The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Cotter, we have three senators who would like to ask questions. Would you accept questions? You have barely two minutes.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Cotter, Senator Griffin and Senator Tannas wish to ask questions. Are you asking for five more minutes?

Senator Plett: No.

Senator Quinn: Thank you for that response, which makes really good sense.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: I believe I have understood the responses from the Government Representative, and I have done some research on this topic since yesterday. I obtained a copy of the ruling from the trial division of the federal court, which is 306 pages long. I admit that I fell asleep while reading it last night, but not because it wasn’t interesting. On the contrary, it was fascinating to read about the early days of Confederation and the railway.

(1530)

Am I to understand from your comments today that you insist that the Senate adopt the motion without delay and without senators having the time to read the ruling, hear witnesses and check the documents that Senator Dupuis is referring to, some but not necessarily all of which are found in the schedule to the ruling?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator McPhedran, I’m afraid your time has expired.

Senator McPhedran: I ask for some additional time, please.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Moncion, there appear to be two senators who wish to ask questions. Would you take some questions?

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, the United Nations has declared February 6 as the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation.

I am truly disappointed to inform you that Canada’s record on prosecuting this horrific and excruciating practice is dismal. Although the Criminal Code was amended in 1997 to include female genital mutilation as a form of aggravated assault, to date there have been no prosecutions for female genital mutilation in Canada. Twenty-five years, no prosecutions.

Honourable senators, this is unacceptable, particularly given that the End FGM Canada Network under the leadership of Giselle Portenier, with whom I have been working closely, estimates that there are more than 100,000 survivors across Canada and thousands of girls remain at risk.

Girls like Serat who was born in Somalia, but grew up with her aunt in Ontario. When she was 13, she travelled with her aunt to Somalia to see her mother. Early one morning, three women burst into her home and grabbed her while she was sleeping. Serat started screaming and tried to run. The women caught her, pinned her down, spread her legs and subjected her to female genital mutilation. Serat passed out from blood loss and pain. When she recovered consciousness, her legs were tied together. When she returned to Canada a few months later, her aunt told her to accept what had happened and move on. How could she? Serat still talks about feeling ashamed and devastated. She did not reveal this terrible act that happened to her for over a decade.

(1420)

Who could she talk to when there remains a complete wall of silence, even in Canada, around FGM? Honourable senators, we need to break this wall. Our laws are clear. To make it illegal, remember that Canada has a clear law that would make genital mutilation a crime.

I stand before you, as I have many times on this issue, to say that if you are moved by Serat’s story, please act now. Please look out in your community for those vulnerable girls, and please remember that they are our girls. I ask you to support me to get the issue of FGM prosecuted in Canada. Thank you, senators.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, senator, for the question. The government has made significant progress in advancing biodiversity and protecting our natural heritage. Indeed, the government has committed to protecting 25% of the land by 2025 and 30% by 2030 and, as you have noted, has committed to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, with full nature recovery by 2050.

With regard to, specifically, the Migratory Birds Regulations, I’m confident the minister will make a decision in a timely manner — one that both protects our environment and supports Canadian jobs.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question again today is for the government leader in the Senate. Senator Gold, it is not only truckers who oppose restrictions that are no longer supported by science. Canada’s two main airlines, WestJet and Air Canada, have joined with Toronto Pearson International Airport to call for an end to the current mandatory PCR testing for fully vaccinated passengers upon arrival.

Canada is the only G7 country that continues to demand pre‑departure and on-arrival PCR testing. The CEO of WestJet, Harry Taylor, said recently, “. . . Canada remains stagnant in its approach and continues to make travel inaccessible and punitive for Canadians and inbound tourists.”

WestJet cut 20% of its flights in March, and Air Canada has reportedly cut over 40% of its flights next month.

Leader, when will the Trudeau government catch up to the rest of the G7 and present a path forward for airlines and Canada’s entire travel and tourism sector?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for his question and for highlighting the importance of our procurement program to better protect Canada and Canadians.

I will make inquiries with the government about a specific date and get back to you with an answer as soon as possible.

Hon. Fabian Manning, for Senator Busson, pursuant to notice of December 14, 2021, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to examine and report on the implementation of Indigenous rights-based fisheries across Canada, including the implementation of the rights of Mi’kmaq and Maliseet communities in Atlantic Canada to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood;

That the Committee study how Indigenous rights-based fisheries have been implemented by the federal government thus far, and that the Committee identify the most appropriate and effective ways to ensure the recognition and implementation of Indigenous rights-based fisheries going forward;

That the papers and evidence received and taken and work accomplished by the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans during the Second Session of the Forty-third Parliament as part of its study of issues relating to its mandate as set out in the relevant subsection of rule 12-7, be referred to the committee; and

That the Committee report to the Senate no later than December 31, 2022, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): I tip my hat to you, Senator Moncion, for this initiative. Having worked in a university for more than 25 years, I understand the complexity and opacity of the way universities are funded, especially in the case of establishments that serve official language minority communities.

You effectively demonstrated that post-secondary education in the Canadian francophonie is in crisis. The collapse of Laurentian University, a bilingual institution, highlighted how vulnerable French language programs are across Canada.

Do you find that the structural challenges are preventing post-secondary education in French in francophone minority communities from enjoying the same conditions prevalent for the anglophone majority?

Senator Cormier: Thank you for your question, Senator Mockler.

Obviously, as I said in my speech, I believe that this issue must be debated in committee.

I would first turn to colleagues like Senator Dalphond, who is certainly better equipped to understand the constitutional complexity of this issue, but I strongly believe that there are constitutional issues that affect the feasibility of the bill. If we want to require the lieutenant-governors of New Brunswick to speak both official languages, we need to address some issues — I spoke about them briefly — so it would be a good idea to examine the bill in committee.

My simple answer to your question is yes, I think this deserves to be examined in committee by experts who can enlighten us about the constitutional issues with this bill.

Which committee? I am not sure at this point whether the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages would be best equipped to do it, but it would obviously be up to the chamber to decide where to send this bill. However, I believe that it should be examined in the context of the Constitution of Canada.

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, I rise again today to speak in support of Motion No. 12 introduced by Senator McCallum requesting that the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to examine and report on the cumulative positive and negative impacts of resource extraction and development, and their effects on environmental, economic and social considerations.

In the last parliamentary session I also spoke in favour of this motion, and I thank Senator McCallum for bringing this study proposal to the floor of the Senate. Her continued passionate work on community impacts, especially on Indigenous communities, is admirable and needs to be supported.

I believe this study could bring great value in understanding the overall impacts of resource extraction and development in Canada. I say “overall impacts,” because Canadians — and especially parliamentarians — are often bombarded by the one‑sided promotion of the positive contributions of resource extraction on Canada’s GDP, employment and government revenues. Next to these amplified voices, communities, NGOs, academics and scientists can barely pierce through the noise to present other aspects — positive or negative — and have to resort to protests to get media attention.

I have been teaching engineering students how to conduct and complete environmental impact assessments for almost 30 years. A project that considers and integrates the needs of a host community from its early conception and design will result in a project that is technically sound, cost-efficient, safe, prosperous for all and healthy for the community and the environment. On the contrary, a project that is conceived independently without considering community issues puts at risk the implementation of the entire project and will most certainly create irritants and opposition which can lead to wasting important and valuable investments. Nobody wants this, yet it still happens so often.

Effective and successful decision making requires in-depth analysis.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Again, thank you for your question. The government is doing everything it can to save lives, and there is no attempt to put obstacles in the way. Circumstances were and remain difficult and challenging. The government is committed to doing everything it can, alone and with its allies, to address this significant, important challenge.

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald, pursuant to notice of February 8, 2022, moved:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice and pursuant to the order of the Senate on November 25, 2021, authorizing Senate committees to hold hybrid meetings, the Senate authorize standing joint committees to hold hybrid meetings;

That:

(a)hybrid committee meetings be considered, for all purposes, to be meetings of the standing joint committee in question, and senators taking part in such meetings be considered, for all purposes, to be present at the meeting;

(b)for greater certainty, and without limiting the general authority granted when this order is adopted by the Senate, when a standing joint committee holds a hybrid meeting:

(i)all members of a standing joint committee participating count towards quorum;

(ii)such meetings be considered to be occurring in the parliamentary precinct, irrespective of where participants may be; and

(iii)the standing joint committees be directed to approach in camera meetings with all necessary precaution, taking account of the risks to confidentiality inherent in such technologies; and

(c)subject to variations that may be required by the circumstances, to participate by videoconference senators must:

(i) participate from an office or residence within Canada;

(ii)use a desktop or laptop computer and a headset with integrated microphone provided by the Senate for videoconferences;

(iii)not use other devices such as personal tablets or smartphones;

(iv)be the only people visible on the videoconference;

(v)have their video on and broadcasting their image at all times; and

(vi)leave the videoconference if they leave their seat; and

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

Senator Galvez: Okay.

(At 9 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on November 25, 2021, the Senate adjourned until Tuesday, February 22, 2022, at 2 p.m.)

Senator Gold: As I said, as the Government Representative, I would like this to be debated and voted on efficiently and appropriately. However, as I said before and will say again, I respect the Senate’s and senators’ desire to take as much time as necessary to fully understand the matter before us. In light of the clarifications I provided today, I’m eagerly awaiting the speech by our colleague, Senator Cotter, who has a stake and expertise in this area. I hope you’ll join me in looking forward to an efficient vote.

[English]

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Thank you, Senator Cormier, for your support for Indigenous languages. You remind me, with your passion, of Senator Joyal.

Senator, you know I represent a region with the highest proportion of Indigenous people in the country; 85% or more of the people of Nunavut are Inuit, and they largely still speak Inuktitut. It’s a bilingual radio station, newspaper, and I mean French and Inuktitut. Yet the federal government refuses to provide services in the Inuktitut language for its federal services in Nunavut, in contravention of the Nunavut government’s own Official Languages Act and Inuit Language Protection Act.

Do you have any comments on that in relation to your bill? Thank you.

Some Hon. Senators: No.