Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, clearly, you’re saying that you are proud of how your government has managed public finances, but the fact is that it’s been catastrophic, based on the results. We are facing record-high inflation.

The Scotiabank report that you love so much is entitled Policy Missteps Taking Their Toll: Scotiabank’s Forecast Tables. Senator Gold, who do you think was in charge when those very serious policy missteps were taken?

Senator Gold: Again, thank you for the question and the suggestion. I will add that to my inquiries.

[English]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, Senator Woo, and for underlining the impact that this is having on the Chinese Canadian community.

Regrettably, as we know, there is a real concern about Chinese interference in our institutions. It has been underlined by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and by others, and, indeed, investigations are under way. It is gratifying to know that there is no evidence that the elections that have been recently held were anything but fair.

The concern you express is a real one. I know that investigations are under way, and in that regard, I’m not aware of the steps the government may be taking or considering to provide some assurance or comfort to those in the Chinese Canadian community who are feeling under the spotlight or under attack. Canadians should rest assured that the government is seriously investigating allegations, and at such time as those investigations are completed, more facts will be disclosed.

Senator Woo: The source of this allegation is a story by Global News that had no named sources and no subsequent validation by any other news outlet. Yet, the story has been repeated ad nauseam by other media and by members of both this chamber and the other place. If the story is, indeed, bogus, it has done serious damage to our democracy. Indeed, this reporting should be understood as a kind of election denialism.

Why is the government not calling out this egregious example of disinformation?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question.

As I said, the government is investigating these allegations, and until such time as those investigations are completed, it is not possible for the government to characterize the stories one way or the other.

Again, the government takes seriously not only the allegations but also the impact that they are having on the community, and investigations will continue.

Hon. Donna Dasko: Senator Gold, public opinion research commissioned by Senator Omidvar and myself and released this week finds that Canadians strongly support seizing the Canadian-held assets of those Russian officials who are waging war in Ukraine and those Iranian officials who are violating human rights in Iran, and then using these seized assets to assist victims.

In fact, in June of this year, as you know, senator, Bill C-19 enhanced two of Canada’s sanction regimes, the Sergei Magnitsky Law and the Special Economic Measures Act, to go beyond freezing the assets of corrupt foreign officials in order to permit confiscating and redirecting those assets.

My questions are as follows, and I’d like to focus on how these tools are currently being used, particularly against the Russian perpetrators: Is the government using these new tools? What efforts are being made? What steps are being taken? And what plans are developing to repurpose these assets, for example, in possible reparations to Ukraine?

Thank you.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, senator. It’s an important one.

Starting with the latter part of your question, the government is, as all senators know, using Magnitsky-style sanctions to put pressure on the Russian regime and hold them accountable, but the government now has new measures to go further, not only to seize but to allow for the forfeiture of the assets of the oligarchs and their companies. My understanding, senator, is that efforts are under way to implement the liquidation process, which would allow Canada to compensate victims and support reconstruction. These tools that are now available to us will make Canada a leader in the sanctions regime, if I can use that term, in the G7.

Even as the government is working to implement these tools, it is also taking analogous steps to assist Ukraine. I’ll cite just one example: We know now that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance recently announced that Canada will transfer $150 million in tariff revenues collected on imports from Russia and Belarus to repair Kyiv’s power grid following the repeated and ongoing attacks by Russia on that.

This is just an example of the commitment Canada has both to hold Russia and its oligarchs to account and to use the tools that Canada now has to make sure that those assets are used both for reconstruction and assistance to Ukraine and for compensation to those who are harmed by the actions of Russia in its illegal invasion.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. The government is very proud to be hosting the FIFA World Cup in 2026 in Canada with our North American partners, Mexico and the United States.

Support for sports in Canada involves many stakeholders, including the Government of Canada, the private sector, provincial and territorial governments, national multisport service organizations, or MSOs, national sport organizations, or NSOs, and Canadian sport centres and institutes.

As the major investor in Canada’s amateur sport system, the Government of Canada plays an important role in that system. Through Sport Canada, the government develops programs and policies to help the sport system meet Canadians’ needs. There are many funding programs that support high-performance athletes and Canadian organizations that host sporting events, including the Athlete Assistance Program, the Hosting Program, and the Sport Support Program.

I will point out that under the Sport Support Program, the government has committed $60 million over two years to assist national organizations that currently receive funding and that are struggling financially to implement their programs and services as a result of the COVID-19. Also, there is up to a maximum of $6 million in 2021-22 to assist Olympians and Paralympians with travel costs associated with competition requirements.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. The government is very proud of our female athletes.

I want to note that, in Budget 2018, the government announced that it would strive to achieve gender equality in sport at every level by 2035 and allocated $30 million over three years to that end.

I would also note that, in Budget 2021, the government committed $1.9 billion to support the sports sector to encourage growth and contribute to creating good jobs for the middle class.

The Government of Canada continues to work with all sports partners in order to ensure that we collectively create a safe, inclusive sports environment.

As far as women’s soccer is concerned, I would be happy to follow up with the government and come back with a response for the chamber.

[English]

Hon. Percy E. Downe: My question is for Senator Gold. I’m not asking my usual question about written questions not being answered. I have something new to end this session, Senator Gold.

In addition to the Government of China trying to undermine Canadian democracy by having, apparently, alleged police stations on our soil and interference in elections, we also have the Russians. In the 1980s, the then Soviet Union slipped two spies into Canada, stealing the identities of two deceased Canadian children in the process, with this country serving as a way station as they moved towards their goal, which was the United States — undercover sleeper agents waiting to be activated to serve their mother Russia.

The fake Canadians, Donald Heathfield and Tracey Foley, were actually Andrei Bezrukov and Elena Vavilova. When these spies were living in Canada for many years to establish their cover stories — by attending university and having an employment history — the couple had two children.

In 2010, after they moved to the United States, they were among 10 Russian agents caught by the FBI, and they were expelled back to Russia, where they were showered with honours by President Putin and given important positions in their intelligence service.

Why is the Government of Canada continuing to allow these two children, who are now adults, to travel the world as Canadian citizens with Canadian passports, given their citizenship is built on a foundation of lies due to the deceit of their parents? Can their citizenship be revoked?

Senator Downe: I appreciate that, Senator Gold. I look forward to hearing your answer.

You should also be aware that when the American FBI was investigating their parents, they overheard a conversation in the family home — by bugging the home — that the spy children were actually prepared to serve Russia as well.

As I said, these children, with their Canadian passports, are now adults. They can travel anywhere in the world, except the U.S. which will deny them entry. Indeed, they can move to Canada with full protection and rights — free from any restrictions — to operate on behalf of Russia.

Even if they do not want to spy for Russia, would Putin give them any choice, or would they fall out of a window? They might have no choice, but Canada has one: The choice is to adopt what the United Kingdom has done, and recognize the new reality that we are in — that Canada has enemies, like China and Russia, that are trying to undermine our democracy. The United Kingdom passed legislation that if citizenship was obtained by fraud, it can be revoked. Canada should get with the times, and adopt a similar initiative in this case.

Hon. Leo Housakos: My question is for the government leader, and it is regarding an area that the Liberal Trudeau government excels in: breaking the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. This week, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner reported to the Parliament that Minister Mary Ng breached the code on two occasions: She gave out two contracts to a Liberal Party insider and a personal friend — tens of thousands of dollars — without any due process.

I know, for independent Senate colleagues who have not been in Parliament that long, there is a general sense in the new Trudeau government that this is acceptable, but in the Westminster parliamentary system, the tradition up to 2015 was that a minister who behaved in an egregious fashion and broke the ethics code was actually held accountable. That’s a foreign idea here with the Trudeau government.

So, the question is simple, government leader: When will Prime Minister Trudeau fire Minister Ng for breaking the ethics code?

Hon. Tony Loffreda moved third reading of Bill C-32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022.

He said: Honourable senators, I’m honoured once again to speak to the government’s proposed legislation that seeks to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement, as well as certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament last spring.

Two days ago, at second reading, I spoke at length on some of the main measures contained in Bill C-32. Today, at third reading, I will focus my remarks on two issues that raised some concerns in committee and on which I said I would further elaborate.

The first issue is subparagraph (g) under “Summary,” which says Part 1 will implement additional reporting requirements for trusts, and the issue of solicitor-client privilege. The second issue is found in Division 3 of Part 4, which focuses on the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act.

Regarding Part 1, Summary, subparagraph (g) and trusts — as I explained on Tuesday, with Bill C- 32, the government hopes to improve the collection of beneficial ownership information with respect to trusts by proposing to require that trusts provide additional information on an annual basis to the Canada Revenue Agency.

Currently, a trust that does not earn income or make distributions in a year is generally not required to file an annual T3 return of income. This will now change with Bill C-32.

In addition, where a trust is required to file a return of income, the trust would be required to report the identity of all trustees, beneficiaries and settlors of the trust, as well as the identity of each person who has the ability to exert control over trustee decisions regarding the appointment of income or capital of the trust.

The government is proposing these amendments to help CRA acquire sufficient information to determine taxpayers’ tax liabilities and to effectively counter aggressive tax avoidance as well as tax evasion, money laundering and other criminal activities.

Collection of this information would also be consistent with Canada’s international obligation in relation to transparency and beneficial ownership. This point was reiterated by Minister Freeland when she appeared before our committee a week ago today. She said:

 . . . from my perspective, doing a much better job than Canada has done hitherto to on beneficial ownership is really important. That is an important part of tax fairness. It is an important part of Canada coming up to the standard of our international peers. I am a big champion of the work that we are doing on beneficial ownership.

It is also worth pointing out that general trust accounts of lawyers are exempt from these reporting requirements.

The rules also expressly provide that the new reporting requirements do not require the disclosure of information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege. This blanket exclusion was added to the legislation and can be found at line 3 on page 59 of Bill C-32.

The provision reads as follows:

For greater certainty, subsections (1.1) to (1.3) do not require the disclosure of information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The Department of Finance told us that this blanket exemption was added in response to concerns raised by the Canadian Bar Association — the CBA — and other lawyers. Indeed, both the Canadian Bar Association and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada have expressed concerns regarding the constitutionality of this new reporting requirement. The CBA argues that the amendments “. . . would not withstand constitutional scrutiny given the jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada.” The CBA also told us that the proposed reporting obligations for client-specific trust accounts are inconsistent with section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As for the federation, it believes that:

. . . this blanket provision is ambiguous and not sufficient to prevent the likely breaches of the privilege as legal professionals attempt to comply with the obligation to report information on separate trust accounts. . . .

In its Charter statement, the Minister of Justice acknowledged that this new requirement to provide information about trusts “. . . potentially engages section 8 of the Charter.” However, the statement goes on to say that:

. . . the Minister has not identified any potential effects that could constitute an unreasonable interference with privacy as protected by section 8 of the Charter.

I obviously cannot speak on behalf of the minister or the government, but I would simply propose that the blanket exemption that addresses solicitor-client privilege ensures this privilege is upheld, and that no obligation is being put on lawyers to undermine their compliance with duty to their clients.

Minister Freeland told us that she is very confident that the provision is constitutional and that her department went over this issue in a lot of detail. They have consulted and they feel that they have struck the right balance.

In response to my question, she could not have been any clearer, when she said, “We are confident that there is no requirement to disclose solicitor-client privileged information under this measure.”

Last week, our National Finance Committee was lucky to have officials from the Department of Finance reappear before us to answer any outstanding questions. I asked Ms. Lindsay Gwyer, Director General of Legislation, to provide us with additional information on the matter. She stressed that the government consulted widely and explained that the broad exemption for solicitor-client privilege was included to take into account the Supreme Court decision that interpreted solicitor-client privilege broadly.

The exemption is in direct response to the court’s decision and stakeholder interventions to ensure that these rules will allow lawyers to not report any information that is under a broad interpretation determined to be solicitor-client privilege, as Ms. Gwyer stressed:

. . . the exceptions that we do have in the regulations are intended to find that appropriate balance between completely exempting any trust account that any lawyer could ever set up and providing targeted exceptions and clarifying that solicitor-client information does not need to be provided.

Colleagues, I am not a lawyer, but I have consulted with some of our Senate colleagues who are lawyers, and they agree with the government’s position on the matter.

In the end, I would simply add that I agree that solicitor-client privilege is essential to the proper administration of justice in our country. The government agrees, and it feels it struck the right balance in protecting this privilege with the blanket exemption provided in the bill.

I would now like to shift attention to Division 3, Part 4 of the bill that deals with the First Nations Land Management Act. Our colleagues Senators McCallum, Francis and Patterson spoke on this issue already. I will not repeat everything that they have said and the chronology of events, but allow me to provide you with some additional context on the matter.

As honourable senators know, for most First Nations, reserve lands are managed by Canada according to the Indian Act. The Framework Agreement on First Nations Land Management enables participating First Nations to enact and administer their own land codes and move out from under the application of the land-related sections of the Indian Act. This framework agreement was ratified in legislation in 1999. Today, nearly 25 years later, the government is proposing new legislation to ensure that the framework agreement becomes the central authority through which First Nations govern their lands. Some confusion and inconsistencies exist in the current act that necessitated some cleaning up. Bill C-32 is doing just that and making the framework agreement the overarching or controlling document where one needs to look for the law on this subject.

The proposed new legislation found on pages 144 to 155 in Bill C-32 was co-developed with the Lands Advisory Board, the Indigenous organizations that represent First Nations who are signatories to the framework agreements.

The government contends that replacing the First Nations Land Management Act would modernize the First Nations land management process to better align legislation with the needs and expectations of signatory First Nations and to recognize the First Nations-led nature of First Nation land management.

As I mentioned on Tuesday, the proposed legislation is supported by the 194 First Nations across Canada, most of which are in the development process or operational under the act.

As ably summarized by Ms. Roxanne Gravelle from Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada before our committee, the new bill:

. . . will be shorter, simpler and will point to the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management as the central authority under which First Nations transition away from the Indian Act for 44 land-related provisions. . . .

It is really shortening the process and reducing bureaucracy involved in making changes to this framework as First Nations communicate them and advocate for them through the Lands Advisory Board. . . .

Now I will take a brief moment to address concerns expressed by MKO — the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak — which generated much interest among us. Senator Patterson reminded us that the brief that senators received from MKO included strong language about the gaps in enforcement of bylaws created using the authorities granted to First Nations communities by the First Nations Land Management Act, and that coordinating amendments to various related legislation was suggested by MKO in an effort to address these major concerns about enforcing the provisions of the new First Nations Land Management Act.

Last week, Ms. Gravelle explained to our committee when they started working on the drafting of the bill, their objectives were to simplify the legislation and to reinstate “. . . the framework agreement as the central authority under which First Nations govern their lands.”

She clearly said that they did not have policy authority to go beyond the scope of the existing legislation. The government acknowledges the concerns raised by MKO over enforcement and recognizes there are some challenges. It is Ms. Gravelle’s understanding that the Lands Advisory Board is engaging the signatory First Nations on enforcement specifically. In fact, she even suggested that Bill C-32 will give the framework agreement force of law and it will allow the Lands Advisory Board the ability to actually implement the solutions or changes a lot more easily instead of coming forward with complex legislative changes.

In my view, MKO has legitimate concerns that deserve greater attention, and I would respectfully suggest that parliamentarians may not, at this late hour, be best equipped to advance MKO’s demands without fulsome debate. Additionally, the amendments proposed by MKO to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Director of Public Prosecutions Act may be a bit out of scope at this time, considering the fact that these two acts are not even addressed in Bill C-32. They are valid issues, but perhaps they would be best addressed through other channels.

As I mentioned on Tuesday, in a letter dated December 9, Chief Robert Louie, Chair of the Lands Advisory Board, confirms that they are generally supportive of MKO’s position and efforts on First Nation law enforcement, but they are not able to support any amendment to the act at this time for the following reasons:

We do not have the approval of the signatories to the Framework Agreements to make any changes to the FAFNLMA wording . . . [and] Amendments to the Act would create an inconsistency with the guiding Framework Agreement document, which is to say there is nothing in the Agreement now that addresses or refers to the RCMP or Public Prosecutions legislation.

Chief Louie adds that the board hopes to continue to support and work with MKO, and is:

. . . proposing to continue its joint work on enforcement with Provinces and the Federal government and to continue to obtain its direction from signatory First Nations regarding any appropriate changes to the Framework Agreement.

Chief Louie writes — and I agree — that:

. . . granting amendments to the [Act] before seeking First Nation approval is counterproductive to the mutual respect and nation to nation relationship we have worked so hard to build and maintain since the signing of the Framework Agreement in 1996.

To summarize, I will offer two final points. First, the changes proposed in Bill C-32 were co-developed and unanimously supported by all signatories of the First Nations Land Management Act. This is what they want. Second, the amendments that MKO are calling for are legitimate and deserve greater attention, but I would advance that Bill C-32 is not the way to go about seeking these changes. In fact, some might even argue that it would go against advancing reconciliation and supporting First Nation self-determination.

In conclusion, honourable senators, I hope the explanations I have provided on these two matters will give you confidence in voting in favour of Bill C-32. By no means am I suggesting that we disregard the concerns raised with respect to the Land Management Act or the reporting requirements for trusts. Rather, I think these are valid concerns that should be closely monitored, but I feel that the government has done its due diligence and I am happy to vote in favour of the passage of this bill.

Before I wrap up, I want to thank, once again, our colleagues on the National Finance Committee for all their hard work in properly reviewing the bill and, ultimately, in adopting it without amendments yesterday morning. Thank you.

A big thank you to all the witnesses who appeared before our committee, too. I was particularly impressed with our government officials. On behalf of all Canadians, I thank them for everything they do. It’s often thankless work, but I certainly appreciate it when they come before our committees and answer tough questions from senators.

I also wish to extend my gratitude to the administrative staff associated with our committee, including our clerk, Mireille Aubé , and Tracy Amendola, her assistant. We appreciate all you do in the background.

Finally, I will take this opportunity afforded to me to wish you all a very happy holiday season, and I hope you will all enjoy some good quality time with family and friends.

Colleagues, I thank you for your attention and I hope we can adopt this bill today. Thank you.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson: Honourable senators, I won’t speak for long. I just want to make two quick points.

First, I want to thank Senator McCallum for giving voice to the views of her constituents with passion and unwavering dedication to Indigenous Manitobans. Second, I want to remind honourable senators that the part of Bill C-32 that deals with First Nations land management is a really good thing. It’s a bright light in the evolving relationship between Canada and First Nations.

Since the 1990s, 194 First Nations have signed on to an agreement with the government to opt out of the Indian Act’s land management provisions and take back control of their territory. For over 20 years, there have been inconsistencies between the agreement and the federal act intended to implement it.

In fact, Senator Christmas helped us to understand that at our Indigenous Peoples Committee meetings.

Bill C-32 will finally clear up those inconsistencies and give the agreement full force of law.

The co-development process leading up to Bill C-32 was extensive and exemplary. As we heard at the Indigenous Peoples Committee from the Lands Advisory Board, which represents the 194 signatory nations, the process unfolded over many months. It was Indigenous-led. This bill, as currently drafted, reflects the approach that those 194 First Nations collectively endorsed.

Our study of Bill C-32 at the Indigenous Peoples Committee was expeditious, but it was not cursory. In fact, the issue being raised by Senator McCallum on behalf of Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc., or MKO, the enforcement of First Nation laws, was explicitly discussed.

After leaders of the Lands Advisory Board testified and gave their enthusiastic endorsement to this part of Bill C-32, Senator Hartling asked, “If the bill passes, what are the challenges to be tackled in the area of First Nations governance?”

This was the response the board chair, Chief Robert Louie of the Westbank First Nation in B.C., gave:

We have a lot of work to do in the future. A couple of issues that we’re working on right now are enforcement — having First Nation laws enforced.

We have come to find out over the last 20-plus years that Canada and the RCMP are not readily backing and enforcing First Nation laws that First Nations have passed. It’s an issue that is bubbling. It’s something that we didn’t quite expect at the outset —

— that meaning 25 years ago —

— but we’re working now with Canada and with provinces and with Attorneys General both at the Canadian and provincial levels to deal with this issue.

Our committee was very much aware of the matter. It’s a matter of great significance and, as Chief Louie explained, it’s a subject of discussions currently happening between First Nations and various other levels of government.

This is how the issue should be resolved — through a process of diligent and direct engagement, just like the process that led to the bill we have before us now.

Honourable senators, in our observations about Bill C-32, the Indigenous Peoples Committee wrote that the co-development process for this bill “provides a model for the co-development of future legislation related to First Nations self-government.”

I wholeheartedly agree. An exemplary co-development process has taken place. All 194 signatory First Nations were involved. We should not send this bill back to committee. On the contrary, we should adopt it today and finally give full force of law to the agreement that was signed 25 years ago so that First Nations can have real control over their land.

I urge honourable senators to oppose this motion and support Bill C-32.

Senator McCallum: Yes, I do. There has been talk about the 194 signatories. However, as I said — and this came from the report from the other place — in the bill there is no off-the-shelf solution. Any response must be distinctions-based and recognize the need for individual communities to craft their own solutions as desired in order to respect their inherent rights.

What did the voices that were outside these 194 signatories tell you about how they’re going to be proceeding with their own framework?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those in favour, please say “yea.”

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those against, please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise again to speak to Bill C-32, the Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, with specific reference to Part 4 of Division 3, that being the Framework Agreement on First Nations Land Management Act.

The June 2021 report entitled Collaborative Approaches To Enforcement of Laws in Indigenous Communities: Report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs stated that:

The ability of First Nations to enforce their laws and by‑laws on their lands is key to self-determination and self‑government. However, many communities face barriers in having their laws and by-laws enforced. . . .

The committee acknowledges that this is a complex issue, and that identifying the barriers to enforcing First Nations laws and by-laws is challenging. What is clear, however, is that addressing it requires significant collaboration between First Nations federal departments and agencies, and provinces/territories. There is no “off-the-shelf” solution, and any response must be distinctions-based and recognize the need for individual communities to craft their own solutions, as desired, in order to respect their inherent rights.

Honourable senators, as this framework agreement has come to us for scrutiny through Bill C-32, we become a link in this significant collaboration with First Nations. We must also act in a way to respect their inherent rights and to support their self‑determination and self-government. Our main function in the Senate is to hear their voices for ourselves so we can influence the Government of Canada to act now and ensure that we in the Senate do not leave the First Nations leadership in Manitoba in stranded regimes.

For the Senate to leave them in limbo is irresponsible, but not doing a fulsome study is egregious. Essentially, we are knowingly leaving them in a gap that puts First Nations leaders in a vulnerable position. As Senator Loffreda just said, it deserves greater attention, but we’re at a late hour.

In the report about the effect of lack of enforcement on First Nations, Chief Robert Louie, Chairman of the First Nations Lands Advisory Board states:

We urge this committee to sound the alarm by pointing out how much damage is being caused by the failure to enforce First Nations laws.

The least we in the Senate could have done was to sound this alarm, make recommendations, and confirm and support the recommendations brought about by the report. But the Senate didn’t give itself enough time to hear from witnesses.

I know there has been much talk about an amendment, and I don’t know why people thought that there were amendments coming. When you talk like that, you are muddying the waters.