Hon. Yvonne Boyer: Honourable senators, today I am honoured to be here speaking on Algonquin land, which is unceded.

I am rising to draw attention to and celebrate a group of incredibly brave and dedicated women whom I have had the privilege of working with over the past number of years.

The Survivor’s Circle for Reproductive Justice is a newly incorporated corporation which represents survivors of forced sterilization across Canada. The Survivor’s Circle is led by survivors of forced sterilization and governed by an experienced board of directors of strong Indigenous women leaders, who are matriarchs, mothers and grandmothers.

Over the past three years, the Survivor’s Circle for Reproductive Justice was formed by a collective effort by many, including Elder Mary Lee, Alisa Lombard, Senator Greenwood and I, and over 200 survivors. Quite simply, there has been an overwhelming need to have a strong unified voice speaking on behalf of survivors of this horrific practice. The trauma and pain that come from being forced or coerced into sterilization are so deep and unlike other traumas that the women have felt they needed to be represented by their own voices so they would have a strong hand in healing in the way they have determined works best for them.

We have formed a legal entity, with the survivors leading the way. Beyond advocating for justice for those who have been forcibly sterilized and working to end this practice once and for all in Canada, this newly formed legal entity is looking at ways to engage with Indigenous communities not only in Canada but across the world to see how they can support each other and work towards a better world for all Indigenous people in all corners of this planet we call home. This practice clearly targets Indigenous people worldwide.

Even after the immense trauma the survivors have gone through in their personal lives, these women are committed to making sure not one more sister, mother, auntie or daughter is subjected to forced or coerced sterilization. I am in complete awe of their strength, and I am honoured to continue to work alongside them and support their goals.

This might be the first time you have heard of this group, but I know it will certainly not be the last. These survivors are getting ready to change the world, and I have no doubt they will, for they are the survivors of reproductive justice.

Meegwetch, marsee, thank you.

Senator Gold: Thank you, senator. I understand and respect your point of view. The government is considering its options. I will certainly take your suggestion under consideration. The chamber should rest assured that the government will do this in a proper and transparent way. I will make sure that is the case, whether the bill is introduced in the other place or, indeed, even here.

At this moment, the government has not yet made a decision as to what mechanism to use, but it is under serious study. Again, I stand here as the Government Representative and make a commitment that this will be addressed in a timely fashion. I repeat that this will have no impact on the bill once it receives Royal Assent for two years after implementation.

Hon. Wanda Thomas Bernard: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise today, joining you on Algonquin land, grateful to be here. My task is to applaud the determination and courage of Mr. Eddie Carvery, who has been protesting for justice and the restoration of his home in Africville, Nova Scotia.

Africville was a vibrant African-Nova Scotian community that was forcibly dismantled in the 1960s. Over 80 families — 400 residents — were uprooted from their homes. This forced relocation fuelled anger into action for Eddie Carvery, whose protest stands as one of Canada’s longest civil rights protests.

His protest started in 1970 as a sit-in on the grounds of Africville, where he had lived for over 50 years, and continued to live, refusing to leave until Africville is returned to its people.

His demonstration attracted supporters who recognized the significance of his cause. Many community members and activists rallied behind Mr. Carvery, calling for a resolution to the historical injustices faced by Africville residents and addressing broader issues of systemic racism in Nova Scotia.

In 2010, the City of Halifax apologized for the destruction of Africville and established the Africville Heritage Trust to oversee the revitalization of the community’s history. There are ongoing debates about the scope of these reparations. Many support Carvery’s mission to seek further reparations for the systemic racism and multi-generational harms caused by the forced relocation of Africville residents.

As Mr. Carvery himself has said:

I’ve been there on the ground . . . . I’ve had six heart attacks . . . . Our Lord . . . took a scoundrel like me and He gave me this great opportunity to fight. . . . I applaud Genealogy . . . but . . . our fight has just started . . . .

Today, honourable colleagues, I invite you to join me in recognizing Eddie Carvery and his commitment to creating a more just and equitable society.

The fight against racism and systemic discrimination in Nova Scotia is far from over; however, Eddie Carvery’s protest has been a catalyst for change. He inspires community members to take an active role in addressing historical injustices.

Thank you, asante.

Senator Klyne: Thank you for the question. I don’t know that I was at the same meeting, but I did hear that as well. I think it should be cause for study in that regard. What is the deterrent? If 10 years is not enough, is 14 enough? What do we need to do to make that a deterrent enough to really clamp down and start making some inroads and progress on gun smuggling and other illegal firearm offences?

As I said in my speech, it’s the last stop before a life sentence, so what is it going to take? I think we need to do some education around this, potentially with the judicial system, and make sure that we lean into this with more bravo and brevity on these gun sentences and take it to the max. I think the more we allow this to happen without a strong deterrent like the 14 years, more problems will happen. There needs to be a deterrent and I think it has to be pain. Pain is the best leverage against a deterrent here. If they don’t feel the pain, we may not catch their attention.

I think it probably deserves further study and understanding of the behaviours of why they continue to commit these crimes. Also, how do we make sure that we implement and execute the justice that is available to us to serve that purpose?

Senator Dupuis: Could you table disaggregated data on research funds allocated by federal programs and organizations: the list of sampling required for each funding application in the last five years; the list of sampling provided in support of each application that was funded in the past five years; and the list of sampling provided in reports on each grant obtained in the last five years?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Barbara Cartwright, Chief Executive Officer of Humane Canada. She is the guest of the Honourable Senator Boyer.

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

Senator Gold: Obviously, our Armed Forces need to be equipped with whatever it takes to do their job of defending our country and our interests.

The government continues to invest more in the military. The facts you have outlined are most regrettable. I’m told that the Government of Canada will continue to support our Canadian Forces with the necessary funds in a prudent manner.

[English]

Senator Housakos: The only things your government can take credit for are the exasperating monetary policies that are exacerbating inflation. That’s the only thing you can take credit for.

I can say something else: One thing about drunken sailors, Senator Gold, is that at least they spend their own money.

Now, my question has to do with the Bank of Canada, which, over the last few months, has acknowledged their error in following policy that has been put out by this government when it comes to dealing with inflation. They did delay, and their delay has exacerbated the situation, and now we’re starting to see it in compressed interest rate hikes. But at least the Bank of Canada has acknowledged that they were wrong in their forecast.

When will your government start acknowledging that you were wrong with your monetary policy and your approach to spending? The only thing the Trudeau government has ever done is point fingers and blame everywhere except in their direction. When will your government assume responsibility that your monetary policy over the last eight years has led us to the brink of economic catastrophe?

Senator Plett: Leader, here are some more facts.

On Tuesday, the Prime Minister’s made-up rapporteur revealed that he chose not to speak to the Chief Electoral Officer, he chose not to speak to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, he didn’t speak to the MP who left the Liberal caucus after being accused of very serious allegations, he confirmed the Prime Minister was aware of specific irregularities surrounding the nomination of that MP and he wasn’t aware his legal counsel donated thousands of dollars to the federal Liberal Party. He’s getting free media advice from Liberal and NDP strategists, which begs the question that if he’s getting free advice, why were taxpayer dollars going to paying for Navigator until he found out, of course, there were very serious reasons why he shouldn’t have used Navigator — but clearly that was only after he had hired them?

Leader, Canadians are shaking their heads in disbelief. Is there anyone with common sense left in the Trudeau government? Who will demand a public inquiry?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the follow-up question.

I think Canadians are quite properly and rightfully concerned about many other issues that are affecting their daily lives, whether it’s the wildfires; I’ve answered them literally during virtually every Question Period, and I’ll say it again:

The position of the government is that it has confidence in the special rapporteur and the report, which contained valuable information for how we can better protect ourselves and a process going forward in which further work will be done in that regard.

I will refrain from commenting again on the way in which you characterize and depict the Honourable David Johnston.

Senator Gold: It is neither.

Six and a half years ago when I joined the Senate, it was in the hope that the Senate could return to its original conception as a place where serious issues and serious questions can be dealt with in a serious and less partisan way. Alas, that obviously is not a vision that is shared by all.

It is not a lack of competence. It is not a question of cover-up. It is a responsibility of the government to make sure that issues that affect national security are dealt with in a responsible —

[Translation]

Senator Klyne: That’s a quandary for me as well. I would pose the same question. Again, it’s something that I think needs to be studied at committee.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Senator Plett: All right. Once was enough, and I’m sure all senators agree.

Bill S-5 was adopted by the Senate and sent to the House of Commons on June 22, 2022. That was 351 days ago. For a bill that the government was in a hurry to get passed, which is why it was originally introduced here, it has been slow going. Bill C-28, which was identical to Bill S-5, was introduced in the previous Parliament in April 2021. So it has been two years — some hurry.

As my Conservative colleague in the House of Commons pointed out when he spoke to this bill a couple of weeks ago, the responsibility for its slow progress lies squarely at the feet of the current Prime Minister, who selfishly triggered a pointless and expensive election in order to try — unsuccessfully, I might add — to win back the majority that Canadians had denied him in 2019. That failed attempt, colleagues, cost taxpayers $600 million — $600 million to end up with, essentially, the same minority government Mr. Trudeau had been saddled with prior to that election.

Now, I exaggerate, of course. It is not exactly the same minority government Canadians saddled him with in 2019. It is, indeed, now an NDP-Liberal costly coalition that no Canadian voted for.

A $600-million sum — imagine if that money had been spent on the environment instead. Then again, given the government’s sorry record on the environment, it would have been millions of dollars wasted in a different way. To be sure, this government has talked big on the environment but has done precious little. It has never met a single carbon emissions reduction target, for instance, in all their years in power, targets they adopted from the Harper government after criticizing that government during the 2015 election for having those very same targets.

Carbon emissions have gone up under this NDP-Liberal government, not down, and that is despite his vaunted carbon tax, which is an absolute and abject failure and is costing Canadians dearly at the worst possible time — a time of high inflation and rising interest rates.

While the government talks glowingly about rebates offsetting the carbon tax, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made clear that the majority of Canadians pay more in carbon taxes than they get back in rebates. Last year the Commissioner of the Environment released 10 reports on the performance of the Liberal government on protection of the environment. More than half of the reports show the government was failing to meet its targets.

Even the United Nations has weighed in. It noted in a report at the COP 27 in Egypt that Canada placed 58 out of 63 nations on environmental issues.

“Canada is back,” as Justin Trudeau claimed at the COP 21 Paris conference. Canada is back — way back in fifty-eighth position.

I will not delve into the specifics of the bill or the message. Both houses of Parliament have already spent a lot of time on this. Those efforts, collectively, resulted in a bill that had the support of all parties as well as government, industry and environmentalists when it came out of House of Commons. But then, honourable senators, in tried-and-true fashion and at the last minute during the report stage of the bill in the House of Commons, the Liberals couldn’t pass up the opportunity to do more virtue signalling. I can explain the situation no better than was done in the press release issued by the Alberta Conservative caucus on May 19, in which they wrote:

At Report Stage, the NDP put forward an amendment which encroaches on provincial jurisdiction in respect of regulating mining tailings ponds and hydraulic fracturing, which the Liberal members had opposed at the Environment Committee. Despite their opposition at Committee, the Government flipped-flopped and voted in support of the NDP amendment encroaching on provincial jurisdiction.

The NDP amendment, passed with last-minute Liberal support, is a clear infringement on provincial jurisdiction. This makes the legislation open to more jurisdictional court battles and uncertainty.

As a result, the Conservative Party will be withdrawing its support for Bill S-5.

It goes on:

Canada’s regulatory oversight framework is based upon clear division of responsibilities between the provinces and the federal government, as defined in our Constitution. The continued attempts to muddle this jurisdictional responsibility have led to a convoluted process of project approvals, duplication of costs, and uncertainty amongst investors.

The uncertainty brought about by the unpredictability of the NDP-Liberal government on energy policy has a real cost for Canadians. Canada needs to articulate a clear federal government policy if we want to attract and retain jobs and investment.

To be clear, colleagues, the NDP amendment gives the federal government the power to compel the production of information about tailings ponds and hydraulic fracturing — out of that arises the infringement on provincial jurisdiction.

The Senate had, unfortunately, adopted these amendments to the original version of Bill S-5, and the Liberal members of the House of Commons voted to remove this from the bill because they felt it was redundant. For no other reason than posturing for some environmental groups, the Liberals did a 180-degree turnaround and put this back in the bill. The Liberal position on this issue is that it’s redundant one week and essential the next week.

Alberta has already taken the federal government to court over the fact that plastic is listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the bill as a substance to be regulated.

Does anyone here really doubt that recently elected Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who has been scathing about the federal government’s energy policy, will not hesitate to challenge this aspect of the bill in court?

Honourable senators, let me conclude my remarks with these words from the Library of Parliament publication called The Division of Federal and Provincial Legislative Powers in Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

It says:

. . . determining whether a matter falls under federal or provincial jurisdiction is not always as easy as simply reading the text of the Constitution. This is for several reasons. First, numerous policy areas have arisen over time that were not explicitly assigned in the Constitution. Second, judicial interpretation has expanded certain sections of the Constitution beyond what might be expected from a plain reading of the language and, conversely, has narrowed other sections. Courts have also interpreted some policy areas as being areas of overlapping or “concurrent” jurisdiction.

Surely the environment is one of those policy areas — that has arisen over time — that was not explicitly assigned in the Constitution. It is also well understood that the provinces generally legislate in the area of natural resources.

In 1982, section 92A was added to the Constitution and expanded the area of exclusively provincial jurisdiction around natural resources to include the exploration of non-renewable resources in the province and their development, conservation and management, as well as the conservation and management of sites and facilities for electricity production.

To be sure, there are exceptions in which the federal government can regulate. However, this last-minute amendment at report stage — that had been rejected by the House committee, and which we were told is redundant — unnecessarily opened a can of worms, and once again targets a province that this government has seemingly had in its sights since it came to power in 2015.

Honourable senators, the government’s flip-flop on this issue, and the intrusion into provincial jurisdiction that this opens the door to, is a deal breaker for us — and it should be for all senators. We are, after all, appointed to represent our regions and our provinces, as is spelled out in the Constitution. As our former esteemed colleague Senator Joyal pointed out in his book entitled Protecting Canadian Democracy:

One of the key elements of the Confederation compromise was the creation of a Senate with the necessary legislative powers to defend sectional interests.

He quotes no less a personage than our first Prime Minister — the great Sir John A. Macdonald — who wrote:

To the Upper House is to be confided the protection of sectional interests; therefore is it that the three great divisions are there equally represented, for the purpose of defending such interests against the combinations of majorities in the Assembly.

We are appointed by province. We introduce ourselves at committee by naming the province that we represent. I represent Manitoba and the western division that also includes Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. It is our duty to look after our regional and provincial interests, so I am here to defend the interests of my region.

It is incumbent upon us, as the Senate, to take a closer sober second look at how we safeguard provincial jurisdiction when it comes to federal intrusions.

The Conservative Party of Canada is and will always be there to ensure that the provinces are defended against the centralization tendencies that the Liberals and the NDP have.

With this provision of Bill S-5, the federal government is extending its powers over the mining industry. We know that the Liberals would love to force onto the provinces some of the so-called national quality standards on air or water. We cannot allow these attacks on our Constitution.

Colleagues, I invite you to join us and Senator Patterson in voting against Senator Gold’s motion — and send a clear message that the Senate rejects this Ottawa-knows-best approach, and that the Senate is proud to play its role as a defender of the rule of law and the respect of the Constitution. Thank you.

Senator Gold: It is the responsibility of any responsible government to deal with these matters in a responsible way. In that regard, I continue to insist on the distinction between the importance of the issues that are raised in this chamber and the way in which they are raised and the liberty with which the questioners too often play with facts and assumptions.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That, in relation to Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, the Senate agree to the amendments made by the House of Commons; and

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

Senator Coyle: Thank you for your response. I look forward to hearing more about the mitigation aspect as well.

Senator Gold, could you tell us anything about how Canada is collaborating with other Arctic countries on the loss of sea ice challenges?

Senator Plett: Well, of course, I said “uncensored documents,” leader.

Leader, in a Question Period almost two years ago, I asked you for basic information about the firing of two scientists from the Winnipeg lab and the links between the lab and Beijing military scientists. I have yet to receive an answer, but that’s no surprise. If the Trudeau government is willing to defy orders from the House and take the Speaker to court to hide the truth, it obviously wouldn’t lift a finger to answer my questions.

The panel of three former judges I mentioned will ultimately decide what information is disclosed to MPs and the public. According to the memorandum of understanding, decisions of the judges are “final and unreviewable.”

Leader, why is the Trudeau government passing off its responsibility to others yet again? They are either too incompetent or too compromised to tell Canadians the truth about what happened at the Winnipeg lab.

Leader, either too incompetent or too compromised — which is it?

Senator Gold: I thank the honourable senator for her question.

Canada is the first country to collect and publish data on gender diversity from a national census. Of the some 30 million people in Canada aged 15 and older living in a private household in May 2021, over 100,000 identified as transgender or non‑binary, accounting for 0.33% of the population in this age group. Regarding the specifics of your question, I’ll have to make inquiries and report back.

[English]

Senator Carignan: Speaking of making decisions to meet the needs of the Armed Forces, we learned this week that our troops deployed in Latvia are so under-equipped that they have to procure essential protective equipment themselves, using their own money.

This is despite the fact that the government doesn’t spend its entire procurement budget. In 2021, it left $1 billion on the table without spending it.

How can you explain to Canadian military personnel that they have to pay for protective equipment out of their own pockets, when their colleagues, especially the Danes, are better equipped, not to mention that the Danish government buys its equipment from Canada?