Senator Lankin: Thank you very much. I’m sorry, colleagues, it appears I have my voice back in this place. Senator Plett’s not clapping. I just want that noted on the record.

Senator Patterson, I was away when this report was tabled. I know of the work that the committee was doing and the general reputation that this report has as being thorough and very good. Recently, I had an opportunity to have a number of conversations with Senator Duncan, who, like you, shares these concerns around Arctic security. We did, in fact, speak about the matters that you’ve raised, so I’m going to refer to that broadly as capital infrastructure required at this point in time.

With the reports that we have seen about foreign investment in the North in resource extraction as well as post-extraction manufacturing, and with the intersection with First Nations governments and the concerns that First Nations have about not having all of the information about these investment approaches, did your committee look at that? Are the recommendations with respect to that contained in this report? If not, is that something that the committee might consider continuing, given the timeliness of these concerns of foreign investment and the risks to national security but placed within the Arctic situation?

Senator D. Patterson: I don’t have the privilege of being a member of this committee, although as a senator, I’m resident in the largest region in the Arctic. Today, I wanted to fully endorse the report.

Yes, it is clear that the committee did speak of the threats to North America from not-so-friendly nations. China considers itself a near-Arctic state, absurdly. Chinese vessels have sailed in our Northwest Passage. Russia is monitoring and threatening our airspace and, as I said, has developed weapons such as over‑the‑horizon supersonic missiles and torpedoes that threaten our current surveillance capabilities. I am keenly aware of these threats.

I had a chance to speak briefly to President Biden about our concern in the North about these threats not only to Canada but also to North America. So yes, the report addresses this in a timely fashion. It builds on work that has been previously done by Senate committees, including a previous report of the Senate Defence Committee and a report of the Special Senate Committee on the Arctic, which also deals with these security threats. Yes, these are issues that have been addressed in a timely manner by the committee.

I urge the Senate to adopt the report so that we can get the government response. Thank you for the questions.

(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Boyer, calling the attention of the Senate to the positive contributions and impacts that Métis, Inuit, and First Nations have made to Canada, and the world.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Senator Housakos, will you take a question? Thank you very much. First of all, thank you for your effort on this and for the remarks that you have delivered today. I have two questions.

The first is with respect to the Broadcasting Act. You taught me something today in terms of the challenges that exist, which you alluded to. You talked about a more straightforward way of administering the intent of the amendment to the Broadcasting Act than the workarounds that have to be done now. I just wonder if you can provide me with a little more information on what the current situation is.

My second question is more of a comment, to say that I appreciate the sensitivity with which you described the discretion allowed to ministers, whether it’s a matter of foreign relations and a Global Affairs Canada, or GAC, or government consideration about what steps might harm those relations and why those relations are important as an executive branch decision. I’m also going to ask you, with your legal background, about the challenge of intelligence to evidence. Do the processes inherent in these amendments allow for the decision makers to have full information? Considering the reasons why intelligence is not made public — protection of sources, statecraft, other sorts of things — how do we get around those sensitivities and the fact that many parliamentarians have, of late, insisted on full transparency without giving any sensitive consideration to those matters that you raised in your speech?

Hon. Frances Lankin: Senator Patterson, will you take a question?

Senator D. Patterson: Yes.