Hon. Tony Loffreda: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, I would like to talk about immigration in Quebec. We know that this subject has received extensive coverage lately.

Early this month, journalist Joël-Denis Bellavance published an article in La Presse stating that Quebec spent only 25% of the funding it had been given by the federal government for the 2021-22 fiscal year to help immigrants integrate and learn to speak French. We are talking about $168 million out of a total of nearly $700 million.

Senator Gold, can you confirm whether Mr. Bellavance’s reporting is true? If so, is the federal government okay with the fact that this federal funding intended to meet specific provincial objectives is not being spent?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Gold, would you answer a question?

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

As you know, senator, Quebec has exclusive authority to select the majority of its immigrants. Under the Canada-Quebec Accord, Quebec receives funding to provide French integration programs to newcomers.

The government respects this agreement, which has worked very well for decades. However, the article to which you refer is still concerning. I have been assured that the government continues to work closely with Quebec and is committed to always respecting provincial jurisdiction in immigration matters.

Senator Loffreda: I recognize, accept and approve of the fact that, according to the 1991 Canada-Quebec Accord on immigration, Quebec is responsible for welcoming and integrating newcomers to Quebec and ensuring they know French. I agree with Premier Legault that integration must be at the heart of our immigration policy. However, this recent news troubles me.

If this money were used for the intended purpose, perhaps Quebec could welcome more immigrants and would be able to better integrate them, which could alleviate some of the pressures on the labour market.

Doesn’t the federal government have a responsibility to ensure that the money it transfers to the provinces for a particular program is spent on that program?

Is it time to re-evaluate the concept of unconditional federal transfers to the provinces and explore a transparency and accountability mechanism?

Senator Dalphond: Thank you for expressing your policy on the issue. I think you’re right: The Supreme Court has made clear there are policy decisions to be made here.

You tell me that conditional release should not be imposed to protect the victims, but here we’re talking about the less serious offences that deserve less than two years.

Are you saying that someone who receives a sentence of three months — and the judge thinks that is the proper sentence, according to all the principles and based on his case-by-case analysis — should serve the time in jail? So after three months, what would you do? The person will be released, and will maybe live next to the victim again.

What are you proposing — that the law be amended to specify that the person be forced to live in a different city? Please explain it to me. I understand the victim’s perspective, and the right to be protected, but you think that the conditional sentence is a fix? I don’t think it is a fix. So after three months, what would you do?

(1550)

Senator Dalphond: Don’t you think the real problem is the root cause of this violence? That the real answer is to address the real cause of this violence — that jail is not the answer to it, that three months or three weeks in jail is not going to change a person, that the judge should impose conditions that the person go to therapy to follow some education to better understand his reaction and to have to wear a bracelet that will signal to the victim he’s coming by? Don’t you think three weeks in jail is not protecting the victim enough? There are other ways. We have to address the real issues. It may be sensational to say, “He shall serve three weeks in jail because he did something to deserve jail,” but is that the answer?

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: This question is for the Government Representative.

Senator Gold, as you know, there is a crisis in pediatric health centres across the country. Last Friday at the Hospital for Sick Children, half of the children were in ICU on ventilators, and this spike of respiratory illnesses has prevented surgeries, cancelled emergency room access and flooded intensive care wards. Halifax’s IWK Health Centre set a record a week ago with the highest number of seriously ill patients. CHEO — the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario — opened a second ICU with unprecedented demand.

Senator Gold, I understand and I agree with the federal government’s position that money is not the only solution and there needs to be a systemic change. Nevertheless, we are in a crisis.

Despite the failure to make progress on health funding at the recent Federal-Provincial-Territorial Health Ministers’ meeting, has the Minister of Health re-engaged with his provincial and territorial colleagues to seek pathways for meaningful collaboration to address this pediatric health crisis?

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented the following report:

Tuesday, November 15, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its

EIGHTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material, has, in obedience to the order of reference of December 8, 2021, examined the said bill and now reports the same with the following amendments:

1.Clause 11, page 6:

(a) Replace line 11 with the following:

(b) add the following after line 14:

Respectfully submitted,

MOBINA S. B. JAFFER

Chair

Hon. Clément Gignac: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

In her November 3 economic statement, the Minister of Finance had a few surprises for the financial sector. On the positive side, there were smaller-than-expected deficits for the previous and current fiscal years, and the government expressed an intention to return to a balanced budget within five years. However, the government’s decision to stop issuing real return bonds has caused some surprise among the country’s pension funds and insurance companies, which are the traditional purchasers of such products to protect themselves against inflation-related risks.

As my colleagues may recall, real return bonds were introduced with great fanfare in 1991, shortly after the Bank of Canada and the finance minister of the day jointly adopted a 2% inflation target. Now, as National Bank’s chief economist recently noted, Canada will be the only country that no longer issues real return bonds.

Senator Gold, my question is this: Can you clarify the reasons behind the finance minister’s decision to abruptly stop issuing real return bonds, since her economic statement contained only three lines to explain her decision?

Senator Pate: Many of us are well aware of Chancellor Sinclair’s numerous well-deserved honours, his leadership at the bar and on the bench as the first Indigenous judge appointed in Manitoba and the second in Canada and his work exposing Canada to the human rights and Charter violations, systemic discrimination and overrepresentation in the child welfare and criminal legal systems, including issues of murdered and missing Indigenous peoples that dates back decades. He co-chaired the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Since issuing the report in 2015, his commitment to seeing all 94 Calls to Action implemented has not wavered. Most recently, he urged us to fix Bill C-5 to meet the Calls to Action that address the mass incarceration of Indigenous peoples by freeing judges from the shackles of mandatory minimum penalties.

With wisdom, thoughtfulness and clarity, he continues to urge and inspire all of us to do and be better.

Senator Christmas is also a brilliant leader and advocate with a kind and generous heart. He has worked tirelessly to safeguard Mi’kmaq sovereignty and treaty rights in Nova Scotia and urge reconciliACTION. Before coming here, Senator Christmas was instrumental in taking his community from near bankruptcy to its current circumstances of being one of the most successful and thriving First Nations in this country. In his home community of Membertou and elsewhere, he continues to work to address the persistent challenges that too many face at the hands of discriminatory attitudes and systems that persist.

Senator Christmas’ outstanding achievements and service have been previously recognized with numerous awards and honorary degrees, and among the mountain of his contributions here, many of us will always remember his most touching tribute to his World War II veteran father.

Honourable senators, please join me in celebrating the wonderful recognition of these two amazing, inspirational and fabulous leaders. Meegwetch. Thank you.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Fall Economic Statement 2022.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, entitled (1) Volume I — Summary Report and Consolidated Financial Statements, (2) Volume II — Details of Expenses and Revenues, (3) Volume III — Additional Information and Analyses, pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, sbs. 64(1).

[English]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a Charter Statement prepared by the Minister of Justice in relation to Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, pursuant to the Department of Justice Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. J-2, sbs. 4.2(1).

[Translation]

Senator Plett: Senator Gold, saying it does not make it a reality.

The government has not shown any of what you have just said. Leader, the urgency of this threat seems to be evident to our Canadian intelligence officials, to experts on China and to our allies, and yet not to your government.

We know that the Chinese regime is targeting our democratic process. We know that they are targeting Chinese Canadians through police stations operating on Canadian soil. And yet the Prime Minister continues, leader, to sit on his hands.

Leader, when will your government abandon its failed strategy of appeasement, which only emboldens this rogue regime in China?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I don’t have the answer to that question. I do know that our national security agencies are doubling down on allegations and on threats from foreign bad actors such as China. As I said before, maintaining the integrity of our electoral system remains a priority for this government, as it is and should be for any government. As the Prime Minister has said:

We have taken significant measures to strengthen the integrity of our elections processes and our systems, and will continue to invest in the fight against election interference, against foreign interference of our democracies and institutions.

Hon. Stan Kutcher: My question is for Senator Gold. Health research is the foundation for improved health outcomes for all Canadians, yet our health research ecosystem is in jeopardy. Investment lags significantly behind other OECD countries, and we’re seeing our best and brightest leave Canada for careers elsewhere. For example, the per cent of health spending allocated to research in the U.S. is 4.7%, in Australia 3.3%, in Canada 1.5%.

In the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Spring 2022 Project Grant competition, only 19% of applications were successful — not because they weren’t excellent but because there wasn’t enough funding. In the U.K., the rate was 35%. We’re lagging behind and we can’t continue to do this.

Health care organizations and top-notch researchers have been calling for a doubling of the funding for our Tri-Council. Will the Government of Canada heed this call for urgent action and commit to doubling the current funding to the Tri-Council in the upcoming budget?

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: My question is for the Leader of the Government.

At the G20 summit in Bali, U.S. President Joe Biden and the Chinese President had seemingly cordial and constructive formal discussions. This morning, there is talk of warming relations between China and the United States. At that same summit, the Chinese President has had formal bilateral talks with several world leaders, but not with Mr. Trudeau. In the meantime, our Prime Minister continues his solo efforts to position other Asia‑Pacific countries as a counterweight to China. Yet China is a key economic player. The U.S. knows this, but Mr. Trudeau does not.

In light of this situation, can you explain to me how we can be expected to believe that Prime Minister Trudeau’s foreign policy is not reducing, or even undermining, Canada’s influence? Are we being reduced to minor player status?

Senator Gignac: Thank you for your answer, Senator Gold. I would appreciate it if you would do that. Following the announcement of the Department of Finance’s decision, the Canadian Bond Investors’ Association, which represents more than 50 of the largest institutional investors in the country, with over $1.2 trillion in assets under management, issued a press release yesterday asking the minister to reconsider her decision and to take more time to consult stakeholders and assess the ramifications of her decision.

Senator Gold, in the interest of promoting transparency and preserving the independence and credibility of the Bank of Canada, would the Minister of Finance be prepared to present the Bank of Canada’s recommendation on this decision to the Department of Finance?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I realize I have an impossible task as I stand between you and a good, well-earned rest, but I beg your indulgence. In turn, I promise to be really short — 10 minutes — and hopefully, I will leave you somewhat enlightened as I speak to Senator Coyle’s inquiry on climate solutions.

I wish to thank Senator Coyle for her leadership on this matter, even as she is with other world leaders in Sharm El-Sheikh for COP27. I think it is entirely appropriate that I make this tiny contribution in our chamber today on this matter.

The evidence of climate change is before us, and it is undeniable: the increasing storms, melting glaciers, the rising temperatures in our oceans and the severe droughts. No country on Earth will be immune to these changes.

We also know that climate change will produce a knock-on effect in creating mass displacement, not just for the short-term as we saw in B.C., but for the abiding longer term. Already, as I have mentioned in this chamber, there are 100 million people on the move because of war, persecution, corruption and breaches of human rights. Now, we are beginning to see the mass influx of climate migrants. The International Organization for Migration, or IOM, has estimated that there will be over 1 billion environmental migrants in the next 30 years. Some estimates have it as high as 1.4 billion by 2060.

I ask this question, honourable senators: Where will those people go? How will they be absorbed? How will this movement be covered?

It is entirely possible that Canada and Canadians themselves will not be a receiving country of climate migrants but a sending country, so a global response to the climate migration challenge is imperative.

It also presents us with an opportunity to do business differently — to imagine a collective response that does not limit itself to what a nation state determines in its own narrow interest. More than in any other area, we need to move on from thinking that we belong to a particular land or that a particular land belongs to us because, as we know, climate change does not recognize borders. The solutions on climate migration must become central, then, both to immigration and the climate change movement, and not exist in separate silos as they do today.

There are a number of different proposals to consider.

In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that climate migration could be the single most important consequence of climate change. That was 30 years ago, but nations have only begun to discuss this impact in the last few years.

Former Canadian ambassador Rosemary McCarney wrote in a paper for the World Refugee and Migration Council that:

There is no comprehensive international regime of “implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge” for addressing climate displacement. . . . there is a patchwork of initiatives . . . .

Initiatives that have disparate actors and silos that straddle multiple policy agendas. Ms. McCarney believes that both substantive and organizational actions are needed to address global governance of climate displacement. Responses should be grounded in fundamental principles of human rights, gender equality and inclusion. Gender-based analysis should be a key to understanding and assessing the gendered impact of climate change. She rightly concludes that this phenomenon needs an international legal framework to address climate change-related, cross-border displacement that can guarantee access to territory, assure status and rights during stay and offer long-term solutions.

Ms. McCarney also calls for the creation of a central institution or actor to serve as a focal point for policy implementation, supervision and research to bring about coherence, consistency and achieve a robust global governance. In other words, she is calling for a new international legal framework with a new international central institution.

There is much that Canada can do at the international level to push this policy agenda forward. However, we know that global change is not easily done. The calls for multilateralism at a time when there are strains and stresses upon existing frameworks — the logjam at the United Nations Security Council — do not bode well for such proposals, necessary and sensible as they may be. To get broad, far-reaching support from all nations will be challenging.

Therefore, we come to a second, less perfect but incremental proposal: a kind of “mini-multilateralism,” as the World Refugee and Migration Council has suggested, through the creation of regional arrangements where neighbouring states come together because regional spillover is inevitable. To some extent, the regional coalition between Colombia, Ecuador and other neighbouring countries in response to the displacement of Venezuelans serves as a bit of an example for this idea. In the context of climate change and migration, a regional arrangement in the Americas to deal with the inevitable crisis facing the Caribbean islands could be a start. Most of The Bahamas, including Nassau, is projected to be under water by 2050 with an estimated population of 396,000 people who will come knocking on the doors of the United States, Canada and Mexico.

We already have well-crafted agreements with these three jurisdictions — such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA — and so these could be a springboard to craft other instruments on climate migration. This is akin to what Professor Craig Damian Smith of the Toronto Metropolitan University proposes: a coalition of the willing — of like-minded states — with a commitment to solidarity focused on climate refugee settlement to come together as a club — a club with standards, norms of behaviour and even targets for climate refugee resettlement. To borrow language from our Minister of Finance, it would be a sort of “friend-shoring” in the context not of global supply chains and trade, but in the context of climate displacement.

In the migration space, there are already far too many bad actors who threaten international norms by wildly going their own way. This coalition could be an alliance of the good cops to counteract the Rambos, and if it works on a regional level, it would be easier to imagine more nation states joining in.

Going even more narrowly and thinking bilaterally, Canada could partner on climate migration policies with a like-minded ally like Germany to develop shared policies, protocols and frameworks on climate migrants. Germany, as I have said before, is a natural partner for us. We are both nations of immigrants and both believe in the rule of law, but we also both know that the tail will wag the dog without proactive measures. In other words, neither of us want to be faced with thousands of climate migrants on our doorsteps without the proper legal frameworks in place.

Finally, Canada can do more on its own and in its own time. Our current immigration processes do not adequately encompass climate migration as a reason for admissibility into Canada — not in the refugee space and not in the economic space. We need to create a new space with additional new numbers, and with the appropriate machinery of government attached to it.

Further, Canada’s policies for settlement agencies need to be updated. Currently, climate change migrants are not explicitly captured in this framework, and this may limit their ability to access services.

We have had many discussions on climate change in this chamber, and I think it is an über-complex issue. We have talked about the carbon footprint, resource extraction, pipelines and gas tanker bans. As we look at these issues, let’s remember to place climate migration squarely on the agenda as well, otherwise the tail will truly wag the dog. Thank you, colleagues.

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

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

[English]