Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question.

The government takes seriously any allegation of foreign interference in our system.

The government relies on a rigorous screening system for all partners and all initiatives, including procurement processes. I’m told the government is aware of the allegations regarding the contract that you just mentioned with Sinclair Technologies. As the Prime Minister said, the government looked into the allegations, and it will take all the necessary measures to ensure the integrity of our critical infrastructure.

I’m also told that Minister Mendicino has instructed his senior officials to review the details of that contract carefully in order to reassess the process under which it was awarded.

Senator Gold: However, it is not my understanding that the services to which you refer on the website include medical assistance in dying. I’m assured that providing advice pertaining to medical assistance in dying is absolutely not a Veterans Affairs Canada service. You didn’t say it in so many words, Senator Plett, but you implied it, so I’m glad for the opportunity to correct the record.

Colleagues, this is a serious matter. I’d like to finish my answer. I understand the minister has directed the department to conduct a full investigation, which is ongoing, to ensure that all front-line staff are trained to deal with any issues, including issues around medical assistance in dying, or MAID, and to ensure that this never happens again. The government is taking all necessary steps to make sure that no veteran ever has to go through this again.

Senator Plett: Let me repeat what Senator Batters alluded to: Who is going to get fired, Senator Gold? Something happened here. Somebody dropped the ball, Senator Gold. You can say all you want that this will never happen again. But it is happening — over, and over, and over again. The lives of our veterans mean nothing to this government. They have put their lives on the line for you and me, Senator Gold. How can this even happen, Senator Gold, not once or twice, but on four occasions — four times — with more cases expected to come forward.

Minister MacAulay’s mandate letter said the following:

Your top priority is to ensure that services and benefits necessary for the physical, mental and economic wellbeing of Veterans and their families are easily accessible, responsive, and available in a timely manner.

Obviously, this is rhetoric. These are only words. The reality — let me finish — is quite different, Senator Gold. Under the Trudeau government, we have seen wait times increased, veterans brought to court and now assisted suicide offered to our courageous veterans.

Senator Gold, shuffling ministers out of this portfolio has not been successful for your government. At what point will our veterans get the respect and the services that they need and died for?

An Hon. Senator: Let him finish!

Senator Gold: What happened was unacceptable. The government is doing what it can to find out what happened, and through what agency it happened, meaning by what person or persons it happened. It may very well have been only one person, but I’m not affirming that because the investigation is under way.

This government cares deeply about its veterans. It is committed to their well-being. Indeed, they put themselves on the line for all of us. It is simply repugnant for the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber to suggest otherwise. The government considers what happened unacceptable. It is not a service offered by Veterans Affairs. It was an example of someone doing something that should not have been done. When the investigation is completed, I have every confidence this government will take the appropriate action.

[Translation]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Gold, the opposition’s question made me think of the debate on medical assistance in dying. I had serious reservations about expanding eligibility to medical assistance in dying to people suffering from mental illness only.

In the past few weeks and days, people have been speaking out against this change, which is set to take effect in mid-March. Some are saying that we are not ready, and it’s not just anybody.

[English]

It includes the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, which includes the heads of psychiatry departments at all 17 medical schools.

[Translation]

Are you going to postpone the implementation of this change?

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, as some of you know, I had a fabulous time at university. Clearly, you remember. It was so fabulous, in fact, that at the end of my first year the dean of agricultural science at the University of Guelph encouraged me to reassess my commitment. I did, and I soon found that I was far better-suited to the practical challenges of the working world.

However, not having a post-secondary degree increasingly required that I create my own employment; that’s how I stumbled onto the path of entrepreneurship. Learning how to turn ideas into businesses — and discovering the countless potholes on the road to success — have taught me the importance of tenacity, risk taking, creativity and resilience.

Entrepreneurship demands that you reflexively turn your problems into opportunities. We live in a world where this characteristic has increasingly become an essential skill. That is why I love learning about programs that train the next generation of entrepreneurs, programs that prove to teenagers that they are capable of creating exciting opportunities and teaching them how to avoid the many potholes that I always seemed to hit.

Take Shad Canada, for example, a national entrepreneurship program for Grade 10 and Grade 11 students that operates at 22 post-secondary institutions across Canada. Shad empowers participants to focus on a real problem, a problem that they’ve seen in their lives or on the news. The Shad staff coach each team of students as they devise innovative real-life solutions with the support of subject-matter experts. There’s nothing hypothetical here.

Bethany Deshpande, a Shad alum who is now the Halifax-based CEO of an ag-tech company called SomaDetect, told me about her experiences at Shad and how they continue to guide her and shape the corporate culture, innovation and success of her company. Bethany powerfully reflected on her experience at Shad saying, “I don’t know who I would be if I hadn’t gone.”

Another example is Outward Bound, a program that equips youth for the future through adventures in nature, testing them physically and mentally. The program empowers students to accomplish things they would never have thought possible, and it does so at a critical age. It creates confidence that enables youth to become a powerful force in the world.

Colleagues, as a consequence of climate change, our generation is delivering an unprecedented challenge to future generations. Investing in programs that strengthen the entrepreneurial culture in Canada will help produce many more creative problem solvers who embrace risk, challenge the status quo and think outside the box.

Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia: Honourable senators, I rise today to recognize the outstanding career of Craig Pollett, CEO of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, as he is set to retire at the end of December.

Formed in 1951, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, or MNL, represents the interests of the growing number of municipal councils in the province, representing nearly 90% of the provincial population.

Throughout Craig’s 21 years of service, MNL has supported small town and urban constituencies to further enable them to respond to the ever-evolving issues raised by residents.

With the support of the hundreds of municipal leaders, including the board of directors of MNL, Craig has enriched the landscape of municipal governance. He has developed MNL into a leading organization for research and advocacy. MNL engages directly with municipalities, including by facilitating workshops and hosting an annual symposium to explore the pressing issues that communities are faced with, such as changing climate and an aging population.

Craig has taken steps to strengthen the municipal legislative framework to give councils more and clearer authority to respond to residents’ concerns. He has strategized how to achieve long‑term sustainability for the province by exploring regionalization. He continues to advocate for governments to amend their waste water systems effluent regulations to allow hundreds of communities to come into compliance. Honourable senators, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, has recognized MNL’s regional economic development work as a best practice.

Craig gives his deepest thanks to his family for their support, specifically his parents, Earl and Ruth Pollett, his partner, Gail, and his children, Grace and Abby.

Colleagues, healthy and sustainable communities are the building blocks of a prosperous province and country. Please join me in thanking Craig for his tremendous accomplishments, and for directly helping to support our vibrant communities that we all know and love on our beautiful rock of Newfoundland and Labrador. We wish you all the best in your next chapter, sir.

Thank you, wela’lioq.

Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, may I please present Chapter 68 of “Telling Our Story.”

In today’s modern world full of every type of technology one can think of, where nearly everyone owns a smartphone with built-in Google Maps support combined with a GPS in their vehicle, it is difficult to imagine how someone would become totally lost and have no idea where they are at any given moment.

With that said, it is nearly downright impossible for us to imagine what it must be like to be adrift on the Atlantic Ocean for 48 days with no way of communicating with your family and friends. Well, this is a story of exactly that, which took place in 1929.

Job Barbour was born in the fishing community of Newtown in 1898. He began sailing as a boy, and at the very young age of 21, he became master of a vessel for the first time. For many years, he sailed the treacherous waters off Newfoundland’s northeast coast, carrying provisions from St. John’s to many isolated outports dotting our rugged coastline.

In the late fall of 1929, aboard his three-masted schooner, the Neptune II, Captain Barbour and his crew delivered a load of salt cod and cod oil to the city of St. John’s. On November 29, they began their return journey with a load of cargo that included apples, oranges and raisins for the general store in Newtown, Bonavista Bay. Captain Barbour was very familiar with the 100‑mile route, which under normal circumstances would usually take just a couple of days, but Mother Nature had other plans. By early the next morning on November 30, the winds had reached hurricane strength and the Neptune II, her crew and passengers were driven off course — way off course. They were about to cross the Atlantic Ocean.

In a 1979 CBC interview, at the age of 81, Captain Barbour said:

Like living demons hungry for our lives the seas rushed over our bulwarks and swept the deck fore and aft. They fascinated you almost as they approached. The water seemed to be all colours of the rainbow when coming on in its mad and crested cumulus. I never thought till then that seas could run so high. They looked like huge icebergs that had suddenly been liquefied and driven by some demon of the sea to rush on and crush us to death.

And he went on to say:

. . . I could see the look of anguish that covered Mrs. Humphries’ face. No doubt she thought that it would be her last moment of life.

During the voyage, the high winds and rough seas battered the schooner and left, among other things, crew members injured and passenger Mrs. Humphries incredibly ill to the point that conversations were had of what would be done if she passed away at sea. Water casks were tainted with salt water, leaving it unfit for drinking. The wheelhouse was washed overboard, and the binnacle was smashed to pieces. With the rough seas, the crew was unable to reach the supplies that were lashed down in the hull of the schooner. To add to all that, the compass light went out. These were just some of the issues that the captain and crew had to deal with, but as Captain Barbour once said:

Newfoundland seamen are noted for their ingenuity and when the real thing is gone or won’t work they try to make something that will do.

It was this ingenuity, coupled with their resilience and bravery, that allowed the Neptune II to remain afloat. On January 16, 1930, 48 days after departing the harbour in St. John’s, Newfoundland, the battered vessel was spotted off the coast of Scotland. A steamer, the Hesperus, attached a tow line and brought the schooner and her crew to safety.

Back home, the families had begun to accept the fact that they may never see their loved ones again, so it must have been quite the sense of relief when Captain Barbour’s mother received a telegram which read, “Arrived safely Tobermory, Scotland. All well. Job K. Barbour.”

Captain Job Barbour committed his story to paper in 1932 when Forty-Eight Days Adrift was published in London, England. Newfoundland’s own Breakwater Books revived the story and published it in 1981 and again in 1983, with a reprinting in 2001. It remains a very popular book, which continues to tell the incredible story of Newfoundlanders’ courage, resilience and humanity and their ability to beat the odds.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I think this government and all governments, provincial and territorial, recognize the importance of modernizing our regulatory framework and making it more efficient and effective for businesses to do their business, to grow and emerge while at the same time making sure that the measures in place to save Canadians, whether it is in the areas of fraud or consumer products, remain vigorous and in place. This government, in its areas of jurisdiction, has embarked upon — and we had an example of it in this chamber not that long ago — measures to modernize regulatory frameworks within many areas of legislation.

Of course, the regulation of businesses is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, and each province has its responsibility as well to ease the regulatory burden where appropriate on individuals and businesses.

Hon. Marc Gold (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-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, pursuant to the Department of Justice Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. J-2, sbs. 4.2(1).

Hon. Marty Deacon: Honourable senators, what an interesting act to follow.

As 2022 draws to a close, I would like to take this opportunity to celebrate the amazing work of Team Canada over the past year. And remember, we are all Team Canada.

At the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham this summer, Team Canada won 92 medals, placing third in the medal count, its best showing since the 2002 Commonwealth Games. This was an inclusive team, with a record 28 para athletes winning seven medals. Also important is that Canada was the only carbon-neutral team at the games. We also enjoyed the largest broadcast ever for Commonwealth Games, which included incredible streaming.

These games bode well for the Paris 2024 Olympic Games, where typically Canada’s Commonwealth Games athletes win 70% of Canada’s Summer Olympic Games medals. Also, our Special Olympic athletes are busy preparing for their international games in Berlin this coming spring.

Senators, it was truly an honour a few weeks ago to meet athletes, coaches and volunteers alongside our friend and former colleague Senator Munson and Dr. Frank Hayden, the father of the Special Olympics movement. Watching these athletes in the room being together for the first time in person in three years was uplifting. While the pandemic has led to fewer people volunteering — it’s an issue — we have reason to hope this will improve in due course.

On the pitch, you are all keenly aware of the successes our men’s and women’s soccer teams enjoyed. Just two days ago, Canadian soccer all-stars Christine Sinclair and Diana Matheson announced the creation of a Canadian women’s league, which will launch in 2025. Really exciting.

Slightly less known but just as amazing, our Canadian tennis men performed well, winning the Davis Cup just a few weeks ago. This is a story 15 years in the making, of an organization that needed to do things differently, focusing on high performance, opening a national training centre and hiring international coaches to take the game of tennis to the next level. We celebrate Denis Shapovalov and Félix Auger-Aliassime for this first win in 109 years, but also Milos Raonic, Genie Bouchard, Vasek Pospisil, Leylah Annie Fernandez and Bianca Andreescu.

Finally, we also saw this year bring sport under the microscope for the abuse faced by too many of our athletes at the hands of those they trusted. The stories are being heard, and the work is well under way to better ensure that every athlete, coach and volunteer can feel included and safe in sport. This is taking effort and collective will in a number of areas.

As part of this call to action, I welcome you to join me on Facebook Live next Thursday as I interview leaders who are doing all they can to bring urgent solutions to safe sport.

On a more celebratory note, we also look forward to all of you joining us for some winter activities on Tuesday, February 7, at 12:30, with more to come. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Marty Deacon: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate, and it concerns the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Senator Gold, yesterday the Auditor General released two important reports on the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, one on vaccine procurement and the other on COVID-19 benefits. These are two important snapshots of the government response that are part of a much larger picture.

Throughout the pandemic, I often heard that, through no fault of anybody’s, the government’s response to the pandemic was like building an airplane in mid-flight. There are lessons to be learned here that we cannot forget. We need a blueprint for the next big pandemic or whatever the next big thing is.

As we’ve been reminded through the daily work of Justice Rouleau, a commission of inquiry is incredibly effective at working through events in a transparent and systematic way.

Does the government intend to establish a commission of inquiry into the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and if so, when can we expect this to occur?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you very much for your question.

The government knows that it is very important for us to take stock of the lessons that we learned during this pandemic and prepare for future health emergencies and, indeed, any kind of emergency.

I’m advised that some on this work is, in fact, already under way, colleagues, through internal reviews by the Public Health Agency of Canada in addition to external, independent reviews by the Global Public Health Intelligence Network and by the Auditor General.

Now, the government knows, as well, that more can be done, and that is why I’m advised that the government will, in fact, have a COVID-19 response review in a format yet to be determined that will be announced when the details are finalized. In the meantime, I’m assured that the government will keep working with provinces and territories to improve our healthcare system to keep Canadians safe.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.

I’m hopeful that these processes and the number of examples that you’ve described this afternoon do keep us on that path to transparency and a picture that is as clear, open and honest as possible. Thank you.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Thank you for your question.

The committee had 20 meetings totalling over 36 hours. We have heard from 111 witnesses. We travelled to Vancouver; Edmonton; Quebec City, where we visited the mosque where the terrorist attack took place, and Toronto.

We hear the same thing in practically every city we visit. We heard heartbreaking testimony from Muslim Canadians who continue to struggle to feel accepted and safe in their communities. The trauma that many have experienced through physical and verbal assault, hurtful stereotypes in the media — the role the media plays kept coming up — racial profiling and discrimination are also passed down through younger generations as multi-generational trauma.

I would like to add that women, particularly Black Muslim women, experience greater discrimination and harassment, especially if they choose to wear the hijab.

We still have a lot more witnesses to hear from. We are asking the media to appear. Hopefully, by spring of next year, we should finish the study. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answers to the following oral questions:

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 15, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Lankin, P.C., concerning female genital mutilation.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on October 26, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Saint-Germain, concerning the Canadian Thalidomide Survivors Support Program.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Frances Lankin on June 15, 2022)

Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) constitutes a serious threat to the health of women and girls. The Department of Justice is not aware of any charges or prosecutions in relation to this conduct. The provinces are responsible for enforcing Criminal Code offences within their respective jurisdictions, and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada prosecutes criminal offences in the territories.

The Federal government’s approach to addressing FGM/C domestically includes supporting community-based work. Through Canada’s Strategy to Prevent and Address Gender‑Based Violence, Women and Gender Equality Canada (WAGE) is working to prevent and address all forms of gender-based violence, including FGM/C. Currently, WAGE is providing funding to the End FGM Network to address knowledge gaps in medical, education, and child protection areas; Women’s Health in Women’s Hands Community Health Centre to develop a tool kit for survivors, health care and community service providers with regards to FGM/C; and, the Centre d’établissement des Nouveaux Immigrants de Peel to increase advocacy against FGM/C.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Raymonde Saint-Germain on October 26, 2022)

The federal government is committed to supporting Canadian thalidomide survivors. This includes providing a fair and compassionate approach for assessing unconfirmed individuals that apply to the Canadian Thalidomide Survivors Support Program.

Epiq Class Action Services Canada, a well-established service provider, is the independent third-party administrator responsible for delivering the program and brings expertise and impartiality to the process. Epiq has established a reconsideration process to ensure that applicants denied at any step of the assessment process are given an opportunity to submit additional information in support of their application, without the need to reapply.

At the last step of the assessment process, the multidisciplinary committee of medical and legal experts will consider all information available before making a recommendation to the program administrator on whether the applicant should be eligible under the Program. Applicants denied at this last step will have the opportunity to request reconsideration in writing, via virtual meeting or in person. For details on the options for reconsideration at Step 3, applicants are encouraged to contact the administrator directly. All individuals are treated with respect and compassion.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(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: consideration of Motion No. 72, followed by second reading of Bill S-11, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gagné, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That, pursuant to section 3 of the Statutes Repeal Act, S.C. 2008, c. 20, the Senate resolve that the Act and the provisions of the other Acts listed below, which have not come into force in the period since their adoption, not be repealed:

1.Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, R.S., c. 33 (2^nd Supp.):

-Part II;

2.Contraventions Act, S.C. 1992, c. 47:

-paragraph 8(1)(d), sections 9, 10 and 12 to 16, subsections 17(1) to (3), sections 18 and 19, subsection 21(1) and sections 22, 23, 25, 26, 28 to 38, 40, 41, 44 to 47, 50 to 53, 56, 57, 60 to 62, 84 (in respect of the following sections of the schedule: 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 7.1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 16) and 85;

3.Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, S.C. 1998, c. 32;

4.Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, S.C. 1999, c. 34:

-sections 155, 157, 158 and 160, subsections 161(1) and (4) and section 168;

5.Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, S.C. 2000, c. 12:

-subsections 107(1) and (3) and section 109;

6.Yukon Act, S.C. 2002, c. 7:

-sections 70 to 75 and 77, subsection 117(2) and sections 167, 168, 210, 211, 221, 227, 233 and 283;

7.An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2003, c. 26:

-sections 4 and 5, subsection 13(3), section 21, subsections 26(1) to (3) and sections 30, 32, 34, 36 (with respect to section 81 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act), 42 and 43;

8. Budget Implementation Act, 2005, S.C. 2005, c. 30:

-Part 18 other than section 125;

9.An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to financial institutions, S.C. 2005, c. 54:

-subsection 27(2), section 102, subsections 239(2), 322(2) and 392(2);

10.Budget Implementation Act, 2009, S.C. 2009, c. 2:

-sections 394, 399 and 401 to 404;

11.Payment Card Networks Act, S.C. 2010, c. 12, s. 1834:

-sections 6 and 7;

12.An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 2010, c. 23:

-sections 47 to 51, 55 and 68, subsection 89(2) and section 90.

13.Financial System Review Act, S.C. 2012, c. 5:

-sections 54 and 56 to 59;

14.An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 2012, c. 7:

-subsections 7(2) and 14(2) to (5);

15.Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, S.C. 2012, c. 17:

-sections 70 to 77;

16.Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, S.C. 2012, c. 19:

-sections 432, 433, 459, 460, 462 and 463; and

17.Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, S.C. 2012, c. 31:

-sections 361 to 364.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(At 3:55 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise today on behalf of my group, the Canadian Senators Group. We have several concerns about the annual Statutes Repeal Act motion, which we believe goes to the heart of our duty as senators to protect the rights of Parliament and keep the government accountable to the legislative branch.

The Statutes Repeal Act began as a Senate initiative led by the late former senator Tommy Banks. Every year, Parliament passes bills that have a coming-into-force date that is left to the government to determine. The reasons for this, as we know, are that sometimes the government needs to draft supporting regulations or complete final consultations with stakeholders. But what happens if a government doesn’t bring an act of Parliament into force, either in whole or in part?

When Parliament enacts a statute, it is not a suggestion. Governments can’t pick and choose which parts of laws to enact or hold back entirely and indefinitely. All bills that receive Royal Assent must eventually come into force or be repealed.

This is exactly what the Statutes Repeal Act is designed to do. It is, we believe, an important accountability mechanism to ensure that the will of Parliament is fulfilled. It ensures that no current or future government can ignore legislation duly passed through our rigorous legislative process. The act requires the government to table a report to Parliament each year, listing all parts of statutes that have not been brought into force after nine years.

This year’s report of the Statutes Repeal Act, which this motion deals with, is the twelfth annual report. We see in it many of the same provisions that were listed in the first annual report, which was tabled over a decade ago. This begs the question: What has the government been doing over the past 12 years to bring these provisions into force? In some cases, decades have gone by and parts of acts of Parliament are still sitting idle. In most cases, we don’t really know what, if anything, the government is doing to bring them into force. When the Statutes Repeal Act motion was brought before this chamber last year, Senator Downe asked Senator Gagné about deferred provisions related to Canadian Armed Forces benefits, which were enacted in 2003. This same provision is before us again this year, but we have no further information about what has been done to complete the necessary regulations.

There are other provisions that we’re being asked to extend for another year that are even older. Part II of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act was enacted in 1985. The government has asked to defer its coming into force once again because it needs to — listen to this carefully — follow “appropriate policy work and consultation with parliamentary stakeholders.” After 37 years, one begins to wonder if this policy work has ever started or if the government is just, dare I say, kicking the ball down the road.

The same could be said for many of the other statutes for which we are being asked to defer a coming-into-force date for another year through this motion. For example, reading through the government’s explanations for the deferrals in this motion, we see that an amendment to the Bank Act, passed by Parliament in 2005, still needs regulations developed before it can be brought into force. An important change to Canada’s anti-spam legislation, passed by Parliament in 2010, apparently needs more consultation with industry stakeholders.

We are concerned that this important accountability exercise will become an automated parliamentary routine unless we exercise a more robust oversight role. If our government is going to continue to not enforce the will of Parliament year after year after year, it needs to provide better explanations.

I note that the Standing Orders of the Australian Senate requires the government to not only table in Parliament which laws have not come into force but to also include “a statement of reasons for their non-proclamation and a timetable for their operation.” In other words, it’s not sufficient for the government to simply say that certain laws have not yet come into force. It must also explain when the will of Parliament will be respected.

Honourable senators, when the Statutes Repeal Act motion comes before us again next year — as it surely will — we will likely see many of the same bills listed in this year’s motion deferred again. I suggest that, before agreeing to it, we take some time to get answers from the government about the status of the consultations or of the regulation drafting. We might want to refer the motion to a committee to get these answers directly. For the Statutes Repeal Act to work as it was intended when it was passed by this chamber, we need to keep tabs on the status of the unenforced laws we agreed to defer year after year.

As our late dear former colleague Senator Tommy Banks said when he introduced the bill:

 . . . Parliament is not a function of the government . . . . When Parliament expresses its will it is a form of instruction . . . to the ministry, to say what it wants the ministry to do and it is the business of the executive to do it.

Honourable senators, going forward, let’s do our due diligence and ensure that the will of Parliament is respected. Thank you.