This student network now totals 16,300 students, including 32 Rhodes Scholars, 44 Schulich Leaders, 88 Loran Scholars, as well as prominent entrepreneurs, industry leaders and accomplished professionals.

SHAD started 38 years ago. I recall well providing a young student in 1980 with her first letter of support. SHAD is based in my home community of Waterloo, Ontario.

SHAD demonstrates care and inclusion for all Canadians, something every senator thinks about. SHAD utilizes funding to underserved communities from coast to coast to coast. They work in Indigenous, rural, remote and inner-city communities, leaving no stone unturned for our young Canadians.

They are early in this part of their work, with the goal of this award-winning enrichment and entrepreneurship program to fully mirror, represent and include all corners of this vast country and to support students who would not otherwise be part of this.

As senators, we thank SHAD and the Government of Canada in supporting this work.

SHAD leaders and ambassadors are on the Hill. Please come and meet these fine young people at a reception at 5 p.m. on the second floor here in the Senate Banking Room.

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Chief Manny Jules, Mr. Brent Moreau, Mr. Hezakiah Oshutapik, Mr. Markus Wilcke and Mr. Harold Calla. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Patterson.

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Aboriginal Peoples

Budget—Study on a New Relationship Between Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Metis Peoples—Thirteenth Report of Committee Presented

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, presented the following report:

Wednesday, June 6, 2018

The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples has the honour to present its

THIRTEENTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized by the Senate on Thursday, December 15, 2016, to study the new relationship between Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, respectfully requests 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,

LILLIAN EVA DYCK

Chair

(For text of budget, see today’s Journals of the Senate, Appendix, p. 3607.)

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

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

(1420)

Gender Equality Week Bill

Eleventh Report of Human Rights Committee Presented

Hon. Wanda Elaine Thomas Bernard, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, presented the following report:

Wednesday, June 6, 2018

The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights has the honour to present its

ELEVENTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-309, An Act to establish Gender Equality Week, has, in obedience to the order of reference of May 3, 2018, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

WANDA ELAINE THOMAS BERNARD

Chair

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

(On motion of Senator Dawson, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

Transport and Communications

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Extend Date of Final Report on Study of Emerging Issues Related to its Mandate and Ministerial Mandate Letters

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

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Tuesday, October 31, 2017, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications in relation to its study on emerging issues related to its mandate and ministerial mandate letters be extended from June 30, 2018 to June 28, 2019.

[Translation]

National Security and Defence

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Deposit Report on Study of Issues Relating to Creating a Defined, Professional and Consistent System for Veterans as they leave the Canadian Armed Forces with Clerk During Adjournment of the Senate

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate, no later than June 22, 2018, a report relating to its study on issues relating to creating a defined, professional and consistent system for veterans as they leave the Canadian Armed Forces, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Chamber.

[English]

QUESTION PERIOD

Foreign Affairs and International Trade

NAFTA Negotiations

Hon. Larry W. Smith (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question, of course, is for the government leader in the Senate concerning the system of supply management.

During his interview with NBC “Meet the Press” on Sunday, the Prime Minister was asked whether Canada would be willing to give the U.S. greater access to our agricultural sector, including dairy. The Prime Minister stated:

We’re moving towards, you know, flexibility in those areas that I thought was very, very promising.

In an open letter to the Prime Minister published on Monday, the Dairy Farmers of Canada called these comments deeply troubling. The current government has stated its support for supply management, just as previous governments have also done.

Could the government leader tell us if that support still extends to the dairy sector? When the Prime Minister talks about flexibility, could you tell us what he means?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for his question. Clearly, it’s in reference to the negotiations under way — and that have been for some time now — to renew and refurbish the NAFTA agreement. The Prime Minister has indicated publicly and reflected the views publicly, as other ministers have, that the Government of Canada is determined, while modernizing the NAFTA, to protect Canada’s interests, and that’s what the Government of Canada is vigilant in doing in these negotiations.

Senator Smith: Thank you, leader. The government leader may remember that on October 1, I asked him about comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs that, on dairy and poultry, Canada has “room to negotiate.”

It was also recently revealed that one of the Prime Minister’s advisers on the Canada-U.S. trade relationship published an op-ed in La Presse in 2014 in which he opposed our supply management system and questioned whether Canada should continue to defend it.

Senator, could you provide dairy farmers some form of guarantee or at least feedback that their sector will not see concessions to the United States?

Senator Harder: The honourable senator has referenced the debate that has taken place in Canada with respect to supply management of the dairy sector. As I recall, the close runner-up in the leadership of the Conservative party, of which he is a senior member, advocated the complete withdrawal of supply management, so I shouldn’t be surprised that there is public debate.

What I want to emphasize, both in this answer and in reference to the previous answer, is that the Government of Canada is determined to negotiate the renewal of the NAFTA in a win-win situation for Canadians, and it is not appropriate for me to comment on what may or may not be on the table in respect of those negotiations.

[Translation]

Security and Compensation during G7 Meetings

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate and pertains to the G7 summit, which will take place in Charlevoix, Quebec, on June 8 and 9.

The Mayor of Quebec City is of the opinion that the federal government should compensate local business owners and residents if their property is damaged as a result of anti-G7 protests.

On Monday, Mayor Labeaume said, and I quote:

. . . there is no reason anyone in Quebec City should have to suffer a financial loss because of the G7 or protests.

However, the government guidelines on compensation for residents and business owners state, and I quote:

Costs for damage caused by third parties, including vandalism, are not eligible for compensation payments.

Senator Harder, will the federal government commit to compensating anyone whose property is damaged by demonstrators and vandals during the G7 summit?

[English]

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): Again, I thank the honourable senator for his question. It is a privilege for Canada once every seven years to host the G7. Canada has a terrific track record in hosting these events. They are not without incident, as we know from when we last hosted, and the right to protest is one that the Government of Canada and the people of Canada have supported.

Clearly, the Government of Canada does not support violent protest, and that is a situation that, should it come to pass, we would all want to deplore.

Having said that, the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada have made clear to the host community that it stands ready to host, welcome and protect the communities and deal with whatever situations might emerge that reflect the right of demonstration or protest.

[Translation]

Senator Dagenais: We recently learned that the twenty or so Canada Border Services Agency officers to be stationed around the La Malbaie security perimeter will not be armed. We also learned that the special constables charged with protecting the National Assembly have received no special training in preparation for the G7 Summit.

Can the Leader of the Government guarantee that the Government of Canada has taken all necessary steps to protect the people of Charlevoix as well as our G7 guests and their delegations?

[English]

Senator Harder: Again, I thank the honourable senator for his question. The Government of Canada on this occasion, as on all occasions, undertakes all of the security and protection measures necessary to ensure the protection of our guests and the host communities and to ensure that the precautions that are necessary are well in place.

National Defence

Military Equipment

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, a recent media report last night and again followed up this morning says that the Canadian Armed Forces has ordered its members to return rucksacks and sleeping bag kits so they can be redistributed because of a “shortfall of equipment.” The order will stand, said an internal memo, “until there is no longer a shortfall of equipment.”

(1430)

The order encompasses two types of rucksacks, including one that was first issued in 1982, so it’s probably pretty well worn, as well as six-piece sleeping bag systems. Even sleeping bag liners have been recalled. To quote our Minister of Global Affairs: Seriously?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I will make inquiries as to the seriousness of the situation.

[Translation]

Canadian Heritage

Official Languages

Hon. Raymonde Gagné: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. This is a question I wanted to ask Minister Joly yesterday.

In a decision handed down on May 23, the Federal Court dismissed a complaint filed by the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique against the Government of Canada regarding the scope of the duty to take positive measures under Part VII of the Official Languages Act. The court ruled that the government has full discretion to select positive measures and is not required to consult communities. Justice Gascon explained, and I quote:

. . . if the federal government wants to give teeth to section 41, as well as to the duty to take positive measures, it can do so exercising its regulatory authority. That is what was expected of it when the duty was created. It is not up to the Court to step into the shoes of the executive branch and intervene where the federal government has chosen not to.

I wanted to ask the minister whether she was aware of the court’s call to action. As the minister responsible for Part VII of the act, is she willing to make regulations to give effect to Part VII so that it can finally fulfill its intended role? Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for her question on these matters regularly. I regret that she wasn’t able to pose them personally and directly to the minister. I will, of course, bring this to the attention of the minister and ensure that a response is provided. I thank you for your question.

Indigenous Culture and Heritage Artefacts

Hon. Sandra M. Lovelace Nicholas: Honourable senators, my question was to the minister as well and, as you know, there was no time.

I have been a volunteer for the Maliseet Advisory Committee on Archaeology, or MACA, long before my appointment to the Senate. MACA is a provincially recognized committee, which consists of six Maliseet communities and the province, and addresses concerns about issues that the Maliseet people have concerning archaeology. We have been ensuring that the province follows protocol on archaeology assessments as it relates to Maliseet sites and artifacts.

Presently there is a project in the city of Fredericton which will impact the grounds of Officers’ Square and has a high probability of archaeological effects. Since the appointment of the new director of archaeology, it appears the previous process to ensure impact assessments are followed is not happening. A number of complaints have been received by MACA. It appears that there has been a breakdown in communication between the province and MACA and Maliseet chiefs. The executive director of the culture, heritage and archaeological division has said that the municipality is in control of doing impact assessments.

My question to the minister was: Why is the government not following the protocol that was established previously between the provinces, MACA and the Maliseet chiefs of doing impact assessments where there is a high probability of finding Maliseet sites and artifacts?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for her question. I will ensure that it is brought to the attention of the minister and that an appropriate response is provided.

Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Would you not agree that the preservation of First Nations culture and heritage is part of the fabric of this country? Archaeological artifacts are the proof of our heritage, and this requires the protection of these grounds by the province and Government of Canada.

Senator Harder: On that question, I can give you my assurance that that is certainly the case. I would reference the reaction in this chamber, which is broadly held, that we must do all we can to preserve artifacts and celebrate the roots from which this country is built.

Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Participation of Socialist Republic of Vietnam at G7 Meetings

Hon. Thanh Hai Ngo: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Last Friday, the government issued a news release about the upcoming special outreach session that they will be hosting this Saturday, June 9, on the margins of the G7 Summit in Charlevoix, to talk with various leaders about the health of oceans and climate change. The list of participants is concerning. It includes world leaders and heads of organizations internationally from Jamaica, Norway, Kenya, South Africa, and even Vietnam.

Can you tell us what kind of criteria the government used to establish this list of participants for the special outreach session and why specifically the Socialist Republic of Vietnam was invited?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for his question. I can tell all senators that it is the common practice at the G7, and predecessor G8, to have an additional session with a group of countries not regularly part of the G7 process when certain subjects are of relevance to a broader community of interest. The invitation list for these sessions usually reflects geography as well as roles the countries are playing in other organizations during the year in which the event is being hosted.

With respect of the specific question of the honourable senator, I will make inquiries, but I’m sure that will be answered in the course of the event itself when the countries that are invited are participating.

Senator Ngo: Leader, in April 2016, the Formosa Ha Tinh Steel Corporation spilled toxic waste that polluted more than 200 kilometres of coastline, causing Vietnam’s worst environmental incident in recent history.

Tonnes and tonnes of poisoned fish washed up dead on Vietnam’s shores, which severely compromised people’s health and their reliance on the fishing industry. The company responsible for the toxic spill paid approximately $500 million to the Vietnamese government in reparation for these damages to the victims in this region. However, the victims who demanded clean water, clean government and transparency did not get any compensation. Instead, the Vietnamese government responded with illegal detention and excessive force against an environmental rights activist.

This crackdown on peaceful dissent demonstrates that it is impossible to work with Vietnam on pressing global challenges, such as climate change, oceans and clean energy, without talking about human rights and without raising free speech. Can you tell us why human rights are not clearly framed as one of the key themes under Canada’s international priorities for the G7 Summit?

Senator Harder: Again, I thank the honourable senator for his question. It is very much the view of the Government of Canada that human rights issues are fundamental to the exercise of Canadian diplomacy and Canadian engagement with other countries.

The issues that have been raised by the honourable senator are ones that reflect the importance of building multilateral cooperative approaches to deal with such issues as the environment. I am sure that the relationship between issues of the environment, climate change, good governance and appropriate public policy will be discussed by all leaders.

(1440)

Canadian Heritage

Appointment of Chief Electoral Officer

Hon. Paul E. McIntyre: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

In December 2016, Marc Mayrand stepped down as Chief Electoral Officer. My understanding is that on April 4, it was reported in the media that the government had selected a candidate to replace Mr. Mayrand. However, over a month later, the Prime Minister announced that a different individual, Mr. Stéphane Perrault, was the government’s nominee. Obviously, the Prime Minister has the discretion to appoint whomever he wants to this position.

Could the government leader please make inquiries and let us know the reason for this unusual change?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I will certainly make inquiries, but the Government of Canada doesn’t make appointments through news stories that are premature or out of context or may be completely irrelevant.

[Translation]

Transport

Land Transfer at Mirabel Airport

Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. A few days ago, the President and CEO of Aéroports de Montréal, Philippe Rainville, announced plans to sell off 32 million square feet of land that the authority considers surplus. Aéroports de Montréal would like that land to be converted into industrial lots to be managed by the City of Mirabel.

Mr. Rainville has indicated that talks among officials have already begun and that the only thing missing is the political will of the federal government to begin reconveyance of these lands to the City of Mirabel. Will Minister Garneau support this land transfer plan?

[English]

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for his question. I will inquire of the minister and ensure a response.

Finance

Carbon Pricing in Nunavut

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Harder, despite my numerous requests for more information on the impacts and cost of a carbon tax to Nunavut, and my requests for details on how the government plans to follow through on promises to accommodate what they describe as Nunavut’s unique circumstances — and that is, as you know, no alternate energy options and the highest cost of living in the country — the Government of Nunavut and I are still left wondering. In fact, in a brief submitted to the Energy Committee of this Senate, David Akeeagok, the Government of Nunavut Minister of Finance, stated that they could not confirm their plans until they could better understand “how the federal government proposes to mitigate the adverse effects of carbon pricing on Nunavummiut.”

The Government of Nunavut signed the pan-Canadian framework in good faith and were told, “Your circumstances will be taken into account.” When will the federal government’s plans to mitigate the negative effects of a carbon tax in Nunavut and to provide us details on how the federal backstop will be applied in Nunavut, since Nunavut will not implement a carbon tax, be made available to the public?

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for his question. He quite rightly references earlier questions that he has made both in this chamber and outside to the relevant ministers who have provided him with the assurance that the circumstances of Nunavut will be taken into account. With respect to the precise question that he has asked today, I will make inquiries and report back.

Senator Patterson: Government leader, I do feel that this matter is urgent because this chamber is going to soon be receiving Bill C-74, which is mostly about a regime, the greenhouse gas emissions act, that will allow the Government of Canada to apply the backstop to Nunavut as a jurisdiction that has publicly stated it will not enter into a carbon pricing regime. My constituents in Nunavut and I would very much like to know, when I’m asked to vote on Bill C-74, what the impacts will be on a region with already the highest cost of living in Canada and heavily dependent, unfortunately, on diesel and jet fuel. I would like to know before Bill C-74 comes to a vote, so I will know what we are all getting into in Nunavut.

Senator Harder: I thank the honourable senator for his question. He will know that in the pre-study that has been under way, these issues have been raised in the appropriate committees. They will be raised again, and appropriate questions and responses ought to be provided. I will bring your question to the attention of the sponsor of the bill, who is sitting behind me.

Delayed Answers to Oral Questions

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answers to the following oral questions:

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on September 28, 2017 by the Honourable Senator McIntyre, concerning Governor-in-Council appointments.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on November 8, 2017 by the Honourable Senator Ngo, concerning bilateral discussions with Vietnam.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 19, 2018 by the Honourable Senator Lovelace Nicholas, concerning pipeline protests.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 26, 2018 by the Honourable Senator Poirier, concerning the protection of whales — consultation.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 3, 2018 by the Honourable Senator Poirier, concerning fishing regulations.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 9, 2018 by the Honourable Senator Wallin, concerning income splitting.

Privy Council Office

Governor-in-Council Appointments

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Paul E. McIntyre on September 28, 2017)

The Government is committed to ensuring an open, transparent and merit-based approach to identify qualified candidates to fill important leadership positions. The recruitment for full-time leadership positions, such as these Agents of Parliament, requires a more comprehensive process.

The application periods for the positions of Commissioner of Lobbying, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and Information Commissioner were to remain open until a qualified candidate was identified and an appointment was made for each position. The Government has initiated this approach for Agent of Parliament positions in order to attract as many potential qualified applicants as possible for these specialized and high-profile leadership roles.

The Government is committed to identifying the most qualified candidates through an open, transparent and merit-based selection process, and will take as long as it is needed to find the right person for each of these important positions.

Foreign Affairs

Bilateral Discussions with Vietnam

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Thanh Hai Ngo on November 8, 2017)

The promotion and protection of human rights is an integral part of Canada’s foreign policy. Canada is committed to defending all human rights, including freedom of expression and religious freedom.

The Government of Canada interacts regularly with the Government of Vietnam on the issue of human rights, including on cases of political dissidents. The Prime Minister traveled to Vietnam in November 2017. During his meetings with Vietnamese leaders, notably Vietnamese Prime Minister, Nguyen Xuan Phuc, and the National Assembly Chairwoman, Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan, the Prime Minister emphasized the importance of Canadian values, including respect for human rights, diversity, inclusion, and gender equality. He also met with a group of civil society leaders in Hanoi where he had a good discussion about women’s issues, issues facing the LGBTQ2 community and issues around freedom of expression and freedom of information. Furthermore, the Prime Minister gave a speech at Ton Duc Thang University, in Ho Chi Minh City, where he underlined the importance of freedom of expression.

The Government of Canada remains active at the multilateral level, in the context of the United Nations, for example. More specifically, we play an active role in the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights in Vietnam.

The Comprehensive Partnership will help to advance our ongoing dialogue on the promotion and protection of human rights. This is something that matters to Canadians.

Public Safety

Pipeline Protests

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Sandra M. Lovelace Nicholas on April 19, 2018)

The Government of Canada is committed to a renewed nation-to-nation, government-to-government, and Inuit-Crown relationship with Indigenous peoples based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

The Government took unprecedented measures to ensure robust consultation for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. This included extending consultations by an additional four months to allow for further Indigenous consultation and increasing participant funding for Indigenous peoples to $2.2 million.

The Government consulted with 117 Indigenous communities in British Columbia and Alberta.

Throughout the project review, Indigenous peoples expressed their views on the nature and scope of potential impacts of the project on their rights and on the environment, and on mitigation or accommodations measures that could address those potential impacts.

The full record of federal Indigenous consultation was provided to Cabinet to inform its decision on the project. It is publicly available in the Joint Federal/Provincial Consultation and Accommodation Report.

The Government of Canada also co-developed with First Nations and Métis leaders and representatives a historic Indigenous Advisory and Monitoring Committee to monitor the project through construction, operation, and decommissioning. This investment of $64.7 million will ensure the project moves forward in the safest and most sustainable way possible.

Fisheries and Oceans

Protection of Whales—Consultation

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Rose-May Poirier on April 26, 2018)

DFO is very focused on putting in place measures to mitigate the risk that certain types of fishing gear pose to whales. Entanglement in fishing gear contributes to injury and/or death for many large whale species and a whale can remain entangled for years.

The static and potential dynamic closures are part of management measures that aim to protect the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale, and minimize as much as possible the economic losses for industry and coastal communities. Canada has obligations to take action to limit the risk of these whales under the Species At Risk Act (SARA).

The measures take into account the best available science and input from stakeholders, partners, experts and Indigenous peoples. These are important for both the Right whales and the economic future of the fisheries affected. Failure to put in place measures that protect NARW this year would put at risk potential access to key markets, such as the U.S., in meeting the new import provisions under the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Fishing Regulations

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Rose-May Poirier on May 3, 2018)

DFO is very focused on putting in place measures to mitigate the risk that certain types of fishing gear pose to whales. Entanglement in fishing gear contributes to injury and/or death for many large whale species and a whale can remain entangled for years.

The fixed closure area within the Gulf of St. Lawrence (GSL) is closed to fixed-gear fishing activity for the remainder of the season as it is a known area where right whales forage and where most of the right whales were observed in 2017. This measure takes into account the best available science.

The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) published Science Response # 2017/042 that indicates North Atlantic right whales (NARW) have arrived in the GSL as early as April 28.

Based on this information, NARW could return to the Gulf/Cabot Strait as early as April 28. The Minister has taken a precautionary approach and based his decision for the closure date on this scientific evidence.

National Revenue

Income Splitting

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Pamela Wallin on May 9, 2018)

The Department of Finance incorporates gender-related considerations into the development of tax and spending proposals through the use of Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+), a tool used to assess how diverse groups of women, men and gender-diverse people experience policies.

GBA+ was conducted for measures announced in Budget 2018 and previous budgets, as well as for measures announced outside of the annual budget context. This includes measures to limit income sprinkling, a tax planning strategy where high-income individuals can divert corporate income to family members who are subject to lower personal tax rates or who may not be taxable.

The Government has published information related to the gender impacts of measures aimed at limiting income sprinkling. The Government’s July 2017 consultation paper on tax planning using private corporations (www.fin.gc.ca/activty/consult/tppc-pfsp-eng.asp) included relevant statistical information and stated that: “The Government is committed to gender-based analysis, and will continue to refine its analysis of the gender impacts of the measures being contemplated with respect to private corporations.”

In the Fall Economic Statement 2017 (www.budget.gc.ca/fes-eea/2017/docs/statement-enonce/toc-tdm-en.html) and in a backgrounder accompanying the December 2017 release of revised income sprinkling proposals (www.fin.gc.ca/n17/data/17-124_1-eng.asp), the Government published additional gender-based analysis of the income sprinkling measures.

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Gerald Cunningham, President of the Metis Settlements General Council. He is accompanied members of the council. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Dyck.

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Business of the Senate

ORDERS OF THE DAY

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before we start debate on Bill C-45, let me remind you that today we are dealing with issues relating to cannabis consumption, including matters relating to the Indigenous peoples of Canada, as well as matters such as the minimum age for consumption, and possible effects on mental health and public health.

As you know, speeches and amendments are to only deal with that theme. A senator can speak only once to the third reading motion today, but can also speak once to any amendment or subamendment moved. Each speech is limited to a maximum of ten minutes, including any questions.

There has been agreement that there will be no extensions, so no such request should be made. If there is a request for a standing vote the bells will ring for 15 minutes, and the vote cannot be deferred.

Let me thank you once again, senators, for your cooperation.

Cannabis Bill

Bill to Amend—Third Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dean, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dupuis, for the third reading of Bill C-45, An Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts, as amended.

Hon. Peter Harder (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-45.

Specifically, I would like to address concerns raised by the Senate Aboriginal Peoples Committee as to how cannabis legislation may affect Indigenous communities across Canada. I would like to share additional information with senators as to how the government is working with Indigenous partners on this matter, work that is taking place within the context of the nation-to-nation relationship that is so vitally important to reconciliation.

First and foremost, speaking both personally and on behalf of the government, thank you very much to the members of the Senate Aboriginal Peoples Committee for your hard work and for your report on Bill C-45.

Thank you as well to all senators rightly concerned with this matter for their contributions. And thank you, in particular, to those senators who have already played leadership roles in what will be an ongoing and constructive dialogue between the government and Indigenous partners as the legalization process moves forward.

For the government, the most important aspect of that dialogue may well be listening.

As the Government Representative in the Senate, I would underscore that this is a government that holds a deep commitment to reconciliation.

The government listened to our Senate deliberations on Bill S-3, achieving a landmark and collaborative result with the elimination of historic gender discrimination from registration under the Indian Act, and the government has been listening carefully to the concerns of senators surrounding Bill C-45.

(1450)

I’d like to share with you a letter sent this morning on behalf of the government from the Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Minister of Health, and the Honourable Jane Philpott, Minister of Indigenous Services, to Senators Dyck and Tannas, the Chair and Deputy Chair respectively of the Aboriginal Peoples Committee. I quote:

Dear Senator Dyck and Senator Tannas,

We would like to thank you and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples (APPA) for your dedicated work on Bill C-45. We would like to address several issues that have been raised by APPA regarding the implementation of the Bill.

We would like to assure Senators, the areas of concern raised in the APPA report are noted by the Government.

Moving forward in the implementation of C-45, if approved by Parliament, we will be working to address all of the areas highlighted by APPA, through continued consultation with Indigenous communities, Indigenous organizations and the Committee itself.

The Government reaffirms its commitment to upholding existing Aboriginal and treaty rights, as recognized in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Members of APPA have asked for a clear commitment from the Government to provide a full report back to both Chambers, around progress on action areas identified in their Committee’s Report.

This report to Parliament would be in addition to the Government Response to the Committee Report, requested by your Committee, which will be tabled in September.

We affirm to you, that we agree to provide this further report within 12 months of Royal Assent.

Further, we are committed to returning to APPA as needed, to update Senators on areas of interest and concern regarding the implementation of the new cannabis framework.

Senators have also raised a number of specific issues which we would like to address.

With regard to the provision of services, the Government understands concerns have been raised as to whether the implementation of C-45 would create unmet need in Indigenous communities for mental health and addiction services.

Rest assured, the Government will continue to work closely with Indigenous communities and leaders to address these needs, specifically in front-line services for mental health and addictions treatment.

As a first step, we have committed $200 million over five years to enhance the delivery of culturally appropriate addictions treatment and prevention services in communities with high needs.

Rest assured, we will continue to work closely with Indigenous communities to identify needs in these services and will ensure additional resources are in place in order to support front-line services for mental health and addictions treatment.

We have also heard about the need to create cannabis public education materials which are culturally and linguistically appropriate.

We are committed to working with First Nations, Metis and Inuit communities to create culturally and linguistically appropriate public health education materials on cannabis use.

We have already started this work, and are currently translating a number of documents that have already been developed into a variety of Indigenous languages.

To assist in this work, Budget 2018 included $62.5 million over five years to support the involvement of community-based organizations, and Indigenous organizations to educate their communities on the risk associations with cannabis use.

We commit to keeping the Committee informed on Indigenous specific funding for culturally and linguistically appropriate education materials and programs.

Senators have also sought additional information around the ability of Indigenous communities to participate in the cannabis market.

The Government recognizes that there are Indigenous businesses seeking to become federal licencees under the proposed Cannabis Act.

To facilitate this, the Government has established a special navigator service exclusive to Indigenous businesses, to help them navigate the licensing process.

To date, we have 5 licensed producers and 14 applicants with Indigenous affiliations, and have had 48 enquiries from prospective or interested applicants.

At this time, there are a total of 105 licensed producers across Canada.

We will continue to track and monitor this process to facilitate Indigenous participation and we would commit to keeping the Committee informed on these numbers as implementation of C-45 rolls out.

The Committee heard from Indigenous communities, organizations and businesses about jurisdictional concerns flowing from the proposed legalization and regulation of cannabis, specifically the concern of exercising First Nation by-law making powers in relation to Bill C-45.

The Government recognizes and respects the jurisdiction of Indigenous communities.

We commit to continued engagement and work with First Nations, Inuit and Metis communities to address and accommodate jurisdictional issues in an appropriate way going forward.

As always, we seek the advice of your committee to assist us in this regard.

Questions have also been raised regarding revenue sharing with Indigenous communities.

The Government has previously agreed that our commitment to a new fiscal relationship with Indigenous communities will include discussions about revenue sharing and taxation arrangements.

As you have asserted to us, this must include discussions with National Indigenous Organizations and organizations like the First Nations Tax Commission, among others.

We are committed to advancing a new fiscal relationship with Indigenous communities based on the need for sustainable, sufficient, predictable and long-term funding arrangements.

We will advance this new fiscal relationship with Indigenous communities by our commitment to sustainable, sufficient, predictable and long-term funding arrangements, in addition to supporting the continued development of First Nations taxation and regulatory regimes.

Thank you for your work on this file and we look forward to our continued discussions.

Again, this letter is signed by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Indigenous Services.

Personally, I’d like to add that I hear — and the government hears — Indigenous leaders in the Senate, that we need to give further thought to the nature of meaningful consultations with Indigenous partners. We understand that it means an ongoing and constructive dialogue and relationship.

We have much to look forward to as the Senate does its part in working towards reconciliation. Today, the Aboriginal People’s Committee welcomes Indigenous young people to its Indigenize the Senate 2018 initiative. How appropriate because, while all Canadians must walk the path of reconciliation, our greatest hopes for a brighter future surely lie with our young people.

As well, we will soon be debating a private member’s bill, Bill C-262, which will ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples. The government fully supports this bill, and a vote in support of its goal will be a cause for celebration when this bill passes in this chamber. This will represent another important step as we walk the necessary path of reconciliation.

The Hon. the Speaker: I’m sorry, Senator Stewart Olsen, but Senator Harder’s time has expired.

Senator Stewart Olsen: Could he have five more minutes?

Senator Harder: No, that’s our rule.

The Hon. the Speaker: According to the agreement, there’s no extension of time.

Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck: First of all, I’d like to acknowledge all the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples for the excellent work they did on our committee report.

Our report was the only one that actually recommended a delay. As you will recall, we had major concerns, and we wanted that delay for those concerns to be met. I want to thank Senator Patterson because he tried valiantly to move an amendment to incorporate our recommendations at Social Affairs. But the idea of a delay, of course, was not met with a lot of popularity, and it was with reluctance that we suggested a delay.

I think what we have here today, in the form of this letter, is the way around getting our needs met that were identified in our report and also getting rid of the idea of having to have a delay. We had considered an amendment similar to Senator Patterson’s, where we would take out the delay. But, fortunately, the ministers contacted the Indigenous senators, and, through discussions, we were able to come up with this letter and the commitments in the letter, which were stronger than what we would have been able to achieve had we actually tabled an amendment to put in the actions that our committee had requested.

Today, of all days, our email is down, and we’re trying to figure out what the heck is going on. Senator Lankin, the other day you said you hate last-minute amendments.

(1500)

Well, we weren’t really sure what we were going to do until the very last minute, and I think the commitments in the letter that has come today, in English and French, signed by the Minister of Health and the Minister Indigenous Services, are very strong. If you read it, it’s very carefully crafted. You heard the words, “We are committed to this,” and, “We assure you.” They committed to further consultation hearings. In our report, one of the first things we said was Indigenous peoples have not been consulted, so they’ve heard that. They’ve committed to continued consultation and the recognition of section 35 rights in the Constitution. That’s also in the letter.

They’ve committed to additional funding for the mental health services and for the residential treatment centres. That was one thing that many witnesses and many senators were concerned about because we really do anticipate greater harms in Indigenous communities. We’re going to need additional resources, and they will have to be targeted specifically for those communities, and we have got those assurances.

We also got assurances about facilitating the participation of Indigenous communities in the economic opportunities offered by the cannabis industry. They have committed to looking at the licensing, to monitoring the licensing and reporting back to the committee, so two years down the road they will not come back to us and say, “Well, I’m sorry; we only had 5 per cent.” So we will be able to monitor.

They are also committed to working with the First Nations Tax Commission in their bigger framework of the new fiscal First Nations financial framework. That’s all in the letter today. They’ve also committed to coming back in 12 months, to working with the committee.

So I think we’ve achieved something here, and I really thank my Indigenous senators. Indigenous senators participated and put forward and pushed for the things that were in our report, so I think we have achieved much more than we could have achieved by an amendment, and it obviates the need for a delay. Having this letter in hand now, for me, makes me support the bill. I was nervous about the bill before because I could see that it was going to create more harm in Indigenous communities and there would be less benefit in terms of the economic development.

Unfortunately, the economic development is really one of the big pushes towards this bill, because we’ve been hearing over and over about $7 billion markets. We don’t want First Nations communities or Aboriginal communities to be left out of that. This will assure, through the work of the committee, that we will not be left out.

I think that’s about all I have to say. Thank you very much.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Dyck, you have a few minutes left. Will you take a question?

Senator Dyck: Yes.

Hon. Percy E. Downe: Thank you, Senator Dyck, and congratulations to you and the committee on the work you’ve done.

I was going to ask this question of Senator Harder, but unfortunately we ran out of time. I have a letter, and I’m sure we all received it from Chief Day of the Chiefs of Ontario, who said, “If they choose to do so, our communities will have nothing to do with cannabis, just as some are dry communities banning alcohol sales.”

Has that been addressed, or is there a commitment to do that in the future?

Senator Dyck: Thank you very much. Certainly that was one of the things we discussed. As I mentioned in my earlier speech, because of the Indian Act and the lack of mention of cannabis and it not being an intoxicant, theoretically, First Nations communities cannot ban cannabis. But during our discussions we talked about this, and this is the commitment to jurisdictional issues that they will seriously look at as we move toward this new nation-to-nation relationship.

First Nations communities should be allowed to ban cannabis, not only from the perspective of having their own self-determination or self-governance, but it also gives the control to the community so the community buys into it. Therefore, that ban will be much more effective than if we were to say we’re going to ban cannabis from the city of Saskatoon. That would come from the mayor and council. But this would be community driven, and that, in itself, could actually help get rid of some of the suicide rates and drug abuse because it’s an example of community ownership.

Hon. Dan Christmas: Honourable senators, I rise today to enjoin the debate on Bill C-45, now at third reading in this chamber.

Colleagues, in the Indigenous context, this bill represents one the greatest paradoxes I’ve encountered in my legislative time here: a bill which seeks to legalize, regulate and restrict access to marijuana, all the while creating a potential multi-billion-dollar industry.

From the Indigenous perspective, this bill represents a potential economic powerhouse for First Nations, in particular those that choose to take part in the cultivation, production and retailing of legal marijuana, but it casts a long and threatening shadow on an element of Canadian society already ravaged by unmitigated poverty, ill health, poor education outcomes, higher rates of cannabis usage amongst youth, high unemployment, drug dependency and epidemic rates of suicide.

And so, for our people, this legislation swings between prospects for greater wealth and potential economic development on the one hand and further woe within Indigenous communities on the other.

This struck me immediately when I first studied the bill in the spring of 2017. I was, quite frankly, dismayed that it was virtually silent on all matters Indigenous when one considers the magnitude of opportunity and threat Bill C-45 contains.

This is why I immediately began advocating that the bill be specially studied by the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples to ensure that we took the time to determine with precision the full nature of the bill’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.

At the root of this determination to see greater study of the proposed provisions of this bill was my belief that the well-being and socio-economic health of Indigenous communities should not be put at serious risk over the well-intentioned but somewhat expedient interests of seeing an election promise realized.

However, honourable senators, I can’t help but think of the words of the Dalai Lama, who once said:

If you can, help others; if you cannot do that, at least do not harm them.

I need not remind any of us here that we have been called to this place, among other purposes, to give voice to the minorities across this country.

And as you have heard throughout the debate that followed the tabling of our report both in this chamber and at the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, which itself reported to the chamber just days ago, the minority voice is echoing a cry for more time, for greater consultation and for full access to the prospects for prosperity and wealth generation that Bill C-45 contains.

Without these accommodations, without listening to these concerns and without acknowledging that Indigenous peoples were indeed overlooked in the negotiation of the revenue sharing of excise tax between the federal and provincial and territorial governments, we are treading ever closer to a path fraught with harm for Indigenous communities.

I must share my disappointment that we in this chamber, despite the best efforts of our colleagues familiar with and supportive of Indigenous affairs, saw the concerns cited in the APPA report relegated to only observations in the report to this chamber by the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee.

Now, in the case of excise tax sharing, we know that under the terms of the convention around the Ross report of 1918, we are not, as the Senate, permitted to amend bills of taxation, but I’m not about to let this constitutional and procedural technicality inhibit efforts to make this notion a reality.

Because the fact of the matter is the re-engineering of the relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples is also a key, fundamental element of the government’s 2015 electoral manifesto, upon which it won a majority government. Thus the need to bring this commitment to life is by no means whatsoever any less fundamental than the legalization of cannabis.

Helping to bring this commitment to life are the 10 Principles Respecting the Government of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples.

For those who have yet to study this landmark step in the forging of the new relationship, you may wish to consider the import of these words from Justice Canada, which help frame this endeavour:

(1510)

Indigenous peoples have a special constitutional relationship with the Crown. This relationship, including existing Aboriginal and treaty rights, is recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 35 contains a full box of rights, and holds the promise that Indigenous nations will become partners in Confederation on the basis of a fair and just reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and the Crown.

In the specifics relating to the matters around taxation, let’s look at what the principles have to say about that:

A fairer fiscal relationship with Indigenous nations can be achieved through a number of mechanisms such as new tax arrangements, new approaches to calculating fiscal transfers and the negotiation of resource revenue sharing agreements.

Here we stand at the crossroads between legislative undertakings such as this bill, which has a myriad of impacts and consequences for Indigenous peoples, with few of them being remedied by means of amendment. And the government’s other key electoral pledge to Canadians, and especially to Indigenous people, the resetting of the relationship between us — fiscal and otherwise.

In the face of it, I want to state the case for government action over and above Bill C-45’s provisions in the clearest terms possible, straddling these two challenges, so that no harm may be done and so that we may help where and how we can as a nation determined to come to grips with reconciliation as the cornerstone of the renewed relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples.

What’s more, we want to ensure we leave no one, or no community, behind. Not only in terms of information and public education, but also in measures of prevention and access to effective, quality health care, not to mention ensuring that there is equal access to opportunity and the same degree of economic benefit.

Above and beyond this legislation, and the amendments the Senate will ask the other place to consider should this bill pass the chamber, I have been calling upon the federal government to substantially increase funding for addictions and mental health treatment programs and residential program centres to adequately address the existing needs in Indigenous communities ahead of any new investments that would flow from Bill C-45’s implementation and to work with the relevant central agencies and undertake to make every effort to ensure that there are provisions to address the discussion on cannabis excise tax revenue sharing with a view to ultimately including them in the 2019 budget implementation act.

As you have just heard from Senator Harder, our calls in this regard have indeed been heeded by the government, and for that I am thankful and most encouraged. It is a great start and bodes well for our collective future.

Let us make certain that key interests and needs of Indigenous peoples in this country are not met and thus denied, for that is nothing short, to me, of institutional discrimination.

Let’s invert the focus and compare this to the issue of the recent significant action on the Trans Mountain pipeline as good an example as there ever was of the application of the idiom, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” Collectively, let’s have this will. Together let’s find a way.

Robert Kennedy once said:

Progress is a nice word. But change is its motivator. And change has its enemies.

Let us then not become the enemies of change. The road map to this place of will is there. It’s in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; it’s seen in the government’s own ten principles respecting the Government of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples; and it will become evident through the national engagement on the recognition and framework of Indigenous rights.

Let us amend this bill, as we have determined it needs, through our detailed deliberation of its provisions by myriad committees here in the Senate.

Let us also acknowledge the deficiencies of the Indigenous elements of Bill C-45 and the process around it.

But let us also advance the call for immediate remedies to existing programs and services, filling in the breach to mitigate the gaps the Bill C-45 regime may present in the near term for First Nations, Metis and Inuit peoples.

Finally, and perhaps most important, I urge all of us to acknowledge that recognizing and considering Indigenous perspectives in key pieces of legislation or federal undertakings such as this can no longer be permitted to be just an afterthought. There’s far, far too much at stake.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Christmas, I apologize for interrupting you, but unfortunately your time is up.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: [Editor’s Note: Senator McCallum spoke in Cree.]

I thank and acknowledge everyone who has gathered to meet in this chamber.

Honourable senators, I rise today to give voice to the Indigenous issues that were raised in the course of debate and through committee testimony on Bill C-45 and the legalization of cannabis.

I would first like to thank the senators and staff of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, especially our chair, Senator Dyck, for their hard work on this file. I want to thank my elders Senators Sinclair, Dyck and Christmas for their guidance, input and teachings of reflective thought. I also thank them for encouraging the growth of my critical thinking skills, which were subjugated in residential school.

I want to thank all the senators in this chamber of sober second thought and all the people who support us in our work for guiding and shaping me in my journey as a senator.

During the study conducted by the Aboriginal Peoples Committee, we heard from many witnesses of Indigenous communities and organizations who expressed their concern over various aspects of this legislation. Many of these concerns were highlighted in our report on Bill C-45, including the recommendations that were contained within. I was disappointed that none of these recommendations made the final report of Social Affairs and would like to now take this opportunity to speak to the most pressing and prevalent concern that was raised by those who testified before the Aboriginal Peoples Committee.

The concern of which I speak is the lack of adequate consultation that went on between the federal government and Indigenous communities. There is a spectrum on which consultation can be performed, and it has been quite apparent that, to borrow a term from Senator Christmas, this was a “drive-by consultation” at best.

Adequate consultation is required to take place at the grassroots level. It needs to involve the members of these communities who will be affected most by the passage of this bill. These are not conversations that can be had solely, or even predominantly, with large national organizations like the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the Metis National Council or ITK.

There are many communities and individuals across the country who feel that these organizations do not represent them or their needs. As such, it is important that a greater effort and emphasis is placed on having these discussions at a more grassroots level to ensure that more voices are heard. I also stress the importance that our voices be heard at this time of reconciliation.

Honourable senators, it is important to keep in mind that consultation is an ongoing process and not simply a one-time event or a single occurrence. It is a productive mindset to establish that due to its basic nature, consultation is a process that is never truly completed. It should be a continuing dialogue that not only builds trust between parties but also results in mutually beneficial legislation. As Ravina Bains and Kayla Ishkanian state in their 2016 report The Duty to Consult with Aboriginal Peoples, consultation in the Canadian context is truly a patchwork. Each province has its own policies outlining its individual consultation guidelines.

(1520)

However, a principle shared by all jurisdictions is that the duty to consult is a responsibility that rests with the Crown. As this important onus is a Crown charge, it is incumbent on the federal government to ensure that adequate consultation is, and continues to be, undertaken with First Nations, Metis and Inuit peoples.

I agree with the concerns of many of the witnesses who appeared before the Aboriginal Peoples Committee that fulsome and proper consultation was not undertaken. I am hopeful this experience can be used as a valuable lesson moving forward.

Earlier this year, the Prime Minister reaffirmed his commitment to moving forward on a new relationship between the government and Indigenous people. His first real test, through Bill C-45, has proven that plenty of work remains to be done. Although it is not feasible to complete total and exhaustive consultations with Indigenous communities, it is clear that a better effort must be made to incorporate the views and needs of those whose voices are seldom heard or acknowledged.

Honourable senators, another issue of great consequence to Indigenous communities is that youth found to be in possession of up to 5 grams of cannabis will not be criminally sanctioned. Colleagues, as I am sure you have heard on multiple occasions, Indigenous youth are among the most vulnerable of Canada’s population when it comes to the likelihood of consuming drugs, as well as the likelihood of being arrested for drug consumption.

This does not take into consideration the further heightened risks that exist for Indigenous youth when it comes to mental health and addictions issues. As many of you will recall from the important and timely inquiry brought forth by Senator Pate that examined the overpopulation of Indigenous women in prison, this is an epidemic that is not getting better. Indigenous peoples, be they men, women or youth, are overrepresented in our prison and detention systems. It has reached a crisis level. These crises mirror the consequences of federal and provincial policies and laws that have unilaterally taken over and predetermined Indigenous lives.

As the crisis of overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in our prison and detention systems is alive and well, one of the biggest positives I take away from Bill C-45 is that there will be no criminal sanctions for youth who are in possession of under 5 grams of cannabis. Having a criminal record for carrying a minimum amount of cannabis is disproportionate. It is not just to have Canada’s youth punished well into their adulthood, facing potentially lifelong consequences for a poor decision they may have made in childhood.

Like many of you, I have personally grappled with my stance on Bill C-45 for countless hours. I have listened to the spirited debate in this chamber and have weighed the good and the bad. What it comes down to for me is whether the lack of adequate consultation outweighs the benefits of our youth not facing criminal charges for possession under 5 grams. We can continuously improve upon the process of consultation, but this is our only chance to address decriminalization and legalization.

While the degree of consultation is of great concern, I do believe the government can use this inadequacy as a means of creating a more comprehensive and acceptable blueprint for future consultation with First Nations, Inuit and Metis.

This is also a golden opportunity to support youth.

While it is important to remind colleagues that this law does not legalize or condone youths possessing cannabis, it removes the criminality of the transgression. It is important that we as federal parliamentarians act in a way that protects the future of these young Canadians by not having them pay the consequences of their childhood transgressions later in life.

Delaying this bill would continue to criminalize social issues for a longer period of time.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-45. I want to say again that Prime Minister Trudeau and his cabinet have said countless times that no relationship is more important to our government than the one with Aboriginal peoples. On June 21, in celebration of National Aboriginal Day, the Prime Minister issued a statement that said:

Today, we reaffirm our government’s commitment to a renewed nation-to-nation relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples, one based on the recognition of rights, respect, trust, co-operation, and partnership.

I stress those words because we on the Aboriginal Peoples Committee, working in a non-partisan way, have been told time and time again — yesterday by Chief Isadore Day from Ontario — in our study of Bill C-45 that consultation is severely lacking. The chiefs of the First Nations met in December and passed a resolution to delay entry into force of the cannabis legislation by one year in order to ensure proper consultation is conducted and the proper tools have been developed in a linguistically and culturally appropriate way.

Nunavut Tunngavik in my region appeared before the committee and described the reasons for NTI passing a similar resolution at their annual general meeting. They called upon the federal government to fulfill their constitutional obligation to properly consult Inuit and provide them “an opportunity to participate in the development of social and cultural policies,” as per article 32 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, a solemn, constitutionally entrenched obligation.

In the gallery today, I’m happy there are two prominent community members from Pangnirtung, Nunavut, a community that told me the same message I heard in every single one of the 25 communities in Nunavut: We need more mental health support. I won’t go into the suicide issue in Pangnirtung, but it’s a crisis. There are many of these crises in Aboriginal communities in this country.

Many complained of the lack of consultation, stressed the need to protect youth and asked that we ensure there are appropriate, culturally specific education materials. However, overwhelmingly, the main concern was the need for more front-line mental health workers — and they need to be Indigenous — and mental health and addiction treatment centres based in the territories.

This echoes the testimony we heard from 23 different witnesses. I’m pleased today that in the gallery is Chief Commissioner Manny Jules of the First Nations Tax Commission, who earlier today during a meeting reiterated his position that the institutions are in place to help First Nations become part of this new economy, but they were never invited to the table when discussions about excise tax and licensing took place.

That is why the committee, after careful consideration, agreed to a recommendation for delay, which we didn’t take lightly. We wanted the government to take the time to get this right before the bill was passed and ensure Indigenous voices and concerns were being heard and acted upon.

I mentioned Chief Day’s letter. He called Canada complacent in realizing the First Nations’ right to be consulted and discussed the societal shift in public policy overhaul involved in legalizing cannabis.

Even the government’s very own consultation report, tabled with the Aboriginal Peoples Committee on April 25, shows that only five limited round tables were conducted by the task force. Another two engagement sessions took place before the introduction of this bill in the other place. Nineteen engagement sessions took place before the bill passed third reading seven months later. Since the bill was introduced in this chamber, we heard that 32 engagement sessions have taken place. The obvious concern for me is there’s no way to ensure that the concerns of participants from those 32 meetings are appropriately reflected in this bill.

(1530)

Honourable senators, I’ve been asked by members in every single community in my home territory to do whatever I can to ensure that the government deliver the proper mental health and addiction treatment supports in advance of this bill, and I would be willing to consider a report outlining exactly how the government intends to deliver and fund those services as the successful attainment of that charge.

Now, at 11:53 a.m. today, I received a copy of a letter you’ve heard about that Minister Petitpas Taylor and Minister Philpott sent to the committee, promising a plethora of things, including to continue consultations as per their constitutional obligations, and to report back to both houses in September and a year after proclamation.

I find it notable, honourable senators, that after months of raising this issue, a letter was sent to the committee mere hours before this debate today. The timing is notable for two reasons, not only for it being tabled curiously close to our debate on this issue as opposed to March or April when we had originally asked for some certainty, but also due to the fact that my Conservative colleagues were harangued in committee when they introduced an amendment in an effort to improve the bill before us today.

Colleagues, the time to get serious about these issues is not after the bill has been passed. I want to address a few of them briefly.

How can a meaningful new fiscal relationship proceed when the provinces, territories and feds have already divided the excise tax 75-25? Well, there is one way: The federal government can allocate a significant share of federal tax revenues, and I will look for a commitment to do just that this fall.

Let’s talk about culturally appropriate education materials. The minister’s letter refers to $62.5 million over five years to support community-based, culturally appropriate education materials on cannabis. While there are over 600 First Nations communities, there are many communities in the four Inuit regions, and they will have to divide $12.5 million a year. Aboriginal communities want to govern themselves. They need more than a commitment to engage on jurisdictional issues. This will require an amendment to the Indian Act, which now gives First Nations powers to regulate alcohol, but this law of general application, which it seems we’re going to pass, will not allow First Nations to make rules to govern themselves in their own communities. This is a law of general application, and all we have is an engagement to respectfully and meaningfully consult.

So honourable senators, I think the government has a great deal of catching up to do. I am determined, in light of this commitment, to report back to the committee. Frankly, I had considered amending the bill to put that in law, but there is a commitment in writing that has been made and has been noted in this assembly, and I am sure it will be honoured. But there’s a lot of work to be done because the Aboriginal peoples were left out of this major transformative social policy change. There’s a lot of catching up to do.

I’m determined to hold those ministers accountable for respectfully and finally — and I would even say for the first time with respect to some of the issues like the excise tax and like whether we respect the inherent right to self-government in First Nations communities. I will hold those ministers accountable.

I have decided, with some hesitation, not to introduce an amendment to the bill, but I do want to say the proof will be in the pudding. Promises and great words, we’ve heard them before. Great expectations have arisen. There hasn’t been much delivery yet, honourable senators, so I will eagerly await a report on progress on these issues in September.

I want to say this: There is no treatment centre in any of the three territories. Minister Philpott told the committee there has been money allocated for a feasibility study for a treatment centre in Nunavut. I’m encouraged by that. But the President of NTI said there was a five-year time frame for implementing this. We need to move faster on this. Aboriginal youth are being impacted.

The Hon. the Speaker: I apologize for interrupting you, Senator Patterson, but we need to move on.

Hon. Marc Gold: Honourable colleagues, I think this is a good day in the Senate. It’s a good day for Canada. I’m grateful to Senator Patterson. I understand it’s with a great deal of emotion that you are not proceeding with this amendment, because I know how deeply you felt, and I think we all owe you a debt of gratitude.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Gold: I’m happier to be speaking today not in opposition to an amendment that you have put forward. I’d rather work together than in opposition, dare I say that.

I’d like to think that today is an important step forward for us as we move towards a nation-to-nation relationship, but we cannot underestimate the long road that lies ahead. If we are going to succeed in moving forward, as I hope we will, it must be based on a true understanding of where we have been and upon what foundations our country was founded.

So let me take a few moments to say some simple, unavoidable and uncomfortable truths that I have come to learn over the years as a student of Canadian constitutional law. I think these are the truths that underpin the recommendations and aspirations of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, and they inform the commitments — I certainly hope they do — that the government has made today. They certainly inform my personal aspirations for the future.

What are these simple and unavoidable truths? The first is the colonial basis for our legal system. I’m not referring only to the fact that Canada was once a colony of Great Britain, though that is part of it. It is that our entire legal system, including our Constitution itself, is based upon a colonial conception of law and our relationship with the land and its peoples.

I remember very well when my former colleague Professor Brian Slattery began writing on this subject. It seemed really strange and unfamiliar at the time to a young law professor in the early pre-Charter days, but now, thanks to a new generation of legal scholars, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, this understanding is part of mainstream understanding, at least in constitutional law circles. There are many ways in which this colonial basis of our law has shaped the Canadian legal landscape and imagination, including the most fundamental rules concerning the ways in which the English common law came to be applied in the various provinces and territories.

Why is this important for us today? It’s because it rendered legally irrelevant the rich and diverse legal and political traditions and institutions that were constitutive of the Indigenous communities that the Europeans first encountered, thereby leaving no room for the application of Indigenous law on the territories that were either conquered or ceded by treaty or even just left alone. This lies at the heart of the demand for legislative and taxation power regarding cannabis on the territories under the control of Indigenous communities today, as reflected in the report of the committee.

The second is the extent and degree to which the Crown, both before and after Confederation, simply failed to honour the letter and the spirit of the treaties that it entered into with our First Nations, treaties that were literally at the heart of the creation of Canada, even more fundamental to the creation of Canada than the British North America Act of 1867.

There are many books on this, but this is a pitch for my former mentor and esteemed colleague Professor Peter Russell and his book Canada’s Odyssey: A Country Based on Incomplete Conquests, which I commend to all of you and to all Canadians who may be listening.

[Translation]

One of the consequences is that Indigenous peoples were not treated as partners or beneficiaries in the development of the territories that initially belonged to them and that they agreed to cede in accordance with prior treaties. This is the basis for the committee’s request that the economic benefits of cannabis legalization be shared with Indigenous communities.

(1540)

Honourable colleagues, as we take these first steps towards reconciliation, we must allow ourselves to be guided by the truth about our past, a truth of which a great many Canadians are not aware.

Looking at the world around us, there are other unavoidable truths we should find inconvenient, such as the prevalence of addiction and mental health problems in Indigenous communities as well as the relative lack of programs and the absence of treatment services for these problems, just to name two.

These are not new but longstanding problems. These are undeniable truths that we cannot and must not ignore.

[English]

Today, the formal commitments made by the government represent tangible and concrete progress in addressing these very real needs.

Equally importantly, the government appears to have taken an important step in working with the leaders of Indigenous communities to address the vexing and difficult issues of jurisdiction, participation and revenue sharing. This is most welcome.

Senator Patterson, the other week, gently took me to task in this chamber for comments that I made about the diversity of law-making powers amongst Indigenous communities, but I believe that inadvertently he may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make, perhaps not very well, so let me try here again. I think it’s important as we go forward on this path. The fact is that the scope of the legislative and taxation jurisdiction of Indigenous communities is really complex.

[Translation]

First of all, every community has different powers, in particular self-government pursuant to treaties and regulatory powers pursuant to the Indian Act. For our colonial relationship to evolve into a nation-to-nation relationship, it is critical that we consider communities’ legitimate interests with respect to the control they have over their lands. I support this evolution. It will take more than a year to accomplish, however.

That said, there are ways to make constructive progress now. I would like the government to be more flexible in its interpretation of regulatory powers under the Indian Act in order to allow those communities who so desire to regulate cannabis in the same way they currently regulate alcohol. It is not impossible. It is not just about political will.

I also think there are creative ways for governments and Indigenous communities to meet and find new ways to create fair and equitable partnerships to distribute any of the economic benefits that may flow from the legalization and regulation of cannabis.

[English]

On the latter point, we might take some guidance from Ontario Regional Chief Isadore Day in his testimony before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples as part of its study on the new relationship between Canada, First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples.

The core idea is to return to the spirit and shared understanding of early treaties at the time they were entered into, not to try to undo past; that is not possible. We know that. It is to take the underlying principles of these treaties and apply them today in concrete and creative ways to our current circumstances.

This, honourable senators, should give rise to treating our Indigenous communities as true partners with governments in planning for and sharing the benefits, not only from the current cannabis industry but from all current economic development on the lands that were covered by these treaties, and for developing institutions to address educational, health and other needs of the communities.

In this respect, the work being done to assist Indigenous applicants for production licences, and the number coming forward, is very encouraging, as is the commitment that we heard today — it will be a while, I suspect, but nonetheless a commitment — to move forward on a new fiscal relationship with Indigenous communities.

Let’s be clear and be under no illusions. These are issues that will take time to work through. It’s not realistic to expect that we can undo centuries of unilateralism and colonialism in one year. Nor should we do it on the back of Bill C-45 because every day we maintain the criminal prohibition against cannabis possession and use, we do more harm than good.

This brings me to my final point. Honourable senators, the current system of criminalizing cannabis use has failed to keep cannabis out of the hands of not only Indigenous Canadians and communities but all Canadians, young and old. However, it has succeeded admirably in maintaining a system whereby Indigenous youth and adults are marginalized and are stigmatized by the criminal justice system while at the very same time they lack adequate access to treatment and other basic services. I am grateful to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples for bringing these issues forward —

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I am sorry to interrupt, but I must advise that the honourable senator’s time has expired.

Hon. Art Eggleton: I’m delighted at the announcement that Senator Harder made this morning, and the follow-up comments from Senator Dyck, Senator McCallum, Senator Christmas and Senator Patterson, indicating the perspective of the Indigenous community on this announcement. When we discussed this matter at Social Affairs, it was something we had hoped would happen.

In fact, we did put into our report the various elements we felt were necessary for the consultation, which originated with the Aboriginal Peoples Committee and were put by Senator Patterson and accepted by the committee. We said there needed to be the development of educational materials and programs that are culturally and linguistically adapted to Indigenous peoples.

We talked about the need to establish funding for mental health and addiction programs, residential treatment and healing centres, treatment centres, et cetera; the need for nursing and police services that are culturally and linguistically adapted to Indigenous people; the desirability for Indigenous communities to adopt their own measures respecting the legalization of cannabis; and tax collection and revenue sharing with Indigenous people.

We went on to talk about the committee supporting the recommendation that the Minister of Health encourage a diverse, competitive cannabis market and ensure that Indigenous people are in a competitive position to generate their own sources and employment opportunities in this new industry, what has been called the navigator services.

The only one we didn’t agree with was the matter of the deferral because, as Senator Gold pointed out, we were concerned more harm would be done by creating a hiatus of some period of time. It has turned out that we have the government moving in the right direction to handle these issues, and I am very pleased with that outcome.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Carolyn Stewart Olsen: Honourable senators, I rise on this issue; I wasn’t going to speak on it, but I’m very troubled by what I have heard today. I was troubled when Senator Harder read the last-minute letter from the government. I am troubled that governments do not tend, unless they’re really under a lot of pressure, to come through on their promises, especially of consultation and of doing all of these things that were in the letter and that are not newly asked for.

I’m troubled by that. I’m troubled the seeming capitulation to the government and now saying we actually got a lot out of this, it’s wonderful, and we’re going to pass the bill, which is what the government wanted all along.

This is a very hard thing for me. I don’t sit on the Aboriginal Peoples Committee, but as I say I am seriously troubled by what has happened here. I don’t know if there was pressure brought to bear and a lot of talking for people, but I understand that consultation is primary with Aboriginal peoples. I understand that.

(1550)

That means for all of you as well.

But I’m troubled by this because you had the hammer. You had the hammer to go forward and make this happen for people.

So I am sorry that everything has been withdrawn. I’m sorry for, perhaps, losing this opportunity that was there.

I would ask one question: Did you speak to your peoples before you decided to withdraw your objections to the bill? Did you do that?

Senator Gold, this is consultation, so I’m asking if you did do some consultation. I would feel much easier and have more peace if I knew that this was going to proceed the way the glowing letter said it was.

If you remember, yesterday there was a news conference with the ministers. They’re in a very bad position. They glowingly came to power and they said, “Our primary need is to develop and to move forward with reconciliation,” and so far, I haven’t seen a lot of that.

I support that view and I think everyone here does.

I’m just saying that when you have the hammer, don’t drop it lightly.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator, will you accept a question?

Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck: Can you explain to me what this hammer is?

Senator Stewart Olsen: If you don’t know, Senator Dyck, that’s kind of sad, but you have the ability right now to stop this bill or to put severe limits on the bill. And I think you should. I think that, especially for our northern communities. I know that you have been trying for years. I know that. I know that every step forward takes a long, long time. But by the hammer, I mean the power. You have the power. I want to see you use it, and that’s what I meant by that.

Senator Dyck: What is the hammer with regard to the particular issues we’re dealing with today and the report from the Aboriginal Peoples committee? Describe to me what that hammer is.

Senator Stewart Olsen: It’s the motion that Senator Patterson was going to bring forward to delay the bill, the motion that you all supported in committee.

It should not be me standing up her