Hon. Claude Carignan: I’d like to congratulate the sponsor of the bill on her speech, because she brought to life a very technical bill. That is talent.

I rise today to support Bill S-11 at third reading. Its short title is Federal Law–Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 4. Bill S-11 was studied at a fast pace because the government wanted it passed before the holidays.

Although imposing because of the sheer number of pages, this bill is different than other government bills. It has garnered a consensus. It simply wants to clarify the terminology of legislative provisions without changing the rules of law at the heart of the 52 acts amended by Bill S-11.

To borrow the words that the officials used during the Senate committee’s study, the principle of a harmonization bill is not to alter the policy underlying the legislation’s provisions. The testimony of the officials at committee have convinced me that the content of Bill S-11 respects this principle.

That said, while recognizing the exceptional work of the officials who produced this technical bill that has garnered consensus, the parameters for the Senate committee’s study were not optimal given the government’s very tight deadline for passage of Bill S-11 this week.

Here are some examples of things that should be improved. I’m mentioning them in hopes the government will keep them in mind if it asks the Senate to study other harmonization bills in the future.

First, the Department of Justice Canada was very slow to send Senate committee members the list of groups and individuals consulted in 2017 when the bill was being drafted. Even though consultations wrapped up over five years ago, the government didn’t send us the list until yesterday. By then, the Senate committee had already completed its study.

(1220)

For future bills, I’d suggest that the government promptly provide a list of the stakeholders it has consulted, so that there is no need for us to ask officials for it.

I also suggest that we be provided not only with the list of names of the stakeholders consulted, but also with a summary of what they said during the consultations, including their criticisms and suggestions for amendments to the bill.

If we were to receive these documents up front, it would increase the transparency of the government’s consultation process. These documents would also help us quickly identify key stakeholders who were not consulted, so we could invite them to the Senate committee.

Take, for example, the case of Bill S-11. Officials told senators in the technical briefing that Justice Canada had sought input from over 400 key stakeholders and members of the legal community. I believe that this consultation was certainly comprehensive, as the list of stakeholders contacted by the government includes a very impressive number of academic experts or organizations that could be impacted by the measures in the bill.

However, the only witnesses the Senate committee heard during its study of Bill S-11 were representatives from Justice Canada, including Minister Lametti. In other words, there were no non-governmental witnesses. The committee study lasted just one day and was held only five days after the committee received the order of reference to examine the bill.

I advise against using the same approach the next time we study a harmonization bill. I would remind senators that, unlike Bill S-11, the last three harmonization bills were studied over the course of several committee meetings. For example, in 2010, there was Bill S-12, which I sponsored.

As with Bill S-11, the government was trying to get its bill passed before the holidays, but its deadline left slightly more time for the committee to conduct its study. The committee was able to hold four meetings in 2010 to study Bill S-12, from December 1 to 9, which allowed it to be passed by the Senate on December 14, before Parliament rose for the holidays. Unfortunately, Bill S-12 died on the Order Paper, but its provisions were carried over in an identical bill, Bill S-3, which came into force in 2011.

That being said, although the Senate committee studied Bill S-11 for only one day, we were able to glean a lot of useful and necessary information that helped us properly analyze the bill’s content.

For example, the committee was able to examine the Chambre des notaires du Québec’s comments on Bill S-11, which were sent via letter on December 9.

Furthermore, departmental officials provided the committee with relevant explanations as to why they did not incorporate certain suggestions they had received from stakeholders, including some of those made by the Chambre des notaires du Québec, during the 2017 consultations.

The officials told us that they had dismissed those suggestions for one of four reasons. The first was that the suggestion would have had an impact on the legislative direction of the provisions to be harmonized. The second was that the suggestion was not required to clarify the legislative provisions to be harmonized. The third was that the suggestion proposed drafting choices that were not in keeping with federal legislative drafting conventions.

The fourth reason some of the comments received during the consultations were not incorporated was that they had to do with laws that were not on the list of acts that the government chose to harmonize in this bill.

It is important to understand that Bill S-11 amends 52 acts that were selected based on their sector and the departments responsible for them, so even though Bill S-11 is the fourth harmonization act, there are still other acts to harmonize in the future.

To summarize, even though the Senate committee’s study of Bill S-11 had some shortcomings because of the government’s tight timeline, I believe, based on the wording of the bill, the documentation we received from government officials, and their testimony in committee, that the bill deserves to pass.

In closing, I would like to come back to a question from Senator Clement and a comment from Senator Dalphond. Senator Clement asked me if, given Bill S-11’s contribution to advancing bijuralism in Canada, it was well received by my civil law colleagues, who are mostly francophones in Canada. I believe that Bill S-11 is a step forward. However, I would point out that federal legislation is supposed to be not only bijural, but also bilingual. I believe we have a long way to go in that regard and that Justice Canada still has a lot of work to do to uphold the principle of legislative bilingualism in Canada.

I am therefore in full agreement with Senator Dalphond’s demand, which he put forward in a question to Minister Lametti during his testimony in committee. This is what he asked him:

 . . . you spoke about access to justice and access to federal laws. The country’s most important law, the Constitution Act, 1867, contains only seven sections, or perhaps eight since last week, that have been enacted in both languages and have a bilingual version. There are still many sections, more than 100, that are official in English only.

What is the department doing to put an end to this unacceptable situation, which is contrary to section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982?

If Bill S-11 can amend 52 acts to improve the harmonization of federal law with civil law, I am sure Minister Lametti has the power to do something to get the French version of Canadian constitutional texts enacted.

For instance, what is stopping the federal government from amending Bill C-13 on official languages to implement the recommendation set out in the Senate motion adopted on March 29? That motion simply calls on the government to consider, in its reform of the Official Languages Act, adding a requirement that the government submit an annual report detailing its efforts to enact the French version of the Canadian Constitution.

If the government truly believes that the principle of bilingualism in federal legislation is important, when will it finally do something to enact the French version of constitutional texts, which are the most important laws in the country?

This obligation has existed for 40 years, since the entry into force of section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982. I have been a lawyer since 1988, and I wouldn’t want another generation of francophone lawyers to spend their entire professional careers working with Canada’s most important laws without having a French version or a version properly drafted according to the principles of bijuralism and bilingualism.

Esteemed colleagues, thank you for your attention. I would like to take this opportunity to wish you happy holidays. I hope the Leader of the Government has a good rest.

[English]

Hon. Lucie Moncion: I’m sorry, Your Honour. Senator McCallum is not on debate. I am calling on rule 5-13(2). She cannot move the adjournment of the debate.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator McCallum, do you have a question?

Senator LaBoucane-Benson: I don’t know if there was a question, but I thank you for that. I do think we all need to keep MKO’s concerns in the forefront of our concerns.

I also know that the government is currently consulting on a First Nations police act. When we finally do get that act in this chamber, we will have an opportunity to robustly discuss the issue of enforcement of land code, as well as other Indigenous laws, and the way that unfolds in Canada. I agree; those concerns are important.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. I will inquire with the government to better understand the issue and the direction the government plans to take on this. I will come back to the Senate with a response as soon as I have one.

Senator Gerba: Senator Gold, thank you for your response. In 2020, our women’s soccer team won gold at the Olympics.

On December 5, two former Canadian women’s soccer players, Christine Sinclair and Diana Matheson, announced the creation of a professional women’s soccer league in Canada in 2025. What kind of support can women’s soccer expect from the government to develop the sport in this country?

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, for 68 years, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission worked in partnership with Ontario, with eight Great Lakes states and some 40 Indigenous governments, with countless academic stakeholders and with the federal governments here and in the United States. Their objectives are mandated in a binational treaty, but now this positive legacy is under threat. Canada has failed to fund this work at the agreed-upon levels, and our U.S. partners are very frustrated with Canada.

Last month, the U.S. section walked out because Canada has failed to deliver on its promises. The U.S. section said it would not return until Canada funds the commission at the agreed-upon levels. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission is an essential tool for our binational relationships.

Senator Gold, the government promised $19.6 million in Budget 2022, which we passed and voted on, to fund the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, but why has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans withheld the promised funds to the commission? Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I believe the “yeas” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker: The default position is one hour. I hear Senator McCallum saying one hour.

The vote will take place at 2:02 p.m.

Call in the senators.

(1400)

Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator McCallum negatived on the following division:

Senator Carignan: Could you also ask whether there are existing studies on the potential impacts of using sludge from municipal treatment plants on the products consumed? Should we not exercise caution, given the uncertainty around the situation?

Hon. Leo Housakos: She does not need a seconder to adjourn the Senate.

The Hon. the Speaker: Just to clarify, colleagues, rule 5-13(2) says you must be on debate to move the adjournment of the Senate. Debate has started on Bill S-11. When I called upon Senator McCallum, I was calling upon her on debate on Bill S-11. It is, therefore, quite permissible for her to move the adjournment of the Senate.

I am now asking if there is a seconder for Senator McCallum’s adjournment motion? If there isn’t, then it cannot be entertained.

Senator Housakos, are you seconding this?

Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you for that question. My understanding is that this very important issue will be resolved between First Nations in their own negotiations at the land management board setting. The whole idea of this bill is to give them full force of law and the power to make those decisions. From my understanding, the government has been walking beside them in their desire to make the changes that they need.

Having talked to Chief Louie, I feel comfortable that the executive of the Lands Advisory Board understands the issue. They’re working with MKO. They’re in discussions with them. The problem has to be resolved for the enforcement of First Nations laws, with the provinces, with the RCMP and with the federal government as well. From my understanding, they’re bringing all those people to the table, with MKO and other First Nations that have the same issue, to talk about the enforcement of land code.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The allegation that this government is corrupt is unacceptable and not worthy of His Majesty’s loyal opposition, even in this chamber.

That said, I have said on many other occasions that the government is taking all measures necessary to protect Canada from foreign interference. That includes appropriate investigations not only by the RCMP but also by our security forces. The leaders of those governments are being held to account through the imposition and escalation of sanctions, through demanding answers from their representatives in this country. It will continue to do that which is necessary to protect our institutions.

Happily, Canada has a very robust security system, and measures are in place to protect the integrity of our elections and our institutions. This government will continue to work to strengthen those institutions and apply them with their full vigour to protect the interests of Canadians.

Hon. Brian Francis: Honourable senators, I rise to pay tribute to Senator Dan Christmas. A proud Mi’kmaw from Membertou First Nation, Dan is a devoted family man and friend to many. He is also a known leader and advocate for his community and our Mi’kmaq nation.

As the first Mi’kmaw to be appointed to the Senate, Dan is a source of inspiration, pride and hope to me and countless others who never saw themselves represented on Parliament Hill. I am honoured to have followed in his footsteps two years later. More than a colleague, Dan is a friend and mentor whom I greatly respect and admire. I am fortunate to have worked closely with him to ensure the rights, interests and aspirations of the Mi’kmaq begin to be heard and acted upon in Ottawa.

We, for example, encouraged colleagues to join us in calling the federal government to advance the full implementation of the rights-based fisheries of the Mi’kmaq and other First Nations after more than two decades of failure.

I often joked that people call us “double trouble” due to our vocal critiques. It is also not uncommon for some to mix us up. While not all of us look alike, I take it as the highest compliment. Who would not want to be confused with someone as intelligent, handsome and charismatic as Dan?

Senator Francis: Colleagues, Carol, who worked for Dan for the past six years, told me she is blessed to have crossed paths with such an exceptional person. In reference to his retirement, she quoted a proverb that states, “We can make plans but the Creator determines or directs our steps.” As Dan begins this next chapter in life, I know the Creator will continue to guide and protect him.

Colleagues, I will greatly miss Dan’s presence and influence in the Senate but know that we will continue to work together for the benefit of our nation and all who live in Mi’kma’ki and beyond.

Wela’lin, Dan, for everything. You are one of a kind, and your contributions will continue to be felt. I wish you, your children, your grandchildren and the rest of your family all the best today and always. In the Mi’kmaw language, we do not have a word for goodbye. We say, “See you later.” So, Dan, nemultes nitap. See you later, my friend.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Senator Gold, in recent days, National Security and Intelligence Advisor Jody Thomas, Minister of Foreign Affairs Mélanie Joly, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities Dominic LeBlanc and other senior officials have confirmed that they are not aware of any alleged interference by China with respect to 11 candidates in the 2019 election. Even so, there is a witch hunt going on for the names of the 11 candidates as well as the identities of an unspecified number of campaign workers and political staffers who are also alleged to have been funded by the Chinese government.

It is no surprise that Chinese Canadians are among those who are most likely to be put under a cloud. What is the government doing to draw a line under this kind of irresponsible speculation?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. First of all, the government would like to thank the commissioner for his important role in ensuring the transparency and accountability of our institutions. As the report indicates, Minister Ng has taken full responsibility for her actions. She has stated that she should have recused herself and she has apologized for not doing so.

I am assured that at no time was there any intention for anyone to benefit inappropriately. The minister has high personal standards for transparency and accountability, and Canadians have every right to expect that. The minister has apologized, and it will not happen again.

Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, I am happy that the government thanks the commissioner for doing his work. All of Parliament thanks the commissioner for doing his work.

Now, we do not need the Prime Minister to thank the commissioner for doing his work. We need the Prime Minister to start doing his work. At the end of the day, in Parliament, we have a responsibility to ensure that ministers behave in the most ethical fashion. When they don’t, this is not kindergarten, where you show up to the principal’s office and apologize and promise not to do it again. We’re talking about taxpayers’ money and the code of ethics of this Parliament and this government.

When will this government start doing its job? Or is the real problem here that the Prime Minister can no longer hold ministers to account because he has breached the code on a couple of occasions, and it would be rather hypocritical for him to get rid of ministers for breaching a code that he has breached? Is that in itself the problem, government leader? How do we address that problem?