Hon. Peter M. Boehm moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today as Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to explain the purpose and effect of the amendment to Bill S-8 adopted by the committee.

Colleagues, Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, was introduced in the Senate on May 17, 2022, and was referred to the committee on May 19, 2022.

The committee began its study on June 3, 2022, with two panels of expert witnesses and government officials from the Canada Border Services Agency; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and Global Affairs Canada, and concluded on June 9, 2022, with clause-by-clause consideration.

During that meeting, the Government Representative in the Senate, Senator Gold, joined us to move a coordinating amendment, which the committee ultimately adopted. The purpose of the amendment, which is technical rather than substantive, is to prevent a potential conflict with Bill C-21 on firearms, which was introduced in the House of Commons on May 30, 2022.

Bill S-8 proposes changes to three provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that are also impacted by Bill C-21. In each of these provisions, Bill S-8 would add sanctions to the existing list of grounds for inadmissibility or detention. Bill C-21, in turn, would add transborder criminality to the existing list of grounds for inadmissibility or detention.

However, as the bills are currently written, neither piece of legislation takes the other into account, meaning that whichever bill receives Royal Assent second would unintentionally undo the changes to the provisions made by the bill that becomes law first.

I’m glad you’re all with me on this.

The amendment proposed by Senator Gold and adopted by the committee addresses this issue by stating that if the provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act amended by both Bill S-8 and Bill C-21 enter into force, then both sanctions and transborder criminality would be included as grounds for inadmissibility or detention under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

To put it simply, colleagues, this technical coordinating amendment is designed to preserve the changes made to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by Bill S-8, but makes no substantive changes to the content of Bill S-8.

Thank you.

Hon. Pamela Wallin moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, as per rule 12-23(4), I wish to provide brief remarks on the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee’s report on Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.

Three changes were made to the bill. First, the committee voted against Part 6, which proposed amendments to the Pest Control Products Act. The government requested, and the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry agreed, that Part 6 should be removed from the bill as Health Canada is currently conducting consultations regarding the modernization of that statute.

Second, two amendments were made to Part 8, which proposed amendments to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These amendments would incorporate suggestions made by the Privacy Commissioner to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to clarify that there are written agreements in place that guide the exchange of information between Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and other entities. Officials indicated that having a written agreement is currently a policy requirement, but amendments would codify this requirement in law.

Colleagues, overall, the committee found that our time to look at Bill S-6 was too short. During the Banking Committee’s pre‑study of the bill, our non-governmental witnesses were dissatisfied with the limited or non-existent consultation on the proposed regulatory changes directly affecting them.

During the Banking Committee’s study of the full bill, other committee chairs who were assigned pre-studies of the bill testified before the committee. They shared similar sentiments from their witnesses on the limited consultation process and on the short amount of time their committees were given to consider their divisions of the bill.

Overall, colleagues, we believe that the regulatory modernization review process must occur differently. That being said, based on the testimony heard, the committee still supports the overall intent of Bill S-6 and believes that regulatory modernization of legislation must occur more quickly and on a much wider scale than what was proposed in the bill.

Our committee suggests that the government consider the following measures in order to improve and accelerate federal regulatory modernization: introducing an economic and competitive lens for regulations; measuring the quantity and overall cost of regulations; setting targets for regulatory reduction that apply to all federal legislation, regulations and policies and examining whether certain streamlined measures that were introduced during COVID-19 should be continued.

We believe that these are important steps to undertake immediately, especially given that the government has signalled their intent to undertake this type of regulatory modernization on an annual basis. Thank you.

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.

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.