The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Vijay Dube and Girija Dube. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Deacon (Nova Scotia).

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Vijay Dube and Girija Dube. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Deacon (Nova Scotia).

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Claude Carignan: Honourable Senators, I rise today to pay tribute to an athlete from my region, my province and my country, Mikaël Kingsbury, an Olympic champion in moguls skiing. Mikaël claimed a third straight world title in singles moguls and then another in dual moguls in Bakuriani, Georgia, on February 25 and 26.

Hon. Claude Carignan: Honourable Senators, I rise today to pay tribute to an athlete from my region, my province and my country, Mikaël Kingsbury, an Olympic champion in moguls skiing. Mikaël claimed a third straight world title in singles moguls and then another in dual moguls in Bakuriani, Georgia, on February 25 and 26.

He has a record 115 podium finishes at the World Cup, including 80 wins. He is obviously the most decorated mogul skier of all time.

He is now 30 years old, but he was only 20 when he won his first World Cup title in moguls in Voss, Norway, in 2013.

Since then, Mikaël has been taking home medals both at the world championships and the Olympics. I have known Mikaël personally for over 16 years, since I first supported him through the Fondation Élite de Saint-Eustache when he was just beginning his career on Canada’s freestyle circuit.

Mikaël is an unusually passionate individual. He has always been very serious, diligent and determined about practising his sport, and he has always pushed his limits. In fact, that’s what stands out about him the most. He is someone who always pushes his limits and never settles for good enough.

This high-performance athlete is a role model for all the young people in our country who are involved in sports. He could also be a role model to all of us who aspire to push our limits in our own disciplines.

Mikaël has become a legend in his sport in particular and in the world of competitive sports in general.

At only 30, when the vast majority of athletes his age have already retired, Mikaël is still in peak form. Outside of his regular world cup competitions, he is getting ready for the 2026 Olympic Games.

As the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child. In Mikaël’s case, his original tribe was his immediate family: his father, Robert, and his mother, Julie, who always supported him, not to mention the time and money that went into helping him achieve his dreams as a young, ambitious, audacious and talented athlete.

I should also say that beyond his magnificent talents as a skier, Mikaël is down to earth. He is humble and has both feet on the ground — when he is not on skis — and he is exceptionally friendly.

Mikaël continues to dazzle us at lightning speed. Congratulations, Mikaël. You are an inspiration to several generations of young athletes and you are our national pride. Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Joyce Murray, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard: Thank you very much for your concern about wild Atlantic salmon which is, indeed, an iconic species and in trouble. We’re dedicated to helping the stock recover and grow.

I am in the process of developing Canada’s first wild Atlantic salmon conservation strategy. I had some briefings on that in recent weeks. We are working very closely with Indigenous people on the development and implementation of the strategy. We have been working with a number of partners to finance some of them in order to ensure the recovery of wild Atlantic salmon, and I look forward to continuing to do that.

With respect to any specific document, I’m happy to follow up, and have the department share it with the senator.

(Pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2021, to receive a Minister of the Crown, the Honourable Joyce Murray, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and Canadian Coast Guard, appeared before honourable senators during Question Period.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it’s a few minutes before 2:30 when Question Period is due to begin. With leave of the Senate, we can begin now and finish at 3:28. Is leave granted, honourable senators?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it’s a few minutes before 2:30 when Question Period is due to begin. With leave of the Senate, we can begin now and finish at 3:28. Is leave granted, honourable senators?

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

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

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

Hon. David M. Wells: Minister, your government is in the process of shutting down 79 salmon farms in British Columbia. Scientists have publicly pushed back on the non-peer-reviewed science. In fact, an independent report said that these salmon farms have little or no effect on wild stocks.

My question is about the science and about the government’s plans. What is your government’s plan to shutdown the vibrant aquaculture industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, one that employs thousands and has investments of millions, including the resources of First Nations?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Manning, your time has expired. Do you wish to answer, Minister Murray?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Manning, your time has expired. Do you wish to answer, Minister Murray?

The Hon. the Speaker: Your time has expired.

The Hon. the Speaker: Your time has expired.

Hon. Joyce Murray, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard: Thank you for that question. I will commit to getting a briefing and reviewing the situation that the senator is describing.

The reality is that funds go through Treasury Board, and any funds we have access to are dedicated to specific initiatives that we’ve committed to. Whether there is funding for the Inuvialuit conservation research processes, I can’t answer right now.

However, I spent a week travelling the Arctic, starting in the Northwest Territories and going right through to the eastern coast of the Arctic, to understand the critical issues. I met with Indigenous peoples wherever I went and heard about the concerns and opportunities that they see in front of them. I’m very committed to our Arctic region. We recently stood up a new Arctic region that will be based out of Iqaluit because we want to have a presence on the ground, but we have not been able to move all our public servants there yet. That is taking time because of the increase in wages and the cost of housing and office space. However, I spent a number of days talking with the Canadian Coast Guard.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Bill C-39. As you know, this bill proposes to delay by one year, until March 17, 2024, the possibility for those suffering from an irremediable mental illness causing them intolerable pain to request medical assistance in dying.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Bill C-39. As you know, this bill proposes to delay by one year, until March 17, 2024, the possibility for those suffering from an irremediable mental illness causing them intolerable pain to request medical assistance in dying.

The bill has only one very short provision that targets only one provision of the Criminal Code, the one that makes mental illness ineligible for medical assistance in dying.

My speech has three parts. First, I want to talk about where the exclusion for people suffering from mental illness came from. Second, I will explain why the Senate refused to support that exclusion in 2021, and third, I will talk about the reasons for extending the exclusion.

The debate we’re having here today is in response to the September 11, 2019, ruling of the Quebec Superior Court in Truchon and Gladu.

This ruling found unconstitutional some provisions of the Criminal Code and some provisions of Quebec’s Act Respecting End-of-Life Care, which made a reasonably foreseeable death a condition for accessing medical assistance in dying. According to the judge, this criterion, which wasn’t suggested by the Supreme Court in its 2015 ruling in Carter, violated the constitutional rights of Mr. Truchon and Ms. Gladu, namely the right to equality.

Both the Government of Quebec and the federal government accepted that ruling and promised to take appropriate action.

At the federal level, this took the form of Bill C-7, which was introduced on October 5, 2020. The bill added a second pathway to medical assistance in dying for people suffering from an incurable disease that is causing them intolerable suffering, without that suffering being the cause of imminent or foreseeable death.

By contrast, in Bill C-7, the government proposed to deny access to medical assistance in dying to individuals suffering only from mental illness, arguing that this was an appropriate measure given the lack of sufficient consensus among psychiatric experts at the time.

[English]

This is the origin of track 2 and of the exclusion of those suffering from only a mental illness, even if their illness was found to be incurable and the source of unbearable suffering as explained by Senator Kutcher a few minutes ago.

I move now to the reasons why the Senate disagreed with the permanent exclusion. As you may remember, Bill C-7 received much attention in the Senate. First, there was a pre-study in the fall of 2020 that led to a comprehensive report released in February 2021, which has been quoted extensively by many witnesses before the joint committee recently.

On the exclusion of mental illness as a sole condition, our legal committee reported a lack of consensus about the irremediable character of many mental illnesses and signalled that renowned legal experts, such as Professor Downie of Dalhousie University, have argued that the exclusion was unconstitutional.

During the third reading debate in the Senate, five amendments were adopted — some after lively debates. One was the addition of an 18-month termination date on the exclusion of those suffering solely from a mental illness. For the majority of this chamber, this group exclusion was discriminatory, resting on stereotypes and biases against mental illness and thus even unconstitutional. Only a mechanism providing for a case-by-case assessment of requesters of MAID could be acceptable.

The government finally agreed with this conclusion, ending the group exclusion through a sunset clause two years after Royal Assent. That’s going to be March 17, a few days from now. In addition, the government proposed an independent review by experts in relation to MAID and mental illness, including safeguards.

A majority of the House of Commons agreed with these proposals, and we later accepted them. As a result, the exclusion from track 2 of those suffering from a mental illness was to end on March 17, 2023.

At the time and to this day, many psychiatrists and citizens believe that a group exclusion for individuals suffering from an incurable mental illness is the option to be preferred. This is the goal of Bill C-314, a private bill tabled yesterday in the other place.

But it remains that this is not the view of most Canadians according to a recent poll conducted by Ipsos for Dying With Dignity Canada. In the context of treatment-resistant mental illness with intolerable suffering, 34% of Canadians strongly support access to MAID in such a case, 48% somewhat support access, 10% somewhat oppose and 7% strongly oppose.

(1620)

Essentially, over 80% of Canadians think that access to MAID should be available for those suffering in that type of situation, which is incurable illness and unbearable suffering.

In my view, those numbers confirm that the Senate rightly concluded that a permanent exclusion was not only unjustified and likely unconstitutional, but also that Canadians do not support further stigmatization of those suffering from an incurable mental illness. The law should not treat them as unable to make a choice for themselves by denying access to track 2 if they are otherwise eligible and meet the safeguards provided for track 2.

Bill C-39 does not revisit the exclusion issue but, rather, it extends by one year the current temporary exclusion. We must ask this: Why postpone the coming into force of track 2 access for those suffering solely from a mental illness who otherwise meet the stringent requirements of track 2? The answer is that Parliament should proceed with some caution in lifting the exclusion in order to allow provinces and territories sufficient time to prepare for the required assessments. Harmonization and proper training for assessors are critical.

As Minister of Health Duclos has noted, the development of practice standards for MAID falls outside direct federal responsibility. He also said that the government:

. . . is actively engaging [provinces and territories] and the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada on the development of consistent practice standards.

In his speech, Senator Kutcher referred to the efforts that are being deployed across Canada to achieve such harmonization and develop assessment procedures and standards.

The recent Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, where I had the honour to serve with Senators Martin, Kutcher, Mégie, Wallin and 10 members of Parliament, shared the responsibility of completing an interim report and a final report on various issues related to MAID. The interim report tabled last June was on MAID and mental disorders, and it was dedicated to reviewing the task force report.

A government response followed in October. By that time, everybody was working hard to meet the requirement of March 17, and the government was hopeful that date would be met.

However, further witnesses heard by the committee led the committee to conclude in its final report, which was tabled on February 15, that we were not yet ready to move forward. That final report includes 23 recommendations, including one in relation to mental disorders. That recommendation is to agree with the government about postponing the date of March 17 and also proposes to re-establish a joint committee five months before the new exclusion date, which is March 2024, in order to verify the degree of preparedness attained for a safe and adequate application of MAID for mental disorders as a sole underlying condition. Again, that recommendation reflects a cautious approach.

However, there are also risks to not removing the exclusion in a timely way. The special joint committee noted in its report that the delay in eligibility under Bill C-39 may prolong the suffering of some individuals who are otherwise able to receive MAID. Senator Kutcher referred to that, and I believe most of you received emails from those people, urging us not to accept Bill C-39 and not delay further access to MAID.

Essentially, adults who meet the eligibility criteria for MAID — including irremediability, informed consent and intolerable suffering — currently face discrimination as a class when their condition is mental as compared to physical, or when compared to having both physical and mental conditions, when we don’t dispute their ability to consent to MAID.

In my view, Charter compliance very likely requires a MAID law that allows for a case-by-case analysis of eligibility based on individual facts, such as assessing capacity and past attempts at treatment. Such an approach will occur for cases of mental disorders once the sunset clause expires — now in March 2024.

Indeed, Parliament has considered MAID in the context of mental disorders for a long time. Senator Seidman and former Senators Cowan, Joyal, Ogilvie and Nancy Ruth served on another special joint committee on MAID in the Forty-second Parliament. In their 2016 report over seven years ago, recommendation 3 urged:

That individuals not be excluded from eligibility for medical assistance in dying based on the fact that they have a psychiatric condition.

On legalities, let me refer to lawyer Shakir Rahim’s testimony to the special joint committee on October 4, 2022. He discussed MAID and mental disorders in relation to the 2020 Supreme Court decision of Ontario (Attorney General) v. G, a leading case on section 15 equality rights. During our third reading debate on Senator Kutcher’s amendment to Bill C-7 I referred to that decision of the Supreme Court regarding mental disorders. The special joint committee’s final report also refers to that decision.

As Mr. Rahim told the committee:

In my view, the recommendation of the expert panel on [medical assistance in dying where a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition] conforms to the spirit and letter of the section 15 jurisprudence. . . .

Senators, these conclusions show the necessity of having access to MAID for mental disorders.

[Translation]

However, it must be done in a way that ensures that there is no slippery slope and no mistakes that might contribute to opposition to this expansion. That’s why, honourable senators, I suggest that we pass Bill C-39, and I have a message for anyone who may be listening. This is not about opposing your right to MAID; it is simply a pause. Your right to medical assistance in dying is constitutionally recognized and will soon be available.

Thank you.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Colin Deacon: I wonder if Senator Smith would take a question.

Senator Smith, I wonder if you would agree with me that you just did a fabulous job of summarizing one of the best reports that the Banking Committee has produced in the last while. I don’t think it could have been better summarized by anyone other than you. Would you agree with me?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Bellemare, your time is up. Are you asking for five more minutes to finish?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Bellemare, your time is up. Are you asking for five more minutes to finish?

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: The number of Canadians who live with a disability is 6.2 million. We make up 22% of our population, and yet we continue to be marginalized and under-represented.

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: The number of Canadians who live with a disability is 6.2 million. We make up 22% of our population, and yet we continue to be marginalized and under-represented.

Canadians with disabilities certainly are not — and never will be — a homogeneous group. On the contrary, they are the epitome of diversity. Their disability ranges from hearing loss, vision impairment and blindness to temporary or permanent loss of mobility, and many others. The daily reality of persons with disabilities is impacted by a vast array of other factors.

(1710)

While many obstacles remain, our abilities too are diverse, and persons with disabilities have, more than ever, an active presence in today’s Canada. We are in the arts, in faculties and in sports. We are lawyers, doctors, teachers, entrepreneurs, MPs, ministers and senators.

However, let not these success stories hide the fact that out of those 6.2 million people with disabilities, one out of four cannot afford access to care, aids, devices or medical prescriptions. Out of those 6.2 million, 41% of working age are unemployed, and even when they are employed, they make less. One thing that persons with disabilities all have in common is that they will face barriers and challenges just to get what they have a right to.

As a society, we have a responsibility to help take down these barriers, one by one, at every chance we get. This is why today I want to speak in support of Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

I will speak about this bill with a great deal of hope and some questions.

[Translation]

Many have said this before. This bill, which is really a framework for developing future compensation, leaves us in the dark in terms of how much, when, and how. These are critical questions, because we’re expected to take a stand with facts, not just hope.

Let’s start with the question that is on everyone’s mind: How much will this compensation be?

The quick answer is that we haven’t seen any numbers. We do have some clues, however, such as the name of the bill and its preamble, which highlights the intended purpose of reducing poverty, providing financial security and meeting our international commitments to people with disabilities.

Minister Qualtrough was clear in both the House and committee when she said, and I quote: “Today, I begin with the following declaration: in Canada, no person with a disability should live in poverty.”

[English]

Here in this chamber, the sponsor of the bill, Senator Cotter, stated that the fourth pillar of the bill is:

. . . financial security, so that we can reduce poverty and improve financial security for hundreds of thousands of persons with disabilities.

But the fact remains that we don’t know how much the benefit will be, and we will not know that when we are asked to vote.

Clause 11(1.1) of the bill provides that in making regulations respecting the amount of a benefit, the government “. . . must take into consideration the Official Poverty Line as defined in . . . the Poverty Reduction Act.“ This came after an amendment from MP Zarrillo, and I want to thank her and the members of the House of Commons Human Resources Committee for this addition in the bill that gives us some concrete direction.

But I will argue that if we aim for the poverty line, it will not be enough to lift persons with disabilities out of poverty. Allow me, colleagues, to start with a harsh reality: Living with a disability is expensive, more than many can imagine.

[Translation]

In calculating the consumer basket, Statistics Canada takes into account basic needs: food, clothing, housing and transportation. People with disabilities, however, have to spend a lot in addition to these basic needs regardless of the services available in their province. I know quite a few people with disabilities, and I can tell you for a fact that everything costs more, no matter how much you earn. Accessible housing, transportation, recreation, not to mention adaptive equipment, everything is more expensive.

Take this wheelchair cushion, for example, which a lot of people with spinal cord injuries use. It can cost as much as $800. I need it for medical reasons. To get it, I have to go see my doctor, who writes a prescription, which I pay for. Then I have to get to a supplier or a rehab centre. Then I have to wait four or five months to get it because it is custom made.

Quebec covers the cost of this cushion every two or three years, but because it is inflatable, it never lasts three years. Inflatable cushions are prone to bursting. Within a year, it’s already been patched two or three times, and eventually, I have to pay for a new one out of pocket or limit the length of time I spend sitting on it.

I have the privilege of being able to afford this cushion, but not everyone does. And that is just one of many examples. Even basic necessities can be much more costly. Those who have lost most of their autonomy won’t, for example, have the freedom or ability to do their own grocery shopping and to cook with less expensive products. They might have to buy prepared meals and pay more.

I’m not even talking about treatments. Programs offer a limited number of treatments even though people need more to maintain their health, their autonomy and their well-being. When living in poverty, what cuts can they make to afford these treatments? Often, they forgo basic necessities.

[English]

If we are committed to lifting persons with disabilities out of poverty, we must realize that aiming at the poverty line may not be enough and may not provide adequacy. I hope that this will be taken into account in the regulatory process.

I remain puzzled as to why the government is not sharing their estimate. I understand that this is a framework bill, of course, but it has been in the making for three years. Surely, someone somewhere would have an idea of the amount that any current or future government will have to include in its budget to cover the needs of this support measure. I am looking forward to the opportunity to ask this question in committee.

And what about possible clawbacks? How do we ensure they do not happen?

[Translation]

During a committee study in the other place, 17 organizations, three individuals and 153 briefs were considered. The vast majority of these witnesses expressed concerns about possible problems and clawbacks. The organizations I talked to also reiterated these concerns, which I share.

[English]

How do we make sure that provinces will not take this opportunity to claw back or to cut other programs or financial supports? As of now, there is no formal commitment from the provinces and no commitment from the different insurance programs, yet persons with disabilities are asked to trust, even when history tells them that programs are often cut with changes in governments; that insurance companies will always try to provide as little as possible, even when it is a right; and that consultants will always find a way to use vulnerabilities to charge money in exchange for filing papers.

How do we provide efficiency in delivery, a system that will prevent clawbacks, monitoring of that system and a way to protect persons with disabilities when it fails?

Let me read you an intervention by John Stapleton in The Hill Times, a former Ontario civil servant and social policy expert who is consulting on the design of the Canada disability benefit. From the height of his experience, he reminds us that:

The disability space is the most complex, by far. There are 10 different disability income programs in Canada. We don’t have that with the Canada Child Benefit. We don’t have that with seniors.

(1720)

Still according to him:

In the disability space, we’ve got workers’ compensation, we’ve got the Registered Disability Savings Plan, we’ve got EI sickness, Canada Pension Plan disability, two veterans programs, welfare, employer-based programs, disability accident insurance. And all of those are playing in that same sandbox. And then the Canada Disability Benefit comes along. Does it replace those programs? Should it? These are questions that have to be asked and answered.

[Translation]

Take Quebec for example, a province where, according to the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec, the government offers 248 programs, measures and services for persons with disabilities, their families and their loved ones.

These programs and these measures, managed by 20 or so departments, can take the form of direct delivery of services and equipment. They can also be tax measures, refundable or non-refundable tax credits, deductions, exemptions, expense claims or direct subsidies.

This is in addition to people with disabilities who receive a pension following a workplace accident or benefits for highway accident victims. There’s a good chance I’m forgetting some people.

What can we do to bring in a proper system that ensures that people with disabilities have access to these provincial services and benefits, to calculate the right support from the Canadian benefit and ensure that nothing is clawed back?

[English]

Because what scares me is not that one province would claw back and cut a direct benefit to individuals. This would be quick to flag.

What I worry about are the smaller programs or services — individuals or organizations that would argue, “Well, now that the benefit allows you to have in your hands an amount that you did not have before, maybe we don’t have to subsidize that second physio treatment a month. Maybe we don’t need to pay for your $800 prescribed cushion.” This will be much more difficult to find out and equally damaging in achieving the objectives of this bill.

Fewer services would force persons with disabilities to cover those services with the benefit, and this would drag them right back into poverty. So how do we make sure it’s all monitored properly? And if something goes wrong, and I suspect it will at some point, how do we make 100% sure that the person with a disability will not be in charge, responsible for proving something was clawed back? Surely it can be done, but I can see a level of complexity that worries me. I’m not sure we heard many solutions. I am looking forward to exploring this aspect in committee, among others.

[Translation]

How can we get commitments from the provinces, insurance companies and subsidized programs?

Will the signed agreements stay the same if there are changes to the federal or provincial governments? How can we ensure that, even at the federal level, the amount won’t change if the government does? Will the eligibility criteria take into account the different definitions of the term “disability”? Will there be a variety of eligibility criteria both between and within the provinces?

As I said in the introduction of my speech, I have a lot of hope, but I’m also asking myself a lot of questions.

[English]

Honourable colleagues, allow me to share a few more thoughts before I conclude.

In our country built on shared competencies and responsibilities, it is not one major piece of legislation that will remove all barriers and be groundbreaking for persons with disabilities. On the contrary, it will be many pieces of legislation at all levels, many pieces of one big puzzle, that we must build together one piece at a time. This is one of them. It has the potential to make a difference, but it will not be enough.

Let’s make sure that we don’t rest on this. It would be a shame to use this disability benefit act as a justification or an excuse to stop working hard in order to remove all the barriers. While this has the potential to help many, this country needs to continue to commit to removing barriers to workplaces, education and all spheres of life for the 6.2 million Canadians living with a disability.

Let’s continue to highlight the challenges but also the successes of persons with disabilities in Canada.

As I speak today, my thoughts go to disability rights advocate Judy Huemann, who passed only a few days ago. I had the privilege and pleasure to cross paths with this legend on a number of occasions. Never a victim, always a trailblazer, Judy, the self-proclaimed “Rolling Warrior,” said:

Disability only becomes a tragedy for me when society fails to provide the things we need to lead our lives . . . .

So simple and yet so hard to achieve.

My hope in this bill is that when lifting persons out of poverty, we allow them to look ahead with confidence. The fact is that when you are deep into everyday poverty, unable to know what tomorrow will be made of, when you have to make a choice between groceries or medical care that you need, it’s impossible to look ahead with hope.

By lifting persons with disabilities out of poverty, we do more than provide material help. We put someone in a place of safety where they can finally take a breath, step back and reflect on the possibilities that lie ahead of them. Persons with disabilities, I assure you, will always have more potential than limits. That is, of course, when the powers in place do their job in removing the barriers one by one.

Colleagues, let’s tackle one very crucial barrier, poverty, by sending Bill C-22 to committee.

Senator Plett: Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fifth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, entitled The State of the Canadian Economy and Inflation, tabled in the Senate on February 15, 2023.

Hon. Joyce Murray, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard: Thank you for asking about that very important program because, as with the rest of the Greening Government Strategy, my ministry will need to progress on decarbonization as part of our government’s climate plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I was on a Canadian Coast Guard vessel doing icebreaking in the St. Lawrence estuary, as I mentioned before, and that’s one of the things that I spoke with the captain about. The changeover of engines will take a while. The power that is required for something like a Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker, even a medium-sized one, is almost half the size of this chamber here filled with large engines. So this will take some time.

In the meantime, the vessel, in many ways, is decarbonizing, through its shift to its electricity systems. Its provision of services is being done through a greener means. We will continue to explore ways that the fuel use can be greener and less greenhouse-gas-intensive over the years to come.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!