Hon. Stan Kutcher: Minister, thank you for being with us today. My question is on the Canadian Coast Guard and its decarbonization efforts. I understand that there are currently a number of different initiatives on this issue under way, such as a biodiesel testing project and construction of a hybrid electric vessel.

Would you please update us on these efforts and share with us if there are any additional plans for decarbonization efforts within the Canadian Coast Guard?

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Welcome, minister. As Senator Coyle has said, the High Seas Treaty agreed to last week at the UN is an historic step in protecting the world’s oceans.

Canada has much experience in this. For example, we have upped the protected areas along our coasts. We have taken a leading role in the 1994 Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Sargasso Sea Commission. I have been hearing that many countries are looking to us to take a lead on this agreement as well. How do you see Canada becoming a leader in seeing that this treaty accomplishes its goals?

Hon. Mary Coyle: Welcome, Minister Murray. This weekend, at the UN’s Intergovernmental Conference on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, countries agreed to a new treaty to protect ocean biodiversity in the high seas. The agreement will be key to achieving the goal to protect 30% of the world’s oceans set in the global biodiversity framework.

The new High Seas Treaty creates a framework for establishing marine protected areas, and conducting environmental impact assessments in ocean areas beyond national jurisdictions. We know this was no easy feat.

This important agreement still needs to be formally adopted and ratified. Minister Murray, could you tell us what the next steps are internationally with this agreement? When could we expect the Government of Canada to ratify this High Seas Treaty?

Senator Bellemare: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Candies Kotchapaw, Angelica Johnson Baptista and Danisha Decius from the Black Diplomats Academy. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Bernard.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Candies Kotchapaw, Angelica Johnson Baptista and Danisha Decius from the Black Diplomats Academy. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Bernard.

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

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate, I move:

That the sitting be suspended, to resume at the later of 8 p.m., after a 15-minute bell, or the call of the chair, after a 5-minute bell.

Hon. Joyce Murray, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard: Thank you for that very important and compassionate question. My heart goes out to the families of the fish harvesters that you referred to whom we were not able to assist in time.

I’ve asked the Canadian Coast Guard to give me the model on which search and rescue stations are based. It is about the diameter of coverage and the time it would take to be in place to assist. The Canadian Coast Guard optimizes the resources it has to provide the best possible coverage on the coast. The St. Anthony base is the one that provides service to the Labrador coast, but it’s not just search and rescue. There are many resources on the Labrador coast that are auxiliary Canadian Coast Guard teams, as well as other resources that complement major search and rescue and the helicopter.

Hon. Brian Francis: Minister Murray, in 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the Mi’kmaq, Wolastoquey and Peskotomuhkati First Nations in Atlantic Canada have a treaty right to fish to attain a moderate livelihood. However, 23 years later, the federal government continues to enforce the legal and regulatory regime that not only infringes on constitutionally protected rights but makes impossible for their meaningful and safe exercise.

My question is simple: As Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, exactly how many more years or decades do you think is reasonable for the Mi’kmaq, Wolastoquey and Peskotomuhkati to wait for the full implementation of their rights-based fisheries?

Hon. Joyce Murray, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard: Thanks for asking about that accomplishment. I was delighted as well, of course, to see that there is framework emerging to have international agreement on protecting the high seas.

In terms of the next steps, we will continue to work with the international community on how to move forward regarding protected areas in the open seas. This is about biodiversity; it’s about conservation areas; it’s about conservation of stock, and standards for those things. There will be next steps. Again, I can follow up with you with specific next steps that my department will be undertaking, but — I can assure you — I am an enthusiastic champion for ocean conservation and protected areas.

Hon. Margaret Dawn Anderson: Minister Murray, your government is investing $7.46 million to the co-management of marine protected areas in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. However, no plans have been announced to conduct stock assessments, bathymetric surveys or other fundamental ecosystem studies despite consistent requests from nearby communities, scientists and hunter and trapper committees.

Hon. Margaret Dawn Anderson: Minister Murray, your government is investing $7.46 million to the co-management of marine protected areas in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. However, no plans have been announced to conduct stock assessments, bathymetric surveys or other fundamental ecosystem studies despite consistent requests from nearby communities, scientists and hunter and trapper committees.

The research vessel Nahidik II, operated by the non-profit Arctic Research Foundation, or ARF, serves communities in the region. ARF has offered to invest its own money in the project and can conduct the work more cost effectively and with less environmental impact; however, it would require an investment of $1.5 million from the federal government. This investment would enable crucial stock assessments, scientific studies and foster traditional and cultural knowledge.

Will you commit to working with the communities and the Arctic Research Foundation to bring sufficient funding to the region to complete stock assessments and begin baseline ecosystem studies in the marine protected areas within the Inuvialuit Settlement Region?

Hon. Pamela Wallin, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, presented the following report:

Tuesday, March 7, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy has the honour to present its

SIXTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, has, in obedience to the order of reference of December 14, 2022, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment but with certain observations, which are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

PAMELA WALLIN

Chair

(For text of observations, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 1281.)

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Patterson, Jane Goodall is a current and founding board member of the Nonhuman Rights Project, which is working to achieve legal rights for animals. The Nonhuman Rights Project is an American non-profit animal rights organization seeking to change the legal status of at least some non-human animals from that of property to that of persons, with the goal of securing rights to bodily liberty and integrity. Does it concern you that Jane Goodall would be a member of this organization?

Senator D. Patterson: Yes.

Hon. Larry Smith: Honourable senators, it’s my privilege to speak to the outstanding report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy entitled The State of the Canadian Economy and Inflation.

I would like to recognize our chair, Senator Wallin; our deputy chair, Senator Colin Deacon; the members of the committee; as well as dedicated analysts and support staff for their tireless efforts in producing this comprehensive report. I strongly encourage everyone to take the time to read this report, as it is a testament to the excellent work that takes place in our Senate committees and, just as important, the pivot that North America and Canada are going through economically.

[Translation]

Our committee heard from 18 witnesses over the course of nine meetings. Two former governors of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney and David Dodge, the current Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, the former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, and the current Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux, all shared with us their perspectives on the current economic situation. We also heard from economists, academics and monetary and fiscal policy experts, who shared their opinions with us.

[English]

The breadth of knowledge and expertise presented in this report offers insights into the many pressing issues we face today — notably, the role of monetary and fiscal policies, the housing crisis, regulatory burdens, low investment, productivity growth, lack of competition as well as our aging population.

Despite differences in opinion on various topics, including the causes of inflation, the scale of fiscal stimulus and how the federal government can work towards addressing many of the problems that we face today, I would like to briefly discuss two areas for which our committee heard strong support.

First, one of the main takeaways for me was the need for the federal government’s fiscal policies to work in accordance with the monetary policies of the Bank of Canada, especially during an inflation crisis, and that there be more deliberate and sustained efforts by the Bank of Canada to maintain transparency about its policy decisions.

Former governor of the Bank of Canada Mark Carney, while speaking about the role of monetary and fiscal policies in today’s context, told our committee:

. . . it’s counterproductive for fiscal and monetary policies to work at cross purposes. Colloquially, if one foot is on the brake with monetary policy, it’s foolish for the other to stomp on the gas. . . .

While the magnitude of the Bank of Canada’s response to fighting inflation was a point of debate during our study, it was clear that a tightening of monetary policy is necessary, and it is the role of the Bank of Canada, as an independent institution, to ensure it carries out its mandate of keeping inflation between 1% and 3%. In other words, when it comes to monetary policy, its foot must be on the brake.

What was concerning for me, however, was a lack of transparent communication from the Bank of Canada about some of its policy decisions through a period of uncertainty like the COVID-19 pandemic, which included the claim that inflation would be transitory, and it slowed reaction to the changing economic conditions relative to the other central banks.

Of course, in retrospect, the policy decisions taken by the Bank of Canada were not easy, as alluded to by the governor in his testimony. This does, however, further the need for Parliament to closely monitor the work of the bank moving forward.

On the fiscal side, there was a robust debate on the extent of the federal government’s response to COVID-19. In general, witnesses agreed that supports were necessary to keep the economy functioning, but that these supports should now be phased out and any additional spending in response to the inflation crisis be minor and temporary, providing targeted help to vulnerable Canadians. If the federal government continues large-scale spending measures, it will only add to the inflationary fire the Bank of Canada is trying to aggressively put out.

This point was echoed by Dr. Jack Mintz of the University of Calgary, who noted the discrepancy between fiscal and monetary policy in Canada by saying:

Fiscal policy is still not consistent with monetary policy. Monetary policy is focused on price stability, raising interest rates to bring down the rate of inflation, but fiscal policy at the federal level is not being sufficiently consistent with our aims of monetary policy. . . .

Metaphorically speaking, we need to take our fiscal policy foot off the gas.

The second and final topic I would like to briefly discuss is Canada’s aging population and the changes this presents for our labour force and the economy as a whole.

According to StatCan, as of July 2022, one in five Canadians, or approximately 7.3 million people in Canada, was at least 65 years of age. Colleagues, it bears repeating that more than 20% of our population currently is of retirement age, which is an all‑time high in the history of census keeping in this country.

These changing demographics will slow the growth of the labour force, negatively impact productivity and place upward pressure on prices and interest rates in the medium term, according to Mr. Dodge.

While there was general agreement during our study for increasing the level of immigration to fill this gap, I was struck by the comments of Dr. Mintz, who noted:

We are now going through rapid aging of the population, and it’s not just Canada. It’s all high-income countries and many middle-income countries. International markets for labour are going to become more competitive . . . .

[Translation]

Given the reality that is a shrinking labour pool, we must also look to other, more creative ways to fill this gap in the workforce through the creation of a reskilling program and the reintegration of retired workers into the workforce.

[English]

This sentiment was shared by a number of witnesses, including Janet Lane, Director of the Human Capital Centre at Canada West Foundation, who stated in response to my question on the topic:

I think we definitely do need to keep more of the aging workforce in the workforce.

For some people — for instance, in the trades — it’s not going to be quite so possible to do the actual physical work of a physical job in the trades, but their skills and expertise are very useful in the training of the next generation.

The evidence for retraining and retaining retirement-age workers in the labour force is overwhelmingly positive, and the research goes back decades. A 2016 literature review in the journal Canadian Public Policy entitled “Understanding Employment Participation of Older Workers: The Canadian Perspective” highlighted the fact that access to suitable training programs for older workers played an important role in worker retention. However, the article noted that a very small fraction of organizations in Canada were actually engaged in producing those types of training programs. What an opportunity.

Colleagues, I would like to conclude by saying that the COVID-19 pandemic, in our view, should accelerate the sense of urgency with which we confront the many persistent problems facing our country today, whether it be the role of fiscal and monetary policies, an aging workforce, regulatory burdens, a housing crisis or chronic underinvestment. I believe this extensive report presents an excellent framework for all levels of government, as well as industry, about where we are today and how we can move forward into a post-pandemic future. Thank you very much.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, it’s always difficult to be the last one to speak during a long day, but this is the last time I will rise today — I promise — to speak to Bill S-241, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (great apes, elephants and certain other animals), perhaps more commonly known as the Jane Goodall act. Of course, it’s difficult to say anything critical or even ask questions of a bill associated with such a beloved icon as Jane Goodall, but I hope we won’t be governed by emotion in dealing with this bill.

I would like to be clear that I do not support unaccredited roadside zoos or keeping animals in private homes under inhumane conditions. However, I do have serious concerns about this bill, and I hope that those concerns are carefully studied once this bill makes it to committee.

My first concern has to do with amendments to the Criminal Code proposed in this bill. I am always concerned when I see proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, especially when they appear in public bills, because even small changes can have impacts, whether consequential or unintentional, on other parts of the code and on future judgments. It’s therefore important that any changes are thoroughly studied. While I know that this bill was originally drafted by former Senator Sinclair before being introduced by Senator Klyne, it should not be lost on us that senators do not enjoy the same level of support that a federal department does when drafting a bill. We do not have the legal brain trust made available by the Department of Justice.

To be specific, I question what significant impact a clause such as clause 2 of the bill, which creates an “animal advocate” under section 445.2(1) of the Criminal Code, would have in the future. Colleagues, as someone who has seen the devastating impact of animal welfare and animal rights advocates on the subsistence and commercial seal harvesting in the North and Atlantic Canada, this provision strikes fear in my heart.

A January 15, 2022, blog post by Shannon Nickerson, Communications and Development Manager at Animal Justice, pointed out how Animal Justice Canada lawyers Kaitlyn Mitchell and Scott Tinney intervened in the Supreme Court case of British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Council of Canadians with Disabilities. According to the blog post, in their intervention, these lawyers argued to our highest court that:

. . . animals are highly vulnerable members of our society, and argued that courts should give animals better access to justice by granting them public standing more easily, allowing them to have their cases heard.

I’m not making this up. This case was dismissed and the appeal closed by the court but without any ruling on animals as equivalent to vulnerable persons with disabilities. However, it does beg the question I ask: Would the creation of an animal advocate entrenched in law in the Criminal Code, as proposed in this bill, then be a step on the way to recognizing animals on the same footing as vulnerable Canadians? Would this definition recognize new rights for animals, such as the ability of an advocate to bring forward a case on behalf of an animal? Would this not then be a roundabout way to accomplish the very thing that Animal Justice lawyers attempted to attain through their Supreme Court of Canada intervention?

There are others who strongly advocate for animals to be recognized as persons. Rebeka Breder, an animal rights lawyer in B.C., describes her firm, Breder Law, as acting “. . . exclusively for advancing the rights and welfare of animals, both domestic and wildlife.” She has been advocating for and monitoring pro-personhood cases for years.

I found a fascinating paper on this subject. Angela Fernandez, a professor in the Faculty of Law of the University of Toronto released a paper on animal law fundamentals entitled Animals as Property, Quasi-Property or Quasi-Person. In her leading sentence, Professor Fernandez states:

The property status of nonhuman animals, and the correlative felt need to transform that status to some form of personhood, has been a mainstay of animal law scholarship for the last twenty-five years.

When I read that, and then read the word “advocate” and the words “animal advocate,” I can’t help but get worried. The word advocate in legal terms refers to a person working on behalf of another person. Quoting the definition found in the law edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, it is “a person who is professionally qualified to plead the cause of another in a court of law.”

What path then does the legal recognition of an animal being entitled to a legal advocate set us on as a society? I do not believe that it is a large leap in logic to start with recognizing animals as people entitled to a legal advocate to recognizing animals as vulnerable persons with a diminished capacity to bring their own cases forward to then getting back around to the idea that harvesting meat is murder.

Another question we should examine from a legal standpoint is how this bill encroaches on provincial jurisdiction. This will be an issue that committee must study. We must acknowledge the authority of provincial and territorial governments to make animal welfare laws and subsequent regulations.

I want to point out, honourable colleagues, as someone who lives in a region where hunters are valued and admired, we are deeply offended that the seal hunt is still considered by some to be inhumane and a needless practice. For years, animal rights advocates have railed against the harvesting of seals for food, clothing and the culling of seals for population control in support of endangered fish stocks. While there is now some change in that position as it applies to subsistence hunting, there are still biases towards non-Indigenous seal hunters who have been doing this for generations as a form of sustenance and income. These opinions are all predicated on a more extreme approach to animal rights. How likely would it then be to assume that people would push to confer both legal and moral personhood on animals once they see an opening?

I want to quote the position of the Fur Institute of Canada on this bill. Last fall, the institute noted:

This Act, championed by anti-sustainable use and pro-animal rights groups, will undermine science-based wildlife conservation and the sustainable harvest and trade in furs and seal products in Canada. This will disproportionately impact rural, remote, Indigenous and coastal communities, undermining traditional economies and ways of life.

I hope the committee will hear from the Fur Institute of Canada, which I believe is a credible organization. It was founded in 1983 by Canada’s wildlife ministers as a collaboration between government harvesters and other sectors of the fur trade. It is the country’s leading expert on humane trap research and fur bearer conservation, and is the official trap testing agency for the Government of Canada and all provincial and territorial governments.

I want to also quote the Elephant Managers Association, who signalled its opposition to Bill S-241 noting the following:

The EMA feels that the proposed bill will negatively impact the efforts of animal care organizations doing important conservation work such as African Lion Safari (ALS).

They further note that, in their view, the Jane Goodall act will effectively discontinue the ability of organizations like African Lion Safari to continue their important work. Research conducted with animals under human care and trained to cooperate voluntarily in procedures provides opportunities to obtain samples and data in a controlled environment that would not be as readily possible in the wild. As a result, the population of animals in North American zoological facilities plays a critical role in the survival of their wild counterparts.

Likewise, the International Elephant Foundation, in an in-depth letter to senators last fall, made the following definitive statement:

There are a number of misconceptions regarding ambassador elephants in human care. The first is that elephants cannot thrive outside of the environment of their range countries, citing cold weather and space availability. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Given these complicated arguments, I would hope that this bill is thoroughly studied, and given its criminal law provisions, hopefully studied by our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

My other concern is less existential. I’m concerned that the bill makes reference to the standards that must be met in order for an organization to be designated as an eligible animal care organization under the bill. Those seeking to be designated as eligible animal care organizations and are so exempt from certain prohibitions under the bill must meet “the highest professionally recognized standards and best practices of animal care.” I can accept that, but I would be interested in exploring — and having the committee explore — whether it is correct to discount the standards established by Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, or CAZA, as this bill does. Much emphasis has been placed on meeting the American standards, both in speeches from colleagues on this bill and in exclusive reference made to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.

Since its inception in 1976, CAZA has worked to develop accreditation standards that have since become recognized as among the best in the world. Here at home, they serve increasingly as a benchmark for quality animal care and welfare. Today, governments at all levels have incorporated these standards into their regulatory frameworks, either directly by making CAZA accreditation a requirement for licensing or by referencing them in the regulations. Why does this bill not respect this good Canadian work?

Honourable senators, I agree that animals should not be forced to live in inhumane conditions, but I do believe that there are some very important questions and issues that certainly need to be thoroughly studied and addressed in committee. Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

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

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in relation to its study on self-induced intoxication be extended from March 10, 2023, to April 30, 2023.

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Minister, welcome to the Senate of Canada. Almost a year ago, without any warning, consultation or financial compensation, you shut down the entire Atlantic mackerel and commercial bait fishery. At the time, the Maritime Fishermen’s Union said they were shocked by your radical decision and appalled by its impact on workers in coastal communities.

In a press conference two weeks ago, Greg Pretty, the President of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union, or FFAW, blamed your closure of this fishery on:

. . . DFO’s colossal mishandling of the Atlantic mackerel fishery and the failure of DFO science to accurately estimate the mackerel biomass . . . .

Minister, what is your response to the FFAW and indeed to all mackerel harvesters and processors across Atlantic Canada? Will there be an Atlantic mackerel fishery in 2023? Yes or no?

Hon. Joyce Murray, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard: In terms of the last question, senator, that decision is yet to be taken. In terms of the mackerel fishery shutdown, it’s always difficult to close a fishery because I know the impact that it has on fish harvesters and their communities. In fact, I just spent last week in Eastern Canada, the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands hearing from fish harvesters from a number of stocks.

With respect to the mackerel, the science was very clear that this stock is in the critical zone, and it has been there for more than a decade. There has been a collapse of mackerel age class. I actually have the spawning stock biomass document with me. When I read it, I was severely concerned about the stock.

It’s never easy to do that, but the reason is for conservation purposes for the long term. We want to be able to provide an opportunity for the stock to recover. It’s an important source of food for many other fish stocks, as it is important for use as bait. But if we continue to fish it down its curve, we may never see it recover. That’s why I have taken this precautionary approach.

Hon. Pat Duncan: Thank you, minister, for your visit to the Yukon to learn first-hand about the decline in chinook salmon stocks and the low return of other salmon resources.

Discussions of salmon in the Yukon and in all of Canada’s West Coast are complicated. In the Yukon, it’s multi-layered with international components of the commercial Alaskan and First Nations subsistence fisheries, the Yukon River Salmon Agreement and the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Mandate letters require a whole-of-government approach mindful of Canada’s commitment to First Nations. The management of the salmon in the Yukon is in critical need of a whole-of-governments, whole‑of-ecosystems approach, supported by Indigenous knowledge in the face of climate change and other challenges.

Minister, would you outline your approach to ensuring that there continues to be several species of salmon for future generations of Yukoners and of Canadians?

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Minister, last month, your department provided a response to questions on the Senate Order Paper related to the procurement of two Polar-class icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard. One of the questions concerned the budget for this project. Your department refused to provide any estimate as to what this project would cost, despite the fact that the Parliamentary Budget Officer provided an estimate of more than $7 billion. The Trudeau government has said that the first ship will be in service in 2030 — seven years from now — yet you don’t even have a budget estimate that you can share with Parliament and the people of Canada.

Minister, you are either unwilling or unable to provide that number, and neither option is acceptable to Canadians. Do you have an estimate as to what that project will cost, and will you share it with us today?