Senator Coyle: Thank you very much, Senator Gold. You did mention something about ancillary supports, and I want to probe a little bit there.

We know that in addition to vaccine supply issues, many countries have difficulties in terms of a lack of appropriate vaccine infrastructure, including around the cold chain maintenance and vaccine storage.

What is Canada doing to address the gaps in infrastructure that are causing further delays in vaccine access in low-income countries?

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, we know that global resilience in the fight against COVID-19 is absolutely essential. We’re still in this pandemic.

We also know that over 80% of the Canadian population is fully vaccinated, yet, according to UNICEF, low-income countries have only approximately 9.4% of the population vaccinated with one dose. The rise in cases in one area of the world impacts us all. This is even more concerning with the arrival of new variants, including BA.2, which are disproportionately impacting areas of the world with low vaccination rates.

Senator Gold, can you tell us what Canada is doing to step up the way it is addressing the global inequality in vaccine access, especially in the global south? Thank you.

Hon. Mary Coyle: If the honourable senator would accept a question from me, I would first say thank you very much for your speech. Thank you for your efforts over and over again to right this wrong. It’s an embarrassment, as you have said. It’s an anachronism. It’s time for change. We hopefully will have a little longer in this Parliament to bring about this change. I hope it doesn’t take years, but I hope we can get it done in this Parliament.

Can you tell us why it has taken so long? What have been the obstacles up until this point to moving forward this very important motion to eliminate those net-worth and property-ownership requirements for Canadians to become senators, to come here and join us in this chamber? Would you tell us what the impediments have been?

Senator Patterson: Yes. Thank you for that question. When former senator Tommy Banks championed this same bill, which did the same thing, we didn’t have the clear advice from the Supreme Court in the decision that I quoted. That decision made it crystal clear, from no higher authority than the Supreme Court, that the amendment that I’m proposing can be done alone by the Parliament of Canada — the House of Commons and the Senate.

The spectre was raised at that time that this would require a constitutional amendment; it would require the invocation of the amending formula; it would require provinces to be involved. We’ve been through that movie, some of us, in connection with the repatriation of the Constitution and the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords. There’s no appetite, I believe, in Canada for going back into those challenging constitutional amendment processes.

That clouded the debate at that time. Now, this is an amendment of the Constitution. We can do it now — the Supreme Court is clear — with the consent of the House of Commons and the Senate. I think we are now in a better climate to consider this matter, just as, by the way, we’ve been considering the Saskatchewan Act amendment just recently in the Senate and as we’ve also done in other matters often brought forward by provinces to amend the Constitution where Parliament has the jurisdiction.

That is the problem that we clearly now don’t have. Your question is a good one. Why haven’t we eliminated this obvious and inequitable anomaly? I thank you for your support.