Hon. Jim Quinn moved second reading of Bill S-273, An Act to declare the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System and related works to be for the general advantage of Canada.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise before you today to discuss Bill S-273, An Act to declare the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland system and related works to be for the general advantage of Canada.

The general advantage of Canada is certainly a foundational principle for works that are indeed in the national interest. Regarding the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System that holds back the waters of the Bay of Fundy, this is a work that is clearly in the national interest and for the general advantage of Canada, both due to it being critical infrastructure but also because of the urgent need to adapt to rising sea levels and increased frequency of severe storms due to climate change.

For those in this chamber who are unaware of where the Chignecto Isthmus is located, it is the narrow strip of land predominantly along the Missaguash River, forming the boundary between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The isthmus itself is a vital trade corridor that represents $35 billion in trade, 15,000 vehicle transits per day and hundreds of thousands of people every year. The trade corridor is a choke point for a single national railway, the Trans-Canada Highway and fibre-optic lines that link transatlantic cables.

All those assets that support Canada’s economic prosperity, interprovincial and international trade and communications are at risk due to flooding, were it not for the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System. Perhaps of greatest importance, the dikes protect the tens of thousands of Canadians who live and work in and around the isthmus. The dikes further protect farmlands that are essential to food security, and we have heard several times in this chamber the importance of food security in the face of Canada’s disappearing farms and farmlands.

The Chignecto Isthmus is an area that is shaped by history and the national interest. In the 1600s, the Acadians created one of the first pieces of critical infrastructure in Canada. Constructing the first series of dikes was to help tame the mighty tides of the Bay of Fundy, which, in the area, rise and fall over 50 feet twice every day. These dikes are also key to protecting and improving the agricultural production in the area.

The isthmus is integral to the foundation of Canada. The Fathers of Confederation from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick entered into Confederation in part because section 145 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which obligated the federal government to complete an intercolonial railway linking Nova Scotia with Quebec.

Senators, the same Fathers of Confederation thought it proper to give Parliament the declaratory power to assist in determining which works are in the national interest by transferring jurisdiction.

This is an understandable question to raise: Why use the declaratory power now for this project when it has not been necessary in the past? The answer, colleagues, is unfortunately straightforward: Maritimers and other Canadians who live near coastal waters face the sobering reality that we are no longer in a situation to prevent climate change but, rather, we must adapt to it. The Fathers of Confederation would have been aware of the 1869 “Saxby Gale” that generated the largest historically documented storm surge, which was above the twice-daily high water I referred to earlier by five to seven feet. It devastated Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, particularly the Chignecto Isthmus. The storm caused the 25-foot dikes to fail, destroying croplands, livestock and resulting in the deaths of Canadians who lived in the isthmus.

Senators, that rare occurrence is now projected to be all too common. A 2020 report commissioned by the New Brunswick government indicated that coastal flooding will become more frequent due to sea-level rise, because, in the future, even weaker storm systems will produce flooding impacts like the most extreme storms of the past.

In the region of Chignecto Isthmus, the sea level is rising rapidly. From my experience as CEO of Port Saint John, I can tell you that, when I began that job in 2010, it was unusual to see water on the docks. By the time I left 11 years later, it was not an unusual occurrence.

Further action must be taken now by the federal government. The provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are not arguing that all climate change adaptation measures must fall under federal jurisdiction. The Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System is a distinct and invisible series of works that must be looked at further than simply by the sum of its parts.

The governments of the Atlantic provinces routinely cooperate, because this is a reflection of our shared history and culture. We primarily concern ourselves with doing the right thing rather than whether it’s our responsibility to do so. We do not like to think of a situation where the Atlantic provinces would not get along. However, what if New Brunswick disagreed with prioritizing the upgrades of the dikes in Chignecto? There would be a direct impact on Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, along with the rest of Canada, that rely on that vital trade corridor.

This highlights the necessity of the Chignecto Isthmus being in the federal interest.

I would add that, in the case of Newfoundland, one must remember that cargo goes to Newfoundland largely by marine mode, and that marine mode crosses the isthmus with the goods needed for all of the island of Newfoundland.

As I mentioned in this chamber last June, the Council of Atlantic Premiers issued a communiqué calling upon the Government of Canada to create a new infrastructure program to address the impacts of climate change and build infrastructure that supports economic growth. The premiers noted in their communiqué that the Chignecto Isthmus is a vital corridor that is at risk due to rising sea levels, and reiterated that the federal government has a constitutional responsibility to maintain links between provinces and must fully fund this project.

The Fathers of Confederation, in their wisdom, gave Parliament, via section 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act, 1867, a separate, quasi-judicial power to make a policy — dare I say a political judgment — to both reinforce and transfer jurisdiction from the provinces over works to the federal government. The question before us today in the Senate is whether the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System is for the general advantage of Canada. In other words, is this proposed project so important to the national interest that it warrants jurisdiction being transferred to the federal government for the purposes of rehabilitating the dykeland system? The answer, honourable senators, is “yes.”

Senators, I will be clear that Bill S-273 is not a money bill and does not compel the Government of Canada to spend money. The call by the Atlantic premiers for the Government of Canada to fully fund any program to remediate the Chignecto Isthmus is a policy decision.

Presently, the Government of Canada is offering 50% funding via the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, where the total cost for remediating the dikes is projected at $650 million. I argue that 50% funding is insufficient for something that is in the national interest. Further, the practical reality of the project is that, under the current infrastructure program, New Brunswick will spend disproportionately more money on repairing dikes located in New Brunswick that are more to the benefit of the other Atlantic provinces. Therefore, again, this warrants Parliament invoking the declaratory power.

Colleagues, the use of the declaratory power is helpful to the federal government overall, because it allows them to create the policy exception for 50% funding. We are often told — and I can attest to this from my prior experience as a chief financial officer in the Government of Canada — that jurisdiction is the first line of defence as to why a government should not involve itself in any given matter, especially in the complex world of federal, provincial and territorial relations.

However, colleagues, if there is a trade corridor that is so important to the economic security of Canada, exceptions should be made. In this case, there is the precedent of the Champlain Bridge, where Parliament has already invoked the declaratory power.

Colleagues, in 2014, Parliament passed the New Bridge for the St. Lawrence Act, which declares that the Champlain Bridge and related works are to be for the general advantage of Canada. The new Champlain Bridge connects the Island of Montreal with the south shore of the St. Lawrence River. The bridge is a vital economic corridor with 50 million cars, buses and trucks crossing yearly, which is integral to interprovincial trade and commerce with an estimated value of $20 billion every year. This is of vital importance to the movement of goods and people and to the overall Canadian economy. This same logic is also true for the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System. It is a single point of failure.

I will remind honourable senators that the cost of the new Champlain Bridge was $4.2 billion to be paid exclusively by the federal Government of Canada. In addition, and as Senator Downe is aware, the current government’s decision to remove tolls has also resulted in a revenue loss of at least $3 billion over the first 30 years. That revenue would have accrued to the Province of Quebec. That is being covered by the Government of Canada.

Critically, the Government of Quebec did not contribute on a 50% basis because the Parliament of Canada, via the declaratory power, declared this trade corridor to be in the national interest and gave the legal policy authority for the federal government to assume 100% of the costs. It is fair and reasonable to offer similar agreements to all parts of our federation when there is a national interest at stake.

Honourable senators, Bill S-273 serves a dual purpose: to raise awareness here in our Parliament but also to offer a clear path forward. Atlantic Canadians are all too familiar that our small population translates into fewer seats in the House of Commons. Far too often, our challenges are not well heard.

Due to the Great Depression and the Second World War, the Chignecto Dykeland system began to fall into disrepair, resulting in minor breaches of the dykes. The director of the Dominion Experimental Farms and Nova Scotian E.S. Archibald wrote in 1943 to senior officials within the federal government to take action as part of a wartime emergency:

These breaks in the dykes are jeopardizing the highways and railroads in many sections. Should high tides carry away portions of our railroad or highway it might very well cause a serious setback to the movement of our troops and war material.

Honourable senators, how can one argue that the Chignecto Isthmus, vital to Canada’s war efforts in Europe, is not in the national interest? Mr. Archibald’s request was met initially by only one-third funding. However, in their continual advocacy for regional fairness, Maritimers noted that the federal government already passed the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to deal with environmental threats to agricultural production in Western Canada.

Maritime members of Parliament and senators championed the idea that this program should be expanded nationwide but also include flood mitigation. These efforts resulted in the passing of the 1948 Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act. In this act, the federal government provided 100% of the funding for the Chignecto Isthmus dykes to hold back the Bay of Fundy. Colleagues, it is therefore with great irony that the federal government today is only offering 50-cent dollars for the structures that they fully paid for in the 1940s and 1950s.

In providing a historical overview in a 1951 paper, the head of the federal Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Administration noted that, in addition to provided protection for agriculture, the dykes protected the “town or village services, railroads and highways, all of which makes them essential,” again noting the national interest.

Much like the constitutional commitment of the Government of Canada to build the Intercolonial Railway was instrumental in having Nova Scotia and New Brunswick join Confederation, the creation of the Senate was also key to having the Maritimes enter the larger union.

This chamber serves as a voice of the regions. I am not alone in asking for your support to send this bill to committee. The Provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are asking for the national government to take notice of the vulnerability of the Chignecto Isthmus and to provide additional funding. Bill S-273 serves this goal by removing policy barriers.

For those in this chamber who have concerns about invoking the declaratory power at this stage, replace your concern with curiosity. Again, my only ask is that you support me in referring the bill to committee at the earliest opportunity so that we, as senators, have the ability to study this issue in more detail.

Atlantic Canada is an equal partner in Confederation. Issues affecting Atlantic Canadians are, indeed, in the national interest. I call on all colleagues in this national Parliament to support sending Bill S-273 to committee.

Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: It was moved by the Honourable Senator MacDonald, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Honourable senators, I would like to speak to the fifth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. It has been adjourned in the name of our chair, Senator Bellemare. She has kindly agreed for me to speak today, following which, I believe, she will take the adjournment and reset the clock.

I would like to offer some reflections on this fifth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. The report is compact, coming in at less than one page, not including appendices. Brevity, however, does not always translate into clarity, which is why I want to take a few minutes to highlight what I consider to be the most important finding of the report.

First, let me share a little context.

The object of our study was the rule changes needed for equity between recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups. I had tabled a motion in February 2020 proposing a set of changes of the Rules for this purpose, which Senator Tannas amended slightly in June. The motion died on the Order Paper with the conclusion of the Forty-third Parliament.

The so-called Woo-Tannas motion provided a starting point for our study, since it identified a wide range of Senate Rules that do not reflect equity among groups and caucuses. For example, the Government Representative in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition have unlimited speaking time in debate, whereas the leaders and facilitators of other groups are restricted to just 15 minutes.

On standing votes in the chamber, only the Government Representative Office, or GRO, and the opposition have a say on the duration of bells or on the possibility of a deferred vote, to the exclusion of other recognized parliamentary groups.

When it comes to committees looking to meet on days that the Senate is adjourned, including the first Monday after a break, only the government and the opposition have the power to give consent for such. How many times have we encountered a situation where committee members are ready and willing to meet, only to be thwarted by an opposition veto?

I don’t need to remind all of us here that the sum total of GRO and Conservative Party senators is less than 20% of the Senate membership, and yet their leaderships have the power to make decisions that affect us all.

The vast majority of senators in today’s upper house are non-partisan. We are dispersed among three different groups, with some sitting as non-affiliated members. We are not part of the government. Rather, we are part of what has traditionally been described by this institution as the “opposition.”

There are, however, those who would deny us the ability to fully exercise our equal rights as senators who are not part of the government. They would have us as second-class senators who are allowed, from time to time, to sit in the front of the bus, but only with their consent. The modest changes to the Rules of the Senate and to the Parliament of Canada Act to date have been offered grudgingly and with the condescension of noblesse oblige. We are constantly reminded of how grateful we should be for what we have already been granted and why we should not expect full equality.

Such is the case with the fifth report of the Rules Committee. It is, in many respects, a “non-report” because it offers no solution to the manifest inequality in the Rules of the Senate. Mind you, there was no disagreement in the committee over which rules entrench the unequal treatment of Senate groups. You can see this for yourself in Appendix 2 of the report. A majority of members would have supported changes to those rules, but the committee as a whole was unable to proceed with those changes because of one group’s insistence on maintaining its privileged position in the Senate.

To quote the report:

. . . the Opposition in the Senate considers that its role as opposition comes with certain rights in the Senate’s operating rules and procedures;

Whereas other recognized parliamentary groups consider that they should have the same rights as the Opposition in the Senate’s operating rules and procedures . . .

To paraphrase, one group of senators thinks it should have powers that other groups don’t have.

I’m, of course, referring to the Conservative caucus, which styles itself as the official opposition in the Senate, even though there is no such term in our rules or in the Parliament of Canada Act. The Speaker confirmed as much in her recent response to my point of order. Yet some Conservative senators continue to use the term — indeed, the very senators who claim to be arch‑defenders of parliamentary tradition.

There is a certain desperation in this deliberate distortion of our nomenclature, but it is made worse by the underlying premise that the way the Conservatives carry out the work of opposing in the Senate is superior to the way non-partisan senators do. And what is that allegedly superior style of opposition? Let me quote Senator Plett, who, in response to my question on a speech he made on the Income Tax Act — a speech full of internal contradictions and non sequiturs — had this to say:

I am making a speech that is contrary to what the government is doing, and I don’t need to defend that. . . .

Well, Senator Plett is correct that he doesn’t need to defend a speech that is contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, but, colleagues, that is not what is meant by “sober second thought” and that surely is not the form of opposition that should be privileged by our institution.

The Conservatives pretend to be the true opposition in the Senate, but their goal in doing so is to become the government after the next election. That is the prerogative of political partisans, but it is not reflective of today’s Senate of Canada, which consists overwhelmingly of non-partisan members. Whereas Conservative senators are opposition members for as long as their party is not in power, the rest of us will remain independent of the government — whichever party is in charge. How can we take seriously the claim that the real opposition in the Senate is the group that will ditch that title as soon as it has the opportunity?

Honourable colleagues, we can, of course, have different views on the definition of “opposition,” but I am convinced that senators who remain independent through changes of government reflect a more principled and consistent understanding of what it means to be the opposition in an unelected upper house.

To conclude, allow me to recall how we got into this situation and explain why we have to find a way out. In the discussions surrounding the so-called Woo-Tannas motion, some senators said the proposed rule changes should be first considered by the Rules Committee before coming to the chamber for a decision. Well, the Woo-Tannas motion was studied by the Rules Committee for many months and it failed to come up with a path forward — not because most senators could not agree on the changes that needed to be made, but because one group of senators representing less than 15% of members does not believe in equity among all Senate groups. That is what it boils down to, and that is what I ask all senators to reflect on as we ponder next steps for bringing about a fairer distribution of powers among Senate groups. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: It was moved by the Honourable Senator MacDonald, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(On motion of Senator MacDonald, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fifth report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, entitled Equity between recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups, tabled in the Senate on March 9, 2023.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Would Senator Woo take a question?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Senator Woo, your remarks about gratitude versus equity evoked a real response in me. When I became a Canadian citizen in 1985, I was told by many to be grateful. It is a poor replacement for equity.

I connect my remarks to your comments on the report by the Rules Committee. I am a member of the Rules Committee, but the study that you spoke about took place before I became a member.

In this chamber and in other committees — Legal, Social, Internal Economy — all committees do important work. In my experience in the Senate, committees vote when a decision has to be made. So I am to understand from your speech that while the majority of the members of the Rules Committee agreed with the motion, because it was not unanimous, the majority was disregarded.

How does the Rules Committee understand consensus? Is it simply that everybody has to agree and therefore it is the lowest common denominator?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I rise today to speak to Motion No. 107, which was brought forward by our colleague, Senator Deacon. Even though my level of interest and expertise in all things digital are far from rivalling his own, I support his efforts to make the delivery of public services more efficient and accessible.

[English]

I must begin by confessing that when I first saw Senator Deacon’s motion, my immediate reaction was to think, “Finally, a chance to rant against government websites.” But then I thought that would not be very constructive in light of what the motion seeks to do.

Still, I would say that we are presented with a kind of paradox. By voting in favour of this motion — and I will — we are asking the government to do more of something it has been pretty bad at. It would be tempting to spend 10 minutes railing against the dysfunction of some of our online services, but I will resist.

Consider only two anecdotes. The first comes from a family of Canadian permanent residents in Montreal. They are immigrants from Eastern Europe. Both are telecommunications engineers. They have two children. They have lived in Canada for a few years, and recently had to renew their permanent resident cards as they prepare to apply for Canadian citizenship. This was a formality. So they went onto the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, website and they started to fill out the online forms for their family of four. These are fairly complex applications, even for people who are already permanent residents.

The father started working on the process one evening, and after encountering some difficulties, he decided to take a day off only to fill out the applications online, but it did not work. For some reason, the government site made it impossible to submit the application. So this man, a telecommunications engineer, started looking for advice, and he discovered entire blogs dedicated to dealing with the IRCC system. He was told the name of his street might be too long. He was told to try to add spaces in his postal code. He was told not to use capital letters. He was told other things, but in the end, nothing worked.

After wasting more than one day on his family’s online application, this very smart and technologically capable man printed the application documents and sent them in paper form.

[Translation]

Here’s the second anecdote. Everyone knows there’s a dire shortage of doctors in the regions, including in Quebec’s Laurentians region. Five years ago, two doctors from France came to lend a hand, and they now have 2,700 patients between the two of them.

Unfortunately, we recently found out that Isabelle Branco and Jean-Louis Ménard had to put their appointments on hold and were in danger of losing their work permits. That means they’re no longer treating their patients, ostensibly because a code was missing from their file even though it had been sent several days earlier.

Fortunately, the whole thing was cleared up yesterday, but apparently it took the media getting involved to sort things out.

It’s something of a paradox. Government websites have been making lots of people, including me, want to tear their hair out for years, yet we still want more. We need more.

Why? Simple: We now live much of our lives online. We pay our bills online. We communicate online. We bank online. We research online. We shop online.

Steve’s Music Store, a Montreal institution, had this motto: “If we don’t have it, you don’t need it.” These days, if something isn’t on the internet, it doesn’t exist.

That’s why we need the federal government to increase the quantity and improve the quality of its online services.

I will not repeat the statistics given by Senator Deacon regarding Canada’s low digital government ranking, nor will I dwell on the cost savings, because, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s recent reports show, those are difficult to quantify. In any case, the digital transformation is not just about cutting costs. It’s about making life easier and making sure that our public services remain accessible as technology evolves.

In order for that to happen, I would suggest that our federal government focus on two issues in particular.

The first is simplicity. The primary objective of this motion is to increase the quantity of services available online. However, I think that will be impossible if we don’t also improve the quality of those services.

Government websites must be simple to use and written in plain language, not Klingon. The sites must contain simple instructions with an easy log-in and authentication process. They also need to be reliable and flexible. They should not be designed to accept only specific file types, requests, software applications, certificates, characters, browsers or formats. They must be designed so that a 10-year-old child or a 64-year-old adult, like me, can use them without screaming or bursting into tears.

[English]

The Parliamentary Budget Officer report contains an encouraging paragraph on this point:

As part of this goal, the federal government created a link between [an individual’s Canada Revenue Agency and his or her Service Canada Account]. This allows for a single sign‑in and is based on a “tell us once” principle. . . . In addition to being able to connect between [different agencies’ accounts], the federal government also partnered with certain financial institutions . . . and some provinces to access Government of Canada services. The purpose of offering different choices of login credentials . . . is to make its online services “more convenient for clients to access” and having “one less username and password for clients to remember”.

I would like to take a minute to make sure that the eternal archives of the Senate record this critically important prescription for the future of humanity: Please give us fewer usernames and passwords to remember.

The second issue that I think needs to be addressed is that of privacy and information security. I have zero technical knowledge about these issues. To be perfectly frank, these are not problems that wake me up at night — perhaps because I am naive, or because my personal information is fairly boring. But I know that a lot of people are very concerned about privacy and information security — I have one friend in particular — and I know these things matter. As the federal government moves forward with the transition to digital services and digital identification, it must make sure to adopt best practices and be completely transparent about what it does.

This is not just a matter of information security. It’s also a matter of public trust in our institutions, which is something that has implications beyond the delivery of government services. At a time when, sadly, public trust in our institutions seems to be at an all-time low, our government needs to be exemplary in its approach to digital interactions and information processing.

I conclude by reiterating my support for Motion No. 107. The federal government must continue to transition to digital service delivery, and it must do it faster and better. I do not expect this major transformation to be completed in the short term. However, and for this reason, I am grateful to have my husband, children and younger staff to help me navigate these evil web portals. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kutcher, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cormier:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to examine and report on the negative impact of health disinformation and misinformation on Canadian society and what effective measures can be implemented to counter this impact; and

That the committee submit its final report on this study to the Senate no later than May 31, 2024, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Woo, your time has expired. Do you wish to finish your answer?

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a “no.”

(On motion of Senator Bellemare, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Deacon (Nova Scotia), seconded by the Honourable Senator Smith:

That the Senate call on the Government of Canada to replace its outdated program delivery and information technology systems by urgently accelerating the implementation of user-friendly, digital solutions that transform the public service delivery experience of Canadians, and ultimately reduce the cost of program delivery.

Hon. Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia: Honourable senators, today I rise to speak in support of my colleague Senator Stan Kutcher’s Motion No. 113 to authorize the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to study health misinformation, its impacts on Canadians and potential remedies. Today, I would like to focus my time on discussing some of what we currently know about vaccine hesitancy and misinformation in Canada, its causes and potential solutions.

As the world continues to work through the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccinations continue to play a critical role in keeping our communities safe. We must recognize that the pandemic had a once-in-a-generation impact. It is inevitable that there would be diverse viewpoints on such a seismic event. Unfortunately, in a digitized age, it is easier than ever before for those with views based on misinformation — whether intentionally so or not — to spread their message. At this time — when the need for vaccine uptake is at an ultimate high — vaccine hesitancy has only grown, and continues to increase not only for COVID-19 vaccines, but also for other routine immunizations. In effect, this creates windows of opportunity for the spread of preventable diseases — many of which we’ve even forgotten about — and the attendant risk to human life.

While it is true that any vaccine may have varying side effects as it is introduced to an individual’s immune system, overall vaccines remain a safe and critical way to prevent severe diseases and save lives. We have known this since Edward Jenner first developed the smallpox vaccine in 1796, which later eradicated the disease. From the beginning of the development of the first vaccines until today, humanity has continued to witness the strengths and benefits of vaccines, as they have prevented mass deaths from diseases like polio, measles, rubella, tetanus and hepatitis B.

In the past few decades, recently developed vaccines have provided people with safety against diseases like shingles; increased access to protection against HPV; and given children protection from the painful childhood disease — which I’m sure many of us have experienced — chicken pox. Just last week, Dr. Katalin Karikó and Dr. Drew Weissman were awarded the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work that enabled the development of effective vaccines against COVID-19 using the mRNA technology.

New vaccines are currently being developed, and give us hope for the prevention of future pain and suffering. As researchers work hard to find protection for the world’s most vulnerable populations from diseases like malaria and HIV, we must stay vigilant in ensuring that public trust in vaccines and scientific research is not tarnished by misinformation. The hard work of doctors, scientists and researchers to prevent the spread of these diseases will only be realized if the vaccines are taken up by the public, and proper protocol is developed and employed to ensure accurate education about the benefits and potential side effects — I repeat, potential side effects — of any given vaccine, given the fact that nothing is 100% proven.

Global trust in data-driven science is critical for the safety and health of all populations across our globe, and to prevent societies from backsliding into preventable health crises. UNICEF has reported that the public perception of the importance of vaccines for children has declined through the pandemic in 52 of the 55 countries it studied. One of those countries, unfortunately, is Canada. UNICEF has indicated that factors contributing to this decline include “. . . uncertainty about the response to the pandemic, growing access to misleading information, declining trust in expertise, and political polarization.”

This increase in vaccine hesitancy coincides with an increase in preventable diseases among children who are unvaccinated. UNICEF has reported that the number of measles cases in the world doubled in 2022, and the number of children with polio increased by 16% over the previous year.

The spread of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, along with more generalized fear mongering and misinformation about other vaccines, is of great concern. Confidence in vaccinations has been declining in Canada to the detriment of the health of our communities and our children as we see outbreaks of preventable diseases here in our own nation. Well-proven vaccines are being baselessly attacked in some circles, with fewer people accessing them — leading to preventable childhood diseases, like tetanus and measles, that have a negative impact on communities and those who are unfortunately impacted.

We also know that many of the children in Canada who missed vaccines throughout the pandemic live in communities that are often marginalized or in hardship areas. However, we have evidence from various studies that shows us there are ways to support Canadians who are hesitant about vaccines, and to rebuild the trust in our public health system.

According to recent surveys through the Public Health Agency of Canada, the most trusted source of information on vaccine safety continues to be medical health professionals. Among those who were hesitant about vaccines, the most common path that led to them choosing to have their children vaccinated was the discussions they had with their doctors, nurse practitioners, public health nurses and other public health representatives. These findings are reassuring in that they emphasize the significant role that public health care workers play in dispelling myths about vaccines and educating community members about the safety, efficacy and significance of vaccination and immunization.

In my own experience with children in Newfoundland and Labrador, I have always been impressed with how vigilant our public health nurses are and continue to be in ensuring that children’s immunization records are well-kept and that those who are missing immunizations are followed up and vaccinated in a timely manner. Where hesitancy comes up, appropriate consultation with health care providers is arranged.

The incidents of preventable childhood diseases in Newfoundland and Labrador are very low, and I believe this reflects the solid foundation of community immunization that has been established by a rich tradition of public health nurses and physicians.

This is an example of the strength of community-based efforts in public health education in support of vaccination. Establishing and re-establishing trust in vaccines is critical in protecting the health and well-being of all of our communities.

Honourable senators, it is important that we learn more about the effects of misinformation on vaccines and public health across the communities we represent in this country. I thank Senator Kutcher for opening this platform to dialogue and bringing forward such an important initiative. And for those of you who have not yet had your shingles vaccine, my prescription pad is ready and waiting. Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Woo, calling the attention of the Senate to the one hundredth anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the contributions that Chinese Canadians have made to our country and the need to combat contemporary forms of exclusion and discrimination faced by Canadians of Asian descent.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Inquiry No. 11, which calls our attention to the one hundredth anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act. I would like to thank Senator Woo for bringing forward this timely inquiry. I believe that one of Canada’s great strengths is our capacity to self-reflect on the mistakes that we have made in the past. Senator Woo’s inquiry gives us an opportunity to ensure, upon reflection, that we never go down this path again.

Many of my colleagues have weighed in and continue to weigh in, but I’d like to focus my comments on the gendered impact of discriminatory immigration policies on the Chinese community.

During the 24 years that the Chinese Exclusion Act was in place, Canada admitted fewer than 50 Chinese people. This was indeed a very cruel way to repay the contributions of the 17,000 Chinese labourers who played an essential role in building the Canadian Pacific Railway, which was the first great infrastructure nation-building project of Canada.

When the railway was completed in 1885, instead of rewarding the Chinese labourers, Parliament enacted the Chinese Immigration Act, which placed a head tax of $50 on Chinese people coming to Canada. In 1903, $50 was increased to $500, equal to about two years’ salary of an ordinary person. This exorbitant amount meant many Chinese labourers could not afford to bring their wives. In 1921, it is no surprise that the ratio of Chinese men to women in Canada was 15 to 1.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923 ensured that this ratio remained disparate. Over 90% of the wives of Chinese men were left behind in China. During their husbands’ prolonged absences, wives had the responsibility of raising children and looking after parents. Visits by husbands were short and infrequent because their right to return to Canada would be revoked if they were away for more than two years. Remember, colleagues, there were no airplanes, there were no jets; there was only the long way with the ship. Many children grew up barely knowing their fathers.

Canada did not repeal the Chinese Exclusion Act until 1947. When it did, it was replaced by a restrictive race-based immigration policy under which only those Chinese who already had a Canadian citizenship were allowed to sponsor their families. In other words, it was a restrictive measure of a different kind. The same rules, of course, did not apply to European immigrants. Twenty years later, after the points system was adopted, Chinese people finally began to be admitted under the same criteria as other ethnic groups.

Wives who succeeded in entering Canada in the 1950s and 1960s found their lives fundamentally transformed. Having lived without a spouse for years, they had to deal with readjusting to husbands they barely knew. Many put in long working hours labouring in their husband’s small businesses or took on multiple manual jobs.

In the early years of their arrival in Canada, Chinese women found themselves socially isolated and excluded. But it was their daughters and their granddaughters who took up their cause for justice. Chinese Canadian women like Avvy Go, Chow Quen Lee and Susan Eng were instrumental in campaigning for an apology and a redress.

As the President of the Toronto Chapter of the Chinese Canadian National Council, Avvy Go became involved in the campaign in 1989. She was co-counsel in the class-action lawsuit seeking redress for the head taxpayers and their families. One of the three litigants who led the lawsuit was Chow Quen Lee. Separated from her husband for 14 years because of the act, she was an outspoken activist. Although the lawsuit was ultimately dismissed, it set into motion talks with the government that ended with an official parliamentary apology in 2006.

As co-chair of the Ontario Coalition of Head Tax Payers and Families, Susan Eng convinced VIA Rail to sponsor the Redress Express, during which about 100 people boarded a train from Vancouver to travel to Ottawa to hear the apology.

I want to also note the contributions of Dora Nipp, Chief Executive Officer of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario. She comes from a family who helped build the railway and paid the head tax. As a historian, Dora Nipp has conducted extensive oral history interviews documenting the experiences of immigrants to Canada. She has also produced various works, including directing Under the Willow Tree, a documentary on pioneer Chinese women in Canada.

These women fought for justice and they were ultimately successful, with the government handing out symbolic payments to roughly 400 survivors and widows in 2006.

The Chinese Exclusion Act and other discriminatory measures had profound and lasting impacts on Chinese women and families. It took until 1981 for the sex ratio in the Chinese Canadian community to equalize. On the one hundredth anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, it’s important to recognize not just the prejudice that the community faced but also the tremendous perseverance it took to have these injustices reversed. Canadian Chinese women played a significant role in seeking and achieving this redress. In their honour, I thank you, colleagues.

[Translation]

Hon. Marie-Françoise Mégie: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Woo’s inquiry, the goal of which is to call the attention of the Senate to the one hundredth anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the contributions that Chinese Canadians have made to our country, and the need to combat contemporary forms of exclusion and discrimination faced by Canadians of Asian descent.

As Senator Woo pointed out on February 14, 2023:

 . . . 100 years ago, in this chamber, senators voted to adopt the Chinese Immigration Act, 1923. This piece of legislation is better known as the Chinese Exclusion Act . . . .

Senator Kutcher, Senator Simons, Senator McCallum, Senator Jaffer and Senator Oh also spoke to this inquiry.

They all provided numerous examples to illustrate the systemic discrimination suffered by Chinese Canadians. They also highlighted the important contributions made to our country by the Chinese and Asian communities, in spite of everything.

As I listened to my colleagues’ speeches, I too felt compelled to speak out. The last thing I want to do is conflate the issues, but Black communities have also been targeted by similar legislative measures in Canada.

The Canadian Encyclopedia states, and I quote:

Order-in-Council P.C. 1324 was approved on 12 August 1911 by the Cabinet of Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The purpose of the order was to ban Black persons from entering Canada for a period of one year because, it read, “the Negro race...is deemed unsuitable to the climate and requirements of Canada.”

The time periods might be different, as the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed 12 years later, but there are many similarities between the discrimination faced by the Chinese and Black communities in Canada, which proves, unfortunately, that history repeats itself.

It is therefore essential to fight contemporary forms of exclusion and discrimination that many Canadians still face to this day.

I thank Senator Woo for his dedication to bringing awareness to the systemic discrimination that Chinese Canadians experience. The exhibit he put together in the Senate foyer shines a light on a very dark chapter of Canada’s history that gets left out of the school books. As Senator Woo mentioned, the exhibit acts as a tangible link to the past and as a call for vigilance against all modern forms of exclusion.

This call resonated with Prime Minister Trudeau. Let me read out a passage from the statement he issued on May 14, 2023:

[The Chinese Exclusion Act] was a dark time in Canada’s history that has lasting impacts today. Along with the Chinese Immigration Act of 1885, which imposed a head tax on Chinese newcomers to Canada, the racist 1923 legislation almost completely prevented people from China from entering Canada for 24 years. It remained in place until its eventual repeal on this day in 1947. This systemic discrimination and racist policy separated loved ones, impoverished families, and reinforced prejudice against people of Chinese origin in Canada – scars that would endure for generations.

My dear colleagues, we absolutely have to take the opportunity presented by this inquiry to improve our knowledge of Canadian History with a capital “H.”

As historians have told us over and over, if we don’t learn from history, we’re doomed to repeat it.

As you can see from reviewing the sequence of events, that happened in 1911 and in 1923. Never again must we pass such discriminatory laws.

Our role is to transmit our values of inclusion and equality to future generations so they can live in a more just country.

To eliminate all forms of racism, whether implicit or explicit, we here in this chamber must remain vigilant.

Thank you.

Hon. Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia: Honourable senators, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to the inquiry initiated by Senator Woo. The purpose is twofold: to celebrate the invaluable contributions that Chinese Canadians have made but also to reflect on the prejudice, exclusion and discrimination that Canadians of Chinese descent have faced and continue to face.

I would like to thank Senators Jaffer, McCallum, Simons, Oh and Kutcher for speaking to this important matter — and, of course, to our speakers today as well.

The contributions of the Chinese community in Newfoundland and Labrador are a significant but often overlooked aspect of our province’s history. The Chinese community has played — and continues to play — a vital role in shaping our cultural, economic and social fabric.

The first Chinese immigrants arrived in Newfoundland in the 1890s, and word spread throughout St. John’s that two Chinese immigrants would be opening a laundry business. Over the next few decades, the city and the province would continue to attract Chinese immigrants.

Colleagues, this was at a time when Newfoundland’s population was almost entirely White, Christian and English-speaking. In 1906, the province had legislation — the Act Respecting the Immigration of Chinese Persons — that imposed a $300 head tax on each Chinese immigrant entering the colony. This equalled between one and three years’ earnings and was a significant barrier to entry for Chinese immigrants. Despite the challenges and prejudice faced by Chinese Newfoundlanders, their perseverance and strength as a community remained remarkable, and their contributions to our society and growth continued to be exceptional.

In the 1920s, the Chinese community turned towards opening restaurants and is now credited with helping build the dining-out culture in our province. Early Chinese restaurants served foods Newfoundlanders knew about and loved, like fish and chips and roast chicken. Despite this, Chinese immigrants maintained their traditional cuisine at home and faced the challenges of sourcing traditional ingredients. In downtown St. John’s in 1968, Mary Jane’s was the first health food store to carry some Chinese groceries. Today, there are multiple grocery stores in St. John’s as the community continues to grow and thrive.

When Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949, the Chinese head tax came to an end. With changes to immigration policy in 1967, Chinese immigrants to Newfoundland and Labrador became more diversified in their professions, backgrounds and practices, including health, science, engineering, mining and the fishing industry.

In 1976, The Chinese Association of Newfoundland & Labrador was established to promote Chinese culture and tradition throughout our province and nurture communities in preserving and celebrating Chinese heritage. The association is operated by volunteers who organize and promote events, including Chinese New Year celebrations, performances and memorial services. In 1981, the association, along with their community partners, erected a memorial in Mount Pleasant Cemetery in St. John’s to honour the Chinese immigrant community in Newfoundland from the time of their first arrival in the 1890s.

Elsewhere in St. John’s, a different memorial stands to honour the 300 Chinese men that had to pay the head tax in Newfoundland. This monument was created in 2010 by the Newfoundland and Labrador Head Tax Redress Organization, a group working to educate on and preserve the awareness of this dark chapter in our history. The monument is placed on the site of Saint John’s’ first Chinese hand laundry, which was opened in 1895.

In 2006, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador made a formal apology for the Chinese head tax, delivered by then‑premier Danny Williams.

Today, our Chinese community is the largest visible minority, representing 1.3% of St. John’s’ population, or approximately 1,500 people. In broader Newfoundland, there are approximately 2,300 people of Chinese ethnicity, making up 0.5% of the population of our province. Despite these seemingly small numbers, the Chinese community in Newfoundland is strong, active and heavily influential.

I’m also proud to say that the growth of Memorial University has been a source for an increase in Chinese immigration to Newfoundland, with students and academics being drawn to the province for their education and for educating us.

Members of the community have continuously brought their traditions to Newfoundland and Labrador and generously shared their culture with the non-Chinese community. Recently, members of the community have brought traditional music to St. John’s audiences with performances featuring the traditional instrument, the guzheng. The YY Guzheng Ensemble has been performing for the St. John’s community and spreading the love for Chinese music throughout the community. The group has 15 members with ages ranging from their early teens to their 70s with a common love for music and tradition.

Honourable senators, despite a dark chapter and the incredible difficulties that the community faced, today they are an integral part of our province’s history. Chinese immigrants and their descendants continue to play a crucial role in our economic, cultural and social development. Their legacy of resilience and determination serves as a testament to the importance of recognizing and addressing historical injustices, like the head tax, while celebrating the rich diversity that makes my beloved province a unique and inclusive place to call home. Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Petitclerc, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[English]

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-13(2), I move:

That the Senate do now adjourn.