The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: The motion is defeated.

(Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator McCallum negatived, on division.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Loffreda, seconded by the Honourable Senator Sorensen, for the 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.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(g), I move:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, January 31, 2023, at 2 p.m.

The Hon. the Speaker: Normally, you would be correct, Senator Moncion; however, once debate has started on a topic, and I call upon a senator, I’m calling upon them on debate.

Rule 5-13(2) would apply. She would be on debate and, as a consequence, can move the amendment.

Do we have a seconder for the amendment?

The Hon. the Speaker: On adjournment as well.

Are senators ready for the question on the main motion?

The Hon. the Speaker: Do we have agreement on a bell?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

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

The Hon. the Speaker: Dear colleagues, as our winter adjournment period approaches, I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to each and every member of our Senate family. I know I speak on behalf of all senators as I extend our heartfelt appreciation for the work of our staff and administration across all offices and directorates of the Senate.

A special thank you to our Black Rod and our Senate pages, who work tirelessly to ensure the work in the chamber and in our committees runs smoothly.

To all the hard-working people who make it possible for us senators to do the work we do on behalf of all Canadians, I say thank you. The past few years have been very challenging and at times extremely difficult for us all, but through all of these trying times, each member of the Senate family rose to the occasion and provided invaluable support.

[Translation]

I must say, I am very proud of the progress we made together, despite the unprecedented difficulties and challenges.

The new year will undoubtedly usher in new challenges and opportunities that will allow us to learn and grow. However, I am sure of one thing: You will all be by our side to help us overcome all the challenges that come our way.

[English]

It has been said that as we express gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words but, rather, to live by them. I hope in some small way that we senators do that each and every day.

To my colleagues and to all those who work with us, please take the time over the next few weeks to spend good, quality time with family and friends. Get as far away from here as you can, turn off your phones and enjoy a well-deserved holiday season.

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: In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Patterson (Nunavut):

That 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, be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance for further study.

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?