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.

Hon. Pat Duncan: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Government Motion No. 72, which proposes deferring repeal of statute in accordance with the Statutes Repeal Act.

As we know, this is a yearly exercise, and I want to put a few words on the record, mainly from the sections related to the Yukon. Senators will know that I support the adoption of the motion forthwith, and that my remarks will be brief.

Honourable senators, I am truly grateful to the Government Representative’s legislative deputy for distributing a document including the responsible ministers’ recommendations and explanations as to why the various provisions should be kept as part of the Statutes of Canada, even if not yet in force.

Honourable senators, yesterday I questioned the Government Representative on the modernization of Employment Insurance in Canada. I note that there are three provisions of the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act that are included in this particular matter before us; they have been since 2011. This section deals with expanding the classes of parents who can receive parental benefits through the EI system if legal parentage is denied by a province or territory.

As an aside to that, another area where changes are much needed is for those who are self-employed yet have to pay EI premiums. This affects taxi drivers and hairdressers or barbers who rent chairs in a salon. There have been reports made to me and others of challenges when such self-employed people try to claim EI benefits like parental benefits. Streamlining and clear guidelines must be developed as part of the EI modernization. This is one of many issues that show the urgent need for a complete overhaul of our EI system. Honourable senators, Canadians are anxious, and look forward to the results of the government’s modernization efforts on this important issue.

Honourable senators, turning from the national to the Yukon, there are several sections of various acts in which repeals have to be deferred. Some provisions of the Yukon Act are consequential amendments to other acts which come into force once the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act is repealed and the territory’s legislature enacts its own legislation in its place.

I would like to explain the background on this particular piece of the motion before us. I want to explain why it is still outstanding.

In 1998, Canada; the Yukon; the Council of Yukon First Nations’ Grand Chief, on behalf of 11 of the 14 First Nations in Yukon; and representatives from three First Nations who have not signed a land claims agreement signed the Yukon Devolution Protocol Accord. That accord set out a framework to guide the devolution process and permitted simultaneous negotiations of unresolved claims. On October 29, 2001, that process led to Canada and the Yukon signing the Yukon Northern Affairs Program Devolution Transfer Agreement. My signature is on that document.

I must explain to senators who are not familiar with the devolution process how important that is to the three territories. It is like our constitution. It gave us provincial-like powers over our land and resources. I would stress, again, the emphasis on the consultation accord, and that this document proceeded in consultation and with the full support of Yukon First Nations.

The framework, as I mentioned, was agreed upon in 1998, and it was a consultation process. These consultations are still ongoing, as is the dialogue between Canada, the Yukon and First Nations governments. They will resolve and ensure that the Yukon Surface Rights Board legislation is right.

Honourable senators, the Yukon Act also includes sections on a territorial auditor general. At the moment, the Auditor General of Canada is responsible for auditing all the territorial governments’ spending. The unique skill set needed for an auditor general, as we see in our own colleague Senator Elizabeth Marshall, is hard to come by. The labour pool for someone to perform the daunting task with excellence is shallow, since there are not many Senator Marshalls around. Recruitment is difficult and demands resources as does setting up an entire support structure. It makes much better sense to pool our resources and use the existing Auditor General of Canada rather than separate auditors general for each territory in the North given our small populations and limited resources.

Honourable senators, the Yukon is a good place when it comes to ensuring control over public spending through the Yukon Taxpayer Protection Act. The Act, in part, says — since you’re fond of legislation reading:

3(1) An accumulated deficit must not be created or increased.

(2) An appropriation that would create or increase an accumulated deficit must not be sought from the Legislative Assembly . . . .

(4) A special warrant must not be made if it would create or increase an accumulated deficit.

And the act continues:

6(1) If the non-consolidated public accounts laid before the Legislative Assembly or distributed to its members show that an accumulated deficit has been created or increased . . . the Government Leader must

(a) request before February 1 of the following year that the Assembly be dissolved; and

(b) if dissolution is granted, immediately recommend that writs for a general election be issued.

In other words, honourable senators, should the premier — who is usually also the finance minister — want to go into debt, they would have to go to the polls to get support to do so. This ensures the government’s responsible stewardship of public funds.

The Honourable Sandy Silver, Yukon’s premier, said in his testimony this week before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs that:

We have been providing surplus budgets every year for the last six years . . . .

We have within been recognized from the C.D. Howe Institute for our openness and transparency in Canada for finances. We came in second in the whole country in our budgeting. . . .

“We,” in that quote, is the Yukon.

This reinforces the solid support the Yukon receives from the services of the Auditor General, and reinforces the need to leave it as it is in this legislation. I trust that this reinforces with my colleagues the retention and the motion for the use of the Auditor General of Canada.

Honourable senators, I am, of course, in support of the adoption of this motion. I hope that my explanations about the Yukon-related provisions have provided some background for why they need to remain in the law. I appreciate your understanding and your time and attention, and look forward to the passage of this motion.

Thank you. Mahsi’cho. Gùnáłchîsh.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?