Senator Gignac: In accordance with the mandate letter she received from the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance is supposed to work with the provinces and territories to move toward mandatory climate-related financial disclosures. South of the border, the Securities Exchange Commission is already taking action and has released proposed regulations to require U.S. businesses, among others, to disclose the impact of climate change on their business model.

Senator Gold, would it be possible to know the status of discussions between Ottawa and the provinces? Have discussions begun about making financial disclosures on the impact of climate change mandatory in Canada? If so, has a deadline been set?

Hon. Clément Gignac: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, which represents over 21 million Canadian contributors and beneficiaries and manages over $550 billion in assets, submitted a brief to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce last week regarding the low levels of investment in Canada.

In its brief, CPP Investments talks about important considerations related to the challenges posed by climate change. The brief states, and I quote:

Having consistent and accurate climate change-related financial information enhances our ability to make sound investment decisions in the best interests of our contributors and beneficiaries.

Senator Gold, if Canada is to successfully achieve its energy transition, don’t you think it would be important to provide pension funds and long-term capital providers with better tools for assessing investment opportunities in Canada?

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate. Senator Gold, Budget 2022 announced $8 billion in new defence spending. However, it also ties most of this spending to yet another defence policy review. I participated in good faith in the last review held by this government in 2018, but I’m now anxious to see tangible action, especially considering Defence Minister Anand’s recent statement that Arctic security is a priority for this government.

Senator Gold, how long does the government anticipate that review to take, and does your government anticipate upgrades to our now very outdated North Warning System?

Senator Patterson: Senator Gold, Professor Kim Richard Nossal in an interview with The Hill Times on April 11, 2022, said that with regard to defence procurement:

. . . the incredible waste of resources has become so normal that governments can and do throw hundreds of millions of dollars away, seemingly without a second thought, and certainly without ever suffering any consequences.

Keeping in mind that Arctic defence, in light of the current war in Ukraine, is top of mind for many, my question is supplementary: Will the government be working with Inuit and northerners as they did in awarding the recent operations and maintenance contract for the operation of the North Warning System to ensure that these “hundreds of millions of dollars” also equate to another economic driver for the territories?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for underlining the challenge to Canadians, especially those seeking to buy their first home, not only in Toronto, where I had the pleasure of living for many years, but really all across this country, even in smaller communities.

The government continues to try to do its part along with the provinces, municipalities and the private sector to address this very pressing problem for Canadians. It designs programs based upon the best judgment and information as to what would help, and when experience shows that adjustments need to be made it will make those adjustments. That’s the prudent and responsible thing to do.

I don’t want to go off on a tangent, but public policy-making is and should be a matter of, in some sense, trial, and when there is error, failed results, incomplete results or inadequate results, to make adjustments.

This is not a matter, senator, of doubling down on a failed program. This is a matter of doing the government’s part and its best to tailor programs and adjust as circumstances change, as they certainly have changed in our economy throughout this pandemic and as we emerge from it.

So in that regard, the Canadian government will continue to work to do its part to assist Canadians seeking to enter this rather overheated and challenging housing market.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boniface, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act, 2016.

Hon. Victor Oh: Honourable senators, I rise today to celebrate the occasion of Asian Heritage Month in May. Twenty years ago, the month of May was designated as Asian Heritage Month by the federal government to recognize and celebrate the contributions and sacrifices of Canadians of Asian descent.

Throughout our country’s history, there have been challenges faced by the Asian-Canadian community. In the early 19th and 20th centuries, many were discriminated against with the head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act. Amid these difficulties, Asian Canadians have risen above this prejudice and have contributed significantly to the development of Canada into the prosperous nation that it is today. From the construction of the transcontinental railroad to the fight against tyranny during the two World Wars, these Canadians never turned down the call to help their country.

These contributions have been persistent throughout our great nation’s history. In the arts, countless Asian-Canadian actors, dancers, artists and musicians captivated audiences around the world. This diverse representation no doubt inspires younger generations of artists to follow in their footsteps.

In sports, from Olympians to professional hockey players, Canadians of Asian descent break world records and win medals, all while embodying the spirit of camaraderie and sportsmanship.

In business, Asian-Canadian entrepreneurship provides the backbone of many local economies, creating thousands of jobs and contributing to the development of communities, big and small.

Finally, in the public service, Asian Canadians break long-standing systemic barriers while devoting their life to the betterment of Canada. I am proud to serve alongside many of them within this chamber.

Colleagues, during this Asian Heritage Month, let us celebrate Asian Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Let us share our stories, support our local businesses and remember that our nation’s strength lies within our diversity.

I would also like to send my best wishes to everyone celebrating Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan. Thank you, xie xie.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I rise today to join my friend and colleague Senator Marshall in recognizing and supporting Mental Health Week. Since I last spoke on this subject almost three years ago, there have been many developments: the pandemic, warfare and the resultant social and economic turbulence that made the world a more dangerous and tense place. People are losing trust in our institutions and each other. Indeed, apart from the obvious impact of these developments, one could assert that there has been an impact on our collective mental health and, in today’s parlance, we can also assert that none of us are immune.

Mental Health Week is a vital reminder that we must all think about mental health and fight any related stigma year-round. This year’s theme as set by the Canadian Mental Health Association, or CMHA, is empathy.

Helen Fishburn, the CEO of the CMHA Waterloo Wellington — my original home area — has written that we are now transitioning to a “learning to live with COVID” phase after two years of this pandemic. This shift in messaging presents challenges, as it requires resilience and adaptability after two long years of understandable fear and distrust.

Anxiety, stress and fear are set to continue over the coming months, and the lingering effects on our mental health will last much longer. Whatever the new normal will be, it is important for all of us to practise empathy. Certainly for us as senators, as the managers we are, we must practise empathy with our teams to build and maintain the safest possible work environments both in our own offices and in the Senate as a whole. We must also be prepared to seek mental health support for our teams and, indeed, for ourselves.

When I spoke on this subject three years ago, I referenced the Senate’s nascent Mental Health Advisory Committee, which comprises senators and staff colleagues in their offices and the administration. Championed by our Speaker, the committee has benefited from the work of its chair, Christopher Reed, the participation of human resources staff and the guidance of Senators Kutcher and Marshall. I am proud to work with all of them on this committee.

Soon, colleagues, you will all receive copies of the Mental Health Handbook for Parliamentarians and Staff, developed by Senator Kutcher and MP Ya’ara Saks. There will be more to come.

Honourable senators, good mental health need not be an elusive concept. It is certainly not without its challenges, but if we all do our part, individually and collectively, we can mitigate those challenges. Thank you.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, notwithstanding the order adopted on March 31, 2022, the deadline for the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to submit its final report on its review, including a statement of any recommended changes, be extended to October 17, 2022, provided that the committee submit an interim report on mental illness as a sole underlying condition no later than June 23, 2022; and

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

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is for Senator Gold, the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Leader, more than three weeks ago, U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson visited President Zelenskyy in Ukraine’s capital to hold talks with his counterpart and to show the world his country’s solidarity with Ukraine against Russian aggression. Since then, leader, any number of foreign dignitaries have travelled to Ukraine to meet with its president and to personally witness the devastation caused by this illegal war. Even Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie was there this past weekend to meet with refugees.

Senator Gold, the NDP-Liberal government here in Canada thinks we’re only good at convening, and yet no official has travelled to Ukraine to offer their support in person, as many of our allies have done. Why is that, Senator Gold?

Senator Plett: It’s unfortunate, leader, that you don’t touch upon the question asked. I didn’t ask you about all that our government has done; I asked you why they were not doing something.

As I said last week, we have a Prime Minister who thinks nothing of flying all over the place for climate change meetings and vacations. We have a Prime Minister who met, bowed his head and shook hands with Iran’s foreign minister just one month after Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, PS752, killing Canadians.

Senator Housakos: Shameful.

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

The Canadian government has provided and continues to provide important financial and military assistance to Ukraine and Ukrainians. It stands in solidarity with the people fighting this war. We are opening our doors to Ukrainians seeking to come to Canada, and we will continue to work with our allies and the Ukrainian government to respond to their needs, as we should.

Senator Gold: The Government of Canada is considering all steps that it can take to reopen the embassy and provide consular and other services to those who need it. When a decision has been made, it will be announced.

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act, 2016.

I was thinking just the other day about all the personal information I carry on my phone and laptop these days, thinking how much more of my life is on my devices than was there before the pandemic began. For the last two years, Canadians have been working from home, shopping from home, dining from home and entertaining themselves at home. Our phones, laptops, tablets and even our Apple Watches, know more about us than ever before — what we watch, what we eat, what we read, what we buy, where we’ve been, who our friends are and whom we date.

Our devices hold our most intimate and embarrassing secrets — more than our teenage diaries ever did. And, more than ever, they hold the confidential work we do, no matter where we work or who our clients or patients or colleagues or constituents might be. It is against that backdrop that we debate Bill S-7 today.

A history lesson: In November of 2020, in a decision known as R. v. Canfield, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that section 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act offended against section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it did not impose any limits on when and how searches of personal electronic devices, including smartphones, tablets and laptops, could be conducted at the border.

Honourable Madam Justice Frederica Schutz, Madam Justice Jo’Anne Strekaf and Madam Justice Ritu Khullar held unanimously that the act violated the protection to be free of unreasonable search and seizure because it allowed for what the court called “suspicion-less and unlimited searches” of private information. That violation, held the court, could not be saved by section 1 of the Charter because it allowed unfettered and unrestricted access to people’s most personal and intimate information.

Canada’s courts have long recognized the inherent privacy of what they have termed, somewhat poetically, our “biographical core of personal information.”

In its 1993 R. v. Plant decision, the Supreme Court put it this way:

In fostering the underlying values of dignity, integrity and autonomy, it is fitting that s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state. This would include information which tends to reveal intimate details of the lifestyle and personal choices of the individual.

Almost two decades later, in the 2012 case R. v. Cole, the Supreme Court was even more explicit:

The closer the subject matter of the alleged search lies to the biographical core of personal information, the more this factor will favour a reasonable expectation of privacy. Put another way, the more personal and confidential the information, the more willing reasonable and informed Canadians will be to recognize the existence of a constitutionally protected privacy interest.

Today, when we carry so much more of ourselves and our lives on our phones, our tablets and our laptops, a search of those devices, said the court in Canfield, strikes right to the heart of our biographical core.

To quote the Canfield judgment:

. . . while the search of a computer or cell phone is not akin to the seizure of bodily samples or a strip search, it may nevertheless be a significant intrusion on personal privacy. To be reasonable, such a search must have a threshold requirement.

The greater the intrusion, said the Alberta Court of Appeal, “the greater must be the justification and the greater the degree of constitutional protection.”

The court did not specify what it thought a proper constitutional threshold would be. But it suggested it might be something akin to “reasonable suspicion,” as opposed to the more stringent standard of “reasonable and probable grounds.”

So now we have before us Bill S-7, a somewhat belated, already outdated effort by the government to amend the Customs Act to meet the constitutional requirement set out by the court two and a half years ago.

With this legislation, the government has created a wholly novel test for a search of an international traveller’s cell phone or computer, a threshold without precedent in Canadian law.

Bill S-7 would allow Canada Border Services Agency officers and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers doing pre-clearance of travellers leaving Canada for the United States to examine documents, including emails, text messages, receipts, photographs or videos, that are stored on a personal digital device if and when the officers feel a “reasonable general concern” that something on that device might contravene the Customs Act.

What does a “reasonable general concern” mean, legally speaking? I wish I could tell you but I can’t since there is no Canadian jurisprudence related to this newborn phrase.

A reasonable concern, one might intuit, is a lower standard than a reasonable suspicion because a concern, in common parlance, is less grave and less specific than a suspicion. And maybe, just maybe, a test of “reasonable concern” might pass constitutional muster. But throw in the word “general” and you water things down even more. I mean, what in blue blazes is a “general concern?” It sounds even more vague and more subjective than a good old-fashioned hunch or an inkling. It is a fuzzy, ill-defined threshold, one that opens the doors to all kinds of possible misapplication or abuse.

Is there any traveller alive who might not inspire “general concern” on the part of a border officer on a bad day?

Now, imagine someone who is Black or Muslim or Chinese or Indigenous. Or someone who is queer. Or someone who wears unconventional clothes. Or someone on the autism spectrum. How might such a general concern be provoked in an officer who is acting on such a loose and intuitive test?

What’s particularly perplexing is that there was no need for the government to concoct such an untested legal standard. The obvious legal threshold to conduct a search already exists right in the text of the Customs Act. Section 98 of the act, for example, provides that an officer can search any person “if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person has secreted on or about his person” any prohibited, controlled or regulated goods.

The act provides that any imported or exported mail may be opened and examined if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that it contains any prohibited or regulated goods. The act further authorizes goods to be examined and any package or container opened where the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the Customs Act has been or might be contravened.

All throughout the Customs Act, in fact, the standard test is suspicion “on reasonable grounds;” it is the well-established legal threshold. Why on earth should it be easier for border agents to search the contents of our personal electronic devices than it is for them to search our mail or our coat pockets or our car trunks or our suitcases? Yet that is precisely what Bill S-7 allows.

We all understand that we have fewer privacy rights when we cross a border than when we cross a city street. Entering or exiting a country is a privilege. We routinely subject ourselves to searches of our luggage and our persons that would not be legal in ordinary daily life when we ask to cross a border. But a border is still not a Charter-free zone.

Bill S-7 would allow border officers, acting only on a “reasonable general concern” to scroll through our texts and photos, our love notes, our bank statements, our SkipTheDishes orders, our Amazon purchases, our dating history and our private health and fitness data.

Now, you could certainly argue that the original text of section 99 of the Customs Act, at least as it has been previously interpreted, already gave them that right, but, up until now at least, the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, had its own internal rules which were supposed to preclude such fishing expeditions. According to the CBSA handbook, searches were only supposed to be conducted if there were “. . . a multiplicity of indicators that evidence of contraventions may be found on the digital device or media.”

The court in Canfield explicitly said that was not good enough. And yet the language of Bill S-7 — let me stress this — actually lowers the bar for a search. Far from enhancing our privacy rights, as the court explicitly directed, S-7 may, in fact, diminish them, granting border officers more latitude — not less — to pry into our personal devices. Either way, it’s a fair bet that this novel legal threshold is going to create confusion, not clarity, for many border officers. And it will undoubtedly become the subject of aggressive litigation almost as soon as it’s applied.

This is not what the Court of Appeal in Canfield required when it struck down the law, and it certainly doesn’t align with previous recommendations of Canada’s Privacy Commissioner.

Our border rules were originally created to allow customs agents to look for “stuff:” illicit goods, things like smuggled drugs or smuggled cigarettes and smuggled exotic animals. They were designed to ensure we weren’t sneaking back from vacation with shoes or dresses or artworks on which we hadn’t paid duty. But when we treat the private secrets carried on our digital devices as though they were goods, we weaponize the Customs Act in fresh and unintended ways.

I know it is politically risky to criticize Bill S-7 because it has been framed for us as a way to fight child pornography. In this fraught time, no one wants to be smeared as a defender of child porn or pedophilia. I certainly don’t. But most child porn is not imported into this country physically, carried on individual personal computers. It’s bought and sold and shared online.

Creating a lower novel threshold for searching our personal computers won’t do much to stop the scourge of child sex abuse, but it will put the privacy rights of thousands of Canadian travellers in real jeopardy.

Perhaps you think that S-7 won’t matter to you because you obviously don’t carry child porn on your phone or laptop. But this bill isn’t just about child pornography. Prohibited items under the Customs Act include hate propaganda, obscene material, treasonous or seditious material and even something as benign as reprints of Canadian copyrighted works.

That leaves me with what you might call a reasonable general concern that some travellers could be targeted for phone and computer searches based on their political views, or rather, based on what a border officer’s general concern about their political views might be.

Your phone and laptop can also be searched if a generally concerned officer is looking for receipts or banking information stored on your devices that might show you bought a few more things abroad than you’ve actually declared.

And, perhaps most worryingly, as Senator Boniface explained in her introduction of the bill last week, if officers discover what may be evidence of a criminal offence — an offence that has nothing to do with the Customs Act — that evidence may be provided to local police, who may then conduct their own criminal investigation and consider possible criminal charges.

Colleagues, we have a chance to do what the court in Canfield asked us to do: to find a balance, to come up with a proper threshold test for invasive searches of our digital devices — a test that recognizes the need to protect our borders and our national security, while at the same time safeguarding our privacy rights.

Reasonable general concern is not the appropriate threshold, not in 2022, not when our phones allow us to hold our lives in our hands. We owe it to Canadians to do better, not to rush through this constitutional debate just because the government missed a court-imposed deadline to write this legislation. Let’s apply some sober first thought to a bill that badly needs it.

Thank you. Hiy hiy.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Thank you very much. I raised in my speech similar considerations that needed to be had around the threshold, but I do want to make sure that the Court of Appeal’s paragraph 75 was clear. I want to ask if you would agree that this is in fact what paragraph 75 of the Canfield ruling said that in their view:

 . . . the threshold for the search of electronic devices may be something less than the reasonable grounds to suspect required for a strip search under the Customs Act. . . .

and that:

Whether the appropriate threshold is reasonable suspicion, or something less than that having regard to the unique nature of the border, will have to be decided by Parliament and fleshed out in other cases. . . .

Is it not clear to you in Canfield that they were giving the range for Parliament to make a decision around that? Am I correct?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that a message has been received from the House of Commons which reads as follows:

Monday, May 2, 2022

EXTRACT, —

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House,

(a)on the day of the adoption of this order, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12:00 a.m., that until Thursday, June 23, 2022, a minister of the Crown may, with the agreement of the House leader of another recognized party, rise from his or her seat at any time during a sitting, but no later than 6:30 p.m., and request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the current sitting or a subsequent sitting be 12:00 a.m., provided that it be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1 is to take place, and that such a request shall be deemed adopted;

(b)on a sitting day extended pursuant to paragraph (a),

(i)proceedings on any opposition motion pursuant to Standing Order 81(16) shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. Tuesday to Thursday, 6:30 p.m. on a Monday or 1:30 p.m. on a Friday, on an allotted day for the business of supply, except pursuant to Standing Order 81(18)(c),

(ii)after 6:30 p.m. the Speaker shall not receive any quorum calls or dilatory motions, and shall only accept a request for unanimous consent after receiving a notice from the House leaders or whips of all recognized parties stating that they are in agreement with such a request,

(iii)motions to proceed to the orders of the day, and to adjourn the debate or the House may be moved after 6:30 p.m. by a minister of the Crown, including on a point of order, and such motions be deemed adopted,

(iv)the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Orders 33(2), 45(7.1) or 67.1(2);

(c)until Thursday, June 23, 2022,

(i)during consideration of the estimates on the last allotted day, pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings for the purpose of putting forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the estimates,

(A)all remaining motions to concur in the votes for which a notice of opposition was filed shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded, the questions deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested,

(B)the Speaker shall have the power to combine the said motions for voting purposes, provided that, in exercising this power, the Speaker be guided by the same principles and practices used at report stage,

(ii)when debate on a motion for concurrence in committee reports is adjourned or interrupted, including on the day of the adoption of this order, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House leaders of the other recognized parties, but in any case not later than the 35th sitting day after the interruption,

(iii)a motion for third reading of a government bill may be made in the same sitting during which the said bill has been concurred in at report stage,

(iv)a minister of the Crown may move, without notice, a motion to adjourn the House until Monday, September 19, 2022, provided that the House shall be adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28 and that the said motion shall be decided immediately without debate or amendment;

(d)notwithstanding the order adopted on Thursday, November 25, 2021, and Standing Order 45(6), no recorded division requested after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 23, 2022, shall be deferred, except for any recorded division requested in regard to a Private Members’ Business item, for which the provisions of the order adopted on Thursday, November 25, 2021, shall continue to apply; and

(e)notwithstanding paragraph (j) of the order made Wednesday, March 30, 2022, the deadline for the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to submit to Parliament a final report of its review, including a statement of any recommended changes, be no later than Monday, October 17, 2022, provided that an interim report on mental illness as a sole underlying condition be presented to the House no later than Thursday, June 23, 2022, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has passed this order; and

that Standing Order 28(1) be amended as follows: “(1) The House shall not meet on New Year’s Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, the day fixed for the celebration of the birthday of the Sovereign, St. John the Baptist Day, Canada Day, Labour Day, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day and Christmas Day. When St. John the Baptist Day, Canada Day or the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation fall on a Tuesday, the House shall not meet the preceding day; when those days fall on a Thursday, the House shall not meet the following day.”.

ATTEST

Charles Robert

The Clerk of the House of Commons

[English]

On the Order:

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

That the following Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada:

To Her Excellency the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY:

We, Her Majesty’s most loyal and dutiful subjects, the Senate of Canada in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Dear colleagues, today I rise to deliver a speech on Bill S-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance Day, which was introduced by Senator Mégie.

In her speech at second reading, Senator Mégie set out three reasons for this bill: the duty to remember, the duty to get through it, and the duty to be prepared for a future pandemic. The impact the pandemic had and continues to have on our lives, our health and our economy certainly justifies the need to remember. We must never forget how hard our health care system and our long-term care facilities were hit, nor must we forget the loss of life that shook our communities.

That said, I would like to focus on the third reason: the duty to be prepared for a future pandemic. Canada was hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic, and we were poorly prepared for a public health crisis of this magnitude. In the beginning, over 80% of the pandemic-related deaths were in long-term care facilities and retirement homes. Our health care systems were overwhelmed by growing demand and the labour shortages.

Our governments were taken by surprise. Their social safety nets were ill-equipped for a pandemic and nationwide lockdowns. We were asked to urgently pass bills to help Canadians despite Parliament itself lacking a plan to ensure continuity of the legislative process during a pandemic. We had to create all those plans on the fly. Had we been better prepared, we could have been spared much of the impact.

In business and industry, Canada was once again behind other nations. Once upon a time, Canada had cutting-edge vaccine development right here at home, but that capacity gradually declined and disappeared, in part because of profit-seeking and political considerations, according to Dr. Earl Brown, emeritus professor of biochemistry, microbiology and immunology at the University of Ottawa. As a result, Canada was dependent on other countries’ vaccine production.

[English]

Let’s remember that our initial rollout of vaccines at the key moment in the fight against COVID-19 was impacted by delays due to the prioritization of other countries and the inevitably slow ramp up of production around the world.

The government and Canadians have since recognized the importance of rebuilding vaccine production here in Canada, and we have since invested more than $1 billion to address this gap. Let’s see it as a good sign that the Moderna facility that will be located in Montreal will make Canada a leader in mRNA vaccine production.

Just over a decade has elapsed since the H1N1 Pandemic. It might not have been as impactful on all of Canadian society as COVID-19 has been, but the experience should have informed policy-makers, especially since scientists have been warning us of the increased risk of the emergence of new infectious diseases and pandemics.

The lack of emergency preparedness in Canada seems to be a recurring theme. Whether it’s for COVID-19, extreme weather events or climate change Canada always seems to be in a reactive position. Of course, it is impossible to be completely prepared for any crisis, but proactive planning and prevention and action based on science will minimize the impacts of these crises as they arise, and will be extremely beneficial for all Canadians.

In fact, according to the World Health Organization, the cost of fighting COVID-19, estimated to be in the tens of trillions of dollars, could end up being five hundred times more than the cost of investing in limiting the transmission of new diseases.

Honourable senators, it’s easy to say that we will never forget the devastation the pandemic has had on people’s lives; yet, we have had pandemics before, and we were still unprepared. When we forget, we become complacent, and we start failing in our duty to prepare Canadians for crises.

If the Pandemic Observance Day can help remind us of the necessity to be prepared and to adopt effective preventative measures, then maybe we can leave a good legacy to future generations in the hope that we have helped them minimize the impacts of the next world pandemic.

Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McPhedran, seconded by the Honourable Senator White, for the second reading of Bill S-201, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Regulation Adapting the Canada Elections Act for the Purposes of a Referendum (voting age).

Hon. Karen Sorensen: Good afternoon, âba wathtech.

Honourable senators, I rise today in reply to the Speech from the Throne, my first speech in this chamber.

I was appointed in July 2021 and sworn in on November 22. As I begin, I am reminded of the advice I was often given by my father. He said, “You never get a second chance to make a first impression.” The pressure’s on.

I’ll add that my dad would be so very proud of this moment. When I video-called my mother, 92 years young, to tell her the exciting news about my appointment to the Senate, I started with, “So I had an interesting call the other day from Prime Minister Trudeau.” Her eyes widened, and in her very concerned mother tone she replied, “What did he want?” Being my mom, she thought perhaps he was calling me for some sage advice. However, if he were to call anyone in my family for sage advice, he would first ring up my mother.

I was raised in Orangeville, Ontario, but for two thirds of my life I have been fortunate to live in the town of Banff, an incorporated Alberta municipality located in Banff National Park, the birthplace of Canada’s envied national park system, Canada’s most popular national park and one of the country’s top international tourism destinations.

[Translation]

I like to say I got involved in public service out of love. Love of the mountains brought me west. I first saw the splendour that is Banff on a family vacation when I was 13. I stood atop Sulphur Mountain and told my parents, “I’m going to live here one day.”

Like so many young Canadians, I headed west after university. I met a local Banff boy, and well, I know a good thing when I see it, so I married him. We raised our sons in Banff and built a successful business, and I pursued my first fulfilling career in tourism and hospitality.

[English]

And love for my sons led me to become a school board trustee because I wanted to be involved in their education. Love for my community and for the national park led me to run for local office, first as a town councillor for two terms and then as mayor, which I was for three terms. I wanted to be involved in strengthening the resilience and sustainability of my community and its residents while remaining faithful to the national park mandate and vision.

Love for my beautiful province, the land and its people, and love for my country led me to submit my application to the Canadian Senate. I am 62 years old, and this will be my fourth career.

To have this opportunity full of new experiences and learning in a role where I can continue to serve fills me with gratitude. I am so grateful to the Selection Committee, who put my application in front of the Prime Minister. I am grateful to Prime Minister Trudeau for recommending my appointment to join this incredible group of colleagues.

Every time I read a bio or hear one of you speak, I think, “Wow, that is a super accomplished human,” and it is an honour to serve alongside you. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge Senator Paula Simons, who has been so generous with her time and ear throughout the appointment process and who sponsored me as I was sworn into this chamber. I also thank Senators Gold, Cordy, Plett, Tannas and Woo for their very kind comments on that day. I deeply appreciate your warm and sincere welcome. To all my Senate colleagues, every single senator I have spoken with has been kind, helpful and welcoming. I also want to give a shout-out to my experienced and knowledgeable EA, JoAnna Komarnicki, who previously worked with Senator Doug Black and has kept my head above water often in these early days. And recently, Madison McSweeney has joined us from the other place, as we like to call it.

I’d like to take a moment to thank my family: Carsten, my husband and partner of 33 years, and our sons — Bjerre, the boy Carsten brought with him into my life — and Eric and Connor, who are by far the greatest things I have ever produced. Nothing I achieved over the years would have been possible without their unwavering support. But of all my family and extended family, my daughter-in-law Shayla perhaps absorbed my appointment to this chamber most personally. Shayla is the great-great-granddaughter of Senator James Gladstone, Akay-na-muka, Many Guns, the first status Indian to be appointed to the Senate of Canada. He was of the Kainai Blackfoot, who are one of the peoples of Treaty 7.

The town of Banff is located on the side of Eyarhey Tatanga Woweyahgey Wakân, or Sacred Buffalo Guardian Mountain, in the traditional territory of the people of the Treaty 7, shared with us by the Stoney Nakoda Nations of Chiniki, Wesley and Bearspaw; Blackfoot Confederacy of the Siksika, Kainai and Piikani Nations; the Tsuut’ina First Nation; the Métis Nation of Alberta Region 3; and long shared with Kootenay and Shuswap.

I respectfully and sincerely acknowledge Treaty 7 territory. We are all treaty people, and we are on a lifelong journey toward reconciliation. We have the opportunity and the responsibility to learn about and sincerely understand our history and the spirit and intent of all treaties. Going forward, we honour the truth of the past, are aware of the present and build an equitable future based on friendship and respect as we travel the path to reconciliation.

I have two areas I’d like to highlight in relation to the Speech from the Throne that opened this Parliament on November 23, 2021. It stated:

. . . growing the economy and protecting the environment go hand in hand.

By focusing on innovation and good, green jobs, and by working with like-minded countries — we will build a more resilient, sustainable, and competitive economy.

The goal is to grow the economy that works for everyone. I believe investing in the tourism industry can help achieve that goal. As Canada’s largest service export industry and employer of nearly 1 out of every 10 workers, a healthy tourism industry is integral to the nation’s successful economic future. Throughout all my careers, I have been and will continue to be a vocal advocate for our nation’s tourism industry and all the supporting sectors that make up the visitor economy. I believe tourism represents one of the best forms of sustainable economic activity to be pursued. It builds and supports strong and resilient communities, innovative start-ups, small businesses and employment, and it can be achieved hand in hand with protecting and conserving the environment — particularly the very destinations in our country that attract visitors from around the world.

Tourism is also a vehicle for Indigenous peoples to share their vibrant cultures and educate Canadians about our shared history. Traditional customs have survived concerted assimilation attempts. Experiencing first-hand incredible Indigenous art, performances and storytelling is essential for learning the truth on the road to reconciliation.

And, of course, we all have a stake in protecting our environment and ensuring future generations have access to these lands.

Tourism operators across Canada have been on the leading edge in greening their operations and supporting conservation. Ecotourism is a sustainable model that allows guests to directly interact with nature, providing a much-needed reminder that our natural world is worth preserving.

[Translation]

I am passionate about all of Canada’s national parks, and deeply proud of those located in Alberta. Our national parks system is a proxy for our country’s strong commitment to the preservation of our natural world. It provides meaningful opportunities for Canadians, and international visitors, to connect with these special places, and strengthen our national resolve to protect them in perpetuity. In my opinion, access to our national parks is a fundamental right of all Canadians.

[English]

Essential then, in growing the tourism industry that works for everyone, is ensuring our national parks system remains resilient, maintains ecological function and continues to be a global example of environmental leadership.

I am very excited to be co-chairing the newly formed, non‑partisan Parliamentary Tourism Caucus to advocate for this industry that personally raised me. My goal is to highlight tourism and give it the recognition it deserves as a crucial and prosperous industry in Canada with the benefit of showing off this great country and what we represent: fresh air, clean water, cultural richness, diversity, acceptance and friendly residents. I look forward to debate and discussions around rebuilding tourism in Canada.

Some of you may have heard me identify as a senator from Alberta in the context of the Alberta Rockies specifically, the region from Jasper National Park through Banff National Park into Kananaskis Country and south to Waterton Lakes National Park. The Alberta Rockies are my home, and my life experiences there have brought me here. I do not place a higher regard on the priorities of these areas ahead of other regions in the province. However, I believe a significant portion of environmental and economic assets, including tourism, for the entire province begins in the Alberta Rockies.

I believe that the speed of hydrological changes occurring in the Rocky Mountains due to the climate crisis is the single greatest threat to the well-being of all Albertans.

There is a statement in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report that has resonated with me. During the TRC process, traditional knowledge keepers counselled that reconciliation must also be with the natural world. Elder Reg Crowshoe said, “. . . reconciliation is incomplete if human beings resolve problems between themselves and continue to destroy natural world.”

This brings me to my second matter of concern. The Speech from the Throne included the following statement:

Our Earth is in danger.

From a warming Arctic to the increasing devastation of natural disasters, our land and our people need help.

We must move talk into action and adapt where we must.

We cannot afford to wait.

I live at the doorstep of the Rocky Mountain headwaters: the cradle of life to 194 of Alberta’s rivers, and home to the country’s water towers for humanity, otherwise known as glaciers. Under a medium emission scenario, Canada’s western mountain glaciers are forecasted to lose 74% to 96% of their volume by 2100. That is just 78 years from now. I have personally borne witness to a significant depletion of glacier ice in my 35 years of living in Banff.

My first job, after I moved west, was at the Athabasca Glacier in 1979. It is a dramatically different place today. While deglaciation can be considered a natural occurrence at the end of an ice age, the current rate of glacier retreat is alarming.

We know that water is the basis of all life. Without water, there is no other resource or pursuit that makes life sustainable or even possible. As Jacques Cousteau said, “We forget that the water cycle and the life cycle are one.”

It seems appropriate to comment here that while water security is often seen as a natural and basic human right for Canadians, Indigenous communities continue to be at risk. Although the federal government committed to work at this unresolved matter, in a 2021 report the Auditor General revealed a significant lack of progress in ensuring Indigenous communities have access to safe drinking water. We must move talk into action and move faster.

The rapid loss of glacier ice due to climate change is causing irrevocable impacts both in the alpine and downstream to Alberta’s fresh water supply. The consequences of these impacts should be topmost in our minds when discussing climate change, especially the speed at which we are turning policy into action.

Integral to this is the urgent need to halt and reverse biodiversity loss and be nature positive. The nature crisis is deeply linked to the climate crisis. Biodiversity is essential to maintaining life on the planet, and its severe degradation is not only a result of climate change, it is worsening it.

We must reconcile with the natural world.

My intention as one of the newest members of the Senate of Canada is to help bring attention to water security, highlight the downstream effects of accelerated deglaciation due to climate change and promote the goal of restoring biodiversity and a return to a nature-positive state.

As someone who supports a reformed Senate, I can assure my colleagues that I am not influenced by partisan politics. In fact, in my career as mayor and councillor, I have worked easily with politicians and administrators from all parties at all levels of government.

My contributions will come from my affinity and, if I may, my proficiency in asking questions, seeking out knowledge and building consensus. They come from a desire to always ensure the policy options we pursue balance the environmental, economic and social well-being of Alberta and all Canadians. They come from a genuine passion for public service. Thank you for your attention. Ishniyes.

(On motion of Senator Gagné, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mégie, seconded by the Honourable Senator Audette, for the third reading of Bill S-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance Day, as amended.

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, I rise today in the chamber in support of Senator McPhedran’s Bill S-201 to lower the federal voting age to 16.

I spoke in favour of this legislative initiative during the last parliamentary session. I took that opportunity to give voice to youth actively engaged in their communities, advocating not only for environmental conservation and climate action but also for better education and less inequality. They are doing this advocacy work even when their governments don’t recognize their basic right to vote in elections that will impact their immediate future.

When I was reading the words of young Canadians, including Amélie Beaulé, Aya Arba, Solène Tessier, Zoe Keary-Matzner and Sophia Mathur, I wanted to demonstrate that Canadian youth are not only interested in federal politics, but also heavily invested in the decisions that are shaping our tomorrow.

These statements also had a common thread: Young people are capable of critical analysis when it comes to policy, and they deserve the right to be represented in our democratic institutions.

According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, youth must be empowered. Youth participation is key to democracy and inclusive, efficient political processes. Young women and men are central to social challenges such as poverty, discrimination and climate change, and their participation in politics promotes active citizenship and strengthens social responsibility. It offers innovation, creativity and new thinking. The IPU is actively encouraging youth participation in democracy. I invite you to follow the IPU’s debate competition until May 30, 2022. Watch and listen to young people debate and see how smart and articulate they are in expressing not only their worries but also the solutions they are proposing.

I’m sure you know that many of the recent world movements have been spearheaded by youth who are too worried about their future to wait for older generations such as ours to act or until they themselves are old enough to vote. Inspirational youth like Greta Thunberg and Autumn Peltier have moved millions of young people and adults alike. They have educated us on important issues, and they have helped put a spotlight on pressing matters in ways that so many others have not been able to.

If this proves anything, it is that age is not a factor in understanding and communicating complex issues. It is also definitive proof that adults over 18 years of age do not have a monopoly on good ideas and policy. In fact, in the words of Amélie Beaulé, “Wisdom is the human quality of aspiring to knowledge and understanding while knowing how to keep an open mind.”

Honourable senators, today’s young people embody this perfectly. They are engaged in their communities. They advocate for the greater collective good and equality. They are more connected than ever. They constantly demonstrate a thirst for knowledge, and they do so while keeping an open mind. All they ask in return is that we acknowledge their input, that we recognize their value and that we allow them to participate in the most basic democratic activity.

Lowering the voting age is not a new concept, and there are many good reasons that demonstrate how doing so is a sound and ethical choice. Many jurisdictions around the world have adopted a voting age under 18 for many reasons, including the following: Young people have adult responsibilities but are denied the same rights; young people are expected to follow the law but have no say in making it; young people are already participating in politics; young people make good voters; lowering the voting age will help increase voter turnout; lowering the voting age will improve the lives of youth; knowledge and experience are not criteria for voting eligibility; there are no wrong votes; arguments against lowering the voting age can be used to disenfranchise adults, too; and, finally, legislation to lower the voting age has more support than you think.

In the last parliamentary session, we voted to send this bill to committee so the impacts of lowering the voting age could be studied. We should do that again as soon as possible.

Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

Leave having been given to revert to Other Business, Senate Public Bills, Third Reading, Order No. 2:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Omidvar, seconded by the Honourable Senator Saint-Germain, for the third reading of Bill S-217, An Act respecting the repurposing of certain seized, frozen or sequestrated assets, as amended.

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-220, a bill that seeks to make bilingualism in English and French, our country’s two official languages, a new requirement for being appointed to the position of Governor General of Canada.

I will begin by saying that this bill deserves to be supported by everyone who serves in this chamber, since they should, in my view, all care deeply about preserving and respecting the two official languages of our country’s founding peoples.

The recent appointment of the current Governor General of Canada presents us all with a particularly disappointing situation. We have a Prime Minister who is capable, on the one hand, of publicly expressing indignation about the absence of French speakers on the board of directors of Canadian National, and, on the other, of appointing a governor general who must give assent to the laws of this country, which are written in both languages, without being able to read and fully understand the documents she signs.

It is surprising and disappointing, to say the least, that this was done by a francophone Prime Minister who sometimes has the nerve to claim to be a champion of French in Canada. I would like to remind him that during all his years in office, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, an anglophone, began all his speeches in French, no matter his audience. That example is certainly not being followed by his successor.

It was Prime Minister Harper who ensured that Bill C-419 was passed in 2013, requiring all of the following positions in Canada’s public service to be bilingual: the Auditor General of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Senate Ethics Officer, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, the President of the Public Service Commission, the Commissioner of Lobbying, and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

All candidates must know both official languages to be appointed to these positions. The last appointee who did not have this qualification was Auditor General Michael Ferguson, but he gave us quite a surprise when he started speaking French not long after he was appointed.

For those who were not here in 2013, I want to point out that the members of the House of Commons and all senators in this chamber unanimously, and I repeat unanimously, passed Bill C-419. Allow me to hope that this chamber will also unanimously pass Bill S-220.

It is a shame that current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has shown such disregard for francophones in this country that it has become necessary to add this high office, the office of Governor General, to the list of offices requiring knowledge of both official languages. Whether the office of Governor General is legally considered to be part of what is referred to as the public service is largely immaterial to me. This bill is simply about ensuring that the office of Canada’s head of state respects the two founding peoples of Canada. I can’t recall a prime minister ever appointing a francophone to this office who was unable to function in both of our country’s official languages and unable to speak in English to Canada’s anglophones. The opposite has happened, however.

Although I am willing to acknowledge the efforts made by Governor General Mary Simon, last fall’s Throne Speech was the worst one ever given and heard, in terms of the French content. Frankly, someone should not be learning the skills for a job after they have already been hired. You wouldn’t bestow a degree in surgery on someone who promises to study medicine.

The last thing I want to do is denigrate the skills and qualifications of Governor General Simon. She is not the problem. The problem is with the person who chose her. Only Prime Minister Trudeau can be held responsible for this decision, which was an insult to francophones. It’s time to fix this situation with some clear legislation like Bill S-220.

It is unfortunate to watch French lose so much ground in Canada. It is certainly not the fine words and public commitments uttered by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and echoed by his ministers, Mélanie Joly and Ginette Petitpas Taylor, that are going to ensure that French is respected in Canada.

It is typical: We are far from seeing clear results, despite a host of serious recommendations that could have a real impact if the political will were truly there, which it is not.

If the case of the Governor General were an isolated incident, I might not be standing here arguing and defending Bill S-220 as I am. Just a few weeks ago, however, a ruling by the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick confirmed the need to block the current Prime Minister’s decisions, because they are unconstitutional and disrespectful to Canada’s francophones. I am talking about Prime Minister Trudeau’s decision to appoint a unilingual anglophone in 2019 to fill the role of Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick, Canada’s only officially bilingual province.

In a decision that I feel is very important, Chief Justice Tracey K. DeWare found that the Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick must be able to carry out their duties in both official languages and that Prime Minister Trudeau’s appointment violates several provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench is of the opinion that the Constitution acknowledges the right of both linguistic communities in New Brunswick to be able to interact directly, in their language, with the head of state.

I repeat, they must be able to interact directly, in their language, with the head of state. Would that be possible with the current Governor General of Canada? I think you know the answer.

Does this ruling, from a New Brunswick court, not provide the key requirement that should guide the appointment of the person chosen as Governor General of our country, who becomes Canada’s head of state according to the Constitution?

All of this is clear to me, but perhaps it is less clear to a Prime Minister who is dead set against recognizing the rights of the founding peoples, which are nevertheless clearly set out in the Constitution.

The same insult to francophones has been repeated twice since 2019, and I see no indication that this will be corrected politically any time soon. You will understand, then, why I am forced to conclude that francophones are up against some disgraceful stubbornness, and that only a bill like Bill S-220 could possibly protect them in the future.

Let’s go back to the New Brunswick court’s ruling for a moment. The decision from the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick is quite lengthy. My takeaway from the 51-page judgment is this. Chief Justice DeWare wrote that the only reason she did not declare the order-in-council appointing a unilingual lieutenant-governor of no force and effect was that it would have created a legal vacuum that would nullify every law executed by the Lieutenant-Governor since being appointed. The justice added, however, that she wanted the federal government to take prompt action to rectify the situation.

History and case law show that governments traditionally respect court rulings on constitutional matters, but not always. Instead of following tradition, Prime Minister Trudeau sidestepped the issue by throwing the ball back into the court of the Minister of Justice, Mr. Lametti. What has happened since then? New Brunswick’s francophones are waiting for respect they deserve. They are waiting, just like Indigenous people on certain reserves are waiting for clean drinking water, and just like we have been waiting almost a year for a Canadian ambassador to be appointed to Paris, the capital of the most important francophone country, with which we must maintain strong ties at all times.

As I have often said, the Prime Minister has clearly established his trademark, which is to procrastinate when he should be making important decisions. Canada’s francophones are asking for nothing less than respect. I do not, and we do not, need simplistic interpretations, as Chief Justice DeWare rightly stated, that the language provisions of the Charter do not apply to these positions. As the Court of Queen’s Bench justice aptly noted in her ruling, the role of the head of state is not limited to delivering a Speech from the Throne and signing laws. They are also required to undertake important social and community functions that involve interacting with citizens.

This provincial decision should encourage us to quickly adopt Bill S-220 to enshrine the requirement that any future prime ministerial appointments to offices like that of the Governor General must be able to speak, read and understand both official languages. This is not shameful, it is respectful. It is constitutional.

All of the different groups that the senators in this place belong to are rightly calling for their values and identities to be respected. That is entirely appropriate. It’s unfortunate that our Prime Minister has to be called to order by the courts because he is incapable of respecting a right enshrined in the Canadian Constitution.

I will support Bill S-220, which is before us today. I can’t imagine any of you not wanting the office of Governor General to be respectful of Canada’s two founding peoples.

In closing, you might have noticed that I used the words “respect” and “respectful” a lot in my speech. Every day, I endeavour to show respect for each person I interact with. Surely it is not too much to ask that my first language be respected. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Omidvar, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dasko:

That the Senate call upon the Government of Canada to implement the eighth recommendation of the first report of the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector, entitled Catalyst for Change: A Roadmap to a Stronger Charitable Sector, adopted by the Senate on November 3, 2020, during the Second Session of the Forty-third Parliament, which proposed that the Canada Revenue Agency include questions on both the T3010 (for registered charities) and the T1044 (for federally incorporated not-for-profit corporations) on diversity representation on boards of directors based on existing employment equity guidelines.