Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): That’s a very important question, and I thank you for it. Thank you also for reminding the chamber that the prosecution of Criminal Code offences is typically of provincial jurisdiction. At the risk of being seen — and unfairly, might I stipulate — as hiding behind jurisdictional issues, there is a real challenge in gathering data, especially disaggregated data. It is difficult not only in the context of criminal law, but also in the health context and in many other areas, as we have experienced.

That said, I don’t have an answer to your question. It is one thing to pass a law, and it is another to evaluate whether the law is having its intended impact. I will make inquiries regarding your specific question, and I hope to pass on the answer as soon as I get one.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Senator Gold, many of us were relieved to see the British Parliament’s honest review of their process of withdrawal from Afghanistan, admitting it was a disaster and a betrayal of Afghans.

We, on the other hand, have suggested we could have acted with “greater prudence.” That would be to risk painful understatement. Our diplomats fled, Afghans were misled, abandoned and had their documents destroyed — not to mention their homes, families and lives — and some were left to be murdered by the Taliban. Not only did the evacuation fail, but so too has the transition and resettlement.

We have a plane landing tomorrow with a few hundred more Afghans. Why can we not get on top of this and do what we are morally obligated to do, which is to provide safe passage for those who protected and served our military?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. The government has made a significant investment in hiring additional staff. They are being trained and put to work as quickly as they can be. How else would you expect the government to respond to the levels of delays to which you have referred?

I do not have any information with regard to your question about background checks. I will make inquiries and report back to the chamber.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. The government, as I have stated on many occasions, will continue to monitor the efficacy of the various tools, mandates and the like that are, unfortunately, in place because of the pandemic. The focus has been and will continue to be on the health and safety of Canadians.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question.

The question we must ask ourselves is the following: Was the Government of Canada right?

The answer is clear and simple, and it is public information: Although the government did not receive specific requests from police, it is clear that they informed the government that they did not have the right tools or that the law did not provide them with the proper tools to deal with the challenging situation in Ottawa.

When it heard their requests for tools that they could not access unless this act was invoked, the government decided to take action.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a group of students from West Carleton Secondary School. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator McPhedran.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Claude Carignan: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Leader, as you know, I sit on the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency. The committee has been hearing from witnesses for several weeks, and it has emerged that the Minister of Public Safety lied to the House by saying that the request came from law enforcement. Police denied making the request. We are also hearing justifications for the economic measures, such as cross-border transfers, and we have learned that the Ambassador Bridge was cleared on the weekend of February 12 and 13, whereas the Prime Minister’s Office and cabinet made their decision on February 13 at 8:30 a.m. during a cabinet meeting, after the bridge had been cleared.

Clearly, the government is trying to justify a political decision that was meant to give the impression that it wanted to do something. In the end, it turned out to be a severe overreaction and an abuse of power.

When will the government admit it made a mistake and apologize to Canadians?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government understands the frustrations that Canadians have been experiencing all across the country, especially at Pearson. It has been working to find solutions. The measures that have been put into place, including staffing and the like, are already showing some effects, and we are seeing improvements as a result of the actions taken by the government. For example, only 10% — it is 10% too many; no one would deny that — of departing passengers are waiting more than 15 minutes in line at Toronto Pearson Airport —

Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh.

Senator Gold:  — compared to 23% in early May. Work continues and will continue, as the minister has announced.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID-19 response and other measures).

In the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, we held five meetings. We heard from the following witnesses: the Minister of Justice, the Honourable David Lametti, and his officials from the Department of Justice; the Honourable J. Michael MacDonald, representing the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19; Catherine Claveau, la batonnière du Barreau du Québec; Alain Bartleman from the Indigenous Bar Association; Emilie Coyle from the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies; Mark Knox, from the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers; Eva Tache-Green from Nunavut Legal Aid; Howard Chow from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police; Jennifer Gates-Flaherty, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Jason Hope from Correctional Service Canada; Professor Cheryl Webster from the Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa; Professor Nicole Marie Myers from the Department of Sociology of Queen’s University; David Parry, from the Canadian Bar Association; Michael Spratt from the Criminal Lawyers Association; and Shelley Tkatch from Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

We made two amendments to the bill. The first was on the independent review introduced by Senator Cotter. This amendment creates an obligation for the Minister of Justice to initiate one or more independent reviews of remote proceedings in criminal justice matters within the next three years of this bill receiving Royal Assent. A report will need to be laid before each house of Parliament within the five years following the review.

The second amendment, on parliamentary review, was introduced by Senator Dalphond. This amendment requires each house of Parliament, in the fifth year following the Royal Assent of this bill, to refer the provisions to a committee, whether designated or established.

Finally, the committee also made a number of observations. One, we noted that there should be a follow-up study on delays in criminal proceedings, which would complement the 2017 report entitled Delaying Justice is Denying Justice. Two, we observed that remote appearances might increase access to justice, but that these should only be used when appropriate and should not replace in-person proceedings when those would better ensure fair hearings and protect the legal rights of accused persons.

[Translation]

Three, we noted that the use of virtual appearances could expand the ability to access interpreters across Canada who are not locally available during judicial proceedings. This being said, virtual interpretation should not replace in-person interpretation when the latter is necessary to ensure a fair trial.

(1500)

Four, the committee observed that some witnesses underscored the importance of protecting the legal rights of accused persons in custody during virtual proceedings, particularly how these apply to privacy, security, confidentiality, and the ability of an accused to confer with defence counsel.

Five, the committee noted that investments in technology and appropriate facilities are needed to ensure appropriate access to proceedings, particularly for participants in remote locations, vulnerable populations, and those who are incarcerated.

[English]

Six, the committee observed that Bill S-4 seeks to perpetuate measures that were established during the COVID-19 pandemic, which have become part of the judicial system and will continue to be used in the administration of the judicial process.

We noted that several witnesses expressed concern about the use of these measures on the fundamental rights of individuals who had been charged or detained, as well as marginalized individuals, victims and witnesses, especially at the stage of presenting evidence. Therefore, the committee considers that the choice of the accused to consent to the use of these measures must be the only factor that triggers their use.

Honourable senators, that concludes our report on Bill S-4. Thank you.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) moved third reading of Bill C-25, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID-19 response and other measures), with an amendment and observations), presented in the Senate on June 14, 2022.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, senator. I do not have an answer at this time. It is because of complicated reasons that people choose to leave their home countries. I don’t have the details of those initiatives, much less the specific answer, but I will make inquiries with the government and report back in a timely fashion.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Frédéric Perreault. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Dagenais.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[English]

Senator Coyle: Thank you, Senator Gold. I look forward to that response, because it is very important if we are making an investment for a particular reason, which is to help people stay where they are, to know that the investment is actually going to be an appropriate one to achieve that end.

My supplementary question is: For the 50,000 agricultural workers from the region that Canada plans to welcome, could you tell us about any planned pathways that would allow them to apply for permanent residency if they so choose?

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I will have to add that to the inquiries that I will make, and I will report back as soon as I can.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) summer youth employment cohort. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Anderson.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Senator Carignan: As you know, government leader, I have an excellent research and analysis team. It found out that the Minister of Public Safety said 12 times that he was acting at the request of police. It’s one thing to say his words were misinterpreted once or that he misspoke once, but the fact that he did so 12 times under varying circumstances and on different days suggests that the minister misled the House.

When will the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Public Safety to resign?

(1430)