Hon. Pamela Wallin: I thank Senator Kutcher for his work and for his remarks.

Honourable senators, the government’s decision to delay puts politics ahead of people, and it has devastating consequences for all those who have worked to see the law recognized and respected and assured for all Canadians. It is heartbreaking for those who face a life of mental illness.

This was, I will remind you, a government commitment. Making those with mental illness as a sole underlying condition was your priority. The government chose that over and above, for example, the issue of advanced requests. I’m still fighting for that. The government said this was its priority and gave hope to all those waiting. Then it delayed a year. And now in spite of facts and evidence to the contrary, you have delayed until after the next election.

The undermining of the joint committee process allowed the whole issue of MAID to be reopened, not just the question of mental illness. Now we are once again relitigating MAID in the public sphere because the government could not muster the courage of its convictions on this particular issue, nor could it take the advice of those who have studied this and who have concluded there is a state of readiness.

In a democracy, people are elected to make the hard decisions, not the easy ones. Anybody can do that. And if the government thinks by putting this off that you will be able to lay blame for backsliding at the opposition’s door, I think you are mistaken.

The Conservatives have long stated their disagreement with this, and we can all read the polls. The Conservatives have a reasonable chance of forming a government, so we know that means refighting this battle repeatedly. It was the government that lost its nerve and now tries to shift blame. This puts politics above life and death and the suffering of ill Canadians.

I disagree with the position of the official opposition, but at least they have been consistent in reflecting religious or moral concern, and they vote their conscience. The government has done a one-eighty. It looks political because it is. It was a government minister who said this will be put off until after the next election, and when you play with people’s lives, people, families and professionals will remember the consequences.

For me, the issue of MAID is and has always been about choice. It was for the Supreme Court of Canada, as well, when they ruled, and for the government when they made it the law of the land.

Choice — it’s all anybody asked for. The government says it believes in choice for abortion, gender or contraception, but what about choice for end-of-life care? And why will choice be denied just for certain groups?

The “better safe than sorry” argument was the debate three or four years ago before we had the training, standards, practitioners and experience with MAID provision, before MAID providers and medical experts declared readiness.

Of course, next week, next month, next year, more doctors and nurses will join those who have been trained and accredited, and the numbers will grow, but to say because only 40 are ready today that we can’t go ahead, well, that is specious. We don’t have enough doctors, oncologists, nurses or surgeons for dozens of procedures, but we don’t deny care until everyone has access. It has never been how the medical system operates.

We are told repeatedly by Senator Gold that The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, or CAMH, wants clinical standards. What most Canadians want is a CAMH facility in every city and province, but we don’t have that. That doesn’t mean we don’t treat the mentally ill, it means we do the best we can with the resources and facilities available. We cannot let perfection or equity be the enemy of common sense. Let’s do what we can now for those in need now.

But the arguments for the delays are still ill-conceived and more about politics than life struggles facing our citizens. The government says it agrees that mental illness is equivalent to physical illness, but it then proceeds to argue that those with mental illness — or even dementia or Alzheimer’s — must be denied the right to access MAID. It is the law of the land. Because some have yet to be defined as ready doesn’t mean we will deny readiness for all.

We are living and experiencing a health care system in crisis, and we do not have enough of anybody or anything, but we do not deny treatment until that problem is solved.

The provinces and health ministers’ job is to fund and safeguard our health care system, but not to judge or overrule the daily decision making of medical professionals who have direct patient experience and training needed to make safe judgments about medical procedures.

The readiness or preparedness criteria was met according to the experts the government appointed and who testified at the joint committee, and now once again the bar has been moved. What is the new bar? What are the new criteria that the government is adding to the list of four we were all asked to evaluate?

The government is unable to explain what would constitute readiness other than to say health ministers have to agree. Well, on no other file does this government seek unanimity from provinces before proceeding with the policy — energy; carbon taxes; even actual funding for health care. In fact, when governments embraced MAID, they most certainly did not have the backing of all provinces, health ministers, medical professionals or doctors.

As for the undue haste in passing the bill to delay the deadline of March 17, the government clearly, in advance, understood that time might be needed for proper debate. They have written right into the bill that should it not be finally passed by March 17, it will apply retroactively so there can be no accidental provisions of MAID. To be frank, no doctor in his or her right mind will provide MAID while it is still subject to the Criminal Code or retroactively subject to the Criminal Code, and, of course, there is the further 90-day waiting period as part of the assessment process.

Why sow this fear among the public so gratuitously? Here in this chamber, on the evening of the Committee of the Whole, we witnessed exactly why all bills should be subject to the rigorous standard of Senate standing committees and not this process.

The ministers, political creatures that they are and must be, treat it like a press conference with annoying reporters asking questions. Many senators had no chance to follow up their questions or press for substantive answers. I was one of the lucky ones, so when talking points were served up as answers, I, at least, had a brief chance to drill down. That is why our committee process works and why the Committee of the Whole works for them, but not for us.

I will give the ministers this: They are both new to their jobs and may have not had time to understand the level of debate that has occurred in this country. Yes, it is a nuanced debate. But it is a time now where we have moved well beyond that in this country. The public is ready. The system is ready. Only the government is not ready.

We have built high fences to ensure safety in the provision of MAID. It offers reassurance for families, and it offers protection for the individuals.

This delay — the denial of rights for some and the deliberate misrepresentation by government ministers of the state of readiness, and of the evidence and testimony heard — is truly troubling. I know this to be true because I sat through the testimony. Witnesses were questioned directly and repeatedly. These witnesses were people like Dr. Mona Gupta, the Chair of the Expert Panel on MAID and Mental Illness, who — among others — has been directly involved in the process of developing the regulations and guidelines for MAID assessors and providers. You may have seen the letter she sent to all of us.

As others have mentioned, this is also a sad fact, and part of this debate, that not one individual suffering from a mental disorder or who has been waiting to exercise their right to simply apply for MAID was consulted.

The government ignores those whose lives hang in the balance. It ignores the testimony of its own chosen experts and then tries to argue it was a lack of consensus on the issue. There will never be a consensus on issues that are so personal. But, then again, no consensus was sought. We were looking for a state of readiness, preparedness, and we were told by the providers that the system was ready.

All I can say to you tonight, colleagues, is please go back and read the letter sent on February 12, 2024, from 127 medical professionals. It says in their concluding paragraph:

We urge the Senate to review all of the evidence submitted to AMAD by the people actually involved in getting the Canadian MAiD system and healthcare professionals ready . . . to understand that there are many clinicians who support the implementation . . . .

It’s too late for to Senate because our process has been overridden, but I ask you all, as individuals, to take a moment to read the testimony and hear the advice of the professionals. Do it for the sake of the Canadians who live with mental illness every day of their lives.

Thank you.

Hon. Pamela Wallin, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, presented the following report:

Tuesday, October 24, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy has the honour to present its

NINTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, has, in obedience to the order of reference of September 26, 2023, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

PAMELA WALLIN

Chair

Hon. Pamela Wallin, pursuant to notice of May 30, 2023, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate a report relating to its study on business investment in Canada, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: I have a question for Senator Gold.

I would like your explanation for this: I’m going through “rapportage” on the committee discussions on the other side. Bill C-13 establishes targets for bringing more francophone immigrants to French-speaking parts of the rest of Canada. Could you tell me how that would work?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate a report relating to its study on business investment in Canada, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Thank you.

I haven’t looked at it in detail. Is there any provision for a timeline regarding the consultation or development of regulations that would allow the committee — and this chamber — to feel that they have a chance to examine the result of that process?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Thank you, Madam Speaker. All the very best in your new job. You’re off to a good start here.

I have a question for Senator Gold. The constitutional role of the Senate is to study and, if need be, amend legislation and to be judicious in that work, yet we are constantly hit with arbitrary government timelines, such as time allocation on Bill C-11 or the BIA — budget implementation act — programming motion. It undermines our obligations as senators. The BIA is an omnibus bill that includes potentially dozens of stand-alone legislative initiatives, such as the Canada innovation corporation act; major amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, with a massive overhaul to the complaints resolution process, which witnesses have already said is not viable; changes to the Patent Act; the Canada Elections Act; the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and unilateral action on the extension of equalization.

Senator Gold, do you truly believe that the time frame given us to study a bill injected with such issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget is appropriate? Do you believe our rights and privileges are being respected as senators in this chamber of sober second thought?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Thank you very much, Senator Galvez.

I appreciate the question. I’m glad that you are taking notice of our work, and we were glad to have you there last week sitting in at committee.

We are, indeed, looking at why Canada, with one of the largest energy-based economies in the world, is seriously lagging other countries in attracting investment. We are hearing repeatedly from private Canadian companies why they are not investing here — too much politics, too much red tape. The same concern is coming from foreign capital, making it reluctant to invest unless the government offers up millions or in some cases billions in incentives.

The problem with the subsidy approach for us, regardless of what sector you are looking at, is that it is costly and it too often offers only short-term gain.

One of our witnesses, James Hinton, an intellectual property lawyer and part of Own Innovation, explained:

You can’t just fund your way into economic prosperity. For example, in clean technology, we own less than 1% of the global intellectual property. So unless you recognize the existing position of Canadian firms and intentionally ensure that Canadian-owned IP and data assets are part of the clean-tech value chain, you are initiating a generational wealth transfer out of the country because 99% of the foundation is already owned.

We see similar examples with Volkswagen and Ericsson — billions in subsidies without any assurances that the IP stays in Canada. Jobs are created, but what we’ve also heard from witnesses is that the jobs model — and this has been referred to frequently — is not one that incentivizes the private sector to come to the table and invest in Canadian companies as partners sharing IP.

The jobs model secures activity in the country, and it may even help shift activity toward renewables, but it is not an investment strategy that will work in the future.

The U.S. IRA strategy is putting billions into clean growth, repatriating production that was offshored. Ottawa’s approach is, “Well, frankly it is hard to compete with big spenders and with countries that have no carbon tax.”

Many of our witnesses have talked about an attitudinal issue — and I think that this troubles us all — that we tend to be risk‑averse in this country. That too must change. Our start-ups are more likely to sell than grow, so they do not even look to secure their own IP.

Whether it is green technology, clean technology, agricultural technology, communications technology or even artificial intelligence, or AI, we need to have a strategy that will do more than create branch-plant jobs.

Hon. Pamela Wallin, pursuant to notice of April 25, 2023, moved:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Thursday, December 16, 2021, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy in relation to its study on matters relating to banking, trade, commerce and the economy generally, as described in rule 12-7(10), be extended from June 30, 2023, to December 31, 2025.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Thursday, December 16, 2021, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy in relation to its study on matters relating to banking, trade, commerce and the economy generally, as described in rule 12-7(10), be extended from June 30, 2023, to December 31, 2025.

Hon. Pamela Wallin, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, presented the following report:

Tuesday, March 7, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy has the honour to present its

SIXTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, has, in obedience to the order of reference of December 14, 2022, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment but with certain observations, which are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

PAMELA WALLIN

Chair

(For text of observations, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 1281.)

Hon. Pamela Wallin moved:

That the fifth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, tabled in the Senate on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Finance being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report.

She said: Honourable senators, the tabling of this report was very timely because our country is going through a period of rapid inflation, with drastic rises in the cost of living, and our report shines a light on the series of decisions and circumstances that led us here and how we can do better to avoid this in the future. The testimony from various economists and from the Governor of the Bank of Canada himself has put into sharp relief that the state of our economy is troubling, and concerning what should be done in the future. We as a committee put in a great amount of time and work on this file, and therefore, that is why we hope the decision makers will take serious note and respond. Thank you.

Hon. Pamela Wallin, pursuant to notice of February 9, 2023, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate a report relating to its study on the state of the Canadian economy and inflation, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, on behalf of Senator Richards who could not be here today, these are his words of tribute to Viola Léger:

I saw her perform only one time — a number of years ago now — when I was artist-in-residence at St. Thomas University, and she came to the small, intimate stage, sitting on a chair under one light, dressed as La Sagouine, speaking — this time — in English. We surrounded her on three sides, mostly students but professors as well, and she spoke Antonine Maillet’s great monologues in a voice that was not only hers, not only Antonine’s and not just Acadian — though, of course, it was Acadian — but a voice that became, over the hour, ours as well. That is, I knew her as I knew my grandmother from Matapédia or my Acadian great-grandmother. Slowly, it became our voice too and, as the hour progressed, mesmerizing.

She was an old lady, a fisherwoman born of the bay, a scrubwoman far away in New Brunswick, a part of some rustic backwoods region — what could she ever have to offer sophisticated people? Well, you see, everything, everything in the world — whatever God intended us to know, understand or cherish.

She slowly filled that small stage — and that group that surrounded her on three sides — with charm, wit, laughter and, in the end, a deep understanding of both the great joy and great sorrow of our world. The audience of young boys and girls — boys and girls from another age — listened with reverence. She had the spirit of a woman who celebrated the spirit of all mankind — a joyful celebration that we, in fact, share far more in our common humanity than we could ever imagine.

Monologues were delivered with such impeccable understanding of “how” — that is how stories are related, and why they must be told the way they are; that is how human beings relate to one another and the world around them. Yes, this was the great Antonine Maillet’s writing, of course, but it was Ms. Léger’s delivery that brought it to life. In that moment, I suppose the two women were as one — the wonderful friendship between them that had started half of a century before were transformed by those words on that bare stage.

Though I had known Antonine Maillet for some time, and though Peg and I were invited to l’Université de Moncton for a celebration on the fortieth anniversary of La Sagouine, I never got to speak to or meet Ms. Léger. I wish I had. I always thought I would have a chance. Of course, as life would have it, I never did. Still, I will never forget that little washerwoman on stage for that one hour, surrounded by us all — with one light shining on a hunched and noble soul as she confided in us a gracious and eloquent wisdom. It was the wisdom that Tolstoy himself understood: There is no greatness without goodness, kindness and simplicity.

What might I have said if I had met her? I would have told her that her little washerwoman is universal, and like “The Song of Joy,” “Amazing Grace” or “Oh Danny Boy,” her monologues can be understood by anyone from any language — flying any flag over any country — and all one needs in order to understand such a grand old woman is love.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: I just have a quick comment, really, in response to some of your comments. Of course, we’ll discuss this endlessly at committee.

Speaking with local newspapers in my area, I heard that one of the things that troubles them is that while government, on the one hand, has agreed to pay them money, therefore compromising independence, they have also stopped 100% of their advertising in these local papers, which was a genuine and arm’s-length source of income. So if they wanted to support these news operations in small communities, they do have a mechanism.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate a report relating to its study on the state of the Canadian economy and inflation, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Pamela Wallin, pursuant to notice of October 26, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy be authorized to meet on Tuesday, November 1, 2022, at 6:30 p.m., to hear from the Governor of the Bank of Canada, even though the Senate may then be sitting and that rule 12-18(1) be suspended in relation thereto.

She said: Honourable senators, I just want to make the obvious statement that it is the responsibility of the Banking Committee to monitor the activities of the Bank of Canada. We have just had the latest increase — number six — in interest rates announced by the Bank of Canada. The Monetary Policy Report is coming out. This is, at least, a semi-annual meeting that we have with the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I think it is important that he’s held to account, and, therefore, we would like to proceed with this meeting.

We have checked with his schedule to see if any other times are available. They are not. Hence, I’m asking for the support of the chamber to conduct this meeting. Thank you.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy be authorized to meet on Tuesday, November 1, 2022, at 6:30 p.m., to hear from the Governor of the Bank of Canada, even though the Senate may then be sitting and that rule 12-18(1) be suspended in relation thereto.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: My question is for the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.

In your speech yesterday, Senator Housakos, you raised many of the concerns that witnesses have been outlining throughout our hearings. The testimony of the current Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, chair in which he explained his stated view that he will force streaming services to alter their algorithms to promote or censor user-generated content has been key to this debate. Have you, or you along with the steering committee, considered the importance of having the new chair testify to clarify his or her views before we complete our study or vote, as this person will be key in implementing and interpreting Bill C-11?

Hon. Pamela Wallin moved the adoption of the report.