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

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. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, for the remainder of the current parliamentary session, the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators be authorized to:

(a)meet even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 12-18(1) be suspended in relation thereto;

(b)hold hybrid meetings or meetings entirely by videoconference; and

That for greater certainty the provisions of subparagraphs 20 to 22 of the order adopted by the Senate on November 25, 2021, concerning hybrid committee meetings apply in relation to meetings of this committee, including meetings held entirely by videoconference.

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

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice:

1.except as provided in this order, the question not be put on the motion for third reading of a government bill unless the orders for resuming debate at second and third reading have, together, been called at least three times, in addition to the sittings at which the motions for second and third readings were moved;

2.when a government bill has been read a first time, and before a motion is moved to set the date for second reading, the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate may, without notice, move that the bill be deemed an urgent matter, and that the provisions of paragraph 1 of this order not apply to proceedings on the bill;

3.when a motion has been moved pursuant to paragraph 2 of this order, the following provisions apply:

(a)the debate shall only deal with whether the bill should be deemed an urgent matter or not;

(b)the debate shall not be adjourned;

(c)the debate shall last a maximum of 20 minutes;

(d)no senator shall speak for more than 5 minutes;

(e)no senator shall speak more than once;

(f)the debate shall not be interrupted for any purpose, except for the reading of a message from the Crown or an event announced in such a message;

(g)the debate may continue beyond the ordinary time of adjournment, if necessary, until the conclusion of the debate and consequential business;

(h)the time taken in debate and for any vote shall not count as part of Routine Proceedings;

(i)no amendment or other motion shall be received, except a motion that a certain senator be now heard or do now speak;

(j)when debate concludes or the time for debate expires, the Speaker shall put the question; and

(k)any standing vote requested shall not be deferred, and the bells shall ring for only 15 minutes.

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate. Senator Gold, as we await the details of the Economic and Fiscal Update to be presented later this afternoon, I would like to draw your attention to yesterday’s The Globe and Mail article about the Finance Department.

According to this report, the Finance Department has low morale, significant staff turnover, a deputy minister unable to control spending or deliver an economic growth plan and a minister who rarely takes departmental briefings, hasn’t met with assistant deputy ministers in months and focuses mainly on political outreach.

Leader, is this accurate? If this is accurate, is the Trudeau government concerned about the chaotic state of affairs in this important Department of Finance.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate.

Senator Gold, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, has been experiencing processing delays since the beginning of the pandemic, leaving nearly 1.8 million immigration applicants in limbo.

These bureaucratic roadblocks have very real impacts on the lives of applicants. While they wait for the government to respond, many must live away from family, and for some it has been many years. As a result, they have missed important moments, such as their child’s first step or the death of a loved one. Delays by IRCC have also caused significant financial burdens for applicants.

Senator Gold, families make life-altering sacrifices to come to Canada. The lack of transparency in the immigration process has become harmful and unjust.

When will IRCC release concrete plans to address the backlog of 1.8 million immigration applications?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, senator, and for underlining the importance to all of those who seek to come to Canada of having their files processed expeditiously. I’m advised that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s operations have continued to adapt, innovate and evolve since the outset of the pandemic. I’m also advised that the government is on track towards meeting its objective of bringing in 401,000 new permanent residents this year, which would be the largest annual arrival in the past 100 years. Indeed, as of early November, Canada has welcomed 325,000 new permanent residents this year alone.

The government continues to shift resources to focus on priorities to increase the digitization of applications through various means, such as a digital intake Permanent Residence Portal, streamlining its processes where possible and to resume in-person operations while respecting public health and safety guidelines.

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate. Senator Gold, your government’s ArriveCAN app can be a great tool for Canadians who choose to use it and are able to use it. However, in making its use mandatory for all Canadians returning to Canada, your government was actually discriminating against seniors who don’t always carry smartphones and people who don’t have the costly data plans. As you know, Canada has some of the most expensive data plans in the world.

It also didn’t take into account what people would do if the app crashed or became inoperable on their phones.

It appears Canadians now have the option to present their information in person to a CBSA officer, which perhaps should have been the case all along. I say “it appears” because I’m still not entirely sure if they were CBSA and the Public Health Agency of Canada agents at the border and airlines that are refusing boarding to passengers.

So, leader, can you assure us that Canadians will no longer be subject to quarantine at the border for failure to use the app and that airlines have been instructed to stop refusing boarding as well?

Senator Gold: Again, thank you for your question and for underlining the difficulties some Canadians experience in the face of changing regulations and protocols, all of which are designed to keep Canadians safe from what appears to be a rapidly accelerating new wave of this pandemic.

I’ll have to make inquiries, senator, and report back.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) moved second reading of Bill C-6, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to introduce the fourth appropriation act for fiscal year 2021-22, which contains the supply requirements for the 2021-22 Supplementary Estimates (B).

The appropriation bill is a vehicle through which payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund are authorized for government programs and services. The voted amounts represent maximum “up to” ceilings or estimates, and, therefore, may not be fully spent during the course of the year. Actual expenditures will be found in the public accounts after the fiscal year is completed.

Through this supply bill, the government requests Parliament’s approval of the planned spending proposals that are detailed in the Supplementary Estimates (B).

The estimates, which include the Main Estimates, supplementary estimates, departmental plans and departmental results reports, in conjunction with the public accounts, help parliamentarians scrutinize government spending.

[Translation]

Esteemed colleagues, we all know how important this information is to the functioning of our system of governance.

Accountability, which is at the core of our system, requires that parliamentarians and the voters they serve must know how public funds are spent so they can hold the government to account.

That is why the government ensures that parliamentarians have access to accurate, timely and understandable information on government spending.

For example, I would draw the attention of my honourable colleagues to the Government of Canada’s InfoBase, an interactive online tool that depicts a large amount of federal data in a visual format. It contains the estimates and other government data on finances, personnel and results.

It is essential to release spending data by using digital tools like this one to provide parliamentarians and Canadians with more information about the allocation of public funds and how they are invested.

[English]

Honourable colleagues, I would now like to turn to the 2021-22 Supplementary Estimates (B), which are the basis for this supply bill.

The supplementary estimates present information to Parliament on spending that was either not ready for inclusion in the Main Estimates or has since been refined to account for new developments in programs or services. With these Supplementary Estimates (B) for 2021-22, the government is seeking Parliament’s approval of funding to address matters of importance to Canadians. This includes the government’s ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as infrastructure and services to address the specific needs for Indigenous communities.

The supplementary estimates provide information on $8.7 billion in voted budgetary spending for 60 federal organizations. These estimates also show, for information purposes, forecasted budgetary statutory expenses of $4.7 billion, primarily due to the extension of the Canada Recovery Benefit and forecasted requirements for the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit and the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit. These benefits have been instrumental in supporting Canadians through the worst of this pandemic.

Of the voted budgetary spending, $1.2 billion is related to the COVID-19 pandemic response, and a portion of these funds are earmarked for helping those in need outside of our borders. Along with providing domestic supports, we must be mindful that we live in a community of nations. That is why Canada is committed to a robust global effort to stop COVID-19 and address its devastating health, social, economic and security impacts on people around the world.

Honourable colleagues, Canada is a founding member of the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator, a global partnership to ensure that people worldwide have equal and affordable access to COVID-19 vaccines, tests and treatments. Canada is also a strong supporter of the COVAX Facility, the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access Facility, to support the procurement, distribution and delivery of COVID-19 vaccines.

To continue to provide these types of assistance, Budget 2021 announced funding to help some of the world’s poorest countries access the tools they need to help contain the spread of COVID-19. The Supplementary Estimates (B) seek $375 million to deliver on that commitment to support access to vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics by developing countries.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, as I mentioned earlier, the purpose of the supplementary estimates is to have Parliament approve the funding necessary to address the needs of Indigenous communities.

Although the government has made progress on righting Canada’s historical wrongs in its relationship with Indigenous peoples, there is still a lot of work to be done. We must invest in improving the quality of life of people living in Indigenous communities and create new opportunities for them.

As part of the government’s collaboration with Indigenous partners, these investments will help close the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people; promote the health, safety and prosperity of Indigenous communities; and advance reconciliation with the First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

This is why the Supplementary Estimates (B) provide for a total of $1 billion to Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and $2.1 billion to Indigenous Services Canada.

I want to highlight some of the key voted items requested by these two departments. In Budget 2021, the government announced funding to help close infrastructure gaps in Indigenous communities, as well as to create good jobs and build healthier, safer and more prosperous Indigenous communities in the long term.

The Supplementary Estimates (B) honour that commitment by allocating a little over $725 million for the construction, renovation, operation and maintenance of housing, schools, health facilities, water and wastewater, and other community infrastructure.

This funding will also support the transfer of infrastructure to Indigenous-led organizations and fund the operation and maintenance of Indigenous-owned infrastructure.

[English]

These estimates also seek just over $412 million for the Specific Claims Settlement Fund to provide compensation to First Nations in accordance with negotiated agreements. Specific claims are claims by a First Nation against the federal government that relate to the administration of land or other First Nation assets and to the fulfillment of historic treaties and other agreements. The primary objective of the Specific Claims Policy is to discharge outstanding legal obligations of the federal government through negotiated settlement agreements.

Just over $361 million is also sought to fund prevention and protection services to support the safety and well-being of First Nations children and families living on reserve. These include early intervention and alternatives to traditional institutional care and foster care, such as the placement of children with family members in a community setting.

To ensure Indigenous peoples can access high-quality health care, Budget 2021 announced several measures including one in these estimates for just over $332 million to ensure continued high-quality care through the Non-Insured Health Benefits program. This program supports First Nations and Inuit people with medically necessary services not otherwise covered, such as mental health services, medical travel, medications and more.

Another budget initiative presented in these estimates is funding to help people on reserve and status Indians in Yukon transition from income assistance to employment and education. Specifically, almost $309 million is sought to assist eligible individuals and families with basic or special needs case management and pre-employment measures designed to increase self-reliance, improve life skills and promote greater attachment to the workforce.

These estimates also seek just over $212 million for the partial settlement of the Gottfriedson litigation concerning Indian residential school day scholars and in support of Indigenous childhood claims litigation management. This funding will be used to compensate approximately 13,500 day school survivors and their first-generation descendants. As well, it will be used to establish a day scholars revitalization fund to support survivors and descendants in pursuing healing and wellness; to revitalize and protect their Indigenous languages, cultures and heritage; as well as to promote education and commemoration.

This funding will also be used for legal fees, third-party administration costs and ongoing management of Indigenous childhood claims litigation.

[Translation]

Esteemed colleagues, we are fortunate to have a professional public service that provides a multitude of services with a tangible impact on Canadians’ lives.

Those services range from food inspection and drug safety and efficacy regulation to border security and icebreaker operation in the Northwest Passage.

In a crisis, the public service steps up to the challenge. Six years ago, public servants worked tirelessly to resettle over 25,000 Syrian refugees. That was a titanic job.

Just over a year and a half ago, public servants had to respond to another crisis, this time a pandemic. I think we can all agree that they did an amazing job.

The supplementary estimates include $1.5 billion to compensate federal organizations for salary adjustments resulting from recently negotiated collective agreements and changes to terms and conditions of employment. The government remains committed to reaching agreements with all bargaining agents that are fair to employees, mindful of today’s economic and fiscal context, and reasonable for Canadians.

This funding will also be used to compensate employees for damages associated with the Phoenix pay system and for the extended implementation time frames of collective agreements during the 2018 round of collective bargaining.

[English]

Honourable senators, when it comes to responding to crises, we are also fortunate to be able to rely on the dedicated personnel of the Canadian Armed Forces. We thank them for their help in responding to the devastating floods in British Columbia and the global pandemic.

These estimates seek almost $328 million to cover the pay increase for Canadian Armed Forces personnel to align with the bargaining settlements for the core public administration. The funds will also support restructuring of pay and allowances for certain occupations within the Armed Forces as well as an extension of the allowance for personnel deployed to support Canadians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The last voted item I would like to draw your attention to is just over $253 million to the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada for the Heyder and Beattie class action settlement agreement. This funding will be used to continue to assess and pay claims under the Heyder Beattie Final Settlement Agreement.

[Translation]

Colleagues, the government continues to prioritize how it presents the estimates, with detailed explanatory material readily available online for parliamentarians and for Canadians.

The government has also taken several steps to ensure that they have access to even more information. For example, departments regularly report their spending through quarterly financial reports.

The Department of Finance also provides monthly updates on the financial situation of the government in the Fiscal Monitor.

In addition, due to the extraordinary circumstances and expenditure levels generated by the pandemic, the government has reported spending authorities related to its response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the supplementary estimates. It also reported on spending authorities and expenses incurred for each measure taken against COVID-19 through the Government of Canada InfoBase and the Open Government portal.

These reporting tools allow Canadians to easily see the spending authorities approved by Parliament, as well as the money spent to implement the government’s response to the pandemic.

Finally, to ensure greater clarity on the relationship between the figures presented in the estimates and supplementary estimates, the government is also providing a reconciliation of these two expenditure forecasting documents.

[English]

Honourable senators, the bill I have the honour of introducing today is important to delivering on the government’s commitment to the priorities of Canadians.

In summary, the government seeks Parliament’s approval of $8.7 billion in new voted spending for those who need it most. It is for low-income Canadians with health, education and income assistance needs; for child and family services of Indigenous Canadians; for Indigenous housing and infrastructure projects; for the personnel costs of our public servants, including members of the Canadian Armed Forces; for settlement agreements with Indigenous groups; and for medical and economic supports for developing countries that are shouldering heavier burdens in this hour of the pandemic.

[Translation]

The COVID-19 pandemic is having a significant impact on many aspects of the lives of Canadians. We have all been called upon to stand shoulder to shoulder and pull together.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you, colleagues, for your cooperation. I would also like to acknowledge the important work done by the members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, under the superb leadership of Senator Percy Mockler.

[English]

I would like to acknowledge Senator Marshall’s work as critic of the bill. We are fortunate to have an incredible depth and breadth of talent across our chamber. Your ability to assess the government’s performance is welcome and important moving forward. There is always place for improvement for the benefit of all Canadians. Thank you.

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Thank you, Senator Gagné, for your comments on Bill C-6 and Supplementary Estimates (B).

Honourable senators, Bill C-6 is requesting authority to spend $8.7 billion. To support Parliament’s consideration and review of this $8.7 billion, the Treasury Board president has tabled Supplementary Estimates (B), which provides information and details on the spending authorities requested.

If Bill C-6 is approved by Parliament, this $8.7 billion will bring the total spending approved by appropriation bills this year to $176 billion.

In addition to the $176 billion approved by appropriation bills, the government already has authority to spend another $230 billion this year, which has been approved by legislation other than appropriation bills. This $230 billion is called statutory expenditures and is authorized by various pieces of legislation, such as the Financial Administration Act, the Budget Implementation Act, 2021 and the Canada Recovery Benefits Act.

These statutory expenditures are included in Supplementary Estimates (B) for information purposes only. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in a recent report, said there is currently no standing parliamentary review mechanism in place for statutory expenditures.

By providing spending authority in legislation other than appropriation bills, the government does not have to annually request parliamentary approval for spending because parliamentary approval has already been given for these expenditures.

It is interesting that over the past number of years, “statutory” expenditures that are approved by various other legislation actually exceed the expenditures approved annually by appropriation bills. For example, if Bill C-6 is approved by the Senate this week, $175 billion will have been approved by appropriation bills this year, while $230 billion in expenditures will have been approved by legislation other than appropriation bills.

Even more interesting is that statutory expenditures are included in the estimates for information purposes only, as I’ve mentioned. There is no standing parliamentary review mechanism in place for these statutory expenditures. When we say that we are studying the estimates, it means that we are studying less than half the expenditures presented in Supplementary Estimates (B) because 58% has already been approved by Parliament.

Honourable senators, I have spoken many times inside and outside of this chamber of the difficulties in tracking government expenditures. One of the problems is that the information in these estimates documents does not align with the information in the budget.

For example, the budget this year is forecasting expenditures of $497 billion, yet Supplementary Estimates (B) disclosures spending of only $405 billion. There are several reasons for this discrepancy. For example, the Supplementary Estimates (B) document we are studying does not include all of the new budget initiatives.

In other instances, the Supplementary Estimates (B) document does not include certain expenditures authorized by the Income Tax Act, such as some of the COVID expenditures.

Regardless of the reasons for the discrepancy, it is difficult to track government expenditures. The government has tried to reconcile the $497 billion in the budget with the $405 billion in the Supplementary Estimates (B) document by providing a chart or reconciliation to explain the difference. Senator Gagné referenced this in her speech. While the chart is somewhat helpful, it is confusing since there is no recognition of additional expenditures expected in Supplementary Estimates (C), which are expected in March.

In addition, the chart summarizes a number of transactions, all of which must be reviewed in order to understand why the budget includes $497 billion while the estimates document only includes $405 billion. In essence, a chart placed in the introductory section of the Supplementary Estimates (B) document is no substitute for an estimates document that is properly aligned with the budget.

In 2017-18, former president of the Treasury Board Scott Brison enthusiastically undertook an estimates reform project and piloted several changes to the estimates documents. He met with the Finance Committee a number of times to discuss the project. Parliamentarians were provided with the opportunity to participate and provide feedback.

Unfortunately, successive presidents of the Treasury Board did not support the initiative, and based on the comments of the present minister last week, the estimates reform project is over, and we have returned to the old ways of preparing the estimates documents.

The COVID expenditures, in particular, further complicated our review of government expenditures since government did not provide parliamentarians with the information they needed. COVID expenditure reports were initially provided in April 2020; then they ceased in August 2020; then they resumed again in April 2021; then ceased again in July 2021.

The government itself recognizes that it has a problem. Its own website asks a question: “Do you understand the process the Government uses to spend your tax dollars?” And the website also provides the answer: “If you’re a little foggy about it, you’re not alone.” That is the way it is when you are reviewing government expenditures.

To further complicate our review of the Supplementary Estimates (B) document, the government has yet to release the public accounts for the last fiscal year. Actually, I think they were released about two hours ago, now that we have finished our review of Supplementary Estimates (B).

The public accounts are the financial statements of the government, which have been audited by the Auditor General of Canada. It includes information on expenditures, revenues, debt, contingent liabilities and other financial data which is valuable in assessing appropriation Bill C-6 and the supplementary estimates document which supports the bill.

Historically, the public accounts provide financial and other information as at March 31 of a fiscal year, and have traditionally been tabled in parliament during the fall sitting. For the past 11 years, the public accounts have been tabled seven times in October, twice in November and three times in December. The three December tablings occurred since the 2015 election, when the current government came to power. This is a government that continually tells us it is committed to openness, transparency and accountability.

The former Parliamentary Budget Officer said recently that the public accounts should have been at the front end of the current four-week sitting. He went on to say that how the money was spent last year will help inform debate about the requests for more funds.

The late date of the tabling of the public accounts raises another concern. Once the minister tables the public accounts, she is required to table the Debt Management Report for last year within the first 30 sitting days after the public accounts are tabled.

By delaying the release of the public accounts until today, government is able to delay the deadline for the release of the Debt Management Report. Since the public accounts were released today, the deadline for the tabling of the Debt Management Report is now late March. Imagine. The Debt Management Report for the year of the pandemic, when an incredible amount of debt was assumed, may not be released until March 2022, a full year after the end of the fiscal year.

In addition to government’s withholding of the 2021 public accounts, government has yet to release the departmental performance reports. These reports are usually released in the fall and would ordinarily have been available for our review of Bill C-6 and the Supplementary Estimates (B). Treasury Board released them, I think, December 7 of last year.

However, Treasury Board officials told us that government does not plan to release the departmental results report until January. Since we do not see it until January 30 or 31, we are going to be waiting until that time to get the departmental results reports. Without that information, it is not possible to complete our review of Bill C-6 and Supplementary Estimates (B). So here is the government insisting we hurry along and approve the appropriation Bill C-6 so they can spend more money, yet they are refusing to provide the information we need to do our jobs as parliamentarians.

The Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, and the Department of Indigenous Services Canada were created in 2019. Taking into account the proposed spending in Supplementary Estimates (B), the spending for these two departments so far this year will be about $28 billion. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer in his report on Supplementary Estimates (B), Indigenous-related spending in 2017-18 was just under $14 billion, so the budget has increased 93% over the past five years; almost double.

Committee members were interested in knowing where the money is actually going. To which First Nations? Is it being fairly distributed? And are the desired results being achieved? The public accounts for last year and the departmental results reports would have assisted us in answering these questions, if the government had released those documents.

Given the significant increase in expenditures in those two departments over the past five years, committee members were also interested in the oversight functions being provided by Treasury Board. Officials explained their oversight function, how they review spending proposals, and emphasized that departments must disclose the performance indicators they will use to measure the success of each program. But what is the point of the performance indicators if they are not provided in a timely manner to parliamentarians?

Of particular interest to the committee was the $624 million being requested by the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs for the Specific Claims Settlement Fund and the Indian Residential Day Scholars litigation.

Honourable senators may recall that Supplementary Estimates (A) in June provided $610 million for the Federal Indian Day School settlement agreement, $256 million for the Sixties Scoop settlement and $1.2 billion for the out-of-court settlements.

When I spoke in this chamber on Supplementary Estimates (A), I indicated that departmental officials could not provide the Finance Committee with any details of the $1.2 billion requested for out-of-court settlements, citing confidentiality of discussions during the litigation process. That $1.2 billion was being requested to ensure funding was available should there be settlements.

The $624 million is being requested in Bill C-6 so that money is available if claims are finalized. Officials also indicated that these claims have been set up as a contingent liability in the 2021 public accounts, which we didn’t have access to.

Since government was withholding the 2021 public accounts, it was not possible to complete a review of the $624 million and the contingent liability. This is just one example which indicates that the 2021 public accounts and the 2021 departmental performance reports are necessary to complete our review of Bill C-6 and Supplementary Estimates (B).

Included in Supplementary Estimates (B) is a statutory payment of $2.35 billion for the Canada Enterprise Emergency Funding Corporation. Given that Supplementary Estimates (B) discloses expenditures of $16 billion in total, the $2.35 billion is quite significant.

The funding for the Canada Enterprise Emergency Funding Corporation is statutory. That means it has already been approved by the Financial Administration Act and, therefore, funding is not being requested in Bill C-6. However, the funding is disclosed in Supplementary Estimates (B) for information purposes.

The Canada Enterprise Emergency Funding Corporation was created in 2020 as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Canada Development Corporation. In essence, it is a Crown corporation, and it was created by government to provide a credit support program for large Canadian companies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. That would have been companies like Air Canada. The government, through the purchase of shares, provides the corporation with funding so it can implement the credit support program. So far, the government has purchased $2.89 billion in shares of the corporation, and the corporation uses that money to administer the program and provide it to large employers.

Earlier this year, Finance officials told us that the corporation has appointed its auditors; it has not used its discretion to appoint an observer on the board of directors of any borrower; and information on standardized terms of the program are made public on the corporation’s website. However, detailed terms and covenants on the individual loan agreements are commercially confidential and therefore they are not publicly available.

The corporation has also provided substantial information on its website, including quarterly financial statements and details of the financial assistance provided to Canadian companies. Government contributions, as of September 30, 2021, were $2.89 billion and represent preference shares in the Crown corporation issued to the Government of Canada. Loans to borrowers at the end of September totalled $2.581 billion. Information on financial assistance to individual companies is disclosed on the corporation’s website.

Companies that receive financing through this program must agree to sustain their domestic operations, make commercial efforts to minimize the loss of jobs and demonstrate a clear plan to return to financial stability. They must also agree to place restrictions on executive compensation. That issue was raised at the Finance Committee; they have to agree to place restrictions on executive compensation, on dividends and on share buy-backs. They must also publish annual climate-related disclosure reports indicating how their future operations will support environmental sustainability and Canada’s climate goals.

The corporation has disclosed — and this is something that is very important for the Finance Committee — that there is a substantial amount of credit risk associated with these loans based on the terms and eligibility criteria of the program. Currently, the $2.89 billion advanced by the government would be recorded as an investment or loan and would therefore be considered non-budgetary. However, if there are losses, these losses will increase the government’s deficit. Departmental officials were unable to tell the committee the deadline for applications, when the program would end and what the “exit strategy” is, not only for the program but for the corporation.

Honourable senators, the Department of National Defence is requesting $644 billion in Bill C-6, of which $327 million is for pay increases for certain categories of employees within the department. Senator Gagné mentioned that in her speech. These pay increases are in accordance with the National Defence Act. There is a specific section within the act that gives Treasury Board the authority to establish the rates and conditions of pay for certain categories of members of the Canadian Armed Forces. These economic increases are aligned with salary improvements reached through the collective bargaining process for employees of the federal public service and cover three fiscal years, from 2018 to 2021.

The department is also requesting $250 million for the Heyder Beattie Final Settlement Agreement. These were the class action lawsuits — we are all familiar with them — that were initiated in 2016 and 2017, and sought damages related to gender-based discrimination, sexual assault and sexual harassment. Funding will be used to fulfill obligations and payments under the final agreement including the assessment of claims, payments to claimants, administration and case management. There is also $2.5 million being requested to pay for IT and information management equipment related to the settlement agreement.

There are also $64 million being requested by the department for NATO programs. Senators were interested in Canada’s commitment to NATO and raised questions regarding the age of our aircraft, lack of protection of the North and the lack of ships within our navy. Senators were also interested in the operation and maintenance of the North Warning System and whether any of the $64 million will be used to upgrade the North Warning System and/or assist Canada’s presence in the Arctic, given the increased presence of other countries.

Officials referred to the $252 million included in the budget to support NORAD modernization and sustain existing continental and Arctic defence capabilities over the next five years. Of the $252 million included in the budget — it’s for a five-year period — $45 million has been earmarked for this fiscal year but has yet to be requested in an appropriation bill. So here we are; it’s near the end of December, I haven’t seen where that $45 million has shown up in an appropriation bill and I don’t think it is statutory.

The Main Estimates of the Department of National Defence also provide $5.7 billion for capital projects. In previous Finance Committee meetings, obtaining information on capital projects has been very difficult.

Budget 2021 committed $267 million over three years to modernize the department’s information systems, specifically the systems needed to manage its assets, finances and human resources. These improvements will ensure the Canadian Armed Forces will have access to the equipment they need, when and where it is required. Of the $267 million committed over the next five years, $89 million has been committed for this year. Again, we’re almost at the end of December, but I don’t see where the department has yet requested that $89 million.

That concludes my remarks for second reading of Bill C-6. I would like to thank our chair Senator Mockler and our deputy chair Senator Forest for their assistance in arranging the meetings this past week. I did find it quite a challenge to get all the meetings in, in one week, especially since the government didn’t provide all the information that we needed.

I would also thank all members of the Finance Committee for their excellent questions during our meetings and also to all the staff who assisted in organizing and making sure that our meetings ran as smoothly as possible. Thank you, honourable senators.

Hon. Yvonne Boyer: Honourable senators, I’m honoured to speak today to Senator McCallum’s motion, and I thank her for her tireless advocacy on behalf of First Nations, Métis and Inuit across Canada.

Today I speak in full support of this important motion, which will certainly help move reconciliation forward in this country. In preparing to speak on this motion, I thought to myself, “how can I ensure my speech has an impact? What can I do to help advance the voices of those who have suffered deeply and continue to do so at the hands of this country’s government?”

As I thought about this, the answer became clear in my mind. I wanted to bring a voice into this chamber that for so long had been ignored and even barred from speaking here.

Today, I give my voice to a dear friend, respected Elder and residential school survivor, Garnet Angeconeb.

Garnet Angeconeb is an Anishinaabe man who has survived a long journey. He grew up on his family’s traditional territory until the age of seven when he was forced by the Government of Canada to go to Pelican Lake Indian Residential School. Garnet suffered many negative effects of government policies in the decades that followed. Despite those personal hardships, he became a journalist, a community leader and a respected elder in both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities.

Honourable senators, it is now my honour to share Garnet’s words with you.

Senators: I am so honoured to speak to you through Senator Yvonne Boyer inside this Chamber of honour and privilege. I acknowledge the Algonquin Anishinaabe people whose traditional lands the Red Chamber is located.

Today, I speak to you in the spirit of truth. The Elders teach us to speak the truth and so with this sacred teaching, I will speak firsthand about lived experiences of Indian residential schools.

I presently live in Sioux Lookout in northwestern Ontario and I am a proud member of the Lac Seul First Nation. We live in the traditional territory of Treaty #3, an area which encompasses 55,000 square miles of land; an area surrounded with beautiful lakes and forests.

Treaty #3 is a living document which is the foundation of our relationship with Canada. Not only that, but Treaty #3 binds the region together with the Anishinaabe people; politically, economically and socially.

Treaty #3 was signed in 1873. However, Lac Seul First Nation signed onto the Treaty with an adhesion in 1874. Our people continue to honour the Treaty, a treaty that is viewed as a sacred covenant of co-existence.

Upon signing the Treaty #3 adhesion in 1874 on behalf of the Lac Seul Anishinaabe, Chief Sakatcheway so eloquently said, “If you give what I ask, the time may come when I will ask you to lend me one of your daughters and one of your sons to live with us; and in return I will lend you one of my daughters and one of my sons for you to teach what is good and after they have learned, to teach us. If you grant us what I ask, although I do not know you, I will shake hands with you.”

So upon signing this Treaty, you can see that that started a long relationship of coexistence, a relationship that still exists to this day and is recognized under the 1982 Constitution Act of Canada.

However, from time to time, the relationship has hit bumpy spots and trying times along the way. Chief Sakatcheway’s vision of coexistence, to “teach” and “learn” from each other, has not always been practiced, nor honoured.”

No matter the issue, we need to continue to walk together on the path of learning. Learning more about residential schools is no exception. As a survivor of the Indian residential schools system, I continue learn about it. There is so much to learn about the post residential school era: the impacts, historic trauma, transgenerational anger, healing, reconciliation and so much more.

Let me try and explain what I mean so that we can all learn from each other.

In March 2017, A Senator speaking in the Red Chamber made less than distinguished comments about the “good” of Canada’s Indian Residential Schools system and the “well-intentioned” staff that worked within the schools. Her comments are contrary to the lived experiences of survivors and the findings of Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

As a survivor of the Indian residential school system myself and to my family and community, the Senator’s remarks, vile views, and her subsequent actions remain hurtful and deeply offensive. I also submit to you that her negative actions and tune go against the country’s move toward true reconciliation. Many people, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, remain offended.

After being released from the confines of the residential school system with a wounded spirit, I didn’t want to listen to anyone. No one. The residential school system had made too angry.

I was bitter — very bitter. I was angry at myself. I was angry at my parents for allowing me to attend, but little did I realize it was the law of the state and role of the churches that separated me from my family. Dare I say it, I was even angry at God my Creator. Simply put, as a confused young man, I was mad at the world.

However, on the positive side, and through my personal healing journey, I was able to cope and I learned to control my anger. I found the strength to not let the anger control my life.

Why am I telling you this, you might ask?

You see, it was like this.

When I first heard and learned about the comments embraced by this Senator, I was puzzled. I felt the need to rise up to the challenge that we — the collective — still had a lot of work to educate each other about our shared history.

However, as more comments and actions were spewed out, I could feel the remnants of the Indian residential school anger rearing its ugliness.

Try as we did, in July 2017, a number of residential school survivors met face-to-face with this Senator, to seek more understanding of the effects of the legacy. This meeting failed. Following this meeting, it became obvious that the meeting was a meeting of convenience for the Senator; portraying a message that everything was well. Things actually got worse which led to this Senators exclusion from her political party not to mention her two suspensions from this Chamber.

Without malice, I found the Senator’s responses and actions to be condescending. She may have listened to our stories but somehow it appeared she didn’t hear our message. I ascertain that she was not engaged in a meaningful conversation of the healing of relations.

And so, given this ongoing matter, I hope you can see why some old wounds can be easily reopened. This is why I speak about anger stemming from historic trauma and that the effects of historic trauma are sadly transgenerational. This anger — a lingering effect of the system — certainly resurfaced in this situation.

Racism.

Like opening the wounds inflicted by the residential school system, the veneer is so thin that the embers of racism can be easily reignited. Certainly the words and actions of this Senator reignited the flames of racism in this country.

In the 1960s and 70s, as a young Anishinaabe man growing up in northwestern Ontario, I lived through very turbulent times dealing with overt racism including the impacts of systemic racism. Those living in northern Ontario can understand the threat of raging forest fires. In the era I speak about, racism in the north was ablaze. Although some fires have subsided, embers still smolder away and racism is still easily ignitable.

At least with raging forest fires, they can be extinguished with a lot of effort and firefighting equipment. But the raging fires of racism are not that easily extinguished. In this country, racism is on the rise. Northwestern Ontario is not free of racism. We still need collective effort and proper tools to fight racism.

Move Toward Healing and Reconciliation.

Senators, it is my belief that the healing of relationships is in order. Healing efforts through dialogue will lead all of us to meaningful reconciliation. But in saying this, healing must happen first before reconciliation efforts take shape.

In conclusion, let us move forward in the spirit of reconciliation. Let us talk to each other in a good way. Let us talk in a responsible way until every ounce of pain caused by the Indian residential schools system has dissipated.

My friends, the time is here. The time is now to listen to the wisdom of leaders past, for their guidance lives in each one of us today. Let us be guided by the spirit of leaders like Chief Sakatcheway.

And so what is this all about? This is about our children and our grandchildren and those yet to be born. Whenever I look into the eyes of my beautiful children, I cannot help but tell them: This is for you and the future of our country.

I have spoken the truth. Through truth, we will understand. Through understanding, there is hope. Through hope, there is healing. Through healing, there is reconciliation. Through reconciliation, there is forgiveness. Through forgiveness, there is peace.

Miigwetch, for listening.

Thank you, Garnet, my dear friend, for your powerful words. And thank you, colleagues, for listening with an open heart.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ngo, seconded by the Honourable Senator Patterson:

That the Senate note that, by adopting the Journey to Freedom Day Act on April 23, 2015, and taking into account the first two elements of the preamble of the said Act, the Parliament of Canada unequivocally recognized violations of:

(a)the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam and its protocols (Paris Peace Accords); and

(b)the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam; and

That the Senate urge the Government of Canada to call upon six or more of the current parties to the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam, which include Canada, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Poland, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, amongst others, to agree to the reconvention of the International Conference on Viet-Nam pursuant to Article 7(b) of the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam in order to settle disputes between the signatory parties due to the violations of the terms of the Paris Peace Accords and the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam.

Senator Marshall: Yes, of course.

Senator Marshall: Yes. Thank you very much, Senator Galvez, for that question. My personal preference would be to reinstate the estimates reform project. When Minister Brison was there, for two consecutive years he had tried two different things. While they weren’t perfect, they were helpful. I did find that, while we are struggling to try to make sense of the estimates, when we had those two years where we were trying something new, it was really motivational. I found that Minister Brison was very receptive; he appeared many times before our Finance Committee and he was really engaged. That would be number one.

I would like to sneak in item number two. I think the government should put a bigger effort into providing financial information. Sometimes, I get the feeling they are withholding it for a purpose, like they don’t want to give us the information. So we are not able to track it. If they don’t give us the information, all I can say is that I don’t have the information. If they gave me the public accounts I could probably come up with 500 questions, but right now all I can say is, “where are the public accounts?” We do have them, but our review is done. We are going to discuss our report tomorrow. So it’s not a good situation.

Senator Galvez, I’m used to working with numbers, so the government documents don’t intimidate me. But as I said to the President of the Treasury Board the other day, when I review Supplementary Estimates (B), I almost need a calculator, pen and paper as I’m trying to go back and forth because the government won’t provide the information.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Dupuis, we are having audio problems and, therefore, there was no interpretation. We are truly sorry for this technical problem, but it seems that the interpreters cannot hear you and provide the English interpretation. Therefore, Senator Marshall cannot answer your question.

However, you could ask your question at third reading stage, if you wish. Perhaps the technical difficulties will be resolved by then.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It seems, Senator Dupuis, that that will not be possible.

Senator Dupuis: Would you like me to put the question in the chat of the Senate hybrid session?

Senator Dupuis: Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Kim Pate: Thank you to Senator Gagné and Senator Marshall for their comments. I echo the appreciation expressed to all members of the Finance Committee, as well as the support staff.

Honourable senators, the government has committed to recovery for all — a response to COVID-19 that leaves no one behind, neither during nor after this pandemic. The reality so far is, quite frankly, starkly inadequate.

A significant part of Supplementary Estimates (B) concerns responses to the pandemic. Millions of Canadians remain below the poverty line, yet for nearly two years meaningful economic supports have been unavailable to those who vitally need them. The evidence continues to roll in with regard to the avoidable human, social and financial toll of excluding disproportionate numbers — in fact, millions — of women, Indigenous, African-Canadian and other racialized people, as well as those with disabilities.

We have an opportunity and duty to urge the government to be bold. Emerging from this pandemic should not mean going back to normal but, rather, building toward greater equality.

Programs like the CERB and CRB have demonstrated the difference that direct income supports can make for those in need. For many who lost jobs or income as a result of the pandemic, $2,000 per month meant being able to put the health and well-being of themselves, their families and communities first, without the worry of how to feed their families or the spectre of eviction.

For those who did not qualify for programs like the CERB because their incomes were too low, new data reaffirms the inadequacy of the alternative supports available. Already inadequate social assistance payments were compounded by inadequate emergency pandemic supports. In some provinces, a single person was left with as little as $660 per month. This had to cover not only everyday necessities such as housing, food and clothing, but the many extra costs of trying to safely survive the pandemic.

In many provinces, the combined provincial and territorial emergency pandemic benefits for those on social assistance amounted to only 1 to 2% of what a CERB recipient received — $24 per month, or less than a dollar a day.

Across Canada, people continued to be abandoned to poverty at a time when it became impossible to ignore the link between economic stability, health and well-being. There was not a single jurisdiction, not a single province or territory, where amounts were sufficient to get people out of deep poverty, let alone above the poverty line.

Even for those who were able to access programs like the CERB, there are sharp differences in outcomes for those with the least and those who are more well off.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this year about 88,222 of Canada’s lowest-income seniors lost part or all of their entitlement to a non-pandemic basic income program, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, on which they rely to make ends meet. Why? Because they claimed CERB last year, and when their new GIS payments were calculated this summer based on last year’s income, CERB payments were counted.

The situation is more dire for many who claimed CERB in good faith and later found out they were not eligible. They are being told to make CERB repayments to the government. At the same time, their GIS payments have been cut. Where will they get the money to repay? How will they survive this, let alone live?

Families have also seen cuts to Canada Child Benefit payments for the same reason. Since at least May, federal officials have acknowledged this problem with CERB and similar types of pandemic supports, such as the CRB and the recently proposed Canada worker lockdown benefit, and yet have not taken corrective steps. The effect on lowest-income recipients has been the worst.

While CERB has functioned as intended for many higher-income recipients, for those with less, the programs have not prevented but have only delayed economic hardship. Against this backdrop, in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic alone, the wealth of 47 Canadian billionaires increased by $78 billion.

For decades, wealth inequality has been increasing in Canada. As of 2019, one quarter of Canada’s family net wealth was held by 1% of families. The 40% of families with the least had access to a mere 1.1% of total wealth.

To date, pandemic economic policy has reinforced — worse yet, increased — inequalities.

Honourable senators, we have not yet seen recovery for all, and we have an obligation to demand nothing less.

On the eve of the pandemic, in more than half of the households in which people went hungry, family members were working but not earning enough to cover the costs of basic necessities. Economic inequality results in worse health and social outcomes. It also contributes to outrageous and unacceptable situations such as the steady increase in and reliance on food banks. Too many forced to seek such sustenance are seniors and people with disabilities. Many food banks also report a significant number of clientele who are workers, too many of whom are also living in homeless shelters. Food banks were created as temporary measures. They have become permanent fixtures with significant costs that treat the symptoms but fail to address the root causes of poverty, inadequate wages and income supports.

Escalating economic inequality leads to increased costs in terms of homelessness, shelters, the criminal legal system and emergency health care. It also significantly impedes economic growth.

In 2014, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, found that rising inequality in wealthy countries significantly impacts gross domestic product.

Furthermore, the UN’s World Social Report 2020 emphasizes that slower economic growth is associated with income inequality, in particular because of disparities in health care and education.

Today, the National Advisory Council on Poverty reported that, relative to 2015 levels, the government had reduced poverty by 30% by 2020, but they caution that the numbers conceal the deep inequities that persist in Canada. They recommend a whole-of-society approach to create equitable systems to address poverty.

The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance is still awaiting a full response from the Department of Finance to questions regarding how the government is evaluating whether the measures it is proposing in the supplementary estimates are expected to achieve recovery for all.

Unfortunately, what we have seen so far reveals we are missing the mark. It is long past time, honourable senators, for measures like a guaranteed liveable income to ensure that no one is left behind. Poverty puts people’s health, well-being and lives at risk. Alleviation is a question of human rights that Canada cannot afford to continue to ignore.

Thank you, honourable senators. Meegwetch.

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

(On motion of Senator Miville-Dechêne, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the second reading of Bill S-220, An Act to amend the Languages Skills Act (Governor General).

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I would like to thank Senator Ngo for bringing this motion forward. The issue, both in the context of the Journey to Freedom Day Act of 2015 and the application of the agreement on ending the war and restoring peace in Vietnam, and its protocols, known as the Paris Peace Accords of 1975, is of great concern to our colleague and, indeed, to many Canadians of Vietnamese origin — as well it should be.

Indeed, countless people like Senator Ngo and thousands of Vietnamese first came to our shores fleeing conflict and/or persecution. The reasons to leave were traumatic enough, to say nothing of the journey to a new land and ultimately arriving in a strange new place to call home, where refugees face new challenges.

My parents faced a similar situation in losing their land, property and possessions during World War II, after which they came to Canada as refugees. We are all touched by such stories; they are integral to the fabric and the folk memory of so many Canadians.

Nonetheless, while I appreciate the spirit of this motion, I oppose its passage. I will explain why.

Colleagues, this motion calls upon the Government of Canada to reconvene a meeting of the International Conference on Viet-Nam to discuss events that took place 45 years ago, within the framework of that treaty, and of that conference that is just as old. Further, some of the members with which Canada worked at the time, such as Hungary and Poland, were then part of the Soviet bloc. Things have changed somewhat in 45 years, including the fall of the U.S.S.R., which among other points, resulted in these countries completely changing their constitutions and systems of government.

It is not clear to me why Canada should expend great energy, not to mention international political capital, to re-engage in a discussion for which, in my view, there would not be much appetite from other parties to reopen. Also, I do not know what will be included in the government’s forthcoming Indo-Pacific strategy, but I would wager that reconvening the International Conference on Viet-Nam will not be in it, and I am not a betting man.

In bilateral terms — that is, the relationship between Canada and Vietnam — I am convinced that this motion would be seen in a negative light by Vietnam, a country with which Canada has enjoyed friendship and cooperation for many decades. That is no small thing, colleagues. Vietnam is a member of the ASEAN group with which both the government of Prime Minister Harper and the current government have sought to achieve closer ties. Vietnam, along with Canada, is a member of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, otherwise known as the CPTPP, that is already showing positive signs for both countries and, indeed, all members. Our two-way trade last year was nearly $9 billion, making Vietnam Canada’s largest trading partner among ASEAN countries.

Would it not be more constructive for Canada to focus on developing our positive relationship with Vietnam within the framework of the Canada-Vietnam partnership, where there can be engagement on a comprehensive agenda that could, and in fact does, include economic and political reforms?

Symbolic gestures — and this motion represents just that — can have negative consequences. I have made this important point in the chamber before, colleagues.

I would also note that our dialogue with the government of Vietnam includes larger geostrategic questions, military cooperation that concerns Vietnam, scientific and academic cooperation, clean technologies and cooperation on the Green Climate Fund. It also includes discussions about the ASEAN countries, large neighbouring countries and the wider Pacific region.

We need to work with friends and allies all over the world, the Indo-Pacific region being no exception, particularly when we see ourselves aggrieved or unfairly treated by other countries. Canada has had some recent experience in this regard.

In his speech supporting the motion, our colleague Senator Patterson referred to the international rules-based order. We have had one since 1945 through the United Nations and the Bretton Woods Institutions, and it has changed and expanded over the years with decolonization; the development of regional groupings and alliances, in many of which Canada enjoys membership; the collapse of the Soviet Union; the development of the European Union; regular global and regional summits; and the list goes on.

The end of the Vietnam War falls into that rubric.

There are international norms and rules that are set out that should be followed by all countries. We all know this is not always the case.

I recognize that the concern expressed by Senators Ngo and Patterson revolve around human rights and the development of Vietnam since the peace treaty was signed. Various Canadian governments have, in the interval, raised these issues with the government since 1975, in bilateral terms. But what I consider very important is the multilateral element, as shown in the Universal Periodic Review that Canada had undertaken in the UN system to assess Vietnam’s efforts on human rights and the harmonization of its laws with international standards. That is the development in the UN system that has also occurred since 1975, when the peace treaties were signed.

In the last round in 2019, Canada recommended that Vietnam revise its penal code and cybersecurity laws to align with international standards for freedom of expression, association and assembly; to ensure due process rights and the right to a fair trial; to allow religious groups to practise freely; and to allow for the establishment of independent labour unions and gender-equality issues.

That is the way to achieve progress, colleagues: peer review and multilateral engagement, the push that the CPTPP brings today for all parties to step up and continue bilateral dialogue. The solution is not to return to an instrument from 45 years ago, regardless of any perceived symbolic value or reassurance and hope it might provide to our valued and respected community of Vietnamese Canadians, of which our dear colleague is an illustrious member.

Honourable senators, the chances of getting six parties to the Act of the International Conference on Viet-Nam to agree to reopen the conference are well nigh impossible.

As I have said before with respect to motions on international affairs in this chamber, we must keep in mind that the management of Canada’s international affairs falls within the Royal Prerogative. While the Senate and the House of Commons can certainly provide indications of what should be done, what actually can be done resides solely with the government of the day.

If we pass motions, they need to be realistic and reflect well on our institution — the Senate of Canada. I don’t think this one does.

In my view, our government would need to think long and hard before committing its international political capital toward returning to an issue that, for many people and countries, was settled long ago.

It is for those reasons that, with the greatest respect for our colleague Senator Ngo, I oppose this motion.