Hon. Jim Quinn: Would you take another question, senator?

First, I want to say that I appreciate you bringing the bill forward. I support the bill, but on the question of this amendment, I’m a bit confused, in a way, in that, as Senator Patterson said, the government has had many court cases that it has had to deal with because of oversights in consultations with First Nations. While section 35 is there and there is a duty to consult, that often is challenged in the courts and often results in lengthy, multi-year court cases at great expense to everyone.

This legislation is so fundamental in terms of Aboriginal rights, as you said, for sustenance hunting and things of that nature that wouldn’t it be an advantage to make sure that as officials look at the regulations, that there is not an “oops” moment and that they are absolutely sure that they must consult First Nations rather than, yes, section 35 is there, but that will lead to court cases that could go on for long periods of time?

Hon. Jim Quinn: Would the senator take a question?

Thank you for your remarks, senator. My question is pretty simple, and that is that I think all of us, when we were appointed — certainly since 2016 — had a tremendous interaction with the Prime Minister who reminded us that he would like us to give serious consideration to his policies but to add value where we thought value was necessary and strengthen that process.

Clause 8, I think, is greater certainty, and if this chamber, in its wisdom, decides that, “Yes, we are going to accept the amendment,” would you agree that it’s not the government that we send it back to? We send it back to the elected chamber, which includes government members, of course, but it also includes the entire chamber. Shouldn’t that be our job, if we agree, to let the elected chamber vote and decide whether they agree or not?

Hon. Jim Quinn: Would the senator take a question?

Hon. Jim Quinn: Yes.

Hon. Jim Quinn: I would like to ask a question if the senator will take one.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Thank you for joining us this afternoon, Mr. Duclos.

[English]

When bidders respond to tender requests, they respond to technical and other requirements as outlined in the tender and submit their cost for delivery of a service and a product. Our process is such that the lowest qualified bid wins the contract. However, far too often the qualified bid with the lowest price has been underbid to the point that “extras” or “work arisings” result in a final price that far exceeds the price submitted in the bid. What steps can the government take to reduce the risk associated with underbidding?

If I can go back briefly — because I know time is always too short — to your first question on the integrity of the process, I can assure you that it is my responsibility and the responsibility of my officials to make sure that when a contract is awarded, the requirements that the businesses signing those contracts accept are followed up on and enforced if it is necessary to enforce them.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Honourable senators, I rise before you today to honour my friend Walter Ball — a well-respected family man, music teacher, city councillor, problem solver and community leader from my city of Saint John, New Brunswick — who passed away on September 23 at the age of 92. Years ago, I was introduced to Walter through my sister Eileen and her friend Tzigane, Walter’s daughter.

Walter was known to welcome many people into his home. He was a genuine and humble man who loved to help others. He was involved with the local YMCA and helped support families while they settled into the community. Walter was part of the homestay program with the university to help house students in his own home — students from as far away as China who attended the University of New Brunswick Saint John — so they would feel more comfortable while studying abroad. He felt that integrating people from other countries was important, and that everyone should be welcomed with open arms.

He was a talented concert pianist who studied at the Toronto Conservatory of Music in the 1950s. He competed in piano concert competitions all over the world, visiting over 40 countries throughout the years. He embraced different cultures and languages all while enjoying his passion for music.

In the 1960s, Walter had his own TV show in Saint John called “Kaleidoscope.” He interviewed people in the arts and was able to incorporate and play music, which was themed to the subject of the interview.

Walter taught music in schools throughout the years. He connected with his students through music, and believed that everyone could perform musically.

He inspired many students, teaching tens of thousands, and formed multiple successful choirs throughout the decades that won many awards. One of his students recalled, “You just wanted to be good for him.”

He founded a steel band and personally built steel drums by hand for his students, as well as developing his own sheet music so everyone in his class could learn to play those drums.

Later, in the mid-1970s, the Lancaster Kiwanis Steel Band evolved as a performance band, once performing for former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau — on the tarmac of the Saint John Airport — when he visited our city. He continued to perform around the world, touring up until their last performance in France in 1984, and many of the band’s original members continue to play in newly formed bands today. In 1985, he became the executive director of Festival by the Sea, formed in conjunction with the Canada Games when they came to Saint John.

Walter was a builder of not just steel drums but all manner of things. When his granddaughter was 2 years old, he researched plans for and built her a rocking horse, which led him to build 200 more commissioned pieces over the next 15 years.

He later built his home on the Kennebecasis River with his sons, Conrad and Spenser, where he lived with his wife of 60 years, Suzanne, and continued to play piano until his recent passing.

Rest easy, my friend, and may you continue to shine with style with your many berets and capes from above. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Thank you, senator, for a very informative speech; it was wonderful. My question is to help gather a bit of clarification.

You mentioned that we’re losing seven farms on average in Canada every day. There is no doubt that supply management is essential to the sustainability of those sectors that you talked about. What about the other farms — even some of the ones under supply management — that are at risk because of other factors? How will the committee take that into consideration? Do you anticipate that will be raised at committee?

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: Thank you for your question, senator. I’ll start by clarifying that I’m not a supply management expert. What I’m focusing on is Canadians’ needs and their food security and food sovereignty. Therefore, if other sectors need protection, I believe the government is entitled to put them forward. I think we need to be guided by the knowledge that this bill is for Canadians because it involves their food security.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moncion, seconded by the Honourable Senator Yussuff, for the adoption of the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, entitled Senate Budget 2023-24, presented in the Senate on February 7, 2023.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Senator Wells, would you take a question?

Senator Wells: I certainly would, Senator Quinn.

Hon. Jim Quinn: I have a question for Senator Gold.

First, thank you for the detailed explanation of those amendments that were accepted and those that were not accepted. My commentary and question are along the lines of much that has already been discussed, so I will stay away from that.

It is a given that we would have preferred clarity in the bill. I think Canadians need that clarity, but I also accept what you said: that regulatory science is a flexible science.

You’ve mentioned that there were so many experts and witnesses, et cetera, who were in favour of the bill. There were also those who were not, and we’ve all received countless numbers of emails. We’ve heard from witnesses who weren’t in favour of proposed section 4.2. With all respect, I thought that our colleagues Senator Miville-Dechêne and Senator Simons did an excellent job in bringing a compromise to us. Unfortunately, the other place rejected that particular amendment.

You also reminded us in your remarks about our role as senators, and there have been papers written by Senator Harder, and also recently by Senator Miville-Dechêne and Senator Omidvar, reminding us of what our roles are.

Where I’m going with this is that we’ve had our kick at the cat. We’ve done our job. We’ve sent it to over to the other side, where they are the elected people. At the end of the day, if they include or do not include an amendment, they have to stand before the people and be voted in or out.

My question is, for all those people who have come to our offices expressing concern exactly on proposed section 4.2, which is the crux of the matter here, what more can the government do to give them reassurance? What plan does the government have to communicate what you’ve communicated to us?

Hon. Jim Quinn: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Gold, I respect the position that you are in as government leader responding to questions asked in this chamber, and given the myriad of questions asked of you, it is unreasonable to expect that you have all of the information on hand for the entire Government of Canada. I think it is entirely reasonable for you to make inquiries and follow-up regarding parliamentary returns.

The concern that I have is the length of time it regularly takes to receive answers to written questions and delayed answers. For example, over the past weeks, there were answers tabled to written questions dating back to 2021 and several others that were asked many months ago.

Senator Gold, would you agree that these extended timelines impact the ability of senators to fulfill their role as parliamentarians by limiting their ability to have timely information on government policy?

Hon. Jim Quinn: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of the collaborative efforts in raising our awareness of the challenges facing our global environment. My remarks today will briefly focus on the marine sector and share some of the progressive efforts of that sector to improve its environmental performance generally and specifically here in Canada.

Before I begin, I want to acknowledge the leadership of our colleagues Senators Coyle and Kutcher, who have provided such by bringing together Senators for Climate Solutions. They have organized discussions and presentations by international and national experts working to inform the public and governments of the serious climate change challenges facing our planet, and as one of our presenters so poignantly noted, “it is not just about saving our planet; it is in fact about saving humanity.”

I thank Senators Coyle and Kutcher for their leadership in that area that is so important for all of us as global efforts need to contribute to work that will build on and find solutions to slow down, and hopefully some day reverse, climate change and its devastating effects.

Marine transportation has always been a backbone for moving people and cargo locally, nationally and indeed globally. There is no denying its impact on our global economy. Over the past couple of years, we’ve seen serious disruptions in global supply chains resulting in shortages of essential goods and rapidly increasing prices. Indeed, this situation was and is driven largely by high consumer demand, and this in turn has resulted in historic cost for marine shipping. After all, globally, approximately 90% of everyday goods from food products, electronics, automobiles, clothing, energy products, furniture — you name it — is mainly moved by vessels.

In the Canadian context, over 80% of our everyday goods pass through our ports. Our 17 Canadian port authorities handle 340 million tons of cargo every year, maintain over 200,000 jobs and contribute a direct economic impact of $36 billion.

With the huge volume of vessels moving around the globe and the continuous operation of ports — all essential activities supplying goods to our world community — there’s no doubt that we need to advance ways of reducing their environmental impact. So, too, is taking a global approach in finding solutions to reduce the environmental impacts of this shipping activity.

The United Nations’ International Maritime Organization, more commonly referred to as the IMO, is the focal point for working with its 175 member states in dealing with all matters tied to shipping. It has four pillars of focus, one of which deals with the prevention and, indeed, the reduction of pollution from ships.

Over the decades, numerous standards and regulations have been collaboratively developed by this organization, dealing with numerous topics such as increasing strict regulations concerning ships’ discharge, rules governing the handling of ships’ water ballast to reduce the risk of invasive species being introduced to domestic waters, requirements for the types of paint ships may use — that may sound strange, but ships use a lot of paint — eliminating things like lead and so many other initiatives that are aimed at reducing ships’ environmental impacts.

But perhaps one of the more important initiatives has been the establishment of Emission Control Areas, which are areas that have been designated in different regions of the world where ships must burn fuels that are required to dramatically reduce emissions such as sulphur, nitrous oxide and others.

In our case, together with the United States, our Emission Control Area creates a 200-mile-wide boundary that requires vessels to burn much cleaner fuels while operating offshore and coming into our waters. This ensures that vessels operating in our coastal waters and ports have significantly reduced emissions, delivering important benefits to large segments of our population as well as to our marine and terrestrial ecosystems.

Canada itself has also provided leadership in this important area of reducing pollution and greening of operations at sea and in ports.

In 2007, various players in the marine industry in Canada formed Green Marine, the leading environmental certification program for North America’s maritime industry. It’s a voluntary initiative that helps its participants to improve their environmental performance beyond regulations. Green Marine targets key environmental issues related to air, water, soil quality and community relations. It’s an inclusive, rigorous and transparent initiative that brings together several types of participants: ship owners, ports, terminal operators, shipyards and the seaway corporations based in Canada and the United States.

To obtain Green Marine certification, participants must complete a progressively rigorous process that has clear, measurable results that are audited by industry experts every two years to ensure results are maintained while encouraging continuous improvement. The membership also encompasses associations, supporters and partners that each, in their own way, support participants in their efforts to reduce their environmental footprint.

From its humble beginnings that focused on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, Green Marine now brings together hundreds of members from across North America with different backgrounds that all share the same objective: to improve the maritime industry’s environmental performance through concrete and measurable actions.

Its influence has reached across the Atlantic Ocean to France, where Green Marine Europe was formed in 2020. It operates on the same proven model created right here in Canada. Most recently, a large ferry operator in Australia has become a member of Green Marine, clearly demonstrating its value, its work and its leadership in addressing marine-related activities at sea and in port, and how steps can be taken to reduce environmental impacts. I applaud the great work of Green Marine and the leadership it provides on that global stage.

As a long-serving CEO of one of Canada’s busiest ports, Port Saint John, New Brunswick, I would be remiss if I did not speak briefly of our Canadian port authorities and how climate change can affect them and our economy. I would also like to mention some of the initiatives they have introduced and continue to implement.

Ports are part of Canada’s critical infrastructure, connecting land to water and subsequently connecting interior roads and rail links that are particularly vulnerable to climate change-related weather, erosion, fire, flooding, rising water levels and other events.

A couple of examples demonstrate the reality and the risk potential of these climate change-related factors. All of us can recall the fires and floods that affected our West Coast ports, notably Vancouver. Those events cost our economy billions of dollars and significantly disrupted our supply chains. Our West Coast ports are not alone, as our central and eastern ports have also experienced various weather events that have disrupted operations and compromised supply chain efficiencies.

Our ports also face other significant climate change risks, such as in the Tantramar marsh area that connects New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. That area is protected from flooding by a series of very old dikes that will fail as weather events continuously promote erosion and rising sea waters, which will, in the short-to-medium term, exceed the limits of protection offered by the dikes.

Failure of these dikes is not an option as the Port of Halifax, Canadian National Railway and the Trans-Canada Highway — all critical components of Canada’s supply chain — cross the marsh and would be inoperable. Certainly, such a failure would have disastrous effects on local communities such as Sackville, New Brunswick, and Amherst, Nova Scotia, as well as many others. That flooding would have a devastating impact on local, provincial as well as our national economies.

Our ports have also been taking action to reduce and mitigate their own impact on climate change, while taking action to protect the environment and port ecosystems. All Canadian port authorities are members and active participants in Green Marine, and I’m pleased to say that they have been very successful in advancing through the various levels of the program.

Ports are committed to improving their performance and hold themselves to account, not only for the ongoing greening of their operations, but also to being responsible partners with their local communities. The development of port environmental policies is another aspect of this, as well as environmental audits and reports that make themselves accountable to the public. The creation of green programs — such as reduced rates for shipping companies that operate vessels accredited with their own green programs that guide reduced emissions from their operations — is another way of promoting ports’ activities in this area.

Ports are creating port-public and Indigenous partnerships to ensure concerns and inputs help guide port projects in an environmentally sustainable manner. Ports are also providing vessels that are capable of “plugging into” shore power facilities, thereby allowing the vessel to shut down fuel-burning generators and engines while in port. Ports are also providing the protection and creation of fish habitat. They are working with local experts, universities, colleges, Indigenous groups and environmental groups in creating monitoring and protection programs from marine mammals and other species, and there are so many other initiatives.

Finally, I want to mention initiatives that Port Saint John has undertaken. It will see them source 100% of power for all cruise terminals, corporate offices and port-owned terminals from the soon-to-be-commissioned nearby Burchill Wind Project, drastically reducing the port’s carbon footprint. This fits into the new Port Saint John decarbonization and sustainability plan, which is being developed in partnership with stakeholders, including a post-secondary pitch competition all about decarbonizing the port ecosystem with New Brunswick students.

In closing, I hope my presentation underscores that today there is a renewed interest and a sense of urgency to push further and faster to build a green economy that includes an environmentally sustainable marine sector. I hope that I painted a picture that clearly shows that Canada is indeed a world leader in the marine sector, as it is in other sectors in advancing climate change solutions.

Thank you for listening, and again, I want to thank Senators Coyle and Kutcher for their leadership. Meegwetch. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, 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. Jim Quinn: Will the senator take a question?

Senator Brazeau: Absolutely.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Honourable senators, my question is to the Government Representative in the Senate.

Families and businesses — including small businesses across Canada, which in many ways are the backbone of our economy — are facing increasing costs across the board. Inflationary pressures, rising interest rates, supply chain disruption, the effects of the pandemic and other national and international factors, such as Russia’s invasion and ongoing destruction of Ukraine, are absolute factors in driving increasing costs here at home.

Recent surveys by Food Banks Canada and Mainstreet Research are indicating that families are struggling to buy enough food to feed themselves and their children, and an increasing number of Canadians are reporting that they are going hungry.

In my province of New Brunswick, gas prices rose overnight by 8.9 cents per litre, forcing many New Brunswickers to again make the difficult decision between buying gas for their vehicles so they can go to work or reducing food purchases yet again. Senator Gold, what immediate actions can the government take to address these serious issues today?

Hon. Jim Quinn: Would the senator take another question? Thank you.

This debate is very important for me. It seems to me that a non-urgent situation sounds urgent. I’m a senator from New Brunswick, La Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick spoke with me and said they prefer that we not rush things. We have heard that we are not going to rush things. At the same time, they said they would prefer that a pre-study not be done because of the official languages implications of Bill C-13 and what is going on in Quebec in terms of its impact on official languages in New Brunswick. They want to have time and space to let things unfold in a non-urgent environment.

I’m in the awkward position of hearing the debate in favour of a pre-study while trying to represent a region in which an association that is directly affected has urged me to not support a pre-study.

How would you respond to that? We have a significant part of our province — the only bilingual province in Canada — for which I feel I provide some representation, along with other colleagues from New Brunswick.

Hon. Jim Quinn moved third reading of Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), as amended.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to carry the privilege of sponsoring a bill from our retired colleague Senator Griffin. Her hope was that this bill could go through third reading and be passed expeditiously to the other place before we rise for the summer. As this chamber is very familiar with this bill, I will be brief with my comments.

Bill S-222 was amended in committee to ensure alignment with legislative terminology in the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act by using the words “shall consider” — rather than “must consider” — the use of materials that may potentially reduce the release of greenhouse gases, including wood, for the purpose of procurement projects under Public Services and Procurement Canada. Requiring the government to consider the use of wood is a small way to address climate change while embracing and promoting economic growth in Canada’s forestry sector.

Let me be clear that the wood I am referring to is engineered wood, also known as mass timber. Research by the National Research Council Canada has proven that mass timber construction is no more flammable than concrete or steel construction.

I was pleased to hear witnesses from J.D. Irving, Limited and Wood Research and Development testify that, beyond the use of capturing carbon, the use of mass timber structures can also be helpful to provincial and territorial economies, and — to be specific — in the use of value-added wood products.

Canada is fortunate to have a nearly limitless supply of forestry products that could be used for mass timber construction. As of 2022, according to the federal government’s 2021 report The State of Mass Timber in Canada, there are presently 593 mass timber construction projects completed across the country, with another 74 under construction and 35 proposed. These structures cover all regions of our country, from sea to sea to sea.

Since the age of the construction of wooden ships in the Napoleonic Wars, New Brunswick timber has been part of the rich fabric of my province. Covered wooden bridges — most famously in Hartland — not only link two sides of a river together, they also serve as a link to our past. We heard in committee that Wood Research and Development is designing mass timber bridges to replace steel structures. This highlights a degree of innovation that extends the use of wood beyond large buildings.

It is my hope that for projects in New Brunswick with Public Services and Procurement Canada, the establishment of new mass timber bridges can restore the use of a bountiful and environmentally sustainable natural resource that has been intrinsically linked to New Brunswick. This approach is also important in other provinces across Canada where forestry industries form an important part of creating jobs and growing our economy.

I understand that some senators on the committee expressed concerns with respect to fire safety and related matters. They correctly identified that the use of fire suppression needs to be included in design specifications, and that the National Building Code should be mindful of the flammability and toxicity of any and all new building materials and treatments, including engineered wood products.

Honourable senators, the National Fire Code of Canada 2020, which was published this year, contains changes to address fire safety during the construction of encapsulated mass timber buildings. This highlights that it is clear that experts are aware of potential issues respecting fire safety in mass timber construction. I wish to remind honourable colleagues that there is no requirement for Public Services and Procurement Canada to use wood as other building materials can still be used.

Bill S-222 provides for a small but important change in terms of how Canadians can utilize a natural resource that has tremendous environmental and economic benefits to the country. It is my hope that provincial governments, including the Government of New Brunswick, will adopt similar procurement requirements to expand the use of mass timber structures for provincial infrastructure projects. Further, it is my hope that this policy change will restore the use of a natural resource commodity that not only has an important historical legacy in New Brunswick and other provinces, but that is also an important pillar in our local, provincial and national economies.

I would like to thank all who assisted in getting the bill to this stage. On behalf of Diane Griffin, I thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Black, seconded by the Honourable Senator Downe, for the third reading of Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Gold, since 1977, Transport Canada has been giving the province of British Columbia an index grant to provide financial assistance related to the operating cost of intra-provincial ferry services. This is part of a federal obligation to provide transportation links to the national surface transportation system from various regions in isolated areas of British Columbia, including islands. As of 2022, this grant is valued at $32 million per year.

My province of New Brunswick contains several remote islands in the Bay of Fundy that are only accessible to the rest of Canada via ferry. In addition to Campobello Island and Deer Island, this includes White Head Island, which is accessible only via ferry from Grand Manan Island, which itself is accessible to the mainland via a separate ferry.

Senator Gold, as a matter of provincial equality, would Transport Canada consider a request by the New Brunswick government to provide New Brunswick with a similar operating grant for its remote intra-provincial ferry services?

Hon. Jim Quinn: Would the Honourable Senator Woo accept a question?

Senator Woo: Yes, of course.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Will the honourable senator take another question, please?

Hon. Jim Quinn: I move the adjournment of the debate.