Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Would Senator Cotter take a question?

Senator Cotter: I certainly would.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Senator Cotter, thank you for your speech. I enjoyed the historic piece on the journey of the Whitecap Dakota Nation.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-51, An Act to give effect to the self-government treaty recognizing the Whitecap Dakota Nation / Wapaha Ska Dakota Oyate and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023, the Whitecap Dakota Nation signed a self-government treaty recognizing them as a section 35 rights holder in Canada. Those negotiations began in 2009 under the former Harper government. The agreement was co-developed in consultation with the Whitecap Dakota First Nation, and affirms their inherent right to self-government under the Constitution Act, 1982. The treaty is the first of its kind in Saskatchewan.

The Whitecap Dakota First Nation was an ally of the British Crown, as explained by Senator Cotter, and, through historical oversights, they were never given that proper recognition. This legislation aims to correct the oversights from past governments, and to provide the Whitecap Dakota First Nation with its own self-government treaty.

This legislation has been in negotiations for 13 long years, and has been a joint effort between the Whitecap Dakota First Nation; Conservative Minister Chuck Strahl and Conservative Minister John Duncan; and Liberal Minister Carolyn Bennett and Liberal Minister Marc Miller.

I am pleased that it was expedited through the other place, and I hope that we can accomplish the same here in the Senate.

The bill recognizes that the Whitecap Dakota First Nation has jurisdiction and law-making powers on their reserve lands over governance, land, natural resources, membership, cultural matters, language revitalization and preservation, education, financial management and accountability, health and social services. The treaty is seen as an important opportunity for the Whitecap Dakota First Nation to move out from under the Indian Act.

The bill does several important things: It recognizes the Whitecap Dakota First Nation as Aboriginal peoples with full section 35 and section 25 constitutional rights. It constitutionally protects their inherent right to self-government as set out in the treaty. It strengthens their position to treat with Canada in the future on lands and titles. It removes the First Nation from the Indian Act. And it ensures that the Whitecap Dakota First Nation can still access the First Nations Fiscal Management Act.

The Whitecap Dakota First Nation fully supports the bill, with Chief Darcy Bear stating:

I am incredibly proud of our community as we make history together to better the lives of generations to come. Our Governance Treaty with Canada affirms our place as Dakota peoples alongside all other Aboriginal Peoples in Canada with constitutional protections. It also establishes a Whitecap Dakota government with the tools and status to continue to build our nation and contribute to Saskatchewan and Canada as whole.

The entire community was part of the process; a Whitecap advisory committee of elders, youth, women and community members helped to shape the agreement, and ensure the process protected First Nation perspectives, culture and customs. As a result, 92% of Whitecap members voted to approve the treaty, which affirms the First Nation’s inherent right to self‑government.

When asked about the importance of finally being recognized as a section 35 rights holder in Canada, as well as what that means for his community, Councillor Dwayne Eagle said to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs:

I’ll get a little personal. Sometimes when there’s a dispute with other First Nations, they say something like, “go back to where you came from.” We’re from Canada. That’s our land and territory. Once they recognize us as Aboriginal peoples of Canada —

That’s one of the things that we talked about with our community. They want that. They want to make sure that’s included in the agreement. It’s pretty important for us.

Honourable senators, I have kept my comments brief in recognition of the importance to pass this bill as quickly as possible. The recognition inherent in Bill C-51 is important to Whitecap Dakota First Nation members and elders. It protects their self-government treaty, and from here we can move forward and build on reconciliation efforts with the community.

As Fraser Tolmie, MP for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan in Saskatchewan, said to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs yesterday:

. . . one of the frustrating things for me when I go through this history and this recent history is that it seems so simple. This should have been done such a long time ago . . . .

Honourable senators, let us not delay this any further. Conservatives support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada’s Indigenous peoples — and we support Bill C-51.

Hon. David M. Arnot: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-51, An Act to give effect to the self-government treaty recognizing the Whitecap Dakota Nation / Wapaha Ska Dakota Oyate and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Colleagues, Bill C-51 represents a full circle moment for me. More than 25 years ago, I was the Treaty Commissioner for Saskatchewan, and I had a mandate to research, document and capture the meaning of the treaties in a modern context in the Province of Saskatchewan.

In January 1999, the minister of the former Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and Northern Development and the chief of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations, or FSIN, directed me to facilitate discussions between the Dakota and the Lakota on treaty adhesion claims in Saskatchewan.

There are three Dakota First Nations in what is now Saskatchewan — the Standing Buffalo, the Wahpeton and the Whitecap — and there is one Lakota First Nation: Wood Mountain. These First Nations never negotiated treaties, or adhesions, with Canada. It was not, however, for a lack of trying on their part.

Mr. James Morrison, a legal and historical researcher, found that several Dakota chiefs had expressed interest in adhering to the treaties at the time they were made — Treaty 4 in 1874, and Treaty 6 in 1876: According to the minutes of the council with Treaty 4 commissioners, Lieutenant Governor Alexander Morris told the Dakota that they should settle away from the American border. They would be entitled to the same consideration as the Dakota who had been offered reserve lands on the Little Saskatchewan River, which is now in part of Manitoba.

In 1862, Chief Whitecap, came north of the 49th parallel after the Minnesota massacres. However, the Dakota people had been in the territory for centuries before that, and they were able to demonstrate that.

In 2003, I was fortunate to see and hold a centuries-old medal during the discussion at the treaty table. This medal, known as the “Lion and Wolf” medal and called “Mazaska Wanpin” by the Dakota, represents the forging of the relationship with the Crown.

This medal was on display at the Office of the Treaty Commissioner for some time. If you looked at the obverse side of the medal, you could see that it was well worn and you could tell that it was proudly worn by Dakota chiefs for some 200 years.

On August 17, 1778, in Montreal, 11 Dakota chiefs received “Lion and Wolf” medals from the British general Frederick Haldimand. The lion symbolized the British Crown, and the wolf symbolized the American government nipping at the heels of the lion. The chiefs were given the medals because they were essential in the British campaigns in Illinois and Kentucky during the American Revolution.

The Dakota also received seven “Lion and Wolf” medals during the War of 1812, most likely in June of 1812 at Chief Wabasha’s village. Dakota warriors played an integral role in the British capture of Michilimackinac and the siege of the American Fort Meigs during that war.

A much more unique and compelling history of the bond between the Crown and the Dakota people was offered during discussions at the treaty table in Saskatchewan.

I wrote a report recommending that the Dakota people be allowed to adhere to Treaty 4 and Treaty 6, respectively. I also recommended that, in the alternative, Canada enter into treaty discussions with the Dakota people because the Government of Canada could choose to enter into treaty with whomever they want to, and that should happen in a modern context. Most importantly, it would be the right thing to do.

Despite the goodwill and good faith of the parties to the discussion, and despite the hours of interest-based discussions that took place, the process — which I was part of — was ultimately not successful. However, I believe that those original efforts laid the groundwork for the bill we are considering today. The comprehensive self-government negotiations, which began anew in 2009, were built on the relationships that were forged a decade earlier at the treaty discussions in Saskatchewan.

An understanding, appreciation and acceptance of the oral history, as well as the historical record, bring us here today. There is much evidence that the Dakota people had been in the territory for centuries. Historical records tell us that even in the absence of treaty signing or adhesion in the latter half of the 1800s, promises were made to the Dakota people.

Dr. Sarah Carter, professor of history at the University of Alberta, detailed the meeting with Treaty Commissioner and Lieutenant-Governor Alexander Morris, on September 16, 1874:

[Chief] White Cap began by saying that “he does not know what to do as he heard the country is going to be sold and wants advice on how to live. He puts his hand in the governor’s to show he shakes hands with the Queen —

— Queen Victoria —

— His ancestors used to do the same.” Morris said that we don’t want all your friends [from the United States] to come over . . . [However] who have been here a number of years it is different. He stated he had the ability to give each family 80 acres of land.

Colleagues, the first statement in the preamble of Bill C-51 clarifies the importance of history as we look to the future. It states:

Whereas the Whitecap Dakota Nation and the Government of Canada recognize distinctive historical relationships between certain Dakota communities and the Crown based on, at various times, treaties or alliances of peace and friendship . . . .

With an understanding of the past, and as we reflect on the needs of the present — as the drafters of Bill C-51 have done — this act requires us to look to the future of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation, a future largely free from the constraints of the ndian Act, founded on the principle of the inherent right to self‑government and based on a government-to-government relationship.

We are all aware that the Whitecap Dakota First Nation signed their self-government treaty with Canada on May 2, 2023. This treaty confirms Whitecap Dakota First Nation’s jurisdiction on their reserve lands over governance, natural resources, membership, financial management and accountability, health, language and culture promotion and preservation, and education. Affirming their section 35 constitutional rights as Aboriginal peoples signifies a historic shift in Canada’s position on the Dakota and enables ongoing reconciliation.

Bill C-51 and this governance treaty have been a long time coming for the Whitecap Dakota peoples, their community and leaders — by one estimate, nearly 140 years.

Colleagues, I wish to acknowledge the leadership, guidance and determination of Chief Darcy Bear. Chief Bear is an extraordinary leader, relationship builder and entrepreneur. I have had the good fortune to get to know him and work with him over the course of the last 30 years. He has been notably successful in many areas, including housing on the reserve, the creation of a casino and hotel, and the establishment of a world‑class golf course, as has been mentioned.

I also want to acknowledge the contributions of two long-time councillors, Mr. Frank Royal and Mr. Dwayne Eagle.

I am grateful to the elders who help guide Chief Bear and his community. They were also involved in the processes in which I took part.

I am deeply indebted to Elder Melvina Eagle and the late Elder Mel Littlecrow — two elders who freely provided their knowledge, wisdom and guidance to the parties and to me those many years ago. Their knowledge is fundamental to this bill, to the relationships that have been forged and to the reconciliation that this treaty represents, which is encompassed in this bill.

Colleagues, the Whitecap Dakota First Nation people have always had high expectations for their community and for themselves. Bill C-51 acknowledges their rightful place within the Canadian state. I believe this legislation is in Canada’s best interest, and I ask you to join me in supporting this bill, which rights a historical wrong and represents a modern-day example of reconciliation. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Michèle Audette: Under the Indian Act, women who marry non-Indians were expelled. I understand that, according to the document, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply, but can you tell us whether Indigenous women of this nation, who are not recognized in Bills C-31, C-3 and S-3, have been reinstated, or not at all?

[English]

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Would Senator Arnot accept a question?

[English]

Hon. Tony Loffreda moved third reading of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

He said: Honourable senators, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-47, budget implementation act, 2023, No. 1. I’m particularly pleased to rise to discuss a bill that wasn’t amended in committee.

Budget 2023 comes at an important time for our country. The bill that accompanies the government’s latest budget contains important measures that will help entrepreneurs, workers, students and families.

Some of those many measures are the Canada Growth Fund and the new Canada innovation corporation. These two entities will help Canada meet its net-zero emissions goals. They should also be able to help to accelerate and increase investment in Canada, which will drive domestic economic growth and create jobs.

[English]

Colleagues, you can all breathe a sigh of relief. I will not speak for 45 minutes today, although I’m tempted to because I feel Bill C-47 is such a good piece of legislation.

In my second reading speech, you may recall that I provided a detailed account of half of the measures in the bill, so I don’t feel the need to rehash everything today. I thank Senator Marshall for her comprehensive speech, too. Like it was for me, I know it was difficult for her to condense everything she wanted to say into 45 minutes. I’m always impressed with her detailed analysis of the government’s budgetary measures. We are lucky to have her on our National Finance Committee, for sure.

Thank you also to Senator Colin Deacon for raising some concerns regarding division 39 of the bill that deals with the Canada Elections Act. I would second his call to action that the political parties in our country, with their large databases of information on their members and supporters, need to start adhering to strong international norms in terms of privacy policies.

Today, I will not discuss the content of Bill C-47 specifically. I did that in detail in my second reading speech. Rather, I will do three things. First, I will provide a more detailed answer to the question raised by Senator Wallin at second reading on the Air Travellers Security Charge. Then, I will discuss the four observations of our National Finance Committee on Bill C-47. As usual, great work has been done by our committee, and I think it is important that we bring out the observations and work of all of the committees that have helped to build Bill C-47. Finally, I will wrap things up with a few words of thanks.

As you may recall, Senator Wallin asked about the rate increase to the Air Travellers Security Charge, or ATSC. The government is proposing to increase the rates by 32.85% in May 2024, which would, on average, increase the cost of a domestic return trip by about $5. Senator Wallin wanted to know about how and where the money generated from this measure will be used. As you know, air travel security expenses include CATSA operations, but also include the contracting of RCMP officers on selected flights.

When Minister Alghabra appeared before our Committee on Transport and Communications, Senator Harder asked him if 100% of the fees generated by this increase will be dedicated to CATSA, and the minister said, “Yes.” The minister added:

CATSA has not seen an increase in its fees in 13 years. The last time we increased those fees was 2010. Again, during the pandemic, we saw some of the vulnerabilities and some of the capacity issues and technologies that they need to improve upon. So this was a reminder to us as a government and a country that we need to modernize CATSA. That is the purpose of this new proposal.

I hope this answers Senator Wallin’s question.

The second item I want to highlight are the observations our National Finance Committee included when we adopted the bill last week. I thank my colleagues on the committee for their insightful contributions and for proposing the following four observations.

First, the committee urges the government to undertake a comprehensive review of how the tax system can be updated in order to help lift some Canadians out of poverty. The Income Tax Act is over 3,400 pages. It’s overly complicated, and our committee believes a thorough overhaul of the tax system is long overdue. We need to find ways of promoting fax fairness, as well as substantive equality and accessibility.

Second, as you may recall from my second reading speech, much was said about the GST/HST treatment of payment card clearing services and the application of a retroactive tax. Allow me to read, verbatim, our observation:

Members of the National Finance Committee expressed reservations about certain provisions of sections 114 to 116 of Bill C-47 which would make the GST/HST applicable retroactively to payment card clearing services even though the Federal Court of Appeal had clearly ruled in January 2021 that these services are financial in nature and therefore exempt from GST/HST. According to the testimonies heard, this would also constitute a certain inconsistency with the international practices in force in countries where a value-added tax like the GST/HST is in place.

In the eyes of the committee members, the 26-month delay observed by the federal Department of Finance in reacting to a decision by the Federal Court of Appeal is not only unacceptable but also constitutes a dangerous precedent according to the Canadian Bar Association.

Third, and as stipulated by the Committee on Transport and Communications, the provisions on the extension of interswitching also raised some questions among the members of the National Finance Committee. As we wrote:

The Committee has reservations about the interconnection extension provided for in section 22 of Part 4 of Bill C-47, considering, among other things, that these measures had already been put in place in 2014 and were subsequently eliminated because they were deemed inadequate.

Personally, I accept that the government is implementing this new pilot, which is in response to the National Supply Chain Task Force’s 2022 final report. Although railways are not supportive of this measure, many other industries are calling for its implementation. It will allow the government to gather data to assess the value of extending interswitching on a permanent basis.

Finally, our committee’s last observation is one I addressed in my second reading speech. Senator Marshall raised similar concerns in her remarks. Our committee “. . . expresses its concern about the continued use of Omnibus Bills.” It feels that:

 . . . many sections . . . are unrelated to the fiscal policy of the Government, such as the amendments to the Criminal Code and the Canada Elections Act.

As I said a few weeks ago, there are many legislative changes in Bill C-47 that could have, and probably should have, been introduced with their own stand-alone pieces of legislation. Senators will likely agree with our committee “. . . that insufficient time was provided to the Senate to thoroughly study the Bill, and to determine its impact.” I am also preoccupied with the swift manner in which we must always deal with budget implementation acts, or BIAs. Although it has become part of parliamentary convention, it still does not make it right.

However, despite these very legitimate concerns, Canadians can feel confident in the work of our committees. Including the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, our committees held 40 meetings in total, and there have been 210 unique committee witness appearances. We heard from cabinet ministers, dozens of government officials and a long list of relevant stakeholders.

Would we have appreciated more time to study the bill? Of course; there is never enough time. Could we have questioned more witnesses and obtained more testimony? Most certainly, but we did our work despite tight deadlines. There’s no doubt about it.

This brings me to my final comments.

Sponsoring a budget implementation act through the Senate is a big undertaking. I want to thank Senator Gold’s office and the Deputy Prime Minister’s office for all their assistance. They have been instrumental in helping me navigate the legislative process, and provide the support and appropriate information to senators and their staff when needed and in a timely manner. Thank you.

I want to thank all the staff at the National Finance Committee and all those behind the cameras that make our committee run like clockwork. A special thank you to Ms. Aubé, our clerk, and her assistant, as well as our two analysts. Once again, thank you to all the committee members — those on national finance and all the other committees — who did great work on Bill C-47, which I strongly support.

Once more, I want to acknowledge the work of our eight Senate standing committees that supported the National Finance Committee in pre-studying Bill C-47. Your reports were very helpful, and I know we all appreciated your work.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues for their insight, comments, and interventions, for supporting me in my role as sponsor of Bill C-47 and I wish you all a pleasant and restful summer. Hopefully, this will be if not my last intervention, one of my last, but we never know in this chamber. So we’re ready when it happens, but hopefully it’s one of my last.

Before we adjourn, I would urge all my honourable colleagues to support the passage of Bill C-47 not because the government wants us to, but because it’s a good bill with great measures that many stakeholders are calling for. Thank you, meegwetch.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Clément Gignac: Colleagues, I rise today to share my thoughts on Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. Given that we are at third reading stage and about to rise for the summer, I will keep all of my thoughts on the state of the Canadian economy to myself. I also want to thank Senator Loffreda for his restraint because it means I will be able to give my speech before dinner. We will wait until we come back in the fall to talk about the economy.

As our colleague, Senator Mockler, already mentioned, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, of which I’m also a member, held eight meetings and devoted nearly 14 hours to an in-depth study of the bill. We heard from some 74 witnesses. That may seem like a lot, but this is a huge bill with dozens of regulatory tax initiatives, some of which, quite frankly, should have been introduced in separate bills. In fact, an observation to that effect was made by the committee, which finds the practice to be unacceptable.

[English]

Before addressing my discomfort with the retroactive tax measure contained in this budget, let me share with you my concern about the rapid increase in the size of the federal government in recent years.

[Translation]

The best way to illustrate this rapid expansion of the federal government is to point out the actual number of employees in the public service. From 2016 to 2023, the public service workforce grew from 340,000 to nearly 425,000 full-time equivalent, or FTE, employees. That means it grew by 25%. Even more troubling is the increase in payroll, which has risen by 70% over the past seven years. As Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux pointed out, this dramatic rise can be attributed to the growing number of programs brought in by the federal government in recent years.

Another way to illustrate how the federal government has grown in size is to express budgetary expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product, or GDP. As an economist, I find this method even more relevant because it offers the advantage of taking into account population growth and inflation, and it facilitates comparison over time. If we exclude debt servicing, budget spending can be grouped into three broad categories. The first is transfers to individuals, such as Old Age Security, or OAS, and EI. The second is transfers to the provinces, and the third is government operating expenditures, also known as direct program expenses.

In my opinion, the category we ought to pay the closest attention to when referring to the increase in the size of government is the last one, operating expenditures. Indeed, these expenditures increased from 6.6% of GDP in 2016 to 8.1% of GDP in the last fiscal year. However, during this same period, transfers to individuals and to the provinces remained relatively stable, about 4.1% to 3.1% of GDP respectively.

[English]

It should also be noted that the national defence sector included in the federal government’s operating expenditures is not the cause of the increase of the size of the federal government since 2016 since the ratio of military expenditures to GDP has remained relatively flat for seven years, around 1.3% — a figure still very far from the official 2% target recommended by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO.

On this subject, despite a full chapter in the budget dedicated to Canada’s leadership in the world, I was very surprised to find out last spring, after examining the budget document, that the national defence budget will still be around 1.3% of GDP five years from now. As a member of the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee, I find this a little awkward, especially with the new geopolitical context since the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

Honourable senators, I am also very disappointed with the absence of a budgetary anchor in the 2023 budget. Contrary to what was observed after the 2008-09 financial crisis, the current government has not committed yet to return to a balanced budget or shared any precise calendar to return to the previous federal debt-to-GDP ratio seen before the pandemic. More disturbing is the fact that the federal debt-to-GDP ratio will increase from 42.4% to 43.5% over the next year despite an economy running at full capacity. The government is content to reiterate its intention to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio over the medium-term.

[Translation]

According to several experts, the federal government’s lack of fiscal restraint has helped stimulate economic activity, making the Bank of Canada’s job of controlling inflation more difficult. Honourable senators, the government and certain other observers have argued that Canada has the lowest ratio of net public debt to GDP of all G7 countries and a triple-A credit rating. That’s right.

However, senators should know that this top position is largely due to the significant financial assets held by our public sector pension plans. Here in the Senate, we keep hearing over and over that their operations, including those in tax havens and in certain autocratic nations, are at arm's-length from the government.

Colleagues, I don’t want to linger on these two concepts of net public debt and gross public debt, because that might eat up the rest of my speaking time. I’m sure that, with Senator Marshall and Senator Loffreda, I’ll have the great pleasure of doing so in the fall.

However, everyone agrees that one notion illustrates the weight of public debt, that of debt servicing, which has gone from 7 cents per dollar of recorded revenue before the pandemic to roughly 12 cents for this year. What’s more, this rate will likely go up since it’s based on the assumption that the interest rate will be lowered below the 3% mark as early as next year. Fortunately, we’re far from the 38-cent rate we saw in the mid-1990s, a time when Canada was at risk of being placed under the stewardship of the International Monetary Fund, the IMF. However, that shouldn’t be an excuse for being complacent or nonchalant.

Honourable colleagues, I’m also very skeptical about the fiscal projections set out in Budget 2023 regarding a gradual reduction in the deficit and the size of government. First, unlike the good governance practices put in place by former Liberal finance minister, the Right Honourable Paul Martin, and maintained almost every year by the various Liberal and Conservative finance ministers who followed since the mid-1990s, this budget doesn’t set out a contingency reserve. Simply put, if the Bay Street economists, who all agree, are wrong about the direction of the Canadian economy and the country goes into a recession, then the budget deficit for the current year will go up because there’s no emergency cushion or contingency reserve.

Second, Budget 2022 created expectations by announcing the launch of a comprehensive strategic policy review to assess program effectiveness and identify opportunities to save, but, oddly enough, there’s no further mention of that in Budget 2023. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, and I quote:

Aside from proposing to reduce spending on consulting, other professional services and travel, Budget 2023 does not identify opportunities to save and reallocate resources “to adapt government programs and operations to a new post‑pandemic reality” . . . .

[English]

In the absence of any exhaustive review of programs by the Treasury Board, I have some doubts about the projected spending reduction five years from now to get back to the 2016 level of 6.6% of GDP. I believe that this figure will be revised upwards with the implementation of the future dental insurance and drug insurance programs, not to mention the pressure to be exerted by the Pentagon and our other NATO allies to finally commit to the 2% of GDP target for military spending.

[Translation]

Colleagues, as a final point, I’d like to talk about the tax measure — which is retroactive to boot — that really upset me. Senator Loffreda has already spoken about it. It has to do with certain provisions in clauses 114 to 116 of Bill C-47 that make payment card clearing services subject to GST retroactively. This is a technical measure that hasn’t won much sympathy from the public, because it affects financial institutions.

As pointed out by the Canadian Bankers Association, the Desjardins Group and even the Canadian Bar Association, the legitimacy of the government’s decision to introduce new tax rules in the budget isn’t in dispute. Rather, it’s the retroactive nature of this measure that’s problematic.

This saga began in 2015, when CIBC decided to formally challenge, before the Tax Court of Canada, CRA’s interpretation that these clearing services were administrative, not financial, in nature. Accordingly, these services would be subject to the GST. Based on the testimony we heard, the fact that the federal government lost in Federal Court in January 2021, didn’t appeal to the Supreme Court and came back 26 months later with a retroactive measure is unprecedented. This sets a dangerous precedent, as mentioned by the bill’s sponsor, Senator Loffreda, whose perseverance and leadership I commend.

Honourable senators, despite everything I told you, despite my reservations and my disappointments, I will support Bill C-47. My discomfort with the last fiscal measure I talked about earlier was the subject of an observation presented by the committee, and not an amendment.

Let’s clarify, for new senators, that bills related to the budget, unlike other bills, are rarely amended.

The last time an amendment to a budgetary bill was accepted was in 2016. My colleague Senator Harder must remember, since one of the measures clearly interfered in Quebec’s jurisdiction with respect to the Consumer Protection Act. It was the government representative in the Senate who proposed this amendment on the suggestion of the Minister of Finance following pressure from Senator Pratte and the Government of Quebec. It is possible, but rather rare, for amendments to be made to budget implementation bills.

In conclusion, honourable senators, I’d like to take this opportunity to put both current and future governments on notice: My support for budget bills is not unconditional. During the pandemic, I supported this government’s emergency measures to keep the country from sinking into a recession because I felt it was the right thing to do.

However, I believe that the authorities would be well advised to adopt fiscal anchors soon to avoid fuelling inflation before they implement expensive new social programs like pharmacare and dental care, especially since these are under provincial jurisdiction.

As a former politician whose face once appeared on campaign signs, I’m well aware that we, as senators, don’t have the same legitimacy as representatives in the other chamber. I accept that. I don’t miss it. However, the Senate is an institution of sober second thought that is now made up mostly of independent senators from all walks of life. Their qualifications are the envy of the boards of directors of many large Canadian corporations.

Moreover, we now have a minority government holding on to power thanks to an alliance with a third party. This situation demands vigilance on our part because many initiatives didn’t necessarily get the support of a majority of Canadians in the last election. In fact, some weren’t even on the governing party’s platform.

This independence from a political party and this freedom of speech prompted several of us to apply to join the Senate to work together in the interest of Canadians. In my humble opinion, the current or future government and Canadians in general should be delighted with senators’ intellectual independence, even if it sometimes causes delays because of in-depth studies by committees and proposed amendments. After having heard the wise comments made by Senator Shugart in this chamber, I recognize that we’re definitely in uncharted waters. I’m counting on him and all of you, esteemed colleagues, to guide me in carrying out this role of second sober thought, while believing that there’s added value in my sitting in the Senate and commenting on Bill C-47.

Thank you for your attention.

[English]

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable colleagues, I rise today on behalf of Senator Galvez to deliver her remarks on Bill C-47, the 2023 budget implementation act.

This omnibus bill seeks to implement some, but not all, provisions set forth in the 2023 budget, as well as provisions that were not specified in Budget 2023.

The bill has four parts covering a vast number of both economic and non-economic topics over a total of 408 pages. As is usual, specific sections have been referred to some committees for study. In the limited time I have available, I will focus on three sections with environmental impact that my team and I believe are of utmost importance to bring to the public’s attention.

The first pertains to the crucial issue of remediating the Faro Mine in Yukon, a site that has posed environmental problems to Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities for decades. Second, I will touch upon issues relating to the Canada Growth Fund. Lastly, I will discuss the significance of making changes to the mandate of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, or OSFI, using a budget bill.

Bill C-47 authorizes the remediation of the Faro Mine in Yukon with an estimated cost of $1 billion plus $166 million for the first 10 years of long-term operation and maintenance. This is a huge budget and a very long duration, but most important is the message it sends; it enforces the belief that the principle of “polluter pays” can’t be avoided because the government will assume remediation costs. We need to have stronger legislation to prevent similar situations in the future. For example, it is now that, with respect to oil sands tailings ponds, we need to clearly establish how much the remediation will cost, what treatment will be used, when they will be remediated and who will pay.

The Faro Mine, an area the size of Victoria, B.C., holds a significant place in Canada’s mining history. It was once one of the largest lead and zinc mines in the world, operating from 1969 to 1998. The environmental consequences of the mine’s operations became apparent after its abandonment in 1998, when it left behind 70 million tonnes of tailings and 320 million tonnes of waste rock. The vast amounts of tailings, waste rock and water, with high concentrations of heavy metals, pose severe risks to the surrounding ecosystem and communities.

The mine site contains various hazardous substances, including heavy metals such as lead, zinc and cadmium, which can contaminate water sources and soil. Exposure to these contaminants can have severe health consequences, particularly for local Indigenous communities who rely on the land and water for their traditional practices and sustenance. Prolonged exposure has led to various health problems, including neurological disorders, developmental issues in children, respiratory ailments and an increased risk of certain types of cancers.

The remediation efforts aim to mitigate contamination and restore the affected ecosystems. Importantly, the goal is not necessarily to remove the contamination but to cover it and push that responsibility of environmental stewardship onto future generations.

An official of the Government of Yukon told the committee that “. . . active management at the Faro Mine . . . will be measured in hundreds of years.”

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I am sorry, Senator Pate, but you will have 11 minutes upon our return.

Honourable senators, it is now six o’clock. Pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until eight o’clock, unless it is your wish, honourable senators, not to see the clock.

Is it agreed not to see the clock?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, leave is not granted. Therefore, the sitting is suspended, and I will leave the chair until 8 p.m.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Loffreda, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., for the third reading of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

Hon. Kim Pate: I will continue.

The Faro Mine is just one example of a larger issue that extends beyond its specific case. Across Canada, we have witnessed the troubling pattern of resource development companies declaring bankruptcy and leaving behind contaminated sites, burdening taxpayers with the responsibility of remediation. This issue is not limited to the Faro Mine; it resonates with the challenges faced in provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, where the proliferation of orphaned oil and gas wells has become a significant concern. These orphaned wells, left behind by both financially and morally bankrupt companies, pose environmental risks and financial liabilities that ultimately fall on public funds. It is crucial that we address this systemic issue, reinforcing the principle of the “polluter pays” to hold companies accountable for the environmental consequences of their operations and to protect taxpayers from bearing the brunt of remediation costs.

The Faro Mine is situated on traditional lands of the Kaska and Selkirk First Nations, and the remediation project must prioritize the concerns and aspirations of these communities. Meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indigenous peoples are paramount to ensure that their rights, interests and cultural heritage are respected throughout the remediation process.

It is wrong to force the development of the economy of a town or region to a “decontamination economy.” This thinking is captive to the broken window fallacy and entraps communities in the boom-bust cycle that has already ensnared the economies of some entire provinces that are now desperately seeking to diversify. While the decontamination economy can provide short-term economic benefits, we must also explore sustainable and diversified economic opportunities for the long-term well-being of these communities.

One striking realization is that while we grapple with the consequences of past mining activities, new mining projects adjacent to the old Faro Mine are already under way. This serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need to reinforce the “polluter pays” principle and hold resource development companies accountable for the environmental impact of their operations.

Another key proposal within Bill C-47 is the Canada Growth Fund. With a budget of $15 billion, the fund is designed to attract private capital and stimulate investment in low‑carbon projects, technologies, businesses and supply chains.

However, there are concerns regarding the lack of clarity surrounding the criteria used to allocate funds to specific projects. It is important for the government to provide transparent guidelines and selection criteria to ensure that investments made through the fund align with Canada’s environmental objectives and climate commitments so that it can contribute effectively to the transition to a clean economy.

The decision to entrust the management of the fund’s assets to the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, or PSP Investments, has also raised questions among members of the National Finance Committee concerning the independence of PSP or, in my case, the absence of their commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. PSP Investments continues to invest in fossil fuel companies without a clear decarbonization plan, undermining the purpose of the fund. Additionally, the presence of a corporate director of Imperial Oil on the PSP board of directors reveals appearance and potential conflict of interest, according to corporate governance experts.

In light of these issues, it is crucial for the government to address these concerns, provide clarity on investment criteria, manage potential conflicts of interest, establish performance indicators and ensure transparent and accountable governance. This will not only enhance public confidence in the fund but also strengthen its ability to attract private capital and drive the growth of Canada’s clean economy.

The third and final issue I would like to raise is the expansion of OSFI’s mandate to determine whether financial institutions have adequate policies and procedures to protect themselves against threats to their integrity and security.

Omnibus bills, which encompass both fiscal and non-fiscal items, have been employed as a strategic tactic by governments to pass significant legislation. Bill C-47 is no exception, featuring a wide array of provisions including amendments to the Criminal Code and electoral laws.

The expansion of OSFI’s mandate is worth noting because such a significant amendment would typically be the subject of a separate bill, allowing for public consultation and stakeholder input. OSFI’s mandate, as it stands, has garnered widespread agreement among experts in sustainable finance that it needs revision to incorporate considerations of environmental, sustainability and social factors, including climate risk. It is essential to align the oversight of our financial sector with emerging risks identified by reputable international organizations like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. While the bill alludes to these risks, including the mention of one specific risk, it leaves room for ambiguity that could potentially pose challenges if legally contested. Furthermore, the absence of an associated budget allocation for this aspect raises further concerns.

Colleagues, climate change represents a significant threat to the integrity and security of our financial sector. CSIS has warned us that climate change could undermine global critical infrastructure, threaten health and safety, create new scarcity and spark global competition and that it might open the door to regional or international conflicts. As we strive to transition to a low-carbon economy and mitigate the risks associated with climate change, it is essential that our financial institutions are well equipped to assess and manage these risks.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-47 acknowledge the importance of protecting financial institutions from various threats, and it is only logical that climate change, with its far-reaching implications, is considered among those threats.

I encourage you to vote in favour of passing Bill C-47 because Canadians need stability and increased trust in our democratic system, but it is up to us parliamentarians to scrutinize and reflect in efficient ways on the expenditure of taxpayer funds.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[Translation]

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to a specific section of Bill C-47, the budget implementation bill.

In this bill, division 34 of part 4 amends section 347 of the Criminal Code in order to lower to 35% the criminal rate of interest, in accordance with generally accepted actuarial practices and principles.

As many of you know, this is an issue I have been endeavouring to fix for a very long time, nearly 10 years.

Hon. Paula Simons: Tansi.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-47, or the budget implementation act — specifically Division 23 of Part 4, which deals with the air passenger bill of rights.

For days now, I’ve had this famous quote from Shakespeare’s Richard III stuck in my head, and I’ll stick it in your heads now:

Now is the winter of our discontent

Made glorious summer by this son of York,

And all the clouds that loured upon our house

In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.

I think it’s because this has been a winter of deep discontent for Canadian air travellers. But then, it was also an autumn of discontent, and a spring of discontent; alas, I see little evidence that the clouds are breaking or that the glorious sunny summer of air travel is upon us.

When the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic shut down airports and radically reduced air passenger demand, airlines and airports took much of their service off-line. Starting Canada’s air system back up again after that shutdown has not been easy. There are labour shortages at every pinch point: We don’t have enough air traffic controllers. We don’t have enough pilots. We don’t have enough security screeners. We don’t have enough ground crews, flight crews, baggage handlers or passenger service agents.

Airport and airline executives keep telling us that things are getting better. But we — senators — who travel so much, know intimately that the air travel experience is still nothing like it was before the pandemic struck. Flights are chronically delayed or cancelled. That’s if you’re lucky enough to find a flight since many smaller centres — and by “small,” I’m also including cities as “non-small” as Ottawa and Edmonton — have lost many of their direct flights, compelling flyers to change planes in already overwhelmed Toronto and Montreal airports. And when flights are delayed or cancelled and connections are missed, it often feels as if the airlines have simply abandoned frustrated and frightened passengers to their fates.

Senators, who fly so often, are often lucky enough to rack up enough travel points to qualify for a chance to call a special “elite” customer service line to get help. But most passengers have no such access to assistance. When your flight home for Christmas gets cancelled and all you get when you call is a recorded announcement telling you someone will get back to you in three days, no wonder overwhelmed passengers often lash out, taking out their fury on cabin crews and gate agents who themselves have neither the answers nor the authority to fix passenger problems.

Everybody understands that sometimes unexpected things happen. I think Canadians could deal with such crises relatively calmly if they got timely answers and real support from airlines when things went wrong. Airlines can’t control the weather. They can, however, control the number of passenger agents and customer service agents to help stressed and distressed people when things go awry. To blame everything on the weather in a country where we have rather a lot of weather is insufficient.

It’s a terrible system to navigate for people who don’t fly often, like grandmothers going to visit grandchildren, students returning home from campus, families going on vacation or people who need to be on time for a wedding or a funeral. The most heart-rending scene I witnessed this winter was a woman who was desperate to get from Edmonton to Cape Breton, where her mother was on her death bed. The scream of anguish she let out when she realized our flight was extremely delayed and she would miss her connection to Sydney and not get home in time to see her mother one last time — that scream haunts me still.

But it’s also a terrible system for frequent flyers who need to travel for work and can’t reliably get to their meetings or conferences. It’s not just an inconvenience we can shrug off; it’s a drag on our economy and a blight on our international reputation.

I have anecdotes. You have anecdotes. Heck, complaining about our most recent travel stories is one of the things that bonds senators from all corners of this chamber. But you don’t need to rely on anecdotes to understand the scale and scope of the problem. During our hearings on Bill C-47, our Transport and Communications Committee heard that publicly available, monthly on-time performance data shows that Toronto Pearson, Montréal-Trudeau and Vancouver International consistently underperform compared to comparable U.S. airports like Seattle, Detroit and Chicago O’Hare. About 1.5 to 2 flights out of every 10 at comparable U.S. airports are delayed. In Canada, we have closer to 4 flights out of every 10 delayed at Canada’s three largest airports. That means that if we’re lucky, 60% of flights depart on time.

We do have an air passenger bill of rights, which allows passengers to complain if they don’t get satisfaction from the airlines in resolving their issues. Our committee heard from witnesses that people flying in Canada filed some 40,000 official formal complaints about their treatment by the airlines last year alone. But the complaint system is totally broken. As of last month, there was a backlog of 46,000 complaints, which would suggest that virtually none of the 40,000 people who complained last year has had their issue resolved — unsurprising since, on average, it takes the Canadian Transportation Agency a full 18 months to resolve a complaint. A backlog of 46,000 complaints is bureaucracy at its most absurd — consumer justice delayed and denied. If we’re honest, we have to recognize that those 46,000 complaints are just the tip of the iceberg. Most Canadians who’ve had terrible travel misadventures don’t even bother to file a complaint, either because they don’t know the complaint system exists or because, with cool-eyed cynicism — no, make that world-weary realism — they recognize the reality that filing a complaint in a system like this accomplishes next to nothing.

Therefore, I was more than a little thrilled to learn that the government was updating the bill of rights in an effort to give aggrieved passengers a little more support and recourse.

In her testimony before our committee, France Pégeot, Chair and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Transportation Agency, attempted to explain how this proposed new system would be better than the ineffective and inefficient system we now “enjoy.”

Under the status quo, passenger entitlements depend on how a flight disruption is categorized: within airline control, within airline control but required for safety or outside airline control. This has made it difficult for passengers to understand their rights, and it makes the regulations difficult to enforce.

Bill C-47 would eliminate the three categories of flight disruptions. Under the new and simplified framework, air carriers would be required to compensate passengers unless there were exceptional situations. What’s an exceptional situation? We don’t know yet. The Canadian Transportation Agency will define the term later in regulations. But what we do know is that as soon at the provisions of Bill C-47 come into force, the burden of proof will be shifted. Right now, passengers must prove that they have a right to compensation. Under the new rules, the onus would flip. Airlines will now have to prove that they don’t have to pay compensation.

Bill C-47 would also attempt to deal with the overwhelming number of complaints by streamlining the claim resolution process. Under the proposed new rules, each complaint would need to be resolved in 120 days — a far cry from the current 18‑month timeline. On top of that, the Canadian Transportation Agency would also be allowed to recover the cost of air passenger complaints from the airlines, which should encourage airlines to address customer complaints directly with travellers as soon as possible.

The bill would also allow passengers to file claims not just for lost luggage but for luggage that disappears and goes on holiday for days or weeks or months. Companies that don’t comply could now be fined up to $250,000, a significant increase from the previous maximum of $25,000.

It sounds great. But there are serious questions about whether the changes will accomplish much at all.

During our committee hearings, for example, I asked Madame Pégeot about what these new rules would mean for people who get trapped on airplanes on the tarmac for hours and hours, whether because of bad weather, a shortage of available gates and ground crew or some combination. I myself got stuck on the Montreal runway for almost seven hours last June, exactly a year ago, and I know lots of you, my Senate colleagues, have had similar experiences.

Here was my question to Madame Pégeot:

Oftentimes in Canada a flight is delayed because of weather conditions, for which the airline takes no responsibility. But it has been the experience of many Canadians that the airlines provide them with nothing — no food, no water, no arrangement of accommodation — if they are forced to overnight some place. In the worst instances, people have been trapped on planes for 7, 8, 12 or 18 hours, unable to access food, water or working toilets.

Can you tell us what will be the rights of passengers in conditions where they have been denied humanitarian access to food, water and working toilets for up to 15, 18 hours?

Here was her answer:

Under the current regulatory framework, when the situation is outside the power of the company, like you said, a weather event, there is no obligation for the airline to provide assistance, whether it be food or accommodation for passengers. The current legislation before Parliament does not address that issue. But we note it, and that’s certainly something that we can look into, as we would have to — assuming the legislation goes through — review the regulation.

That seems a rather large issue to have left out.

The bill also does not seem to have any provisions to let people off the plane to get a breath of air or use a working toilet after they have been stuck waiting for a gate and ground crew for hours and hours.

Gábor Lukács is the President of Air Passenger Rights, Canada’s independent, non-profit organization of volunteers devoted to empowering travellers. Before our committee, Mr. Lukács testified that Bill C-47 perpetuates existing loopholes and will create a new one. In spite of the government promises to the contrary, he told us, “. . . the bill retains the “required for safety reasons” excuse for airlines to avoid paying passengers compensation.” He called this a “. . . made-in-Canada loophole . . .” that has “. . . unnecessarily and disproportionately complicated adjudication of disputes between passengers and airlines. . . .” Since, he noted, all the evidence for the reasons for a flight disruption is in the airlines’ exclusive control, passengers are at a great disadvantage in enforcing their rights to compensation. And while he and his group are concerned about the complaint backlogs currently, he also argued that this new system of fast-tracking complaints could backfire and strip some passengers of their full rights to adjudication.

In the meantime, we’ve heard plenty of anger from those in the air travel sector who have told us in hearings and meetings that these changes will raise prices, reduce the number of flights on offer and be a particularly heavy burden on small, regional airlines that serve our smaller regional airports. They also complain that they shouldn’t be held responsible for delays that are a knock-on effect caused by NAV CANADA’s air travel control systems or other hold-ups at the airport.

I wish I could tell you definitively if I think this new complaints system will work. Unfortunately, by wrapping all these changes inside this Turducken of an omnibus bill, the government severely limited the work our committee could do to unpack the details. I understand the urgency to get these changes enacted, if not for this summer, then at least in time for the fall and winter travel season. Packing them into the budget is undoubtedly efficient in the short term. I dearly wish, though, that these changes had come to us in a stand-alone bill and that we’d had more time to study them properly.

Disciplining the airlines for bad customer service — emotionally satisfying though that feels — is not enough to fix our snarled-up air travel system. We need to address the shortage of highly skilled pilots by finding a way to make expensive training programs more accessible and affordable. We need to reinvest in our airport infrastructure to make our airports more comfortable and user-friendly for passengers and airlines alike. We need to ensure that NAV CANADA, the private company that provides air traffic control services, has the necessary capacity to do its job. We need to encourage competition so that passengers are not held hostage to one or two airlines. We also need to come up with integrated, coherent emergency plans to deal with the extreme weather events to ensure that our airports and airlines are able to deal with the new realities of climate change.

COVID is not the only thing that has turned our world upside-down. We need to get ready to build an air service system robust and flexible enough to serve our magnificent, complicated, sprawling country with both convenience and compassion.

Thank you, hiy hiy.

Hon. Pat Duncan: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to third reading of Bill C-47.

As senators may know, Part 4, Division 20 of the bill contains amendments to the Yukon Act. The specific section amending the Yukon Act is related to the management and remediation efforts of the abandoned Faro Mine. It is notable that on the one hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary of the Yukon Act receiving Royal Assent in the Senate of Canada on June 13, 1898, we are discussing an amendment to the same act. This is proof that the Yukon Act — which is considered by Yukoners as our constitution — is a living, dynamic document, reflective of our times and the growth and development of the territory.

Although I will be discussing the constitutional development of the Yukon Act in greater detail once I initiate my inquiry on it, I do think it is appropriate at this time to provide a brief refresher on the constitutional significance of the Yukon Act and amendments to it, such as I’m discussing today.

The act was discussed 125 years ago. It provided for the appointment by Canada of a commissioner and an appointed territorial council to oversee the administration of the Yukon. The population of the region had exploded due to the Klondike Gold Rush, and Ottawa felt a need to set up a local administration to ensure peace, order and good government, and the regulation of liquor. The appointed council and commissioner acted on behalf of, and under the control of, Ottawa.

Moving ahead to 1979, then-Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Jake Epp authored a letter to the commissioner of the Yukon Territory advising her that she was to take the direction of the duly elected territorial council and:

request the Territorial Government Leader that he shall constitute and appoint a body known as the Cabinet or the Executive Council which will have as its members those elected representatives of the Territorial Council who are designated from time to time by the Government Leader who enjoys the confidence of the Council.

The letter included that the commissioner was no longer to be part of the council. In other words, in plain language, the first territorial cabinet was formed from a duly, democratically elected legislative assembly, a legislative assembly elected on party lines. Today, the Yukon remains the only territory with party politics.

The Epp letter was issued at the time when former Yukon senator the Honourable Ione Christensen was the commissioner.

Honourable senators, as significant as that event was, members of the National Finance Committee with whom I have had the honour to work will appreciate the importance of following the money. As important as the Epp letter was, although not enshrined in the Yukon Act, more significant to my mind, as a former finance minister, was an event in 1985: the establishment of the Territorial Formula Financing arrangement.

Previously, the commissioner would go to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development every year, cap in hand, and say, “Please, may we have enough money to run the territory for you?” With the advent of the Territorial Formula Financing arrangement, we became partners at the table on a similar footing to the provinces with their equalization payments.

Although the Yukon now had control over our finances, it was the Devolution Transfer Agreement, or DTA, wherein we truly became the masters of our own house. The Devolution Transfer Agreement gave the territory land- and resource-management responsibilities. The initial agreement was signed in 2001 by myself on behalf of the Yukon, and its implementation took place in 2003.

The DTA negotiations included many discussions about the remediation of the Faro Mine site. Once the largest open pit lead‑zinc mine in the world, the Faro Mine officially opened in 1969. After nearly 30 years of operations under different ownership and having formed more than 30% of the Yukon economy, the last owners declared bankruptcy and abandoned the mine in 1998.

Seventy million tonnes of tailings and 320 million tonnes of waste rock with the potential to leach metals and acid into the surrounding land and water were left behind. The amounts spent by Canada on the remediation of the Faro Mine site clearly show the significance of the cleanup. Last fiscal year, Canada spent over $86 million on remediation, and care and maintenance costs. For the previous two years, $92 million and $103 million were spent, respectively.

Referencing back to the formula financing arrangement, clearly with a territorial budget of $535.5 million in 2001, the Yukon could not carry the financial burden of the Faro Mine cleanup. Yet the DTA was supposed to make us masters of our own house, which leads us to the changes in Bill C-47.

The DTA identified the Faro Mine as a shared responsibility between the federal and territorial governments. Canada was financially responsible for care and maintenance and for the development and implementation of longer-term remediation plans, while the Yukon was responsible for carrying out the activities.

The arrangement soon led to major challenges in the Yukon government’s ability to influence the direction, scope, scheduling and budget of the project. The net result for contractors working in the field was delayed payments and a very frustrating process. In 2020, a transitional agreement was entered into for the federal government to carry out interim care and maintenance under delegated authority from the Yukon Minister of the Environment.

This amendment to the Yukon Act would remove the need for that delegation. It would put the governance of the project, financial responsibility for the remediation and statutory power to manage risks at the site in a single federal minister.

Honourable senators, providing this background is not the complete picture. I would like to outline for you the essential role of Yukon First Nations. While June 13 is the one hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary of the Yukon Act, honourable senators have heard me speak earlier this year to the fiftieth anniversary of Together Today for our Children Tomorrow.

In 1993, the Yukon and Canada signed the Umbrella Final Agreement, or UFA. Since then, 11 of 14 Yukon First Nations have concluded self-government and land claim agreements. The UFA included chapter 12, which provided for the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, or YESAA, a development assessment process that is referenced in Bill C-69, which received Royal Assent in June 2019.

It is important to include the development of YESAA as part of the UFA and the Canada-Yukon-Council of Yukon First Nations agreement, and is appropriate in discussing such items as the remediation of the Faro Mine site. YESAA provides for the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, a regime that evaluates all development projects — everything from highway right-of-ways to mines to ensure First Nations rights, the environment and the social and economic development of the territory are appropriately recognized and reviewed before development proceeds.

I will reference the timeline for the Faro Mine Remediation Project. In 2003, an oversight committee formed involving key representatives from the Government of Yukon, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Kaska and Selkirk First Nations to help develop the remediation plan. From 2002 to 2004, technical consultation sessions were held to gather input from First Nation communities. In 2006-08, the remediation options were refined following a series of consultation sessions involving the Kaska, Selkirk First Nation, the Town of Faro, governments and regulatory agencies and scrutiny by independent experts. In 2009, the remediation option was selected and signed off by Canada, the Yukon government, the Kaska and the Selkirk First Nations.

These are examples of how the government-to-government-to-government relationships work today with YESAA and on such important items as the Faro Mine Remediation Project.

Part of the Faro Mine Remediation Project is the Rose Creek diversion project. Rose Creek is located in the traditional territory of the Ross River Dena Council and the Liard First Nation. Ross River Dena Council and Liard First Nations are also two First Nations who have not completed land claim agreements with Yukon and Canada.

Stephen Mead, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Mineral Resources and Geoscience Services at the Yukon government told the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources about the success story of this particular part of the remediation project.

Fifteen years ago he was standing on the face of a dam when the water was coming out of a rock where it hadn’t before. There was a creek or a river that the tailings had been put in through the decades of mining. The river, at a very early part of the system, had been diverted around the tailings. The river is called Rose Creek. New contamination appeared from waste rock that hadn’t been in place before. There was a need to do some large-scale upgrades, changes and improvements to make sure the clean water flowing across the site was kept clean.

The Ross River Dena Council, to whom the area has been the main hunting, medicinal gathering and culturally important area for millennia, is very engaged in this project and has been for many years. They play a vital role in guiding the decisions made on that site. The river and Rose Creek itself have particular significance. Mr. Mead said:

There was a part of that creek where, as long as oral history can track, people gathered to collect water to make special medicinal tea. That was literally in that Rose Creek component of the system. It was very important for that work to get done in that regard.

The reason for this discussion and this amendment to the Yukon Act in Bill C-47 is because of work such as what has occurred at the Rose Creek diversion.

The people who are most affected by this amendment are those on the ground involved in the cleanup. This amendment ensures timely payment, as the contractors are dealing with one administration rather than several.

Senators, I would be remiss in offering sober second thought to the provisions in the Yukon Act if I did not also offer the opinion that the amendment is interpreted by some as a potential step backward from our devolution agreement and changes to the Yukon Act by the House of Commons voted in this place in 2002.

I appreciate that concern raised and I vividly recall the back and forth regarding the responsibility for the remediation required at the Faro Mine site. Should we, the Yukon, take it on when Canada permitted the project and, quite honestly, reaped the benefits in millions of tax dollars and mineral royalties during the mine’s operation between 1969 and 1998, and who really should be responsible for that cleanup?

On the other hand, having worked so hard to be masters of our own house in settling land claims and negotiating a devolution transfer agreement, should we really be giving Canada back control over the land in this change to the Yukon Act? As I said, some see it as a step backward in the political evolution of the territory.

This amendment allows for Canada to uphold its responsibility and allow for the federal funding to flow smoothly, with less administrative burden for both governments. And it is on this specific site only.

Indigenous rights are maintained, as all works at the Faro site have to go through the YESAA regime, which ensures the role of First Nations and First Nation governments. I would also add that the Yukon Act section 56(1) ensures that the Yukon government must be consulted before any amendments to the act are introduced. Just as we are reminded of the strength of the voice of a duly elected House of Commons, I am reminded that the Yukon government, in supporting this amendment, are the duly elected representatives of the population who have requested this amendment to their constitution.

Colleagues, I appreciate the time you have given me tonight to explain the background behind this amendment to the Yukon Act. I thank you for your time and attention. I would express to you my support for the amendment to the Yukon Act in Part 4, Division 20 of Bill C-47. I, along with the duly elected Yukon government and our member in the other place support this initiative and commend it to the chamber. Gùnáłchîsh, mahsi’cho, thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I want to take just a few minutes to go back to Ms. Harriet Solloway’s appearance at Committee of the Whole and explain our position on her appointment as the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. During her appearance, I was quite concerned by some of Ms. Solloway’s answers.

First of all, the process for her appointment does not appear to have been at all a serious one. She admitted that she had a 10‑minute conversation with the President of the Treasury Board, Minister Mona Fortier. The minister called her from the airport, and Ms. Solloway is under the impression that the minister was focusing on her ability to speak French. This is not a serious effort at due diligence, colleagues.

Secondly, from the answers that we got, it does not look like Ms. Solloway was tested on her vision of the work of the commission, the challenges it poses or how she is equipped to meet those challenges. With this government’s track record for appointments, one would expect Minister Fortier to do more than a 10-minute call from the airport to test the level of conversational French of a candidate. However, I must say, having had this window into the hiring process of the Trudeau government, we can now certainly understand better why some of their previous appointments have fared so poorly.

But in addition, colleagues, to the clear shortcomings in the process, I was also alarmed to hear that Ms. Solloway will be faced with a steep learning curve on this job. I have no doubt in her personal and professional qualities, but from the evidence we received from her, one has to wonder how it was decided that she would be the best candidate for this position. She admitted not knowing the Canadian public sector, having been outside the country since 1996.

She was questioned by several senators, including myself, on her plans for the commission. While we cannot expect candidates to come up with a detailed plan when they appear in front of Parliament, we can expect to be given a general understanding of how the candidate will approach their role. Otherwise, I am not sure how we can assess whether the nominee is well-suited for this position.

Ms. Solloway said it very clearly: She has no general plan for this position and no plan for specific issues raised by senators. And from the answers given to Senator Cardozo, she does not seem to fully understand the role and the functioning of the commission.

Colleagues, we do not feel that we are in a position to stop the appointment of Ms. Solloway, but we felt it was important to put our observations and concerns on the record. For this reason, we will not stand in the way of this appointment, but we will certainly only allow it to go ahead on division.

Thank you.