DEBATES OF THE SENATE 1st SESSION • 45th PARLIAMENT • VOLUME 154 • NUMBER 49 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Tuesday, February 10, 2026 The Honourable RAYMONDE GAGNÉ, Speaker

CONTENTS (Daily index of proceedings appears at back of this issue). Publications Centre: Publications@sen.parl.gc.ca Published by the Senate Available on the Internet: http://www.parl.gc.ca

The Senate met at 2 p.m., the Speaker in the chair. Prayers. SENATORS’ STATEMENTS JIMMY LAI Hon. Leo Housakos (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, yesterday we learned that Jimmy Lai has been sentenced to 20 years in prison, at the age of 78 years old, solely for exercising basic rights guaranteed under the Sino-British Joint Declaration. I rise today to say what Canada has failed to say, which is that this is a political prosecution carried out by the Chinese Communist Party, or CCP. I condemn it in the strongest possible terms, and I call for Jimmy Lai’s immediate release. This should be obvious.

Yet, even the most glaring truths seem lost by many in Canada and around the world. How rich it is that as Jimmy Lai is locked away for defending press freedom, Canada is deepening ties — including agreements to allow Chinese journalists into Canada and Canadian journalists into China — with the very regime that jails reporters, censors media and punishes dissent. To no one’s surprise, Canada’s public response to Lai’s sentencing has been pathetic and weak. Anita Anand could only muster “disappointment” — no condemnation, no mention of China, no mention of the CCP.

China’s leveraging of economic considerations in exchange for human rights, democracy and the rule of law is unacceptable. Colleagues, there should be no more illusions. Jimmy Lai’s imprisonment should make one thing clear: The CCP is not a rational actor or a reliable “strategic partner.” It is a tyrannical, vindictive regime that crushes freedom, jails dissenters and ignores international law. It does not respond to quiet diplomacy or vague statements of concern. This is what the CCP really is.

This is the regime that the Canadian government seems committed to deepening ties with, making the CCP Canada’s new super ally. Colleagues, this is, at best, naive. At worst, it is a willing compromise of Canada’s values and national security for short-term political and economic convenience. Canada’s credibility on human rights, our moral authority and the safety of our institutions are all at risk when we treat the CCP as a strategic partner rather than the vindictive, authoritarian regime it is. Our response, or lack thereof, is being watched by the world.

It defines who we are as a country and what we are willing to tolerate in the name of convenience. I will not stand here and express disappointment. I stand with Jimmy Lai. I condemn the CCP and demand that Canada act with clarity, courage and principle — not appeasement. Senator Martin: Hear, hear. BLACK HISTORY MONTH Hon.

Paulette Senior: Honourable senators, I rise today on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation to say, “Happy Black History Month.” I want to extend my deepest appreciation to the Algonquin and Anishinaabe Peoples, who have lived in and cared for this land for a millennium such that I could have the opportunity to speak today. This year marks 30 years of celebrating Black History Month in Canada.

As we highlight the contributions and legacy of Black Canadians, I want to take time to pay homage and remember those who came before us and to honour Canadians who have demonstrated immense courage and selfless action, instilling in each of us a sense of pride that inspires change. The legendary Honourable Jean Augustine is one such woman. I thank her for laying the ground for institutionalizing this celebratory month three decades ago. It is because of her legacy that institutions across all sectors honour the contributions of accomplished Black Canadians.

Her brilliance set the example, encouraging us to champion the recognition of Black Canadians in our daily lives. In this spirit, I’d like to highlight one more trailblazer, Chloe Cooley. Chloe Cooley was an enslaved African woman living in Upper Canada. In the 1790s, she resisted being sold to American enslavers and transported to the United States. Her outcry in the face of incomprehensible injustice led the lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada John Graves Simcoe to introduce a new law, entitled

an Act to Limit Slavery in Upper Canada. This law freed enslaved people aged 25 and over and made it illegal to traffic enslaved people into Upper Canada. The introduction of the act in Upper Canada as well as a series of Nova Scotian court decisions in the 1790s were very significant, leading to the decline of African enslavement in Canada. Chloe Cooley’s courage shifted the Canadian landscape, slowly shaping Canada into an important base for the growing transatlantic abolitionist movements.

Today, as we focus our collective efforts on appreciating the struggles and achievements of the past, we look to Black Canadians like Chloe Cooley and Dr. Jean Augustine, who remind us that the future we yearn for will not be “a fleeting illusion.” Rather, it is one we can pursue and attain through justice and equity. 1432 THE SENATE Tuesday, February 10, 2026

Thank you. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear. [Translation] NOV A SCOTIA HERITAGE DAY Hon. Réjean Aucoin: Esteemed colleagues, Monday, February 16, is Nova Scotia Heritage Day, a statutory holiday that celebrates the province’s unique history and contributions, honouring a specific individual or event each year. This year, the honouree is Joseph Willie Comeau, an Acadian educator, entrepreneur, legislator and senator born in Comeauville in Baie Sainte-Marie, Nova Scotia, in 1876.

First elected as an MLA in 1907, he was a proud Acadian who represented his riding in the Nova Scotia Legislature for 38 years, having been elected nine times. He was known as a tireless advocate for Acadian language, culture and education. He was later appointed to the Canadian Senate, where he served from 1948 to 1966. He was the very first Acadian from Nova Scotia to be appointed to the Senate. •

(1410) He dedicated his life to preserving and recognizing Acadian history and culture. For over four centuries, Acadians have shaped the land, memory and identity of Nova Scotia. Their history is marked by a great tragedy, the 1755 deportation, which forced families from their homes in an attempt to erase a people from their own land. However, despite the exile and suffering, Acadia never disappeared. Université Sainte-Anne perfectly illustrates how the Acadian heritage is passed on.

For over 130 years, it has been training generations of leaders, teachers and community builders, such as our two former colleagues, Senators Joseph Willie Comeau and Gerald J. Comeau. This institution promotes the French language and Acadian culture in Nova Scotia and far beyond. In fact, we are fortunate to have a former dean of the university among us, Senator Allister W. Surette. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Black History Month.

The Black community in Nova Scotia makes a critical contribution to the province’s heritage through its historical presence, civil rights struggles and rich cultural, social and community heritage. In New Glasgow, in 1946, Viola Desmond courageously challenged racial segregation by refusing to leave a seat reserved for White people in a movie theatre. This act of dignity marked one of Canada’s first civil rights struggles in Canada. Ms. Desmond was honoured at the first Nova Scotia Heritage Day on February 16, 2015.

On this Nova Scotia Heritage Day, we pay tribute to the outstanding contributions of Joseph Willie Comeau and Viola Desmond. Thank you. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear. [English] VISITORS IN THE GALLERY The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Jamie Quistberg and Randee Cupolo. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Deacon ( Ontario). On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear! CURTIS POZNIAK CONGRATULATIONS ON BERTEBOS PRIZE Hon.

Tracy Muggli: Honourable senators, I rise today, Canada’s Agriculture Day, to acknowledge an incredible achievement and to congratulate Curtis Pozniak, a professor at the University of Saskatchewan’s College of Agriculture and Bioresources and the Director of the Crop Development Centre, or CDC, who was recently awarded the BERTEBOS Prize in Sweden by His Majesty King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, becoming just the second Canadian to win this prestigious award.

The BERTEBOS Prize has been awarded every second year since 1996 by the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry for highly qualified, pioneering development methods referring to food, agriculture, animal health or ecology. In their announcement, Curtis was recognized for: . . . his groundbreaking work in developing resilient, high‑yielding wheat varieties adapted to sustainable farming systems in a changing climate. They further stated: He has developed new varieties that require little water and are resistant to diseases and insects.

He has also mapped genes for disease resistance in wild grasses — an effort that may have practical value in developing future sustainable crops. His work is a significant contribution to increased and sustainable food production that reduces humanity’s environmental footprint. In Saskatchewan and beyond, Curtis Pozniak’s research with his teams translates directly into results on the ground. He played a leadership role on an international team that led the development of a comprehensive wheat genome atlas by sequencing 15 different wheat varieties, which supports plant breeders and producers around the world.

February 10, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1433

Through his research and leadership in crop genetics and breeding, Dr. Pozniak has contributed directly to the development of improved wheat varieties with tangible benefits for farmers. His work addresses real-world challenges: productivity, resilience and sustainability in food systems. Awards like this are never the result of one person. They reflect strong teams and the help of many partners. Curtis Pozniak has consistently acknowledged those contributions, and this recognition reflects that shared success. I could not be more proud to recognize this fellow Saskatchewanian and his remarkable success.

Indeed, he is our gold medallist. Please join me in congratulating Curtis Pozniak. Thank you, meegwetch, marsee. HEART MONTH Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today in recognition of Heart Month. February is often associated with the symbols of the heart — with affection and connection. Yet, for hundreds of thousands of Canadians, the heart represents a different reality: a resilient organ under siege. We focus on the heart this month to shed light on a quiet crisis: cardiovascular disease and, specifically, the heavy burden of heart failure.

Heart failure is not merely a medical diagnosis. It is a progressive journey that currently affects over 750,000 Canadians. It is a condition where the heart, the very engine of life, struggles to meet the body’s demands. It is often silent in its onset yet devastating in its progression, claiming lives and fracturing families in every corner of our country. The statistics tell only half the story. Behind every number is a grandmother in Vancouver, a father in the Maritimes or a young person in our own community fighting to catch their breath. Raising awareness is our first line of defence.

It is the key to early detection, the catalyst for prevention and the bridge to a life lived with dignity and hope. We are not powerless in this fight. I was deeply honoured to table Bill S-204,

An Act to establish a national framework on heart failure. This legislation is currently before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. There, we will listen — not just to the data but to the lived experiences of patients and the clinical wisdom of experts. Our goal is simple yet profound: to ensure that no Canadian faces this disease in the dark and our health care system provides a unified, robust response to this growing epidemic. Progress is never a solitary pursuit.

I wish to recognize the unsung heroes who have been the architects of change and the heartbeat of this movement: the HeartLife Foundation, established by patients of heart failure themselves, whose lived experience was the spark for Bill S-204; the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Canadian Heart Function Alliance; the Canadian Heart Failure Society; and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society, with whom I had the privilege of meeting earlier today. This Friday, February 13, many of these organizations and thousands of Canadians will take

part in Wear Red Day to raise vital awareness and funds during Heart Month and to stand in solidarity with everyone living with heart failure and other cardiovascular conditions. Honourable senators, during Heart Month and throughout the rest of the year, let us ensure that the pulse of our nation remains strong, steady and full of hope. Thank you. KIRSTY COVENTRY Hon. Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia: Honourable senators, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary leader in the world of sport, Ms. Kirsty Coventry, the current president of the International Olympic Committee, or IOC.

Kirsty Coventry’s journey is one of remarkable achievement and historic firsts. Born in my native Zimbabwe, she became our nation’s most decorated Olympian, earning seven medals — including two gold medals — in swimming across four Olympic Games. Her excellence in the pool inspired countless young athletes, particularly in Africa, where Olympic success stories can be rare but powerfully symbolic. In March 2025, Ms. Coventry was elected the tenth president of the IOC, the first woman and the first African to hold this prestigious position in the organization’s 130-year history.

This milestone shattered long-standing barriers and marked a significant step toward greater diversity, inclusion and representation in global sports governance. As the youngest IOC president in over a century, she brings a fresh vision, athlete‑centred leadership and a deep understanding of the challenges facing sport today. Under her presidency, the Olympic movement continues to emphasize its core values of unity, respect, fairness and the power of sport to transcend divisions.

As we watch and reflect on events like the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic Games, her emphasis on pushing boundaries while protecting the integrity of competition resonates strongly. •

(1420) Canada, as a nation deeply committed to Olympic ideals, which include gender equality and international cooperation through sport, celebrates this historic leadership. Kirsty Coventry’s rise exemplifies what is possible when talent, determination and opportunity align. Her story encourages young Canadians and young people all over the world, especially girls and those from under-represented communities, to dream big in sport and beyond.

Colleagues, this gives me the opportunity to recognize the outstanding contributions of Senators Chantal Petitclerc, Marnie McBean and Marty Deacon — three remarkable Canadian women whose extraordinary achievements in sport, leadership and advocacy have inspired so many Canadians and have advanced the values of excellence, inclusion and healthy living as they continue to strengthen our nation’s commitment to the power of sport as a force for good. 1434 SENATE DEBATES February 10, 2026 [ Senator Muggli ]

On behalf of this chamber, I extend our warmest congratulations to President Kirsty Coventry. May her tenure advance the Olympic spirit, promote inclusivity and inspire generations to come. In closing, we applaud the extraordinary courage, determination and excellence being displayed by our Canadian athletes at the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. Their presence on the world stage has united our nation in pride and continues to exemplify the very best of this country we love. Thank you, meegwetch. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS JUSTICE CHARTER STATEMENT IN RELATION TO BILL C-19— DOCUMENT TABLED Hon.

Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a Charter Statement prepared by the Minister of Justice in relation to Bill C-19,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, pursuant to the Department of Justice Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. J-2, sbs. 4.2(1). BUDGET 2025 IMPLEMENTATION BILL, NO. 1 THIRD REPORT OF LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON SUBJECT MATTER TABLED Hon. David M. Arnot: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which deals with the subject matter of Bill C-15,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025. (Pursuant to the order adopted November 26, 2025, the report was deemed referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance and placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.) FIRST REPORT OF NATIONAL SECURITY , DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON SUBJECT MATTER TABLED Hon. Hassan Yussuff: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, which deals with the subject matter of Bill C-15,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025. (Pursuant to the order adopted November 26, 2025, the report was deemed referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance and placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.) QUESTION PERIOD FINANCE STATE OF THE ECONOMY Hon. Leo Housakos (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Government leader, the numbers do not lie. For the past three years, Canada’s economy has barely kept its head above water.

According to the International Monetary Fund, Canada’s real GDP growth has stagnated, reaching an anemic 1.2% last year. This is the legacy of the Liberal government over the last decade: stagflation, spiralling debt, declining productivity, a weakening Canadian dollar, investment fleeing our country and investment not coming into our country. Given these results, do the Carney Liberals still believe in the failed debt-financing strategy of the last 10 years, trying to spend their way to economic growth by indebting the country? Hon.

Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): You are right, Senator Housakos. The numbers don’t lie. The facts are that total employment is up by 134,000 over the last year. The government is committed to strengthening our economy, diversifying it and making sure that Canada gets through this tough time in the best way possible. What the Prime Minister has been doing over the last nine months is bringing the Canadian economy to a high level by diversifying it and by establishing commercial agreements with other countries in order to open new markets to the Canadian economy.

Senator Housakos: I guess from that non-answer, you agree that you’re going to continue indebting the country in an effort to grow the economy. If your government will not listen to Conservatives because we are too partisan, perhaps you will listen to Liberals. Former Liberal finance minister John Manley reiterated just last week the same warning he gave Trudeau three years ago.

I quote the former Minister of Finance: “We can’t keep borrowing our way to prosperity.” Why can’t your government learn from these past mistakes and finally pull Canada’s economy out of this downward spiral and come with a fiscal anchor — The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Moreau. February 10, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1435

Senator Moreau: As far as fiscal anchors are concerned, let me tell you what the fiscal anchors are. The Canadian government has a mandate to spend less and invest more, capitalize private capital, unleash investment and build the strongest economy among the G7. The government will cut waste and reduce government spending so that it can make the big, generational-investment promise to Canadians. EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT YOUTH EMPLOYMENT Hon.

Leo Housakos (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Moreau, if there is any indictment of the failure of a government, it is when the youth — the future of this great country — face a 17.9% unemployment rate, which is what they faced in the summer of 2025 when they were trying to find work. Talk about giving a generation no cash and no hope. The unemployment rate has been fluctuating throughout the year of 2025 from 13% to 14%, almost doubling the unemployment rate for the average Canadian. Enough with the semantics, enough with the slogans.

We see the end result of a government that has indebted future generations of Canadians. Not only has it indebted them about $60,000 per head — that’s the debt load of every Canadian — but you’ve given them no hope, as these young people leave universities and their homes, seeking employment so they can provide a better future for their children. Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): The 134,000 jobs created over the last year is not a slogan; it’s a reality, Senator Housakos. The government has plans to build the strongest economy in the G7.

The Prime Minister is opening access to 2.2 billion new customers for Canada. •

(1430) For almost two years, inflation has remained within the Bank of Canada’s target. It was at 2.4% recently, and interest rates are stabilized at 2.25%. Senator Housakos: Government leader, with all due respect, how many of those jobs have been part-time jobs? Furthermore, no one will deny that Canada’s unemployment rate is hovering around 6.5% to 7% now, depending on which statistic you look at, which is the highest level it has been over the last decade. That’s reality.

Particularly, my question is about young people, who are facing 14% unemployment, young people who, last summer, had almost 20% unemployment when looking for summer jobs. It’s a critical situation for those young people. They feel hopeless in the country that was once a beacon of hope. What will your government do specifically — The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator Housakos. Senator Moreau: You remind me of my answer to Senator Cardozo’s question on youth employment and the fact that the government is investing more to ensure that young people will work over the summer.

Now, again, if you don’t want to recognize that over the last year we have increased employment by 134,000 jobs, I think that you are not facing reality, because the figures are there, and the jobs have been created. EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT Hon. Dawn Arnold: My question is for the Government Representative. A lot of time, effort and money go into substantive reports on issues important to Canadians. Unfortunately, it often seems they end up on a website with very little application and tangible change.

In 2023, the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force produced a report entitled A Transformative Framework to Achieve and Sustain Employment Equity. Government Representative, the report contained 187 recommendations, some of which require legislated change. To date, there has been no apparent action taken. Would you please tell us when the government intends to put forward legislation to address changes to the Employment Equity Act? If you do not currently know the timeline, can you commit to asking the Minister of Labour to provide one? Hon.

Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, Senator Arnold. The government is committed to advancing employment equity and recognizing that diversity is a core national strength. The Employment Equity Act plays a central role in addressing systemic barriers and improving workplace outcomes for women, Indigenous Peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities in the federally regulated sector.

While no specific timeline has been announced for introducing legislative amendments, the government remains committed to moving this work forward, and I will seek an update from the Minister of Labour, as appropriate. PUBLIC SAFETY EDUCATION FOR INDIVIDUALS IN INCARCERATION Hon. Bernadette Clement: Senator Moreau, I learned from the excellent journalists at La Presse that cuts are coming to education in Quebec, that is, to CEGEP classes in Quebec’s federal prisons. Then my office discovered that librarians, teachers and community employment coordinators are also at risk of being cut across the country.

We are told that staff will be replaced by AI and computer software. It’s hard to imagine that when floppy disks are still in use in Canada’s correctional institutions. 1436 SENATE DEBATES February 10, 2026

Here is the crux of my concern, though. Incarcerated individuals want — need — the chance to improve themselves, to think about the future and to plan for the day when they reintegrate into their communities. They cannot do that when tools for education are being cut. Senator Moreau, how far can we expect these cuts to go? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): I will give you the information that I have from that department. Inmates actually may pursue post-secondary education while incarcerated.

The post-secondary education program allows inmates to learn a trade or profession or update trade qualifications. Inmates who want to take post-secondary courses must meet the university or college academic requirements. Courses are usually completed through correspondence with community colleges or universities. Part of this includes providing culturally sensitive education that is key to the successful rehabilitation of inmates in the care and custody of the Correctional Service Canada, or CSC. That’s the information that I have as of today. [Translation] Senator Clement: Thank you, Senator Moreau.

In Canada, public discourse is increasingly focused on incarceration. Bill C-14 will soon reform the bail system. Politicians would have us believe that putting people in prison will solve all our problems. There is much less talk about rehabilitation, yet rehabilitation is one of the main objectives of incarceration. Does this government really believe that these additional cuts to Correctional Service Canada will promote rehabilitation? Senator Moreau: Thank you, senator. According to the information I have, some of the courses offered are specifically aimed at rehabilitation.

The government believes in a prison system that focuses on rehabilitation rather than incarceration alone. That is the information I have received from the minister responsible. [English] PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE DIGITAL PRIV ACY Hon. Marty Klyne: Senator Moreau, Canada hasn’t meaningfully updated privacy laws in over 20 years, even as social media and AI have transformed how companies use our data. Experts, including Jim Balsillie from the Council of Canadian Innovators, warn this outdated model no longer reflects today’s economy. This directly drives up the cost of living.

In the surveillance economy, dominant data-driven firms use tracking and profiling to entrench market power and impose exploitative algorithmic or personalized pricing. Each new data set collected magnifies their dominance, suppresses competition and accelerates market concentration, leading to higher prices and fewer choices for Canadians. Previous federal privacy bills failed to address these economic harms and were widely criticized by experts and civil society.

As the government prepares new privacy legislation, will you commit to including provisions that explicitly address surveillance-based pricing practices and data concentration that are costing Canadians more every day? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, Senator Klyne, for the question. You are well aware that I cannot comment on legislation before it has been tabled by the government, but I will certainly raise your concern with the minister. We will be waiting for the legislation to be tabled in the other place. Senator Klyne: Thank you for that.

As a quick note, in 2018, Europe passed the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, giving citizens the right to be forgotten and the right to delete their data, and requiring companies to ask permission before tracking them online. Six years later, Canada still relies on outdated privacy laws that leave Canadians exposed when their data is breached or misused with real consequences. When will Canada follow Europe’s lead? Senator Moreau: Well, the answer to the first question was that we are currently working on the legislation to be tabled.

I guess the answer to your supplementary question is probably soon — let’s hope, at least. You can be sure that I will send your concerns to the minister. PUBLIC SAFETY CRIME PREVENTION Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, a new survey conducted by Save Our Streets, a community safety organization in British Columbia, highlights what your government has ignored for years, which is that more than half of British Columbians no longer feel safe in their own communities. Senator Housakos: Shame.

Senator Martin: More troubling still, Senator Moreau, among crime victims surveyed, 71% say they did not report the crime committed against them because they have lost confidence in our justice system. Senator Housakos: More shame. Senator Martin: As Save Our Streets co-founder Jess Ketchum is reported as saying, “. . . despite some authorities saying progress is being made, British Columbians are not feeling or seeing any difference in their communities.” February 10, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1437

Senator Moreau, Canadians no longer believe your government’s reassurances. Isn’t it time to admit that your approach to justice and public safety has failed them? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, Senator Martin, for raising the question of security in our communities again, especially in British Columbia. I answered your question last week about extortion, especially in Surrey. At that time, I pointed out what actual action the government is taking to reassure people.

The government provides significant resources to specifically fight extortion on top of other criminal justice reforms. For instance, there is $4 million in federal funding to bolster the B.C. Extortion Task Force; $1 million to support victims, alongside the Government of British Columbia; we are deploying additional federal RCMP officers, along with helicopter resources, to support on-the- ground enforcement; and we have listed the Bishnoi Gang as a terrorist organization. •

(1440) The government is taking real actions to make sure that Canadians everywhere in Canada feel safe, including those in British Columbia. Senator Martin: Sadly, the government’s actions are a decade too late; it has been far too long, senator. It is no surprise that British Columbians feel unsafe. Recent provincial news underscores the seriousness of this crisis. Within the past few days, we have seen a surge in distraction thefts and an armed home invasion in North Vancouver. Enough is enough. Canadians need a strategy right now; words are no longer sufficient.

Will your government finally reset its approach to justice and public safety, starting with the resignations of Minister Anandasangaree and Minister Fraser? Senator Moreau: Senator, $4 million are not just words; it is money invested in making sure our communities are secure everywhere, including in British Columbia. There is $1 million to support victims. There has been a deployment of additional RCMP officers. Those are not words; those are actions. You should at least recognize that. NATIONAL DEFENCE RESERVE FORCE Hon.

Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): On another very serious note, Canada’s military reserves are essential to our national defence, yet your government’s record on addressing reservist health care and benefits inequities remains deeply troubling. This week, Canada’s National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman once again highlighted a decade-long failure to fix systemic gaps in compensation and health care supports for reservists. These gaps leave part-time service members with unequal access to care compared to their Regular Force counterparts, which undermines recruitment and retention.

Reservists should never be subjected to a two-tiered system. Why has your government ignored repeated warnings from the ombudsman and failed to ensure that reservists receive clear, consistent health care and benefits commensurate with their service? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Respectfully, Senator Martin, why did your colleagues at the House of Commons vote against the budget while you are asking for more spending here in this chamber? Budget 2025 is investing more than $81 billion in defence over the next five years. Those are not words.

Those are not only commitments, those are investments. At the same time, you are asking for more money, but when the government put money in the budget, your Conservatives in the other place voted against those measures. You have to follow the message: Either you are against or you are for, but you have to decide. Senator Martin: Leader, specifically how much of that is for the reservists? That is the point I am making. There has been a decade of neglect. The ombudsman’s report shows that these issues have persisted for years, and have contributed to morale problems and administrative frustration in the reserves.

Will your government commit today to implement all of the ombudsman’s recommendations in full so that the men and women who serve Canada part-time are treated with the fairness and respect they deserve? Senator Moreau: The announcement of the Prime Minister concerning our investment in the Canadian Armed Forces is unprecedented; the total investments are unprecedented. I could provide you with the spreadsheet of how much has been invested in the reserves, but the fact is that when the government wants to spend $81 billion on the Canadian Armed Forces, you vote against that. PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE SOCIAL MEDIA Hon.

Paula Simons: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Last week, the Province of New Brunswick announced it would no longer use X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, for any official government communications, citing concerns over harmful content and inadequate safeguards. The City of Fredericton also stopped using X after a city survey showed that fewer and fewer residents were still on the platform. 1438 SENATE DEBATES February 10, 2026 [ Senator Martin ]

When will the Canadian government follow New Brunswick’s lead and stop relying on X for official communications with Canadians? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): I’m sorry, I don’t think I heard your question properly. I did not wear my earpiece. I would like to answer your question, but, unfortunately, I did not understand properly.

Senator Simons: Last week, the Province of New Brunswick announced it would no longer use X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, for any official government communications, citing concerns over harmful content and inadequate safeguards in the wake of the Grok AI scandal. The City of Fredericton also stopped using X after a city survey found that fewer and fewer residents were using the platform. When will the Canadian government follow New Brunswick’s lead and stop relying on X for official communications with Canadians?

Senator Moreau: Senator, I have no information whatsoever on whether the government will continue to use that platform. I will bring your concerns to those above me, and I will get back to you with an answer. However, at this time, I have no specific information concerning a decision regarding that issue. Senator Simons: The Supreme Court of Canada stopped using X a year ago this month, well before the Grok AI program turned the platform into the world’s largest engine for creating “deepfaked” non-consensual nude images of women and girls.

Given the declining number of Canadians using X — because many have quit for reasons of moral revulsion — will the government consider embracing new social media platforms, such as Mastodon and Bluesky instead? Senator Moreau: I will give you the same answer. I will raise the issue and provide you with an answer if there are any decisions that have been made concerning that issue. INNOV ATION, SCIENCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Hon. Marilou McPhedran: This is a question about AI and young people.

The recent strategy developed by the government also includes reference to research on the addictive nature of many of the applications and the fact that those applications that look specifically to mental health supports are among the most dangerous. Could I please have a commitment that protecting young people and helping addicted young people as a result of AI use will be a top priority in this government’s AI strategy? Hon.

Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): I cannot comment for the government on the AI strategy, but I will bring your concerns regarding AI to the attention of the minister. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUSINESS OF THE SENATE Hon.

Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-12(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: Motion No. 44, followed by second reading of Bill C-19, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper. THE SENATE MOTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TO CONSIDER SUBJECT MATTER OF BILL C-19 ADOPTED Hon.

Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of February 5, 2026, moved: That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, usual practice or previous order: 1. at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, February 11, 2026, the Senate resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the subject matter of Bill C-19,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act; 2. the Committee of the Whole receive the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, P.C., M.P., Minister of Finance and National Revenue, accompanied by at most two officials; 3. the committee rise no later than 65 minutes after it begins; 4. the minister’s introductory remarks be limited to a maximum of five minutes; 5. if, during the Committee of the Whole, a senator does not use the entire period of 10 minutes for debate provided under rule 12-31(3)(d), including the responses of the witnesses, that senator may yield the balance of time to another senator; 6. the provisions of rule 3-3(1) and any provision of the Rules or previous order relating to the ordinary time of adjournment be suspended until the chair of the Committee of the Whole has reported to the Senate; February 10, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1439

7. if the bells are ringing for a vote at the time the committee is to meet, they be interrupted for the Committee of the Whole at that time, and resume once the committee has completed its work for the balance of any time remaining; 8. if a standing vote was deferred to a time that would occur during the meeting of the Committee of the Whole, that vote be further deferred so that the bells only begin once the committee has completed its work; 9. for greater certainty, all witnesses appear in person; and 10. committees scheduled to meet on that day be authorized to meet, even though the Senate may then be sitting, with rule 12-18(1) being suspended in relation thereto.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Hon. Senators: Agreed. (Motion agreed to.) [Translation] INCOME TAX ACT BILL TO AMEND—SECOND READING Hon. Victor Boudreau second reading of Bill C-19,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act. He said: Honourable senators, It is a privilege for me today to take

part in our initial debate on Bill C-19, the Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit Act. •

(1450) As the sponsor of this bill in the Senate, I’d like to thank the Minister of Finance and National Revenue for entrusting me with this responsibility. It is an honour because I strongly believe that the targeted financial support provided for in this bill will make everyday essentials, such as groceries, much more affordable for Canadians who are still struggling to make ends meet in the wake of the recent period of inflation. [English] In this regard, the bill’s intent is singular and focused, and its structure is effectively designed to achieve its goal of targeting relief to those who truly need it most.

That is because it is based on, and builds upon, the solid foundation of the existing Goods and Services Tax credit, commonly referred to as the GST credit. The prominent economic analyst Claude Lavoie in The Globe and Mail

article entitled “The good, the bad and the puzzling of Carney’s new GST rebate,” published on January 29, 2026, wrote the following with respect to the GST credit: Many see it as an ideal stimulus measure because it satisfies the three standard criteria: targeted, timely and temporary. The benefit flows to low-income Canadians who are more likely to spend it rather than save it, making it more potent than broad-based tax cuts to stimulate the economy. It can be rapidly delivered through existing systems, providing faster economic support than infrastructure spending which typically suffers implementation delays.

And by being time‑limited, it avoids creating permanent fiscal obligations and creating inflationary pressure when economic conditions improve. This analysis continues by pointing out: Many economists also view it as an effective way to improve financial security for lower-income households and enhance the progressivity of Canada’s tax and transfer system. The Affordability Action Council, for instance, identified the GST/HST credit as the federal government’s best option for reaching vulnerable families.

In 2023, the council proposed restructuring and expanding the credit to deliver more income support amid elevated food and shelter costs. Available analysis suggests recipients do indeed use the additional funds for household necessities — food, rent and heating — as intended. Indeed, honourable colleagues, the Affordability Action Council was just one group amongst many working to address issues of affordability who favoured using the GST credit mechanism to deliver targeted financial support to those who need it most.

Right To Food Canada, for example, is a national organization whose mission is to transform the way we address food insecurity through an innovative, dignity-first model. Working with its 450 partners across the country, they accomplish this by creating and supporting community food centres, working to strengthen the community food sector and advocating for policy change.

As part of this advocacy, Right to Food Canada, in collaboration with the Affordability Action Council and in consultation with food security and poverty reduction organizations across the country, actually called on the federal government in October 2025 to use the GST credit mechanism to create a groceries and essentials benefit. [Translation] So it is not surprising that, when the Prime Minister announced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit on January 26, Right to Food published a statement confirming its support for the measure.

The statement said the following: With more than 10 million Canadians struggling to put food on the table, we welcome this announcement. For many years, Right To Food, our partners, and other leaders in the food security sector have advocated for a Groceries and Essentials Benefit to help people afford everyday needs, especially food. The announced 25% increase over five 1440 SENATE DEBATES February 10, 2026 [ Senator LaBoucane-Benson ]

years, combined with a one-time 50% top-up in 2026, will provide meaningful short-term relief to individuals and families working hard to make ends meet. This statement goes on to say, “This is a meaningful step that will make a difference to our neighbours who are under deep stress.” Honourable senators, we can clearly see that those on the front lines of the fight against food insecurity and its related challenges support the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit.

We can also see how professional economists recognize that the existing GST credit mechanism is well suited to ensuring that this assistance is properly targeted. I’d now like to take a moment to talk about what the benefit will actually mean. To sum up, starting in the spring of 2026, it will help more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians meet their basic daily needs, subject to Royal Assent, of course. In practical terms, this will involve an additional $402 for a single individual without children, $527 for a couple and $805 for a couple with two children.

Through this supplement, the Government of Canada will effectively offset the rising cost of groceries, which has exceeded the overall inflation rate ever since the pandemic. This will involve two steps. First, a one-time top-up will be paid as soon as possible in the spring — no later than June 2026 — equal to a 50% increase in the annual 2025-26 GST credit amount. This measure will provide $3.1 billion in additional support to individuals and families currently receiving the GST credit. Second, the value of the Canada groceries and essentials benefit will increase by 25% for five years starting in July 2026.

Gradually, over time, this increase will deliver $8.6 billion in additional support over the 2026-27 to 2030-31 period to over 500,000 new individuals and families. What does this mean in concrete terms for people facing affordability challenges? It means that a single senior with $25,000 in net income would receive a one-time top-up of $267 plus a longer-term increase of $136 for the 2026-27 benefit year, for a total increase of $402. In total, thanks to the top-up, they would receive $950 for the 2026-27 benefit year.

A couple with two children with $40,000 in net income would receive a one-time top-up of $533 plus an increase of $272 for the 2026-27 benefit year, for a total increase of $805. In total, with the top-up, they would receive $1,890 for the 2026-27 benefit year. To ensure that people who need this support get it when they need it most, the benefit would be paid out quarterly, at the start of the quarter, to permit timely access to the funds.

Also, these amounts are in addition to existing benefits such as the Canada Child Benefit, the Canada Disability Benefit and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. [English] Now, I fully appreciate that the issue of food affordability is a complex one.

Its origins are rooted in unfortunate developments from well beyond our borders, like the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, rising global protectionism and the increased use of tariffs, and extreme weather events caused by climate change, all of which contributed to significant supply chain and commodity market disruptions that have adversely impacted countries around the world, including right here in Canada. •

(1500) This is a problem with dimensions both on the supply side, in terms of rising food prices, and on the demand side, in terms of individuals’ ability to pay, which rests on broader employment and economic conditions. But this is something that the government recognizes and is working to address. For example, when the Prime Minister announced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, at the same time, he announced a range of measures aimed at bringing down food prices on the supply side.

He announced, for example, that the government is setting aside $500 million from the Strategic Response Fund to help businesses address the cost of supply chain disruptions without passing those costs on to Canadians in the checkout line. To that same end, in response to developments on the trade and tariff front, the Prime Minister announced that the government will create a $150-million food security fund under the existing Regional Tariff Response Initiative for small- and medium-sized enterprises and the organizations that support them.

To lower the cost of food production, the Prime Minister also announced that the government is introducing immediate expensing for greenhouse buildings. This allows producers to fully write off greenhouses acquired on or after November 4, 2025, and that become available for use before 2030. This measure supports increased domestic supply and investment in food production over the medium term. To ease immediate pressures with food banks, the Prime Minister announced that the government is providing $20 million to the Local Food Infrastructure Fund.

This supports food banks and other national, regional and local organizations to deliver more nutritious food to families in need. To tackle the root causes of food insecurity, the government is also developing a national food security strategy, one that strengthens domestic food production and improves access to affordable nutritious food. This strategy would also include measures to implement unit-price labelling and support the work of the Competition Bureau in monitoring and enforcing competition in the market, including food supply chains.

But the government has also been clear that strengthening the demand side of the equation is also key to overcoming food affordability challenges. In this regard, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit builds on other important supports that the government has introduced to make life more affordable. This includes cutting taxes for 22 million middle-class Canadians, eliminating GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes up to $1 million, reducing GST for first-time homebuyers on new February 10, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1441

homes between $1 million and $1.5 million, cancelling the federal consumer fuel charge and making the National School Food Program permanent, to name just a few examples. By building on these cost-saving measures with further temporary and targeted relief, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit can and should play a role in shoring up demand and in supporting our most vulnerable through affordability challenges.

But the government has also — and I believe rightly — positioned the new benefit as a bridging measure to carry us through these challenges until its investments in growth kick in and translate to more jobs and rising incomes, which represent a permanent and enduring long-term solution to issues of food affordability. The Prime Minister’s top-line message in this regard is fundamental: The government is building a stronger economy to make life more affordable for Canadians.

The way forward for the government has also been made clear: It is committed to securing new trade and investment partnerships abroad and to building our strength at home to create good career opportunities with high wages for Canadians. This is an important nuance to recognize and take note of, honourable colleagues. The government recognizes here that the Canada grocery and essentials benefit is not a permanent solution to issues of food affordability.

Rather, it represents material financial support for those Canadians who need it the most while the government’s plan to build the strongest economy in the G7 takes effect. But this in no way undermines the importance of delivering the Canada groceries and essentials benefit for Canadians on a timely basis. [Translation] The Canada groceries and essentials benefit is the right measure to bring in, and now is the right time to do so. The measures in this bill are supported by people working on the front lines of the fight to address food affordability issues.

Professional economists have recognized the GST credit mechanism on which the benefit is based as ideal for this type of economic stimulus, because it provides targeted, temporary support at the right time. Because parliamentarians recognized these advantages, they decided to fast-track the passage of Bill C-19 in the House of Commons. For all these reasons, I believe that the bill deserves to be passed quickly in the Senate as well. Thank you, colleagues, for giving me the opportunity and privilege to advocate on this issue today. Thank you. Meegwetch. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear. [English] Hon.

Denise Batters: Would Senator Boudreau take a couple of questions? Senator Boudreau: Certainly. Senator Batters: Thanks very much. First of all, the Carney Liberal government finally brought forward its budget for 2025 on November 4, more than a year and a half after the last budget was tabled by the Liberal government. Now a major budget item involving about $12 billion is being put before us just a few months after that. Why didn’t the government bring this forward as part of its budget? Senator Boudreau: I thank the member opposite for the question.

Obviously, Bill C-19 clearly deals with the Canada groceries and essentials benefit act. It doesn’t deal with the budget. That is a separate bill that was tabled in Parliament, in both houses, and is still being debated. I don’t think it’s my role to argue why it wasn’t part of the last budget. The important thing is it is here today because Canadians need that support today. That support was clearly shown in the House of Commons by the fast-tracking of the approval of this bill, and I hope that the Senate will do the same thing. Senator Batters: Well, you are the sponsor of the bill for the government on this.

I would like the chance to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate these questions, but I don’t think he is giving a speech on this topic, so you are the person I have to ask to answer these questions on behalf of the government. This is a major budgetary item. Are you telling me that the government never contemplated this when they were putting their budget together for over a year and a half or even in the six months before that, from the time the government was elected to the budget time frame? Why didn’t they include a $12-billion item in their budget?

Senator Boudreau: I thank the member for the question. Again, I would remind my colleague that I am the sponsor of Bill C-19, so I am not the sponsor of the budget. I can’t speak to the budget. I can speak to Bill C-19 and what’s being proposed as part of Bill C-19. It is an investment of over $11.7 billion over the next six years to help families and individuals most in need across our country. That’s why I wanted to be the sponsor of this bill in particular — because of its importance. Canadians need this help now. They need it as soon as possible.

The government has committed to delivering these allocations as quickly as possible. That’s why they chose to take an existing program, an existing benefit, and build upon it, as opposed to trying to build something from scratch. They wanted to make sure that they were able to put these cheques into the hands of Canadians as quickly as possible, and that’s what Bill C-19 would do. Hon. Leo Housakos (Leader of the Opposition): Would Senator Boudreau take a question? Senator Boudreau: Yes, certainly. 1442 SENATE DEBATES February 10, 2026 [ Senator Boudreau ]

Senator Housakos: Thank you, senator. Thank you for your speech. I have a couple of questions pertaining to things you said in your speech. First, you highlighted the various reasons we find ourselves in this dilemma where we have to take these measures in order to help Canadians who are definitely suffering and having difficulties. Of course, the opposition wholeheartedly supports the measures because we recognize the hardships that Canadians are going through, even though, from time to time, the government paints this rosy picture of how things are, a contrarian picture nonetheless.

You mentioned in your speech the various international causes of inflation and food inflation, but you didn’t mention a bad fiscal order, debt and deficits rising consistently for over a decade, which always have a monetary impact on fiscal policy. •

(1510) You didn’t mention the fact that Canada has one of the weakest performances over the past decade with respect to foreign investment coming into the country, and Canadian investment is fleeing Canada at a rapid pace, which has a huge impact on the dollar. No one seems to be talking about the fact that if your business is participating in any form of importing and exporting, in order to spend US$100 to buy a product, you need to spend C$135. That is probably one of the biggest driving forces affecting the cost of food. I would like you to comment on that.

You said the government is using this as a temporary measure, but this is the fourth time since 2022 we’re using this form of credit to help underprivileged Canadians. Bill C-30, Bill C-46 and Bill C-78 were all the same story of facing the same problem over the past four years. My last question is this: Is this an indictment of the government and an admission that it has brutally failed in helping poor Canadians? Senator Boudreau: I thank my colleague for the question.

The point I was trying to make, when I talked about some of the international factors that are at play and affecting us, is that the challenge we’re facing in terms of food insecurity and the rising cost of food isn’t just a phenomenon happening here in Canada; it’s happening in countries around the world because of multiple issues affecting them. It’s not just a problem in Canada or in any particular province or territory in Canada; it’s a global problem. With Bill C-19, the government is trying to find a way to address it.

Basing it on the GST credit was the fastest way to help over 12 million low- and modest-income individuals and families across the country. I would remind all my colleagues here in the chamber that the GST credit has been around since 1991 and has a proven track record of producing results. People who are eligible receive this credit four times a year. It’s easier to administer than some of the other tax regimes, credits and rebates that have been put in place over the years. Bill C-19 is building and improving on it to quickly put money in the pockets of Canadians — as soon as this spring.

With a decent-sized bump this year and a 25% increase for the next five years, it will give people the chance to get over the hump we’re dealing with right now — globally, not just in Canada. The federal government has been putting measures in place to address some of these challenges, but doing so, like with any measure, will take time. This is meant as a bridge to help Canadians get to the other side. The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Batters, do you have another question? Senator Batters: Yes, I do. I was watching when Prime Minister Carney was making this announcement on, I believe, January 26.

He kind of looked back at his finance minister for confirmation, but I recall him saying it was going to be about $9 billion. However, on February 2, the Parliamentary Budget Officer costed this measure at $12.4 billion, and I think, near the end of one of your answers to me today, you stated the measure has an $11.7-billion cost. Why the large difference between these numbers, and what is the actual cost of this major program? Senator Boudreau: I thank my colleague for the question. To the best of my knowledge, the cost of this program will be $11.7 billion over six years.

That’s the number that I received from the department in my briefing notes. The difference between the $12.4 billion released by the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the $11.7 billion from the Department of Finance is due to a slightly different calculation by the PBO. The Department of Finance does not calculate the last quarter payment of the last fiscal year, but the PBO does. So that’s the difference of $600 million. That would be that extra quarter. So it’s really just the different ways they calculated it.

I have been assured — after asking the question multiple times — that 100% of the people who receive the GST credit today will receive the increases this year, and that number is expected to grow moving forward in the subsequent five years because of the 25% increase and the eligibility being set year after year. It’s expected that up to over 500,000 more Canadians will benefit from this credit over the next five years. Senator Batters: I would be curious to hear why Prime Minister Carney thought the amount was more like $9 billion, but I’ll move on.

What is the income threshold that someone would need to meet in order to be able to receive this? Is it the same as the GST credit? If so, what is that threshold? You noted that 12 million Canadians would receive it. I’m assuming that the income threshold for receiving the GST credit is very low, and isn’t it unfortunate that 12 million Canadians would potentially earn so little that they would be receiving this? February 10, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1443

Senator Boudreau: I thank the member again for the question. I’m not sure I can give a fulsome answer to the question in terms of eligibility because it all depends on one’s revenue and on the number of kids one has — it’s a scale. There is a chart, though I don’t have that here in front of me. As I said in my previous answer, 100% of the people who qualified for the latest GST credit in January of this year will qualify for this 50% top-up, as well as for the 25% bump starting in July.

Then, year after year, the previous year’s income tax will determine what people’s qualification amounts are, so those will vary. But 100% of the people receiving it today will continue to receive it, and it is expected that over 500,000 more Canadians — over and above the 12 million who receive it now — will receive it at the end of the program. Hon. Percy E. Downe: I thank Senator Boudreau for that speech. Given his extensive experience — and as the former finance minister of New Brunswick — he is well suited to sponsor this legislation. I have a question.

I received an email from a Prince Edward Islander, and I’m trying to get the information to respond. I have not been able to obtain it yet. I’m wondering if you either have it or could make a commitment to get it to me so I can respond to this person’s concern. The person wrote me an email that stated: According to my review of the proposed legislation, a single person with a $40,000 net income would get a payment of $399.75, while a single person with a net income of $10,000 would receive $261.75.

The question, of course, is: Does the government feel someone with a $40,000 income needs more help than someone with a $10,000 income? Senator Boudreau: I thank my colleague for the question. That’s certainly not an answer I can provide on the fly, but I will commit to getting an answer for my honourable colleague and make sure that he receives a response. Senator Downe: Senator, I appreciate that. The person goes on in their email, and this is the heart of their concern: The problem here is that the proposed legislation is based on the GST credit.

Simply put, the GST credit gives a larger credit to some people with higher incomes because the government of the day was trying to honour an election promise that their credit would offset the impact of the GST. Since people with more money would spend more, they were expected to pay more GST. The GST credit is odd. It should not be the basis for this new credit. Could you find a rebuttal from the government for that concern? Senator Boudreau: Thank you for the question. I certainly will. As I committed to do for the first question, I’ll try my best to get an answer on the second one.

Again, all I can say is this certainly goes deeper than what I received in terms of a legislative briefing for Bill C-19. But again, the idea of building this new program, this new benefit, on the GST credit that has been in place since 1991, is a point that can’t be neglected here. •

(1520) This credit has been around for a long time. It has survived successive governments, it has helped tens of millions of Canadians, and it was deemed to be the quickest way to get this additional money into the pockets of Canadians who need it most. That’s the intent behind Bill C-19. [Translation] Hon. Clément Gignac: Would the senator take another question? Senator Boudreau: Yes, of course. Senator Gignac: First of all, I’d like to congratulate you on your speech. I believe this is the first time you’re sponsoring a bill in this chamber.

It’s an interesting experience that will give you a better understanding of how the Senate works. Before I ask you my question, I’d like to share an observation with my colleagues. Many of my fellow economists and I agree that this tax measure is much more targeted and better designed than a certain temporary GST cut, which some called a gimmick. I believe there is a great deal more support for this measure in the House of Commons and the Senate. This is the most significant tax measure since the pandemic. Outside of the budget cycle and the pandemic, we rarely see amounts as high as $11 billion.

I would like to know if you can provide this chamber with any assurance that we can afford this measure without a new budget framework. In my opinion, during the Department of Finance briefing, Mr. LeBlanc was less cautious than he should have been when he said that he believes Canada can afford such a measure. What did he base that statement on? Senator Boudreau: Thank you for your question, colleague, and for referencing economists. Although I am not one myself, I agree with them that a targeted measure is preferable for helping those who need it most. I’m obviously very pleased with the government’s decision.

Twelve million Canadians will be affected by this measure. As for whether the government can afford such an initiative, it is not my role, as the sponsor of the bill, to answer that kind of question. I’m sure there are people in the Department of Finance who could provide you with a more detailed answer. [English] Hon. Leo Housakos (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Senator Boudreau, for your work as sponsor of this bill, and congratulations, since this is the first government bill you have sponsored. I’m sure there will be many more to come. 1444 SENATE DEBATES February 10, 2026

I rise today, honourable colleagues, to speak to Bill C-19,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, which will increase benefits under the Goods and Services Tax credit and rename it as the Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit. At its core, Bill C-19 takes the existing GST/HST credit, an established quarterly, non-taxable payment meant to help low‑ and modest-income Canadians, and transforms it in two ways. First, it provides a one-time payment equal to 50% of the current benefit, tied to eligibility in January 2026, with the stated intent of delivering relief as early as possible in the spring of 2026.

This measure is estimated to deliver $3.1 billion in immediate assistance to individuals and families who currently receive the GST credit. Second, it bakes in a multi-year increase by raising the maximum annual credit amounts by 25% for five years, with payments continuing quarterly, beginning July 2026 and running through April 2031. This measure is estimated to deliver $8.6 billion in additional support over the 2026-27 to 2030-31 period. In total, the government projects that 12.6 million individuals and families — about 30% of the population — will benefit.

We are told that the practical impact of these changes will look like this: A single senior with $25,000 in net income would receive a one-time top-up of $267, plus a longer-term increase of $136 for the 2026-27 benefit year. In total, they will receive $950 for the 2026-27 benefit year. A couple with two children, with $40,000 in net income, would receive a one-time top-up of $533, plus an increase of $272 for the 2026-27 benefit year. In total, they would receive $1,890 for the 2026-27 benefit year.

Regrettably, this bill is necessary because millions of people are under acute pressure at the checkout line, and they have been for years. According to Statistics Canada, the overall Consumer Price Index inflation in December 2025 was 2.4% year over year, but food purchased from stores was up 5% year over year. These are not academic numbers. They are the difference between a family keeping up and falling behind, and Canadians are falling behind. Food Banks Canada reports nearly 2.2 million food bank visits in a single month, colleagues, with children representing one third of those visits.

Abacus Data found in late 2025 that 81% of Canadians cite grocery prices as a concern, making it among the most universal affordability pressures in the country. The 2026 edition of Canada’s Food Price Report states that the average family of four is expected to spend $17,572 on groceries in 2026 — about $1,000 more than in 2025 — and compares that to $12,180 for a family of four way back in 2019, an increase, colleagues, of $5,000 from pre-pandemic times to today. Yes, help is needed, but the real question is this: Why are we here again with another patch, another cheque and another press conference?

You may recall that, in October 2022 and March 2023, the Trudeau government passed what was framed as an affordability measure through GST-credit doubling and a so-called grocery rebate. Then, in late 2024, they implemented a temporary GST holiday on certain items, another short-term fix. Now, under the new Liberal government of Mark Carney, we are back here again to approve another bigger, stronger Band-Aid. Honourable senators, Conservatives support this bill because we recognize that this is the best that Canadians, unfortunately, can expect from this government.

This is the best they can do, because the government is failing to do what it promised, which was to govern competently, manage the economy responsibly, deliver affordability through growth and productivity, unleash our natural resources, get the economy revving again and start creating wealth for all Canadians. That was the promise. Just over a year ago, Prime Minister Carney stood in a community hall in Edmonton, Alberta, and launched his campaign to become the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

His message was clear: While the opposition had nothing but sound bites and slogans, according to him, he had a plan to get Canada’s economy back on track and deal with Donald Trump. He positioned himself as the grown-up in the room who understood economics, had navigated global crises and possessed the gravitas to deal with the unpredictable American president and the growing international and Canadian inflationary crisis that we are facing.

Yet, we are now almost a year into his tenure as Prime Minister, and Canadians who thought they were getting a steady hand on the rudder are likely now dashing and looking for Gravol at all costs. In fact, I would argue that Prime Minister Carney’s leadership has increased the turbulence by becoming precisely what he criticized: a leader who substitutes rhetorical flourishes for a coherent strategy and swings between narratives, depending on what serves his political brand rather than Canada’s economic interests. It has been a year, colleagues.

There are no excuses after 10 months of seeing a government continually implement inflationary programs which are absolutely immune to growing deficits and debt. The debt over the last 10 months has hit new historic levels. The deficit under this government has hit new historic highs, regardless of how they use the accounting magic of what only Liberals do when they audit books. •

(1530) His recent performance at the World Economic Forum in Davos exemplified this approach. The speech was polished and widely praised for its cohesive arguments, yet beneath the surface, it was riddled with and full of contradictions. He compared the United States and China as coequal hegemons threatening global stability, yet days earlier he celebrated renewed trade engagement with Beijing as if it represented a turning point in the international world order. February 10, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1445

He warned that authoritarian powers weaponize markets yet treats deals with those same regimes as routine pragmatism rather than strategic risk. He called for middle powers to band together in defence of shared values, yet his actions suggest that Canada’s principles bend conveniently whenever a headline beckons. But it is his signature line which is most troubling to me: Canadians can “. . . give ourselves far more than the Americans can ever take away.” Remember that one? This is a stirring sentiment, designed to invoke national pride and resilience.

But when scrutinized, the proposed path to achieving this independence collapses. Yes, removing interprovincial trade barriers will help. But the notion that eliminating barriers between provinces can somehow replace or rival the scale, proximity and infrastructure advantages of the American market is economically illiterate. But I want to go deeper. In the last 10 months, how many first ministers’ meetings were there? How many press conferences next to premiers were there? How many press releases were there celebrating that we’re tearing down trade barriers between provinces?

The truth of the matter is that 10 months later, and after umpteen press conferences, press releases and first ministers’ conferences, we have not torn down a single thing or moved the yardsticks at all. Similarly, his pledge to double non-U.S. exports within a decade and conjure $1 trillion in domestic investment through massive government spending reads more like campaign theatre than executable policy. These are not strategies; they are slogans dressed up as solutions. The stubborn reality is this: Roughly three quarters of Canadian exports still flow to the United States.

After decades of talk about diversification, our export concentration has not meaningfully changed. Diversification is worthwhile at the margins, but it cannot replace the foundational relationship that geography, infrastructure, supply chains and decades of integration have created. The real question is not how to replace the United States as a trading partner. The real question is why Canada is becoming less competitive everywhere, including with our closest ally. Why has foreign investment abandoned this country? Why is Canadian investment leaving at records we have never seen before?

Why is Canadian productivity one of the lowest in the OECD of the G20 countries? These are the questions that the government has to tackle. If we do not tackle these questions, we are going to continue to deal with legislation that deals with poverty, and we will get into semantics. Senator Percy Downe says very often — and he is absolutely right — there are pros and cons to this particular program, but the truth is, colleagues, the more that somebody spends at the grocery store, the more they will get back in rebates. Obviously, if you have more to spend, you are not as poor as the person who has less to spend.

Again, this is nothing more than a Band-Aid solution. It is far from perfect. It does not tackle the core problem. The core problem is that bad monetary policy as well as irresponsible debt and deficit spending have weakened our dollar to the point where everyone is fleeing from it. That brings us to the problem that Carney’s rhetoric is designed to obscure: Canada’s catastrophic productivity decline. Our GDP per capita has fallen from 94% of the U.S. level in 1981 to just 78% in 2023. Labour productivity sits at US$74.70 per hour worked compared to US$97 in the United States.

Investment in machinery and equipment per worker has collapsed from 60% of the U.S. level in 2008 to 41% today. It is catastrophic, colleagues, when we think of that. Intellectual property investment per worker has dropped from 50% to 30% of the U.S. level. These are not abstract statistics; they are the scoreboard of national decline. In practical terms, this productivity crisis is why Canadians feel like life is getting harder even when they are working just as hard.

When each hour of work produces less value than in competing economies, businesses cannot pay competitive wages, governments collect less revenue without raising taxes and we have fewer resources for health care — 6.5 million Canadians without a doctor — as well as less money for infrastructure, defence and considerably less for social programs. Over time, this manifests as stagnant wages, fewer quality jobs and rising costs for housing, vehicles and imported goods without corresponding increases in Canadian paycheques. You cannot message your way out of that gap.

Unless Canada invests more in better tools, technology and innovation and actually gets projects built, our standard of living will continue to drift and spiral downward. Colleagues, it is my firm conviction that our trading relationship with the United States should and will outlast Donald Trump, just as it has outlasted every other president. This is because geography does not change with political winds, and it certainly cannot change the economic and geographic realities of our continent.

Our economies have been stitched together by pipelines, rail corridors, highways and integrated supply chains that make cross-border commerce structurally cheaper and faster than any other alternative anyone can dream up. 1446 SENATE DEBATES February 10, 2026 [ Senator Housakos ]

Ottawa’s job today is to manage turbulence without pretending we can simply pivot away from the market that matters most — the market that every nation in the world is trying to find ways to penetrate. A serious strategy would stabilize and strengthen the U.S. relationship rather than antagonize it for domestic political points. It would remove the internal barriers choking investment and focus relentlessly on capital formation, innovation and project execution.

Diversification should be pursued steadily as insurance, not sold as a substitute for the only market that can absorb Canada’s production at a competitive cost. Prime Minister Carney promised substance over slogans. Instead, he has delivered slogans disguised as strategy, contradictions masked as principle and a foreign policy that oscillates between confrontation and flattery depending on the audience and depending on the moment. And this is what we are seeing once again with the legislation before us today.

In his January 26 press release, the Prime Minister said his government is introducing, “. . . new measures to make groceries and other essentials more affordable . . . .” to bring down our costs. But Bill C-19 does nothing of the sort. Dalhousie Professor Sylvain Charlebois called the measure “political theatre,” saying it treats the symptoms of high food prices, not the root causes. He warned that putting more cash directly into the hands of consumers could backfire by potentially allowing grocers to raise prices even further.

And I would remind you, colleagues, that this is not the first time the Liberals staged a performance and promised results that never materialized. In 2023, the finance minister made a big show of calling grocery CEOs to Ottawa and threatening them, promising to ensure prices would come down. There was all kinds of theatre there. We saw the results. The CEOs came and went, and nothing changed. Canadians were left with higher prices and higher food bank usage. That show definitely might have made for a good headline, but it did not make groceries affordable, and neither will the legislation before us today.

Conservatives support the relief provided in Bill C-19 because Canadians need relief badly, but we will not pretend it is a plan. It is not. It is a stopgap measure that was cobbled together to buy the Liberals more time to try to figure out what to do. By the way, as I said earlier in my question to Senator Boudreau, it has been tried four times by the same government expecting the same result. We know what happens when you try the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. We know what we call that. Perhaps you think that I’m being too hard on the government; I understand that.

It is my role, but I’m trying to be constructive. But consider for a moment that Budget 2025, a 405-page document, included pages and pages of affordability measures, such as tax cuts, automatic benefits administration and school food programming, but did not once mention a permanent GST credit expansion of the kind now being proposed through Bill C-19. •

(1540) The ink on the budget document has barely dried, and the first budget implementation act has not even been passed, colleagues, and yet this government is already tacking on an ad hoc program and blowing past its deficit and debt projections. This is no small thing. The government is asking Parliament to legislate a one-time payment and ongoing increases for millions of Canadians. Yet this initiative arrives in a manner that once again raises serious questions about planning and fiscal discipline. We are not looking at a carefully sequenced affordability strategy anchored in a stable fiscal framework.

We are looking at another bolted-on policy afterthought with no consideration for the long-term financial implications. Former finance minister John Manley correctly had it right when he warned last week, “We can’t keep borrowing our way to prosperity.” Colleagues, relief without reform becomes a permanent dependency on temporary cheques and schemes. And although the government claims that the 25% increase in the GST tax credit is only for a five-year window, I can guarantee you that, no matter who is in government, it will not be reversed in 2031.

That is just the political reality, and we all know it — those of us who understand how this town and politics work. The government is building in a permanent increased cost, instead of tackling the root causes behind our unaffordability crisis. This is what they have been doing for 10 years. Honourable senators, Bill C-19 is necessary because Canadians are under pressure. The data is unmistakable and clear: Food inflation remains elevated relative to overall inflation, and food bank usage has hit record levels. But Bill C-19 is also an indictment.

It is proof that the government’s promises to make life affordable have not been met with any tangible results. There is the proof: the fact that we need to go back to the well with this smoke-and-mirrors piece of legislation. So let us do two things at once, because Canadians deserve both. First, we should pass the relief and pass it quickly so that low- and modest-income Canadians get support through a system that can deliver it immediately.

Second, we should tell the truth about what this bill represents, tell the truth that it is a stopgap that exists because of a decade of mismanagement, fiscal drift and a governing style that too often substitutes theatre for substance. It is our obligation in this place of sober second thought to speak the truth. February 10, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1447

Conservatives will support Canadians getting help at the checkout line, because Canadians need it now. They are desperate. We have met with them. We have talked to them. We have gone out. I encourage all of you independent senators to go out and meet your constituents in your respective regions of the country. They will tell you how much they are suffering, and the grocery store will be the first place they will talk to you about. But we will not pretend that this is a success. It is not. Bill C-19 is nothing to celebrate. It is a warning. It is another flashing danger sign.

It should be a turning point for this country, away from improvisation and political theatrics and towards more serious, disciplined economic leadership — one that is thoughtful, long-term and that provides results to Canadians. Thank you, colleagues. The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question? Hon. Senators: Question. The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Hon.

Senators: Agreed. (Motion agreed to and bill read second time.) The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time? (On motion of Senator Boudreau, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.) [Translation] BUSINESS OF THE SENATE The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to inform you that the Senate will resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole in order to receive Kelly Burke respecting her appointment as Commissioner of Official Languages.

This will occur at 6:30 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted Thursday, February 5, 2026. [English] CHIGNECTO ISTHMUS DYKELAND SYSTEM BILL SECOND READING On the Order: Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Quinn, seconded by the Honourable Senator Osler, for the second reading of Bill S-216,

An Act to declare the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System and related works to be for the general advantage of Canada. The Hon. the Speaker: I wish to inform the Senate that if Honourable Senator Quinn speaks now, his speech will have the effect of closing debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. Hon. Jim Quinn: Honourable senators, in preparation for my remarks today, I found myself reflecting on what has transpired to bring us to this moment in debate and the misplaced hesitation to proceed with a bill that has widespread support, essentially, everywhere you look on the East Coast.

If one were to consider testimony from the prior Parliament in the chamber and in committee, unanimous support from legislative assemblies in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, letters of support from the Governments of Prince Edward Island as well as Newfoundland and Labrador, reports in local media of Atlantic Canada, support from Acadian, Indigenous and, indeed, local communities, as well as other stakeholders who see this as an important opportunity to safeguard the isthmus, one would bear witness to a loud rallying cry for federal leadership in the form of this legislation.

In fact, in the fall of 2025, La Société Nationale de l’Acadie passed a resolution endorsing this bill specifically. It is also supported by Amlamgog, or Fort Folly First Nation, whose traditional lands are in the Chignecto Isthmus, who also reaffirmed their support for this bill last fall. All this underscores one of our primary responsibilities in representing and presenting issues from our region here in our independent Senate that might otherwise never be heard in our parliamentary process.

Thank you for allowing me to repeat to this chamber what I have said in three speeches across two parliaments — most recently, my first speech at second reading in June 2025 — for now, offering some further clarity on the necessity of this bill, as the issue is as pertinent as ever. But since then, a court decision has come and gone, and it has been interpreted by some as suggesting that the passage of this bill would be an affront to the judiciary and could create a constitutional quandary. That could not be farther from the truth.

I thank Senator Ringuette for raising concerns she had in this chamber that, she believed, warranted careful examination. However, after consultation with relevant stakeholders, as well as with provincial and municipal officials and elected office‑holders, again, I can assure Senator Ringuette that her concerns have no basis in law. •

(1550) First, are we derailing the Chignecto Isthmus rehabilitation project with this bill? The answer is no. In conversation with the Governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, they indicated that passing Bill S-216 would expedite consultation processes and the regulatory approvals pertaining to this project by a matter of years. 1448 SENATE DEBATES February 10, 2026 [ Senator Housakos ]

Given the rising tides in the area, every day saved in this process is reducing the risk of a potential humanitarian and infrastructure disaster should the dykes breach. If that happens, we will see the destruction of one of Canada’s most important corridors for trade and transportation, which will result in the Port of Halifax being cut off from the majority of its two-way trade. Much of that volume would divert to U.S. East Coast ports, and, like so many things in life, when the cargo is gone, it is no doubt gone forever. Second, are we creating a total void of provincial legislation and regulations?

Again, the answer is no. This has no basis in constitutional law. My office drafted this bill in coordination with the Attorneys General offices of the Provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and this hypothetical idea of a legislative gap was discussed and was determined to have no basis in law due to interpretive principles of constitutional law. Simply, the use of the declaratory power does not invalidate provincial laws of general application without there being a federal substitute.

Furthermore, this bill only applies to dykes, as defined in clause 2 of the bill itself, as “. . . a dyke, aboiteau or breakwater associated with the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System” within the Chignecto trade corridor. In addition, addressing Senator Ringuette’s concerns, the bill does not affect schools, private lands, wind farms, et cetera, as she stated. Furthermore, the declaratory power only applies to works. It cannot apply to unimproved land like forests or pastures. It certainly does not apply to the entire isthmus, as my colleague suggested in her speech.

Therefore, this concern has no basis in constitutional law. Both governments agree with this assessment. There is no legislative void; the area is explicitly defined. Finally, I took to heart the senator’s suggestion to seek reassurances from the Provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia that they agree with transferring jurisdiction, which is at the heart of the legislation. I did just that and, in fact, received assurances from New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt in person at a federal announcement at Port Saint John in mid-January.

The prior unanimous resolutions of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick stand. She confirmed that, “Nothing has changed.” Similarly, I subsequently had the opportunity to speak with the Nova Scotia Minister of Public Works, Minister Fred Tilley, who, likewise, after consultation with Premier Tim Houston, reaffirmed that same opinion. Further, my staff spoke with the Mayor of Tantramar, who indicated that local communities support this bill to ensure that their municipalities are protected from rising sea levels. Colleagues, there is no untrodden or novel constitutional question before us regarding my bill.

Bills involving the use of the declaratory power traditionally go to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications because they deal with infrastructure. Again, this, in fact, is what is happening right now respecting the use of the declaratory power in Bill C-15, the Budget Implementation Act, for the proposed high-speed rail project connecting Quebec City and Toronto, Ontario. I struggle to see how anyone could find a difference in the application of the use of the declaratory power in this instance and that of the isthmus, as both are for the same principle, for the general advantage of Canada.

Colleagues, regarding the Court of Appeal reference, it does not use the same part of the Constitution, and any reference to that ruling in relation to Bill S-216 confuses the issue. It has no bearing or impact, from a legal perspective, on using the declaratory power. In fact, the court declined to answer the referenced question related to 92.10(

a) of the Constitution because it was political. They did so on the basis that it is a policy decision. Let me underline and highlight these next words concerning the question that courts considered: It is best left for politicians. On October 23, Senator McNair highlighted from the court statement: It is difficult to envision how members of Parliament would be guided in their deliberations by an advisory opinion requested by a provincial government from its Court of Appeal. I couldn’t agree more with this statement. The court failed to see how they could help Parliament in their deliberation.

It is, indeed, for politicians in Parliament to decide, and that is entirely the point. The declaratory power is all about federal leadership. Senator Prosper spoke on this fact during his speech, discussing the difficulties faced by the Mi’kmaq, one nation that exists across two provinces. By virtue of the current arrangement, the nation has to engage with two different processes for the same issue.

Engagement at a single level — the federal government, which would be the default should the isthmus project fall under federal jurisdiction — would not only harmonize requirements into a single jurisdiction by declaring that the Chignecto Isthmus project is for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces, but we are also ensuring that the duty to consult and the honour of the Crown are held to the highest standard.

As Senator Prosper further stated: . . . without the leadership of Parliament to invoke the declaratory power, the Mi’kmaq peoples are left necessarily divided across an arbitrary boundary line in the Chignecto Isthmus. We are a people divided between two provincial environmental impact assessment schemes and caught between two provincially led consultation processes that have been, in many ways, proven to be deficient in their ability to address Mi’kmaq concerns.

Honourable senators, is it not to the general advantage of Canada to support the government’s priority of diversifying our country’s trade lanes and trading partners in order to lessen our dependency on trade with the United States? February 10, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1449

Is it not to the general advantage of Canada to support the government and its partners in investing in major projects across the country that will strengthen our economy and whose success is strongly tied to our supply chains? Is it not to the general advantage of Canada to strengthen and improve our infrastructure as that action will be essential in strengthening our economy, efficiency and reliability as a global leader in trade? Is it not to the general advantage of Canada to support the government’s commitment to undertake meaningful consultations with Indigenous Peoples who are affected by projects?

Is it not to the general advantage of Canada to protect the rich cultures of the First Nations and Acadian peoples? I think a resounding “yes” to all of these questions is accurate, and all of them are relevant to the Chignecto Isthmus project and demonstrate why

section 92.10(

c) of our Constitution was seen as an important tool by the Fathers of Confederation in our Constitution by allowing Parliament to bestow federal leadership on projects Parliament considers to be for the general advantage of Canada. Colleagues, this is why the bill should be read a second time. I respectfully ask each of you to support this bill so that we can again provide the other place — the elected chamber — an opportunity to debate, study and vote on this bill. Thank you. The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Some Hon. Senators: Agreed. An Hon.

Senator: On division. (Motion agreed to and bill read second time, on division.) REFERRED TO COMMITTEE The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time? Hon.

Jim Quinn: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate, I move: That, 1. the bill be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications; 2. the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs be authorized to examine and report on the subject matter of the bill; and 3. the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to take into account any report from the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to the Senate on the subject matter of the bill, during its consideration of the bill.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Hon. Senators: Agreed. (Motion agreed to.) [Translation] CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 BILL TO AMEND—SECOND READING—DEBATE CONTINUED On the Order: Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Wilson, for the second reading of Bill S-218,

An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1982 (notwithstanding clause). Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, allow me to share some remarks on Bill S-218, introduced by our colleague, Senator Harder. •

(1600) Based on his speech and the interviews he gave, this bill is his response to remarks by the Conservative leader, the Honourable Pierre Poilievre, to the effect that, should he become Prime Minister, he would use the “notwithstanding” clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ensure that his government’s criminal law policies, particularly with respect to sentencing and release, would take precedence over court rulings.

I also note that the Conservative leader in the Senate, Senator Housakos, recently introduced Bill S-240, which proposes to use the “notwithstanding” clause to reinstate two minimum sentences and set aside a Supreme Court decision.

For those of you who are unaware, I was always keenly interested in constitutional law, particularly as it relates to fundamental institutions and standards, when I was in law school, where I won the constitutional law award a very long time ago, almost 50 years ago, and also as a lawyer working for various clients, including the speakers of the Senate and of the National Assembly of Quebec, and of course, as a judge presiding over many cases involving the Constitution or the Charter.

So I was very excited when Bill S-218 was introduced, and I’ve been keenly interested in the debates it sparked here and elsewhere. In the style made famous by my friend Senator Cotter, here is an outline of my intervention. In the first part, I’m going to address the bill’s content and the framework it proposes to constitutionally impose on Parliament. Second, I will discuss the origin and scope of

section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the “notwithstanding” clause. 1450 SENATE DEBATES February 10, 2026 [ Senator Quinn ]

Third and last, I will talk about two cases currently before the Supreme Court of Canada that will have a decisive impact on the scope of the “notwithstanding” clause. Essentially, the bill would add to the Constitution a rigid framework for Parliament’s use of the “notwithstanding” clause. Proposed subsection 33.1(4) seems to indicate that this process would apply in two different situations.

In the first situation, at the government’s suggestion, Parliament is invited to declare that a provision of an existing federal law must continue to apply after a Supreme Court of Canada decision has declared it to be of no force or effect on the grounds that it infringes without sufficient justification on one or more Charter-protected rights. I would note that this means the Attorney General of Canada would have to go all the way to the Supreme Court in all cases, even if he or she is convinced that trial court or Court of Appeal decisions are sound.

I would also note that the federal government has proposed a number of amendments to acts only after trial court rulings declared some of their provisions to be of no force or effect because they violate the Charter. In addition to the costs associated with the proposed requirement to exhaust all remedies, it’s also important to recognize that it takes years to get a case all the way to the Supreme Court.

The fact is, the time needed for the Supreme Court to issue a ruling will often exceed a government’s maximum four-year term, preventing it from using the “notwithstanding” clause, even if it was elected on a promise to use it to override certain case law. This scenario strikes me as problematic. One might even wonder whether this is a way of amending

section 33 without respecting the requirements of the constitutional amendment process, which, of course, requires the provinces’ consent. The second situation that the bill apparently seeks to address has to do with the passage of a bill that would contain a “notwithstanding” clause, but this time as a preventive measure. Senator Harder is proposing that the Constitution require the government to obtain an opinion from the Supreme Court before passing such legislation.

This would ensure that parliamentarians and the public are informed of the proposed legislation’s impact on Charter-protected rights before voting on the proposed legislation, including the “notwithstanding” clause. This is an interesting idea on the surface. However, such a requirement would add at least several months to the legislative process because of the time required to obtain the Supreme Court opinion. Practically speaking, this would prevent

section 33 from being used for at least the final 12 months of a government’s term. Moreover, such a constitutional requirement would prevent a “notwithstanding” clause from being included in legislation required to deal with a national emergency, even if the clause was deemed to be absolutely necessary. In light of the challenges I have just described, I wonder whether the better option would be to draw inspiration from the approach used in a recent Manitoba government bill.

If passed, this bill would require that any legislation passed by the Manitoba legislature containing a statement that it applies notwithstanding the Charter be referred within 90 days of its passing to the provincial court of appeal for its opinion on whether it violates the Charter.

As an aside, the Supreme Court Act provides for an automatic right of appeal for references, which means that any of the parties involved could then easily seek the opinion of the Supreme Court. [English] Bill S-218 also imposes as a constitutional requirement that an infringing bill — one that relies on the “notwithstanding” clause — may only be introduced by a minister of the Crown in the House of Commons. In other words, it could not be proposed by a senator or initiated in the Senate by the government, even if it were introduced by a senator who happens to be a minister.

Thus, for example, a senator could not introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code similar to the one introduced by our colleague Senator Housakos a few weeks ago. For me, as one of the writers of the Quebec Court of Appeal reference case on Senate reform, a decision later cited with approval by the Supreme Court, this seems like a constitutional amendment dealing with the role and powers of the Senate and is thus a provision that, to be amended, requires the consent of seven provinces representing 50% of the Canadian population.

The Supreme Court in its own Reference re Senate Reform has been clear that Parliament alone cannot adopt amendments to the role and powers of the Senate. It can only adopt measures that “. . . change the Senate without altering its fundamental nature and role.” The court went further and gave an example of what it meant, citing the requirement for a senator to have a net worth of at least $4,000. That does not affect the way we conduct business; that does not affect our power.

Another one could be removing the compulsory retirement age limit of 75 years, which for someone like me might be an interesting option as I’m getting closer to it. It is also interesting to note that if this constitutional amendment proposed by Senator Harder were to be adopted in the manner proposed, any senator could subsequently propose to repeal this constitutional amendment by introducing a bill to do so. Also, any senator could still initiate the procedure to remove

section 33 from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, since

section 46 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that the procedures for such an amendment of the Constitution may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of any province. So, we have the power to remove

section 33, but we do not have the power to adopt declarations that the Charter would not apply. I wonder about the logic of such things. February 10, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1451

•

(1610) In such a context, I find it surprising, if valid, to put in the Constitution that the authority to propose a bill using the “notwithstanding” clause will rest exclusively in the House of Commons and at the initiative of a minister. Bill S-218 would also impose a significant constraint on the House of Commons because a bill relying on the “notwithstanding” clause would require a two-thirds majority of MPs to pass third reading. In addition, this supermajority would have to include MPs from at least two recognized parties.

In practice, this would almost always require the support of the official opposition or, at least, another major party. This particular supermajority may make it virtually impossible for a government to use the “notwithstanding” clause, even if it holds a majority of the House of Commons but less than two thirds. To add such a requirement in the Constitution amounts to a major change to the way the House of Commons has always worked.

This supermajority is also surprising, considering that a resolution to amend the Constitution to remove these provisions, if validly adopted, would require only a simple majority of the Senate and the House of Commons. Thus, under the proposed scenario, a majority government in the House of Commons could choose to initiate and push through, including time allocation, a constitutional amendment to repeal the proposed constitutional amendment — everything this bill is trying to achieve — and then get the consent of the Senate.

Colleagues, as you can see, by choosing to proceed through a constitutional amendment, Senator Harder is proposing a route that raises serious concerns about the functioning of our Parliament and the amending process for our Constitution, and all of this will likely lead to constitutional challenges. As a contrasting example, consider

An Act respecting constitutional amendments, enacted in 1996, to express the undertaking of the government — not the Parliament — never to move a motion to make a constitutional amendment without the consent of Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and a majority of the governments and people in the Prairies and the Atlantic provinces. This was not an amendment to our Constitution but a legislative requirement regarding the process a government would have to follow before it could introduce a motion to amend the Constitution.

It is not about the functioning of the House of Commons or the power and role of the Senate, and it does not strip any MP or senator of any power, unlike Bill S-218. In my view, the rest of the bill can be described as a matter of form and procedure covered by

section 44 and, thus, could be added to the internal constitution of our Parliament without the consent of the provinces. This would be the case for the requirement that any infringing bill include a

preamble setting out the reasons for relying on the “notwithstanding” clause, as well as an accompanying Charter statement describing the potential effects of the use of the “notwithstanding” clause on rights contained in the Charter. I support these kinds of amendments because they favour democratic participation and accountability. If Canadians cannot discern the precise consequences of an override or understand which rights are affected, they are deprived of the ability to assess the government action and it becomes exceedingly difficult to hold parliamentarians accountable. I now turn to part two of my speech: the effect of a declaration under

section 33 of the Charter. I won’t comment on the history of

section 33. Previous speakers have covered this very well, especially Senator Saint-Germain and Senator Wallin. Suffice it to say, as Senator Harder and others have reminded us, “Those who attended the constitutional discussions agree that without

section 33, there would have been no Charter.” The clause cannot, therefore, be fairly characterized as an anomaly or an afterthought to the Charter; rather, it is part of the very bargain that allowed it to exist at all. With these comments in mind, let me turn more directly to the content and mechanics of

section 33 as it appears in the Charter.

Section 33 is relatively brief. It permits Parliament or the legislature the option to “. . . expressly declare . . .” that

an act or provision of

an act shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in

section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of the Charter. In practical terms, this means that Parliament or a legislature may, on a temporary basis, shield a law from judicial invalidation on the basis that it violates fundamental freedoms, even if it cannot be justified under the test developed by the Supreme Court in the application of

section 1 of the Charter — the famous Oakes test.

Section 33 permits the temporary override of certain Charter rights. The override must appear in

an act, not in subordinate legislation such as regulations, and it must be express rather than implied.

Section 33 also sets a time limit. It states that a “notwithstanding” declaration ceases “ . . .to have effect five years after it comes into force . . .” — or earlier if it is specified in the declaration — at which time, the legislature has the option of adopting a new declaration, subject to the same maximum five‑year limit. [Translation] In addition,

section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms makes it possible to suspend the application of only certain provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not all protected rights. For example, the “notwithstanding” clause cannot be used for democratic rights, mobility rights or language rights. [English] Finally, it must be remembered that prior to the enactment of the Charter, Canadians were not living in a country where fundamental rights were not protected. In fact, many fundamental rights have deeper roots than the Charter. Suffice it to say, the

preamble and the architecture of the Constitution Act, 1867, were used by the courts to declare that our Constitution was to be read as protecting essential features of a democratic society, including the rule of law, separation of powers and independence of the judiciary. 1452 SENATE DEBATES February 10, 2026 [ Senator Dalphond ]

[Translation] For example, the habeas corpus procedure was available to any unlawfully detained person prior to the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this authority being considered inherent to the jurisdiction of the superior courts, which is protected by

section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867. In addition, various human rights laws were already in place before the Charter, including the Canadian Bill of Rights, enacted in 1960 under Prime Minister Diefenbaker. In Quebec, a Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms based on European and international sources has been in force since 1976, before the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Of course, the suspension of certain specific rights recognized in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not mean that similar rights — if they exist under another part of the Constitution or another act — are suspended by the use of the “notwithstanding” clause. [English] The Supreme Court has already recognized that “. . . the scope of one Charter right does not circumscribe the scope of another. . . .” It follows, then, that

section 33 cannot be interpreted in a way that affects constitutional territory beyond the rights enumerated in sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the Charter. I now turn to the third and last part of my remarks: two pending cases before the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with the “notwithstanding” clause.

Last December, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear the first case — an appeal concerning Quebec’s secularism law, widely known as Bill 21 — for five days in March, next month. [Translation] As my colleagues know, this law affirms the secular nature of the Quebec state and prohibits certain public servants from wearing religious symbols or covering their faces while performing their duties.

By the time the Supreme Court examines this appeal, almost seven years will have gone by since Bill 21 was passed. • (1620) [English] The stage is now set for a landmark decision on a delicate issue, the backdrop of which concerns the pre-emptive use of the “notwithstanding” clause.

It’s no surprise that in addition to the parties to the case — the Attorney General of Quebec and the complainant — we now have as intervenors the Attorneys General of Canada, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan plus more than 50 other intervenors from a wide range of organizations and individuals, including our former colleague senator Serge Joyal. This appeal raises many relevant questions for us in relation to Bill S-218. The most important one concerns the pre-emptive use of the “notwithstanding” clause. Can a legislature invoke

section 33 at the same time it enacts a new law before any court has had the opportunity to assess whether the statute actually breaches a protected Charter right or might be saved under

section 1 as a “reasonable limit”? Or must the legislature wait for a judicial decision before turning to the use of the override provision as a last resort? Unsurprisingly, most provinces involved in that case argue that pre-emptive use of

section 33 is legal, with some going even further, arguing that invoking

section 33 also removes a court’s ability to issue a judicial opinion that addresses how the subject legislation impacts the rights at issue. On the other hand, by my count, at least seven organizations have advanced arguments opposing or expressing concerns about the pre-emptive use of

section 33 of the Charter. This includes our former colleague Senator Joyal. Senator McPhedran quoted from his factum in the chamber last week. Thank you, Senator McPhedran. These intervenors are suggesting that the Supreme Court should ignore the comments it made in 1988 in the Ford case. If the Supreme Court were to conclude accordingly that pre‑emptive use is not authorized by

section 33, Bill S-218 would become totally unnecessary as an attempt to prevent the pre‑emptive use of the “notwithstanding” clause. Another issue to be debated is the role of the courts once a declaration to invoke

section 33 has been made. Many intervenors argue that even if

section 33 can be used pre‑emptively, it does not prevent courts from opining on the content of a provision or bill in light of the Charter. This is a position I personally support. This is going to be a crucial part of the debate before the Supreme Court and of the judgment to be delivered. This is confirmed by the fact that, on November 6, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in another case, this one challenging Saskatchewan’s legislation concerning the use of pronouns and chosen names for students. That law requires parental consent for students under 16 to change their names or pronouns at school.

The Saskatchewan bill invoked the “notwithstanding” clause to shield the law from a challenge under three sections of the Charter — sections 2, 7 and 15 — which protect freedom of expression; life, liberty and security of the person; and equality rights. In the Bill 21 case, the Quebec Court of Appeal held that the Ford decision forecloses any substantive judicial review when a legislature validly invokes

section 33. The Quebec Court of Appeal emphasized that, under Ford, review is strictly limited to assessing whether the formal requirements of

section 33, to which I referred previously, have been met. It held that the use of

section 33 exempts the statute not only from the application of the specific Charter rights but also from judicial review. February 10, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1453

In the second case, a four-judge majority, out of five, of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal came to the exact opposite conclusion. It found that a court retains its jurisdiction to determine whether a law infringes a Charter right and could issue a declaratory judgment, even when that law is shielded by the “notwithstanding” clause. The majority of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal agreed that Ford sets out the formal requirements for a

section 33 declaration but rejected the claim that Ford bars courts from conducting Charter review. It held that courts still maintain a meaningful role in identifying rights violations, even without the ability to declare a law invalid. In a particularly apt passage, the Saskatchewan Chief Justice wrote: There is no principled reason why the courts’ voice on whether legislation limits rights is legitimate if it is heard before s. 33 is invoked, but not after. . . .

I also note that in England, the English courts can declare that a bill adopted by Parliament breaches a protected right but cannot declare the law ineffective as a consequence. I also add that every five years this “notwithstanding” clause has to be used again if you want to continue the effect of the derogation. Therefore, when it is used again, if it’s attempted, parliamentarians and citizens will be informed about the extent of the breaches that were made when the first bill was adopted.

So it is important that we have judicial opinions in order to have a better informed debate in society and, later on, if another use of a similar provision is made after the first five years has expired. In such a context, the Supreme Court has no choice but to take a stand on this issue. I hope they take the stand I’m proposing. Before it, the intervening Attorneys General of Canada, British Columbia and Manitoba will argue in March that courts retain some role to provide an opinion or conduct a Charter analysis. By my count, close to 20 intervening organizations take this position.

On the other side, however, the respondent Attorney General of Quebec and the intervening Attorneys General of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario will sharply contend that a valid override brings such review to an end and prevents it. If the Supreme Court were to side with the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, this will mean that Manitoba may not have to enact the legislation they are contemplating adopting, which is, I think, a good piece of legislation. Courts will be able to opine, even if the litigation must not always reach the Supreme Court, as Bill S-218 would require.

A court opinion may do a lot of good in these circumstances. In practice, it would mean that a group or individuals could ask the courts to make a declaratory judgment about the extent of the infringements on protected rights. This will force the enacting government to expl