Hon. Stan Kutcher introduced Bill S-251, An Act to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 6).

(Bill read first time.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

(On motion of Senator Kutcher, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice, the sitting of Wednesday, June 22, 2022, continue beyond 4 p.m., and the Senate adjourn at the earlier of the end of Government Business or midnight, unless earlier adjourned by motion.

[Translation]

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: third reading of Bill S-4, Bill S-6, Bill C-24, Bill C-25, followed by the consideration of the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu on February 8, 2022)

The government has launched an appointment process for a new Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and the work to fill the position is ongoing. In the meantime, the office remains operational and accessible to victims of crime across Canada requesting their services.

On March 29, 2022 the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights began their study of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

Victims’ rights remain a priority for the government. Significant policy and programmatic investments and various law reforms have been introduced since 2015 to address the needs and concerns of victims and survivors of crime.

Key examples include:

•Investing over $48 million to support the development and enhancement of independent legal advice and independent legal representation programs for victims of sexual assault and intimate partner violence.

•Committing $37.68 million in support of victim services for families of missing or murdered Indigenous women and girls.

•Legislative measures bills to support victims of gender-based violence (i.e. former Bills C-51, C-75, C-3 and C-4).

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Donald Neil Plett on April 5, 2022)

The Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) works with all orders of government and private partners, including Indigenous investment partners, to help transform how infrastructure is planned, funded and delivered to Canadians.

The CIB is involved in more than 30 infrastructure partnerships and has committed over $7.2 billion in capital, attracting over $7.6 billion in private and institutional investment.

Budget 2022 announced measures to increase the CIB’s impact by broadening the types of private sector-led projects it can support. Further, under the Emissions Reductions Plan, it is expected to invest $500 million in large-scale zero-emission vehicle charging and refueling infrastructure.

The CIB is supporting key projects like High Frequency Rail, helping to transition Atlantic Canada off coal through clean power transmission and supporting Manitoba Fibre’s plan to provide broadband access to households and businesses.

On compensation

The CIB’s compensation framework is disclosed via the annual report in compliance with the Financial Administration Act and applicable Treasury Board policies. Compensation expenses for each fiscal year are also reported in its annual audited financial statements.

The government and the Crown corporation abide by the Privacy Act and Access to Information Act provisions concerning employee compensation. Any information concerning individuals and their compensation is personal and therefore protected.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Brian Francis on May 5, 2022)

Over the past 23 years, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has invested over $630 million in fishing licences, vessels, gear and training to help increase and diversify participation in commercial fisheries, and to advance the implementation of the right to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood for the 35 Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqey and Peskotomuhkati communities (Treaty Nations). These investments resulted in meaningful economic benefits which increase year over year. For example, annual landed value among these Treaty Nations has increased from $3 million in 1999 to nearly $170 million in 2019. Additionally, approximately $100 million of annual revenue is being generated through fisheries-related businesses (e.g., processing, aquaculture) owned and operated by Treaty Nations.

DFO works with Treaty Nations through numerous tools to implement and recognize their treaty right, and ensure a stable and predictable fishery for the benefit of all Canadians.

I am pleased to report that an interim understanding was reached with Lennox Island First Nation. Community members will conduct moderate livelihood fishing (with up to 300 traps) in Lobster Fishing Area 24 off PEI during the remainder of the spring 2022 commercial lobster season, and an additional 700 traps in Lobster Fishing Area 25 once the season opens.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Donald Neil Plett on May 19, 2022)

Financial close occurred in August 2021 and construction has commenced, along with CIB funding. The project is expected to cost approximately $328 million and be completed by the end of 2024 with a target of approximately 48,500 underserviced households in 53 rural municipalities.

The CIB has been working closely in an advisory capacity with the Kivalliq Inuit Association and their subsidiaries on advancing the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link. The work includes providing advice on selection of a private sector partner(s), commercial arrangements with suppliers and customers, completion of the project business case and advancing the routing, permitting, environmental work, design and engineering of the project. Once these development activities and due diligence are completed, the CIB will determine if an investment will be made.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(b), I move that the bill be read the third time now.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, I also rise today to speak on World Refugee Day and to thank Canadians for opening your doors and your hearts to my refugee family and many other South Asians who fled Uganda 50 years ago.

In June 1972 — 50 years ago — I was a student living in London, England, with my three siblings. My mother was visiting and was with us when we received the worst phone call of our lives, informing us that my father, a Ugandan member of Parliament, had been killed by President Idi Amin’s soldiers.

Our world came crashing down, but my mother did not give up hope. The next day, we heard a knock on the door. It was my father, Sherali Bandali Jaffer, who had fled Uganda to come to England. We could not believe our eyes. My father never shared the details of how he escaped with us, but we know that he had help from his friends in the military. Many of his colleagues were not so fortunate.

My husband and I went back to Uganda and were there on August 3, 1972, when the president declared that he would be expelling all Ugandan Asians. My husband and I were in the process of leaving Uganda when the army showed up at my in-laws’ home. I will never forget that day.

(1420)

Young military men had four guns pointing towards my husband — two facing his head and two poking his stomach, forcing him into a jeep. Luckily for us, the police arrived and insisted that my husband be taken to the police station and not army barracks. Luckily, my husband, Nuralla, was released later that day and we left Uganda as soon as we could.

His Highness the Aga Khan and his uncle Prince Sadruddin, who was the UN High Commissioner for Refugees at the time, intervened. They convinced former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and several other global leaders to help us. We were fortunate to be rescued so quickly and are forever grateful to Canadian immigration officials like Mike Molloy, who came to Uganda and quite literally saved our lives.

My story is not unique. Hundreds of refugees before me and after me have had similar experiences.

Honourable senators, on this World Refugee Day let us not forget the women, men and children languishing in refugee camps all over the world. They have lost everything, and we are in a privileged position to provide them with something that they long for: hope. Hope for a brighter future for themselves and for their families.

I will forever remain indebted to Canadians for opening their doors to me and my family when we needed you. I hope that we can keep our hearts and our doors open to refugees around the world and give them hope for a better tomorrow. Thank you, senators.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today, during the month of June, to celebrate Deafblind Awareness Month across Canada. This important month was established in 2015 when the Senate of Canada unanimously adopted a motion to designate June as Deafblind Awareness Month.

This would not have been possible without the support, dedication and tireless efforts of our former colleagues the Honourable Jim Munson, the Honourable Joan Fraser and the Honourable Asha Seth.

Throughout June, Canadians will join together to celebrate the achievements of Canada’s individuals who live with deaf-blindness, while also increasing our understanding of the unique barriers they face from being treated as equal members of society.

June is also the birth month of Helen Keller, a heroic woman who lived with deaf-blindness, whose determination and trailblazing leadership made a difference in the entire world. We celebrate the strength, spirit and heart of the more than 65,000 Canadians who are living with and those caring for someone with deaf-blindness. We recognize the challenges they face every day and the perseverance they show every day in living life to the fullest. They are an inspiration to all of us.

New technologies, products and services and rights are helping Canadians with deaf-blindness in their everyday lives. While progress has been made, there is still much work to do to ensure that they feel safe and have the opportunity to enjoy life to the greatest extent possible.

(1410)

Over the years I have had the opportunity to become aware of the amazing organizations that support the deaf-blind community, namely the Canadian Helen Keller Centre, the National Deafblind Awareness Month Working Group, CNIB Deafblind Community Services and the DeafBlind Ontario Foundation. To each of these noteworthy organizations, thank you for your outstanding leadership, dedication and commitment to serving the deaf-blind community and advocating to ensure these consumers have equal rights and opportunities.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge our former colleague and dear friend the Honourable Vim Kochhar, who inspired me to become part of the deaf-blind awareness community. He is the true champion, a tireless advocate who had dedicated decades of his life to helping others. Vim is the co-founder of Rotary Cheshire Homes, which provides housing to persons who live with deaf-blindness and founded the Canadian Foundation for Physically Disabled Persons, which provides support to persons with disabilities.

Honourable senators, please join me in recognizing June as Deafblind Awareness Month.

Senator Dalphond: With pleasure.

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, the federal government’s silence on Bill 96 in Quebec is deafening. The business community in Quebec strongly believes in protecting the French language and ensuring its vitality, but they are concerned. They feel the bill goes way too far.

What will the federal government do about Bill 96? When will they start defending the rights of one of the largest linguistic minorities in Canada?

Senator Martin: The NDP-Liberal government says it expects to provide an update on how this funding will be allocated sometime over the summer.

Leader, does your government have a timeline to begin construction on these new shelters and transition housing? Does the Trudeau government commit to having any of these shelters up and running, and serving communities, this year?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I’m not familiar with the applications for funding nor the circumstances around the provision of funding. This government has done more in the interests of Indigenous women, men, children, families and communities than any other government in Canadian history.

I’ll certainly make inquiries about that, but I would add — because I’m in the mood to add a commentary, if I may — that it’s passing strange that this government can, literally on the same day, be criticized for shovelling money out the door much too fast and also for not taking the time when it announces funding requirements to make sure the funds are properly allocated to organizations that are properly prepared and organized to receive it. But I digress.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is leave granted?

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA.

When I first spoke to this bill at second reading, I highlighted the very objectives that the government has declared that it wishes to achieve with this bill. First, the government has said that it wishes to reorganize existing inadmissibility provisions related to sanctions in order to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions that Canada may impose in response to an act of aggression. Second, it proposes to expand the scope of inadmissibility based on such sanctions to include not only sanctions imposed on a country but also those imposed on an entity or a person. Third, the bill expands the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act. Finally, the bill amends the regulations to provide that the Minister of Public Safety will have the authority to issue a removal order on grounds of inadmissibility based on sanctions under new paragraph 35.‍1(1)‍(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

These measures appear in some respects to be quite broad. They are said to close a gap in the law, in this case, primarily to ensure that Russians who are supporters of the current regime are inadmissible to Canada. Obviously, we all want to ensure that.

However, as I noted in my remarks at second reading, sometimes our supposed strong measures may be less strong and less necessary than they actually are being made to appear. Some of the witness testimony we heard on this bill at committee confirms this.

When Dr. Andrea Charron, director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba, appeared before our committee, she said this bill “. . . repeats a pattern whereby Canada tinkers on the margins of legislation without addressing core policy and process issues.”

This critique of government bills is becoming all too commonplace of late. Many of the bills that the government is introducing are increasingly reactive measures, usually quick responses to external events. They are hasty measures designed to be symbolic, and it shows.

When Professor Charron spoke about Bill S-8 in committee, she lamented that the government often seems to introduce a legislative solution to a problem when that problem is really one of process and policy.

We have a government that tries to look good while avoiding consultations, as well as the more comprehensive and difficult policy work. In relation to Bill S-8, the government has said that the bill is necessary to avoid a gap in the law where a sanctioned individual might otherwise be admissible to Canada despite being sanctioned. But, as Professor Charron asked, was there a case of a foreign national under sanctions who was inadmissible but gained access to Canada? She noted that this does not seem to have ever occurred.

Indeed, when Richard St Marseille, Director General of Immigration and External Review Policy at the Canada Border Services Agency, appeared before our committee, he informed us that no sanctioned individual appears to have entered Canada in the past five years. There have been refusals abroad, evidently; 5 under the Special Economic Measures Act and 10 under the Magnitsky Law. But even those refusals are out of 1,858 individuals sanctioned under the Special Economic Measures Act and roughly 2,200 individuals listed under various sanction grounds.

None of these individuals appear to have entered Canada, and evidently fewer than 1% ever even attempted to apply abroad to do so. Dr. Charron argued that the main shortcoming in Canada’s approach relates not to legislative gaps around the sanctioning regime but due to the fact “. . . that Canada is not always clear about the reasons for sanctioning or the conditions to be met for their lifting.” In other words, Dr. Charron argues that the main problems are a lack of policy clarity and policy inconsistency.

(1650)

I cannot help but think about Dr. Charron’s words this past weekend when we learned that a senior official from Global Affairs Canada attended national day celebrations at the Russian embassy. The government claims this was a mistake, but, honestly, how would such a mistake occur?

If an error such as that is possible in the current international climate, it is scarcely surprising that there may be a lack of policy clarity and policy consistency when it comes to the effective coordination of our sanctions policy, or indeed, when it relates to the effective coordination and implementation of any dimension of our international policy.

Unfortunately, Bill S-8 has the feel of an initiative that is designed to give the appearance of something being done rather than actually doing very much at all. That said, it could be that some of the measures incorporated in Bill S-8 may, in fact, be useful. Perhaps there is a need, at least a theoretical need, to close legal gaps between our sanctions regime and inadmissibility provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. But I must say that I’m not supremely confident given the lack of clarity that the government has provided on the need for this bill.

Mr. Mario Bellissimo also appeared before our committee and warned that, in his view, Bill S-8 both expands and contracts inadmissibility provisions. He argues that the bill actually incorporates considerable ambiguity, and some of that ambiguity may simply be due to a lack of planning and thought.

Mr. Bellissimo argued that this ambiguity may create new unattended issues, including ambiguity as to whether foreign nationals may be treated as violators of human rights, regardless of whether or not the sanctioned person has been involved in personal wrongdoing themselves. Regrettably, the testimony by Mr. Bellissimo also speaks to a likely lack of policy attention being paid to policy issues that surround the crafting of such legislation.

All this leads me to conclude the bill we have before us today is largely a reactive measure. However, I can support it for the minor issues it purports to address. I do, however, wish that we had a government that was a little more thoughtfully proactive, a government that actually consulted and listened to these individuals, such as the informed witnesses who appeared before our committee. If we had such a government, we might actually begin to see more thoughtful and comprehensive policy approaches being adopted.

Canadians should be served better in this regard. We would have fewer bills that soak up legislative time but actually end up achieving very little. However, in spite of these legitimate concerns, what little this bill contributes is hopefully better than doing nothing at all, and I encourage honourable senators to support this bill. Thank you.

Senator Gold: I was not aware of that situation. There is no excuse for that, although I do apologize to those who waited at that location. I will try to find out more and get back to you with an explanation as soon as I know more.

[English]

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Will the honourable senator take a question?

Senator Dean: Yes.

Senator Jaffer: Senator Dean, thank you very much for your work on the committee and for a very comprehensive report.

I may have my figure wrong, but besides the minister and officials, I think you had 12 independent witnesses. Would you agree with me that not one witness talked about the “reasonable general concern” test being a good idea, and that they all suggested that it should instead be “reasonable right to suspect?” Would you agree with me on that?

Senator Dean: Thank you, Senator Jaffer. Arguably, with the exception of the child protective services, that would be the case, yes. All of the others were clearly in favour of a higher threshold.

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

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Monday, June 20, 2022, at 6 p.m.; and

That rule 3-3(1) be suspended on that day.