Senator Gold: The Prime Minister is not vacillating. Although you have many talents, Senator Housakos, you’re hardly a mind reader, so you don’t actually know and should not presume to know what goes on in other people’s minds.

The government is taking this seriously. Investigations are under way. Institutions that are in place, such as the Committee of Parliamentarians and others, have looked and are continuing to look at the issue, as is the Special Rapporteur. Canadians should be secure in the notion that this government is taking their and our interests to heart.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. This past budget, as I’ve stated in this chamber, is designed to provide a road map for the future for Canadians while helping Canadians get through these difficult times. Indeed, despite the obsession of some with debt as the only measure of a country’s economic strength, viability and prospects, the facts remain, apart from the rhetoric, that Canada is well positioned — indeed, positioned better than G7 countries going forward — in terms of having the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 and triple-A credit ratings. It is a testament to the practical, real-world, responsible management of this government.

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-214, An Act to establish International Mother Language Day, and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill without amendment.

Senator Gold: I understand because I attended the meetings as well. First, the bill is clear. It doesn’t apply to digital creators. This bill targets the platforms, not those who create the content.

Second, the minister repeated this several times very recently during a televised public program.

Third, the text makes it clear that this doesn’t apply. The fact that people create something and put it online doesn’t make them broadcasters. Far from it. The definitions are very clear.

Finally, as I mentioned in my speech and in the motion itself, the government has committed to spelling out in the policy direction that this won’t apply. I understand the fears, but they are not based on the text of the bill or the government’s position.

It is a clear and public commitment. If we approve the motion, the will of the Senate will be to ensure that the government is held to the commitments it made.

[English]

Senator Cardozo: I want to make one point that I think is lost sometimes. The CRTC has the ability to make its own regulations within the framework of the act — I use the word “framework” generally, Senator Gold — and it doesn’t have to wait for a directive from cabinet. The point being, over the next few years, the CRTC has the ability to change regulations. If you think of the word “TikTok,” five years ago, “tick-tock” only referred to the sound of your grandfather’s clock — today, it has a different meaning, and, five years from now, it will have a different meaning again. A lot of technology will change.

My question is this: For viewers who are watching us today, our debate so far, over the last hour, has been on a couple of issues that were turned back by the House of Commons. Senator, could you remind us of a couple of highlights where the House did, in fact, agree with the good work we have done, particularly regarding what we advised them on? You outlined them briefly in your opening comments, but I think the viewing public — outside this room — might want to be reminded that the House did agree with a whole lot of things. Although I’m a new senator, 20 out of 26 strikes me as quite high; you can correct me if I’m wrong.

Senator Tannas: We’re arguing over how equivocal the government wants to be here. I wondered if the word “intent” in that paragraph is an equivocation.

Again, would it be possible and acceptable, if this house decided — and maybe you don’t want to answer an “if” question — that that stated intent become something like a public assurance or a public commitment?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Maxime Gagnon, Émilie Bouchard Labonté and Saoud Messaoudi. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Petitclerc.

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

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable senators, I rise to contribute to the debate at second reading of Bill S-233, the national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income, or GBI, sponsored by our colleague Senator Pate.

This bill directs the Minister of Finance to develop a national framework to implement a guaranteed basic income program throughout Canada for any person over the age of 17, including temporary workers, permanent residents and refugee claimants.

Before I go on, I want to commend Senator Pate for her work in championing so many initiatives intent on improving the lives of the impoverished in Canada. It enables us to reflect on things that sometimes are not top of mind. I saw lots of marginalization and limited opportunities for people growing up in a small town in Cape Breton. Most people existed in a world that could only be described financially as lower middle class. Certainly my family was, although with 10 children and extended relatives, mom and dad probably had a few more mouths to feed than most.

I witnessed real poverty as well, although the reasons for that, like so many things, are often a product of circumstances less black and white than some might assume. There are many shades of grey as well. I don’t know if poverty is worse today than it was 50 years ago, but I know it shouldn’t be worse with the money and resources spent today on people and communities of people compared to half a century ago. I might not always share Senator Pate’s views on solutions to certain matters, but her relentless work on these difficult issues provides value to the discourse of this chamber, and I want to recognize her for it.

The notion of a basic income is not new. The concept arguably dates back to 1516 with the publication of Thomas More’s Utopia. More was a wise individual and a brilliant, influential and principled conservative. Of course, for his principles, he was later thrown into the Tower of London by Henry VIII, found guilty of treason and beheaded. Apparently adhering to your principles can come with some risk. Considered a martyr for his faith, he was canonized in 1935, and in the year 2000 was declared by Pope John Paul II to be the patron saint of statesmen and politicians. The poor man can’t catch a break. Imagine having that responsibility and burden in the afterlife.

In modern times, the concept of the guaranteed annual income received considerable attention when it was championed by Nobel laureate and free market economist Milton Friedman. Friedman argued that a universal basic income would be a less paternalistic and more efficient method of providing government welfare than programs run by bureaucracies. Essentially, cut a cheque for everyone, dependent on their household income and based on a negative tax threshold, and allow the individual to utilize the social assistance as needed. No means test — no need for any gatekeepers. I find that idea very appealing.

Robert Stanfield discussed and studied this issue when he was leader of the federal Tories, and our former colleague Hugh Segal has been an articulate and persistent advocate for a guaranteed income. It was gratifying to witness Senator Pate’s embrace of what has always been a concept associated with conservative thought, and I encourage others to follow her lead.

I volunteered to be the critic of this bill when it was introduced. I have always been intrigued by the idea of a guaranteed income, especially with the reality that we now live in a huge welfare state. If we are going to spend millions of taxpayers’ dollars annually on various support systems anyway, and it was determined that a GBI, or guaranteed basic income, system would actually cost less to both fund and deliver, why wouldn’t or shouldn’t we consider it?

Importantly, we must always remember that historic models of basic income expected in return, concurrent with the establishment of GBI, the elimination of redundant bureaucracies and programs that deliver current social benefits. Unfortunately, the advocates of most modern models of basic income programs appear unwilling to propose cuts to our large and expensive welfare programs, which, I submit, negates the simplicity and egalitarianism of the concept and compromises its proper application. GBI can’t be just another welfare program. It must also replace them.

As you know, our offices received unprecedented level of emails regarding this bill. Some messages were misguided or misinformed, but many raised fair and thoughtful concerns about the bill and the implications for themselves and the benefits that they depend on and have paid into for much of their lives. I think this greatly stems from the lack of detail in the bill itself. However, what detail does exist is concerning and is very much the Achilles’ heel of this bill. After directing the Minister of Finance to create a framework for GBI, it arbitrarily puts age and broad eligibility criteria up front. If we are to seriously consider the establishment of a GBI, we can’t be dogmatic in establishing the ground rules. It is one thing to have a program available for citizens, but quite another to automatically extend it to temporary workers and non-citizens. I’m sure that most people would have many legitimate concerns about the eligibility of non-citizens to exploit such a program, particularly people entering the country illegally.

The idea of somebody receiving an annual income beginning at the age of 17 is a non-starter for me. I think that would have a very negative effect on young people. I believe that discourages the personal motivation and ambition that all people, particularly young people, require in order to prosper and advance in life.

The Basic Income Canada Network, which is very much a socially left organization, have GBI models that estimate anywhere between $187 billion to $637 billion in annual cost. To put these numbers in perspective, in 2021-22 the total personal income tax revenue in Canada was $189 billion and the entirety of the federal budget was $394 billion. Now, a mere one fiscal year later, the financial situation in Canada has deteriorated substantially and disturbingly. However, our precarious financial state notwithstanding, let’s review what informed and expert analysis has concluded about Canada’s potential ability to consider and implement a program of guaranteed income.

The Fraser Institute released a recent report bulletin during the pandemic entitled How Much Could a Guaranteed Annual Income Cost?, which examined the costs of four different variations of basic income models. The first used CERB as a baseline, the government’s pandemic emergency relief benefit of $2,000 every month to those who qualified. You may recall that there were calls among many proponents of basic income programs for Canada to keep the CERB benefit and apply it as a basic universal income. The Fraser Institute calculated that providing every Canadian of working age with an unconditional basic annual income of $24,000 a year would have a total net cost of $464 billion. That would increase federal program spending by over 132%. Of course, that is simply unsustainable. The report also found that although a universal basic income such as this would provide large financial support and have less adverse effects on work incentive than other models, it not only comes at a staggering cost, but also provides assistance to Canadians who do not need it the most.

The Fraser Institute then also made estimations for models that provide for government clawbacks on some transfers for when an individual’s net income passes a specific threshold. The report notes that while a higher reduction rate may reduce the overall costs of a guaranteed income program, it discourages recipients from working because they retain less of their income earnings when they meet the threshold.

The report states:

. . . a high reduction rate effectively imposes a higher marginal tax rate on Canadians once they reach the minimum income threshold because it reduces their reward for earning more income. This concept is known as the “welfare wall” because it discourages recipients from moving off social assistance.

The report illustrates the competing interests in the design of guaranteed income models. Understand that there are three key features of any GBI model: the cash transfer, the reduction rate and the income threshold. Three competing variables, seeking three competing interests: large enough transfers to alleviate poverty, while minimizing cost and avoiding disincentives to work. The report states that “. . . it is impossible to achieve all three objectives at once.”

Later, the report states that:

. . . there is an inherent tension in the design of any guaranteed annual income that its proponents need to address. At the heart of this tension in the unavoidable trade-off between reducing costs by aggressively phasing out payments as income rises on the one hand and avoiding severe negative work incentives on the other. . . . Policy options outside of the GAI may be more effective at alleviating poverty and should be explored in greater detail.

In a Fraser Institute article entitled “The expensive truth about a universal basic income,” the negative effects guaranteed income programs could have on labour participation as clawbacks prompt Canadians to reduce their work hours are recognized. The report reads:

. . . reducing an individual’s payment while they work additional hours encourages them to work less—that’s a harmful incentive and can lead to the welfare traps many Canadians suffered through in the 1980s and early 1990s.

I will also draw your attention to a recent report authored by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s Managing Director, Brian Lee Crowley, and Munk Senior Fellow Sean Speer, titled A Work and Opportunity Agenda for Canada. In response to increasing public discussion regarding GBI models, their report sought to determine if unconditional cash payments, although well intentioned, in fact do more harm than good. The authors found that such programs, with higher taxes and higher government spending, are not only harmful to the economy, they also poorly serve the people these programs are intended to help.

The report outlines several key issues with basic income models, including affordability, intergovernmental and bureaucratic efficiencies and disincentivizing work, among others. Regarding the affordability of basic income models, and after crunching the numbers, the report concludes:

These costs would necessarily involve a significant increase in taxation, large-scale spending cuts, further deficit financing, or some combination of the three.

It continues:

But a real perversity is that providing everyone with a basic income may preclude the government from directing more generous, targeted benefits to those in need such as Canadians with severe disabilities. Spending less on people in real need so we can spend more on able-bodied, working-age people is far from compassionate. It is an indefensible use of scarce public resources.

I do agree with that.

The report also found that basic income programs would have a negative effect on labour participation within Canada.

Common sense dictates that giving people large, unconditional cash payments is bound to make work less attractive and rewarding, not least because now recipients are only working for the difference between their basic income entitlement and wages.

Since the status quo has not adequately addressed poverty, and if basic income programs are not a realistic option, what is the solution? The Macdonald-Laurier Institute paper provides an alternative agenda focused on expanding work and opportunity for all Canadians, using Canada’s “redemptive decade” of the 1990s, as they call it, as a blueprint. They explain that Canada experienced extraordinary growth in the 1990s, including reduced poverty, by shifting the focus from taxation and redistribution of finances to fiscal discipline, deregulation, investment and growth.

Furthermore, the sustainability of such a GBI program has also been brought into question. Here I would be remiss if I did not draw our attention to the contribution of our own resident economist in this chamber. Senator Bellemare has a doctorate in economics and specializes in macroeconomics. She has a lifetime of experience and an impressive résumé in her field of expertise.

If I may, I would like to quote from Senator Bellemare’s speech in the chamber on this bill where she says:

To finance this kind of program, governments would have to overhaul the income tax system. The tax changes it would take to fund such a program would have a negative effect on labour market participation, not because people are lazy, but just because they are rational. In essence, the number of people supported by the program would exceed the number of people the government set out to help initially. Fewer hours worked means fewer hours taxed, and that means less revenue for the government. In short, paying for guaranteed basic income is unsustainable.

Providing money to Canadians not to work, with little or no incentive to work, raises a host of issues, not the least of which is providing for an unsustainable system whereby there are negative effects on labour participation resulting in fewer hours worked, less income, less income tax, less revenue to finance what was intent on being an anti-poverty initiative.

Colleagues, I would also encourage you to read the op-ed published by Senator Bellemare in The Globe and Mail on this subject where she outlined why GBI would be among the most constitutionally complex and prohibitively expensive ways to tackle poverty and inequity.

In 2018, the Province of British Columbia committed to the creation of an expert panel to explore the concept of guaranteed income for the province. It was based on over 40 research projects from experts across the country and is said to have been one of the most exhaustive reviews of guaranteed basic income worldwide.

The report concluded that moving to a system constructed around a basic income as its main pilar is not the most just policy option. I quote from their report:

The needs of people in this society are too diverse to be effectively answered simply with a cheque from the government. A basic income is a very costly approach to addressing any specific goal, such as poverty reduction.

The B.C. panel also found that any viable basic income model would also create disincentives to work and that:

. . . the claims of advantages of a basic income put forward by proponents are hard to substantiate and that the policy goals implied by these claims can be achieved as well or better with other approaches.

The panel concluded that it was not even in the province’s best interests for further exploration with a pilot project.

So significant red flags have been raised by many about using GBI as a solution for fighting poverty. Does this idea have a future?

It would seem to me that one of the essential requirements precluding the creation of a GBI would be a stronger, responsible financial management by the federal government, regardless of its political stripe.

As our colleague Senator Marshall ably laid out in her excellent speech on the supply bill, the national debt in this country has doubled from $650 billion in 2015 to over $1.2 trillion today. In less than eight years, this administration has added more to our national debt than all administrations combined since Confederation, and we are a country that spent much of the first half of the 20th century engaged in international wars.

If we’re going to take an honest look at a guaranteed annual income, we should first take a hard look at what $1-trillion debt actually looks like. The well-regarded U.S.-based Certified Financial Group has provided a description that deserves our sober second thought. A million dollars, consisting of 100 packets of $100 bills of $10,000 each would have the size of three stacked 8-by-11-inch packages of printing paper. You could walk around with it in a shopping bag. One hundred million dollars fits nicely on a standard shipping pallet, about 3 feet high. A billion dollars would require ten of those pallets.

But let’s look at a trillion dollars. Do people really understand what a trillion dollars represents? A trillion dollars is a million million dollars or a thousand billion dollars, take your pick.

What does that look like? A trillion dollars on pallets would occupy an area just short of five acres. Think five football fields of billion-dollar pallets; that is what it equals. One more thing, the pallets are now double-stacked, so I guess it is actually ten football fields of billion-dollar pallets.

Canada’s debt is $1.2 trillion and growing. So when you hear the apologists for this government point to such statistics as income-to-debt ratios as a reason for comfort and reassurance, they are deflecting, willfully ignoring the precarious financial position we find ourselves in because of the gross mismanagement of the Canadian economy by this administration. Due to the irresponsible and reckless overprinting and overspending of Canadian money by this government and the Bank of Canada, we are experiencing an inflationary spiral now requiring interest rate hikes, which will only further increase the borrowing costs of our debt as well as the personal debt of every Canadian.

Because of this debt, the federal government will spend $35 billion on debt service charges alone in 2022-23, more than the $29 billion spent on child care benefits or the $24 billion spent on unemployment insurance benefits.

In short, the most expensive government program in Canada today is now debt servicing.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has informed Canadians that these public debt service charges will climb to $46 billion by 2027-28, with no end in sight.

Our debt grows by over $6 million every hour, over $144 million every day: what an unnecessary, unacceptable and ultimately immoral squandering of money and opportunity and what a terrible thing to impose and burden our children and grandchildren with.

Just think of what you could do for housing alone with $144 million daily. Just imagine the impact that $45 billion annually could have on the health care system in Canada.

From the evidence I have read and the precarious position of Canada’s finances, I cannot conscientiously support a bill that seeks to mandate this government to create a framework to overhaul our tax and social benefits system. We would be better advised to pass legislation prohibiting this government from having anything to do with fiscal or monetary policy.

In 2015, when this government was elected, Canada had emerged from the worst recession since the Great Depression with a balanced budget and strong economic indicators. Now we are told we endured an unprecedented $354 billion deficit in 2021, over $90 billion in 2022 and are promised significant deficits projected for the foreseeable future with a current fiscal trajectory that could take decades to balance.

However, all hope is not lost. Although it is obvious from Canada’s annual revenues and expenditures that it cannot consider a GBI, and the taxation demands presently existing on individual Canadians and businesses should not be increased but preferably reduced, what else could we do to put Canada in a position where it could realistically consider an annual guaranteed income? The potential solution is, of course, the creation of new wealth.

Creating wealth should be a constant obsession for all governments of Canada, whether they be municipal, territorial, tribal, provincial or federal.

In my almost 30 years of running a business and meeting a payroll in Cape Breton, there was never a shortage of people advising me on where or how to spend money. It was a lot like Ottawa in that regard. But the number of people advising one how to increase revenue and create wealth — they were scarcer than hen’s teeth.

Canada is the second-largest country in the world by land mass, with almost endless natural resources: rare earths, timber, minerals, fresh water and other advantages in quantities non-existent in most other nations.

We have a more diversified economy than in decades past. We have always been and will continue to be a country which needs to exploit its natural resources to maximize our wealth potential.

And none of our natural advantages have created more wealth for this country in my lifetime than the petroleum sector. Indeed, it has served as a great financial catalyst of Canada in the postwar period, which is now over 75 years old.

Our natural resources have repeatedly proven their value and importance to our shared prosperity. So I find it ironic that the most supportive advocates of Bill S-233, when asked to pass judgment on Bill C-48 and Bill C-69 a few years back, meekly acquiesced to the government’s agenda. Canada’s present levels of revenue and expenditures make a GBI initiative a non-starter, yet many in here dutifully voted to hobble this country’s ability to create wealth and studiously ignored the long-term impacts of these terribly short-sighted and inappropriate measures. Whether it occurs on election day or on the floor of the Senate, voting has consequences.

Yes, we all would like to have the best of everything. I drive a 2020 Nissan Murano and a 2013 Hyundai Elantra, although I honestly would prefer to drive a Bentley and a Maserati. Theoretically, I could; all I need is the money to pay for it. And so it is with social programs in Canada. We can have anything we want in Canada. We just need the money to pay for it, but that will require creating new wealth — a goal that seems to exceed the mental grasp of this government and its foot soldiers and its camp followers.

In conclusion, we all recognize that poverty needs to be addressed. For now, let’s focus on targeted and pragmatic solutions instead, ones that promote and provide training, education and community-based programming. We need to ensure that those who need the assistance get it. We need to provide sensible, targeted, pro-work policy recommendations that would bolster work opportunities to benefit all Canadians and help alleviate poverty.

I hope we can get to a time when we are wealthy enough in Canada to give serious consideration to a GBI to replace the presently structured welfare state, but Canada first has to get its financial house in order. This will require a Conservative government, as the Singh-Trudeau coalition has failed Canadians economically. Once we have a new Conservative government in Canada, we will free up the potential of this country and make Canada what it should be — namely the wealthiest, best and most generous country in the world.

Senator Housakos: And the most free.

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

(On motion of Senator Pate, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.)

Leave having been given to revert to Other Business, Senate Public Bills, Reports of Committees, Order No. 1:

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications (Bill S-242, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act, with amendments and observations), presented in the Senate on March 30, 2023.

Hon. Leo Housakos moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the Fourth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.

Bill S-242 seeks to amend the Radiocommunication Act to require spectrum licence holders to deploy the spectrum to at least 50% of the population within the geographic area covered by the spectrum licence.

Our committee has made six amendments to this bill. The first is to clause 1, on page 1, and replaces lines 7 to 15 to ensure that those buying Tier 1 to 4 licences would not be able to meet deployment conditions by simply deploying to the urban areas within those large tiers but would also be required to provide service to the smaller, rural and remote areas nestled within in order to meet their obligations under this legislation.

It also lays the foundation for other amendments focusing on the “use it or share it” regime. Additionally, it provides ministerial flexibility to either outright revoke the licence or to reallocate Tier 5 areas within the licence to other providers who are ready and able to service the underserved areas.

The second amendment is to clause 1, on page 1, and adds language that would clarify the intent to ensure licence holders cannot sell the licences up to and including three years minus a day in an effort to avoid penalties for not complying with licence conditions.

The third amendment is to clause 1, on page 2; it replaces and adds text subsequent to the previous amendment to provide the flexibility of subordinate or subsection competition.

The fourth amendment is to clause 1, on page 2, and adds that the minister be required to start a competitive bidding process within 60 days of not only the revocation of a spectrum licence but also where the licence holder has voluntarily surrendered their licence as a result of them not being able to meet their licensing obligations.

The fifth amendment was to clause 1, on page 2, in which line 32 was replaced to address concerns over the ability of smaller proponents to raise the required capital to participate in the competitive bidding process, giving the minister the flexibility to use a competitive bidding process or other reallocation process — such as a first-come, first-served model — when a licence is revoked or surrendered.

The final amendment is to clause 1, on page 2, and adds new text after line 35 that would ensure a company doesn’t repetitively relicense spectrum in order to limit competition or stop others from licensing spectrum in a specific geographic area.

It also adds language that would prevent the company from re-bidding under a different name.

There are also observations from three members of the committee, which were endorsed by the committee as follows:

Senator Clement noted the importance of this bill in raising awareness to the major problem of connectivity in Canada and the serious impacts on communities who lack connectivity, including Indigenous communities, and the impact this plays on Canada’s reconciliation process.

Senator Clement also noted that this topic has been neglected and that this bill is a good contribution to the much-needed discussion but that it is only a small piece of the puzzle, with many valuable suggestions from witnesses falling outside the scope of this bill.

Senator Clement observed that, in recognition of the work done by our committee, we call on the Government of Canada to undertake an exhaustive review of spectrum policy in Canada.

Senator Dennis Patterson’s observations echoed many of Senator Clement’s — in particular, the need to improve rural and remote connectivity and the serious consequences of not doing so as it pertains to vital services such and health and education, as well as the enhancement of language and culture in remote Indigenous communities.

Senator Patterson also observed that the government should develop incentives and policies that foster competition and facilitate the entry of Indigenous proponents.

This is where I will make what I consider a timely observation as chair.

Colleagues, throughout a previous study by our committee, we kept hearing testimony that legislation would promote and amplify Indigenous voices, but Indigenous creators themselves told us that the biggest barrier to having their voices heard on the internet is neither the definition of CanCon nor any algorithm. It’s the inability to actually get onto the internet because of a lack of connectivity.

Finally, Senator Cormier noted that there is currently no official database of all undeployed spectrum in Canada; Canada does not have a system to ensure transparency in the secondary market for licences; and the spectrum management by auction, based on a competitive system, is not well suited to the Canadian geographic and economic reality, according to one of our witnesses.

I want to thank Senator Patterson of Nunavut for putting forward this bill. It was a very enlightening experience, I think, for the whole committee. We discovered a number of concerns. It wasn’t long ago that Canada was a world leader when it came to communications, and we’re slipping. Of course, now we’re seeing deep inequities between rural and urban Canada.

I do not think that this bill is a magic wand that will solve the problem overnight. The problem is too profound and pronounced. Obviously, we have deep challenges and, of course, challenges of economy of scale. I do not think there is a quick fix, but I think the committee feels that this is a good first step in addressing the issue, and hopefully will serve as a basis to encourage governments to work in collaboration with stakeholders and communities in order to find a better solution to the problems. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson: Honourable senators, on behalf of the government, I rise today to speak to Bill S-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures). I am so honoured to support Senator Boyer’s important work, as well as bring the message that the government welcomes the tabling of this important legislation and supports the bill in principle at second reading.

As this chamber well knows, Senator Boyer has been working tirelessly to raise awareness on the horrific practice of forced and coerced sterilization. On several occasions, she has informed the chamber of this violation of human rights and serious breach of medical ethics in our country’s history — but she has also explained how this despicable practice continues today. Thanks to her advocacy, Senator Boyer was instrumental in having the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights examine forced and coerced sterilization more closely. This culminated in the report entitled The Scars that We Carry: Forced and Coerced Sterilization of Persons in Canada — Part II, which was tabled last summer.

As is too often the case, the committee found that it is the most vulnerable who have been most affected by forced and coerced sterilization. In the past, government policies explicitly sought to control and reduce the birth rate of First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities, as well as Black communities — and low-income Canadians, racialized Canadians and Canadians with disabilities have also been targeted. Though these explicit policies no longer exist, racist and discriminatory attitudes continue to lurk in some medical settings today, and it is the same vulnerable communities that continue to be the targets of these reprehensible practices. This is why Senator Boyer’s bill is so important. It shines light on yet another dark corner where racism and discrimination linger in this country.

Colleagues, Bill S-250 responds to Canada’s long history of colonization and the colonial policies that have disproportionately affected the health and well-being of Indigenous people and racialized Canadians. Preventing contraception and the capacity for reproduction is an assault on the very core of a person’s humanity, their well-being and their future, as well as the future of their communities.

By making specific mention of sterilization without consent in the Criminal Code, this bill would make this practice explicitly and specifically illegal under Canadian law. It would help protect some of the most vulnerable Canadians from doctors who not only hold discriminatory attitudes and breach professional ethics, but who also commit a violent criminal offence. No matter our race, ethnicity or socio-economic class, or whether we have a disability, every patient in this country must receive equal, professional and conscientious care. Every Canadian deserves this — period.

Bill S-250 would make the Criminal Code crystal clear that a patient’s prior informed consent is the foundation of any medical sterilization process.

Under this bill, a doctor must not only receive the patient’s consent, but also make clear that consent can be withdrawn at any time, including immediately before the procedure. The doctor must also be satisfied that the patient is not being pressured or coerced, and inform the patient about alternative methods of contraception.

Colleagues, it is important for us to take a moment and imagine a discussion on sterilization between a doctor and a patient. There can be a considerable power discrepancy in the relationship and, therefore, a risk that this power may be abused. It is for this reason that Bill S-250 puts in place safeguards. Consent is deemed not to have been granted if the patient is under 18 years old; the patient has not voluntarily initiated the request for the procedure; or they are incapable of consenting for any other reason. In other words, a medical practitioner must ensure that the patient — who is making such a life-altering, consequential decision — is ready, willing and fully informed.

Of course, with the assistance of their medical practitioner, a person may choose to undergo a sterilization procedure. For some people, this might be the right decision. Bill S-250 is a way of protecting people from being manipulated or simply forced to submit to sterilization by unscrupulous medical practitioners. It will not punish health care providers who are living up to their deontological code.

On March 3 of this year, the government provided a response to the Human Rights Committee’s study on forced and coerced sterilization. In it, Minister Duclos stated that the government recognizes the harms caused by coerced sterilization, and the pressing need to end this practice across Canada. According to the minister, the government is working with provincial and territorial partners to ensure that health services can be accessed without systemic bias and discrimination. Though health care is primarily the responsibility of the provinces and territories, the federal government is playing a role in ensuring that health services are provided in a culturally safe way — while combatting racism and discrimination in the medical sector. There is much work to be done, colleagues, but this bill is an important step in the right direction.

I understand that the Minister of Justice has met with Senator Boyer, the bill’s sponsor, and has committed to working with her and her team on possible modifications in order to move the bill forward while still reflecting its important intent. I look forward to seeing it progress, and hope it will be sent to committee as soon as possible.

Once again, I extend my profound gratitude to Senator Boyer for her perseverance. This initiative has my personal support, and I’m glad that the government supports it as well. Forced and coerced sterilization is a horrific practice that has scarred too many women, families and communities for too long. Bill S-250 will help make it stop. Thank you. Hiy hiy.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I said to my colleagues this morning, when our group met, that I would probably speak before midnight. This is true, unfortunately, and I’m glad that there are still some people listening. I appreciate that, and I will try to make it interesting.

Honourable senators, I rise in support of Bill S-250, sponsored by Senator Boyer. As we all know, since 2017, Senator Boyer has been, with the assistance of many researchers, the voice of Indigenous women victims of forced sterilization, first in Saskatchewan and subsequently across Canada.

Her bill proposes to add to the assault provisions of the Criminal Code a new indictable offence designed to prevent the forced or coerced sterilization of persons in Canada by exposing an offender to up to 14 years in prison. This new offence is focused on consent, and it requires those who perform a medical act that will cause or attempt to cause someone to be sterilized to obtain truly informed consent and to follow specific safeguards.

Today I won’t delve into the details of the proposed amendment, as this should be done in committee. I will, rather, focus on this bill’s goal, which is the creation of a new criminal offence specific to forced sterilization.

Those of you who have legal training may say that forced or coerced sterilization is already a crime in Canada under aggravated assault offences. This is true, as pointed out by some witnesses before our Human Rights Committee, including former RCMP Commissioner Lucki.

But it must be said that there has never been a charge of aggravated assault in relation to forced or coerced sterilization in Canada, even though Senator Boyer’s office has documented thousands of Indigenous women in Canada who experienced coerced or forced sterilization between 1971 and 2018.

Others may add that all provinces and territories have legislation requiring informed consent for medical care and treatment and that case law is replete with judgments awarding damages to patients injured by a medical procedure to which they did not provide informed consent.

As a matter of fact, class action cases related to forced sterilization of Indigenous women are now pending before the courts of Saskatchewan, B.C., Ontario and Quebec. They seek some indemnification, which the courts may eventually grant.

Finally, some others may argue that forced sterilization is another manifestation of systemic racism against Indigenous women. As such, it may require a comprehensive strategy to address such racism, including proper training of medical and nursing students to address such racism in connection with Indigenous health issues and an increase of Indigenous professionals as recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action 19, 23 and 24. I agree that a comprehensive strategy is required to protect women, especially Indigenous women.

But, with the greatest respect, I don’t agree that these facts should deter us from proceeding to the completion of second reading debate on Bill S-250 and sending it to committee for review and detailed analysis.

Like our Human Rights Committee, in its report The Scars that We Carry: Forced and Coerced Sterilization of Persons in Canada — Part II, released in July 2022, I believe that the addition of a specific offence to the Criminal Code will be a valuable contribution to stopping, once and for all, forced sterilization.

First, by adding, after the section on aggravated assaults, a specific provision dealing with forced sterilization, Parliament will send a powerful message to society, including victims, police officers, crown attorneys and judges that forced sterilization can no longer be ignored by the criminal law system.

Second, the deterrent effect of such a provision on medical practitioners and their regulatory bodies will be immediate. It will have a chilling effect on those medical practitioners who still believe in racial eugenics and are ready to perform a sterilization procedure without truly free and informed consent.

Third, we will implement a measure recommended not only by our Human Rights Committee but also by the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, ratified by 37 countries. Article 39 of this convention provides that states should ensure the criminalization of surgery to terminate a woman’s capacity to reproduce without her prior and informed consent.

As of today, Malta, Belgium, France and Italy have acted accordingly. By amending our Criminal Code, Canada will show the rest of the world that it believes in this important aspect of preventing violence against women.

As you may know, Canada has been criticized on this issue by the international community. In 2018, the United Nations Committee against Torture expressed concern about reports of extensive forced or coerced sterilization of Indigenous women and girls. In 2019, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and a United Nations special rapporteur called on Canada to take concrete action.

Finally, forced sterilization is not only a part of our past genocidal policies against First Nations, but it continues.

In its 2019 final report, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls highlighted examples of programs in Canada aimed at subjugating or eliminating Indigenous Peoples, including coerced sterilization.

In March 2021, Senator Boyer told us:

Tragically, [forced and coerced sterilization] continues to happen at this very moment, with cases being reported publicly as recently as 2018.

[Translation]

In its second report on coerced sterilization, released in July 2021, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights also concluded that this form of violence against women was still occurring in Canada.

In the meantime, in 2019, following a recommendation from the first report produced by the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, the federal government established an independent advisory committee to study the extent of forced sterilization in Canada.

The Quebec government refused to participate on the grounds that there had never been a sterilization policy in Quebec, that the practice did not exist there and that health is a provincial jurisdiction. The first reason seems justified. Unlike Alberta and British Columbia, Quebec never adopted policies or laws encouraging eugenics. In fact, the Catholic Church, the dominant church in Quebec in the early 20th century, preached a pro-birth policy.

The third reason has to do with political posturing and ignores the fact that the committee’s mission was not to propose pan‑Canadian standards, but rather to paint a picture of the situation across the country, in order to shed light on the actions that all levels of government would need to take.

However, this response was based on the false premise that, unlike in the rest of Canada, forced sterilization was not taking place in Quebec. Fortunately, two members of the Research Laboratory on Indigenous Women’s Issues at the Université du Québec in Abitibi-Témiscamingue drafted a report on the situation in Quebec. Professor Suzy Basile and PhD student Patricia Bouchard carried out a study in partnership with the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission and the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador.

From May 2021 to June 2022, the research team collected 105 accounts from 35 Indigenous people who chose to come forward after undergoing or witnessing forced sterilization or obstetric violence. Of those 35 participants, 14 were Atikamekw, 10 were Innu, five were Anishinaabe, four were Eeyou and two were Inuit.

Because of the pandemic, the research team was unable to meet with 20 other individuals to hear their accounts. Nine participants reported undergoing forced sterilization and 13 reported experiencing additional forms of obstetric violence. A total of 22 women were victims of forced sterilization. They ranged in age from 15 to 46 at the time of the procedures, which took place between 1980 and 2019. The youngest woman to undergo forced sterilization was 17 years old. At the other end of the spectrum, the oldest woman who underwent this procedure non-consensually was 46 years old.

In addition, three other women were victims of one or more forced abortions. Finally, six other women endured obstetrical violence, which means that they were victims of discriminatory acts, attitudes and remarks from health care staff. It should also be noted that these acts of violence took place essentially in hospitals located in cities serving Indigenous communities, specifically in Roberval, La Tuque, Val-d’Or, Joliette and Sept‑Îles.

This research team’s report was published on November 24, 2022. It found that, in many cases, there was a lack of consent and that, in others, consent was hastily obtained either shortly before, during or after labour. Furthermore, in many cases, consent was obtained based on false information, such as the claim that the procedure, which was described as a contraceptive measure, was reversible.

In summary, the report highlights 22 cases of sterilization without free and informed consent. What is also very troubling is that, in many cases, racist arguments were used to justify the procedure. For example, one doctor reportedly said the following:

It’s enough, you need to stop there. All the children that you bring into the world will live in poverty.

The report pointed to the obvious presence of systemic racism and set out 31 recommendations, including a call for the Government of Quebec to stop being reluctant to recognize the existence of systemic racism. That call has not yet been heard.

The media reported broadly on the content of the report and other women spoke out to the researchers. One of the women said that she was sterilized in 2020, when she was only 15. Incidentally, the researchers, with support from their Indigenous partners, undertook a second phase of their study to meet the women they were unable to see during the first phase and all the new victims who wanted to come forward.

As far as the Collège des médecins du Québec is concerned, it acknowledged that the number of victims is likely much higher and that forced sterilization likely still exists. It added that it intended to make its members aware of the fundamental principle of informed consent. It also invited any members of the medical staff who may have witnessed acts of this nature to report them to the college.

In closing, Bill S-250 addresses incidents of obstetrical violence that are still present in our health care system in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. I invite you, as Senator Wells, the bill’s critic did, and as Senator LaBoucane-Benson just did, to refer the bill to committee without delay. Honourable colleagues, thank you for your attention despite this late hour. This issue deserves our full attention even at this hour. Thank you. Merci. Meegwetch.

Hon. Percy E. Downe moved second reading of Bill S-258, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax).

He said: Honourable senators, you will note that this is the third time I have tabled the same private member’s bill, the fairness for all Canadian taxpayers act, requiring the Government of Canada to disclose all convictions for overseas tax evasion and to measure the tax gap — the difference between what taxes should have been collected and what is actually collected. It would also require the Canada Revenue Agency to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with data it has collected on the tax gap, as well as any additional data the PBO considers important so that he can prepare his own independent analysis of the tax gap.

The second and most recent time, this bill passed the Senate but not the House of Commons. Hopefully, the third time is the charm.

Let me begin, as I always do, with this disclaimer: It is not illegal to have a bank account overseas, but it is illegal not to report proceeds from those accounts to the Canada Revenue Agency. Colleagues, it used to be that the Canada Revenue Agency didn’t attract a great deal of attention, either from the public or from the government. As the one branch of government counted upon to turn a profit, there has always been a temptation to simply let it go about its business — if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.

However, that confidence has been eroded as we see story after story about overseas tax evasion with no punishment and, unfortunately, little or no recovery of money, compounded by the repeated responses of the CRA after every public disclosure. For example, “They are working hard to catch overseas tax cheats,” they tell us. “They take it very seriously,” they tell us. They’ve identified, as opposed to collected, X amount of money, and so on. Unfortunately, these comments from CRA belie the fact that their efforts and results are disappointing to the extreme.

One of many such examples is the Panama Papers, which were released in 2016. In the seven years since the release of those papers and the public disclosure, which identified hundreds of Canadians holding accounts in one law firm in Panama, other countries with citizens identified in the publicly released documents as having those accounts hidden in Panama collected over $1.3 billion in taxes that were owing to them.

As of 2021, the last year for which information is available, Australia has recovered $138 million; Ecuador, $84 million; Spain, $166 million; and even Iceland, a country of 340,000 people, has recovered $25 million. But for all the hundreds of accounts and dozens of audits, Canada hasn’t announced the recovery of a nickel. Zero recovery.

The CRA has claimed to have assessed over $16 million owing, but as I said, assessed isn’t collected, and not one person has been charged, much less convicted, of overseas tax evasion. Other countries’ individuals have been charged and convicted, in addition to having to pay back the funds.

In October 2012, almost 11 years ago, I wrote the then Parliamentary Budget Officer, asking him to investigate the economic impact of overseas tax evasion. At his suggestion, that investigation evolved into an effort to determine the tax gap: the difference between what should be collected by our revenue agency and what they actually collect. The PBO determined that it is indeed possible to provide an estimate of the gap, particularly given that so many other countries are doing it. Subsequently, it approached the CRA to secure the agency’s cooperation in that effort.

Colleagues, the CRA refused to cooperate. We know why when we realize the tax gap not only measures what should be collected but also how effective — or, in this case, ineffective — our national revenue agency is in their duty and responsibility to collect money owed to the Government of Canada. I am sure that the exposure, through a tax gap analysis, of the wholly inadequate job the CRA is doing in fighting overseas tax evasion was a major factor in the agency’s refusal to cooperate with the PBO.

But even without the cooperation of the CRA, the PBO was able to come to his own conclusion about the tax gap. He testified before a Senate committee in March 2020, stating that based on his own analysis:

I am convinced . . . having worked both at the CRA and been PBO for a year and a half now, that there are hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in taxes that go undeclared, unreported and that escape Canadian tax authorities, probably on an annual basis due to the international transactions that take place.

For its part, the well-respected Conference Board of Canada published a report six years ago titled Canadian Tax Avoidance and Examining the Potential Tax Gap. They concluded that up to $47 billion worth of taxes are not being collected by the Government of Canada.

The Canada Revenue Agency maintains on its website a list of press releases about Canadians convicted of offences related to tax evasion. It does so, in its own words:

. . . to maintain confidence in the integrity of the self-assessment system, and to increase compliance with the law through the deterrent effect of such publicity.

If you look at the list, as I did recently, you will find a wide range of people from coast to coast, all caught and all punished, almost all for domestic tax evasion. But if you hide your money overseas, your chances of getting caught are very low, whereas if you cheat on your taxes domestically, you are likely to be caught, fined and jailed in some cases. To that end, of all the notices — and there were 105 when I looked — going back to 2017, only three were convictions for what one might call overseas tax evasion and none were for particularly high amounts. Most of those convictions were through proper insurance action.

I should note that the recent years have not been without some measure of success. The 2015 election platform of the Liberal Party contained a commitment to:

Directing CRA to immediately begin an analysis and stronger enforcement of tax evasion, or what the OECD calls the “tax gap.”

The agency, for all its past reluctance, has been forced, due to that promise, to begin to release a series of reports on the gap, starting in 2016, with the most recent one released last summer, which makes passing reference to overseas tax evasion.

However, Canada needs a series of studies over time to gauge the effectiveness of the CRA to see what is working and what needs improving. The decision on whether to pursue that series should not be left to the CRA alone; given their refusal to cooperate with the PBO, it should be required by legislation, which this bill would provide.

I want to emphasize that a requirement for the CRA to report on overseas tax evasion and the broader tax gap is not the result of mere curiosity. Other countries — the United States, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Sweden and even the State of California — measure their tax gaps and have found it to be a valuable policy-making tool. They all agree that the money hidden overseas must come home, and they need continued tax gap information to identify the dollar amounts involved and to help bring that money back.

In Canada, as I stated, there is no risk to hiding your money overseas because your chances of being charged, let alone convicted, range from slim to none. The hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars identified by the Parliamentary Budget Officer will not, as if by magic, solve our financial problems, but if we collected even a portion of that, we could reduce the deficit and fund various programs. We all know that every time a new policy is suggested in Canada, the question is often asked, “How will you pay for it?” It is a wonderful suggestion about how it will be paid for. The billions of dollars hidden overseas would answer that.

Various taxes could be lowered as well.

It is undeniable that a significant amount of money is lost to this country through overseas tax evasion, but beyond that is the simple fact that it is grossly unfair. Those of us who are playing by the rules and paying our taxes are being deceived by other Canadians who are skipping the system and hiding their money overseas.

The failure to collect taxes owed undermines confidence that everyone is being treated equally. If we are all in this together, then we all pay taxes. Otherwise, there is special treatment for some Canadians with the resources to hide their money, while the rest of us must pay more to make up the shortfall.

Colleagues, before I wrap up, I want to express my thanks to those senators who delivered speeches in favour of this bill when I last introduced it. The bill before the Senate today is identical to that previous bill. The support from Senator Paul MacIntyre, who has since retired, Senator Bovey, Senator Galvez and Senator McPhedran is much appreciated. I thank them for that support. Indeed, I thank all senators who passed this bill in the Senate last time. We hope for common sense to grip the House of Commons this time so they will pass it as well.

Thank you, colleagues.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

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

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

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dalphond, for the second reading of Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council).

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-224, An Act to establish a national framework for the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting.

For thousands of men and women in firefighting, the job is more than a profession. Firefighters face risks every day to protect others. They put themselves on the line for their communities, for citizens and for each other. It is well known that firefighters encounter carcinogens and toxins on a daily basis.

Initially, exposure was believed to occur from breathing in chemicals released during fires, as well as smoke, soot and asbestos. Further research has confirmed that those toxins can also be ingested and absorbed through the skin. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, in July 2022, declared firefighting as a Group 1 carcinogen, the classification with the highest cancer hazards.

Through years of toxic exposure, firefighters contract cancer up to nearly four times the rate of the general population. Overall, the average Canadian has a 44% risk of developing cancer in their lifetime. This grows to 53% for firefighters. While a person has a 30% risk of dying of cancer, the mortality rate in firefighters is 44%.

To put these numbers into greater perspective, last year, 95% of deaths among Canadian firefighters were attributable to cancer. As a result, firefighting practices have increasingly emphasized the proper personal protective equipment usage, decontamination protocols and other measures like scrub-down areas in fire stations to minimize exposure to carcinogens.

However, in spite of these efforts, a growing body of research has shown that firefighters have been further exposed to deadly chemicals through the very gear that is supposed to protect them.

Firefighting coats and pants, as part of the collective gear, contain high concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, referred to as PFAS. PFAS are a class of more than 12,000 synthetic chemicals primarily used as surface treatment for the purpose of repelling water and oil. Their strong, long-lasting carbon-fluorine bonds make it so that many of them do not degrade in the environment and are difficult for the body to secrete. For this reason, they are known as “forever chemicals.”

PFAS are not exclusive to heavy-duty equipment and gear. In fact, these chemicals are found in everyday household items like cleaning products, rain jackets, umbrellas, tents, non-stick cookware and in the stain-resistant coatings used on carpets, upholstery and other fabrics like gym gear. They are even in personal care products like shampoo, dental floss, nail polish and makeup.

I deliberately note this, colleagues, to paint a picture of how integrated PFAS are in our lives. Through a number of toxicological studies, PFAS have been shown to impact behavioural development and metabolism as well as the circulatory, immune and endocrine systems. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outlines a host of health effects associated with PFAS exposure beyond cancer, including liver damage, decreased fertility and increased risk of asthma and thyroid disease.

Now imagine wearing 45 pounds of work clothing covered in it every day.

It is also important to acknowledge that the high levels of heat firefighters face while battling fires help in releasing these toxins from the gear so that they regularly seep into the skin, are breathed in or enter the body through inevitable tactile transmission.

Emerging research has forced firefighters to reconcile that flames are not what they need to be most concerned about. It is the risk of cancer. In that regard, we must reassess the globally standardized gear that firefighters are required to wear. Colleagues, as you will recall, this bill would create a national framework to raise public awareness of cancers related to firefighting with the goal of improving firefighters’ access to cancer prevention and treatment. As critic of this bill, I wonder: How can the development of a framework be a solution?

Certainly, conversations on the merits of awareness should be had. However, true, effective change needs curative measures and not palliative solutions. If the goal is to reduce cancer for firefighters, we need to look at its sources and adjust accordingly. While little can be done to prevent the chemicals released during a fire, there is a direct, obvious solution in what is being worn in the first place, and it is simply to replace it with something safe.

Currently, firefighting protective gear contains PFAS to repel water and oil. Yet, as mentioned earlier, well-established science shows that its benefits are greatly outweighed by the dangers. Fortunately, safer substitutions exist with many more projects underway in an effort to transition away from these forever chemicals.

According to a Danish research report entitled Durable Water and Soil repellent chemistry in the textile industry, there are a number of alternative products on the market that provide durable water and oil repellency. These products contain modifications to their general chemistries that consequentially adjust their carcinogenic risk. There were five mentioned in detail in the report: paraffin repellent chemistries, stearic acid-melamine repellent chemistries, silicone repellent chemistries, dendrimer based repellent chemistries and nano-material based repellent chemistries. All these substitutes have chemical compositions that do not meet the definition of PFAS. In other words, they can be considered as safer alternatives to the chemical of concern when developing innovative firefighting gear.

As research is ongoing, I encourage the federal government to bring this crucial issue into consideration when developing this national framework. The concerns I have raised fall well inside the scope of this bill, given their direct link to cancer.

This is but one step the federal government can and must take to lower the risk for our firefighters and address their legitimate health and safety concerns. I would like to take a moment in my remarks to express that I’m fully supportive of this bill. In taking my role as critic seriously, I highlight the concern of firefighting gear to emphasize the necessity of this legislation and recommend a way to strengthen it within the existing purview of the bill.

The only reservation I have with this bill is that its original iteration, Bill C-224, included the line “provide for firefighters across Canada to be regularly screened for cancers linked to firefighting . . . .” I believe it was a very important element. However, this was later weakened to read, “make recommendations respecting regular screenings for cancers linked to firefighting.” Rather than requiring the government, it downgraded the measure into a recommendation. As someone who recognizes the separation of federal and provincial jurisdiction — and that is what this change was based upon — I can see why the change was made. However, I still think it does not stand as strong as it did in its original form. When it comes to protecting our firefighters from occupational diseases, time is of the essence. The earlier we screen for cancers, the better the outcomes, which is crucial given the implications and merit of this bill. Nevertheless, I’m proud to be involved in such a critically important bill.

Firefighters risk their lives every day to protect our communities, homes and lives. We must be there for them the same way they are there for us. This bill is one way of doing so by acknowledging the long-term health risks of firefighters and setting out frameworks to better protect them in the line of duty. It impacts far more than the firefighter. It impacts their entire family and the entire structure of our communities. Colleagues, this bill can save lives.

Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: We do not have consent, Senator Dupuis. I am sorry.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, it being 5:15 p.m. I must interrupt the proceedings, pursuant to rule 9-6. The bells will ring to call in the senators for the taking of a deferred vote at 5:30 p.m. on the second reading of Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

Call in the senators.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Bellemare, for the second reading of Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

Senator Plett: I find that strange: “Don’t ask me the question; ask somebody else.”

Every day, it seems there are new revelations about foreign interference by Beijing and what the Prime Minister knew. The Prime Minister has always said there is a wall between him and the Trudeau Foundation. Last week, La Presse reported that one of the senior staffers in the Prime Minister’s Office reached out to the Trudeau Foundation in November 2016 regarding the “Chinese donation.” That’s a pretty thin wall, leader. A former board member told La Presse last week that the so-called political polarization reason the foundation and the Prime Minister gave for the resignations was — wait for this — “a bunch of lies.”

Leader, Canadians deserve the truth. There has to be a public inquiry. Clearly, the Prime Minister doesn’t agree or he would have called one by now.

But what excuse does his cabinet have? Why can’t they see that a full public inquiry is the only right thing to do at this point? Finally, leader, what do you call someone who spews a bunch of lies? What kind of language would you consider that to be?