Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: I rise today in support of the adoption of the report. I just wanted to point out that section 99 of the Customs Act, which we are currently discussing, is entitled “Examination of goods.” It states, and I quote:

That means any act of Parliament administered or enforced by the officer.

To inspect a package, a bus, or to ensure that the right rate has been applied, the officer must have reasonable grounds to believe. I would be more convinced if the government changed these other sections of the legislation to say that, for all these other sections there has to be reasonable concern, but no. Regarding the computer, the thing most closely linked to your privacy, the one thing that contains all the data and can describe you more accurately than you can, we cannot decide that it warrants a lower threshold than all these elements that are necessary formalities to prevent a firearm from being imported to Canada.

We are told about pedophilia. It is important. It is serious, but we cannot allow computers to be searched under the guise of wanting to counter pedophilia by accepting a lower threshold than the threshold for allowing packages to be opened to verify whether there are firearms inside. The government is on the wrong track. If it wants to convince us that a lower threshold is possible — as suggested in Canfield by the Alberta Court of Appeal — then I invite the government to amend the other parts of the legislation to have the new proposed test apply everywhere. If there is no consistency in the legislation we cannot justify measures before a court. Thank you.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

(Bill read first time.)

Senator Ataullahjan: I have been listening to the debate, and, at the risk of sounding ignorant, can you tell me what happens when you have a racialized person coming through and their phone is looked at? There is a lower threshold. What happens? I, as a Muslim, will sometimes have a prayer on my phone in Arabic. What happens if the border agent doesn’t understand what that says? How does that impact a racialized person or, in this case, a Muslim?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I rise to speak very briefly on 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. I was unable to lend my support to this bill at second reading, and therefore I am taking a bit of your time today to do so.

I will not repeat the essential features of the bill. You have heard them from the sponsor, Senator Harder, and from others.

In a nutshell, this bill aligns our aspirations in the sanctions regime with appropriate legislation in Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to ensure that individuals who are sanctioned for various reasons under either the Special Economic Measures Act or the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act are not inadvertently admitted into Canada.

The right hand must know what the left hand is doing, and this is what the bill seeks to ensure.

I think of this as a bit of a cleanup bill, but a bill that is nevertheless urgent in that we must make sure that we are clapping with both hands.

These amendments are essential. For one, the horrifying context in Ukraine — cities and communities decimated, thousands dead, brutal carnage which has been left behind by the invaders, mass graves, people with hands tied behind their back, torture, rape, et cetera.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has displaced close to 7 million people who have fled to Poland, Romania, Moldova, Hungary, Slovakia and also into Canada. Unfortunately, as this conflict sees no end, I fear that more will be displaced.

We also know that Russia is forcing tens of thousands of Ukrainians into camps in Russia. An estimated 200,000 children are among the people who have been removed from Ukraine into Russia. Russia has, in essence, kidnapped them.

This is all horrifying, but if there is one tiny sliver of a silver lining, then it is the alignment of like-minded nation states to come together on sanctioning Russians in different ways.

An example is, of course, the swift and severe sanctions that have been imposed on Russia at SWIFT, and others, too, have been implemented. I am pleased that the government, through this bill and through other proposed changes in the budget implementation act on the repurposing and confiscation of frozen assets, is now taking a more expansive measure to approach our sanction regimes. Both measures will further strengthen Canada’s commitment to holding foreign corrupt leaders, henchmen and entities to account for committing human rights abuses and grave breaches of peace and security.

No one sanction regime imposed by any one jurisdiction can be as effective as when we collaborate and coordinate our responses with other like-minded jurisdictions. But in the least, we need to ensure internal coordination and alignment.

As the sponsor has pointed out, the application of this bill is broader than simply that to Russia and Belarus. It will apply, and can apply, to other sanctioned individuals and entities from places like Iran, Myanmar, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and North Korea.

This bill makes sense in other ways as well. First of all, on the basic point, we don’t want sanctioned individuals coming to Canada. We don’t want their money and we do not want their presence, and Canada should in no way be a temporary or a permanent safe haven for them.

Second, it makes sense to align the Special Economic Measures Act with the Sergei Magnitsky Law. Magnitsky already has inadmissibility grounds for individuals that have committed grave human rights violations, torture and grand corruption. Having sanction regimes that are consistent from one to the other also makes good sense.

Finally, we know that sanctions applied by Canada and by others are having some effect. We know and we have read that there are a few Russian oligarchs who are already speaking out, and we need to tighten the noose every which way we can.

In conclusion, colleagues, for far too long corrupt, brutal and criminal foreign officials and entities have acted with impunity. The government needs more tools to hold brutal leaders to account, and Bill S-8 provides another way to do so. Calling them out is not enough. Sanctioning them is not enough. We must ensure that they never set foot in Canada because I think we all know that once you are in Canada it is extremely difficult to remove an individual.

I will borrow a line from Senator Woo’s speech on Bill S-6 when he urged us to send that bill to the other house. I will urge you to do the same by adding a yellow sticky note and marking it, “super urgent.” Thank you, honourable senators.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is also for the government leader in the Senate.

On December 15, 2020, the Trudeau government announced $724.1 million to launch a comprehensive violence-prevention strategy. More than half of this funding was to support at least 38 new shelters and 50 transitional housing for First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples across the country, including on-reserve, in the North and in urban areas.

On Tuesday, The Globe and Mail reported that, as of May 31, none of this funding had been allocated. As well, out of the more than $700 million promised through the strategy, just $12.6 million had been spent on violence prevention, or less than 2% of the total amount announced a year and a half ago.

Leader, could you tell us why this program to support Indigenous women and girls has been such a failure?

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo moved third reading of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization, as amended.

He said: Honourable senators, before I begin, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge that the land on which we gather is the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

I am pleased to open the third reading debate on Bill S-6, an Act respecting regulatory modernization.

The bill has returned to the Senate following pre-study by seven committees, consisting of over 21 hours of testimony from 48 witnesses, the summaries of which were provided to the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, which in turn presented its report on Tuesday, and the report was adopted by this chamber yesterday.

[Translation]

I want to thank the members of all the committees for their work on this bill. They made some improvements. The committees also identified some broader questions about the need for faster and more extensive regulatory reforms, to ensure that companies can innovate, prosper and be competitive on the world stage.

[English]

Honourable colleagues, businesses are the backbone of Canada’s economic success. They create the products, services and wealth that have made our country prosperous. As we emerge from the pandemic, Bill S-6 and its successors will help Canadian businesses by ensuring the regulatory system evolves with changing technologies and that they reflect today’s realities.

The modern regulatory system must do two things. First, it must promote business investment and innovation; second, it must ensure the health, safety and security of Canadians and the protection of the environment. That is what Bill S-6 does. It modifies 29 different acts through 46 common-sense amendments to modernize our regulatory system.

For example, the bill proposes a minor change to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act that would allow the agency to deliver services and allow businesses to interact with them electronically rather than through paper-based transactions. This will reduce the administrative burden for businesses and allow them to be more flexible in their interactions with the government.

The bill also contains amendments to the Fisheries Act that would clarify that fishery officers have the authority to use alternative measures to taking fishers to court in response to minor violations. This is an authority that was unclear in the existing legislation.

Such a change could not only reduce the number of lengthy and costly court processes, but also ensure small violations do not result in criminal records and the stigma and barriers that come with them. The use of such alternative measures has been supported by the fishing community and Indigenous groups.

In addition, amendments to the Canada Transportation Act would allow regulatory changes stemming from updates to international transportation safety standards to be integrated more quickly. These are just some examples of the 46 amendments included in the bill.

While the individual effect of each proposal may seem small, they have the potential, taken together, to make a real difference to those who are affected. In fact, many of these changes were proposed by Canadians and by Canadian businesses. What’s more, all of the proposals are cost-neutral, and the associated risks are low to non-existent. Bill S-6 makes sure our system stays up to date, and sets up Canadians and businesses for success in the years ahead.

As honourable senators know, this bill is meant to be a recurring legislative mechanism. While Bill S-6 is billed as the “second Annual Regulatory Modernization Act,” it is in fact the first stand-alone bill under the rubric of yearly updates to regulation that were first announced by the government in 2018.

The Senate can take some pride in being on the ground floor of a process that I hope will grow in ambition, effectiveness and efficiency over the years.

[Translation]

The idea of a recurring legislative mechanism for regulatory modernization is a response to the legislative challenges noted by businesses and Canadians during targeted regulatory reviews and consultations.

[English]

Business stakeholders such as the Economic Strategy Tables and the Advisory Council on Economic Growth have stressed that having such a regularized mechanism in place is critical to improving Canada’s regulatory system.

In addition, the External Advisory Committee on Regulatory Competitiveness, made up of business, academic and consumer stakeholders, has called for further efforts to reduce the administrative burden of regulations and ensure that regulations are future-proofed.

By amending laws that are too inflexible, too specific or simply outdated, this bill is an important reminder of the need for ongoing regulatory review and legislation that stands the test of time. In fact, work on the next annual regulatory modernization bill is already under way and is expected to be tabled in Parliament in 2023.

Let me return to the good work of our committees in their pre‑study of this bill. The content of Bill S-6 was sent to the following seven committees: Banking, Trade and Commerce; Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources; Agriculture and Forestry; Fisheries and Oceans; Social Affairs, Science and Technology; Foreign Affairs and International Trade; and Transport and Communications. I want to again thank all committee members for their hard work. As a result of specific feedback from committee work, two sets of amendments were made to Bill S-6.

The Agriculture and Forestry Committee observed that the provisions of what was then Part 6 of the bill should not proceed in isolation, but was better considered as part of broader consultations on the Pest Control Products Act, which began in March 2022. The government agreed, and that section was duly voted down during clause by clause at the Banking Committee.

In addition, I moved two related amendments that responded to concerns raised by the Privacy Commissioner in a letter that he wrote to the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee related to the need for memoranda of agreement between Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the agencies with which they share the type of information that is spelled out in Bill S-6. I’m pleased to say that both amendments went forward and are contained in the revised bill before us.

[Translation]

A number of committees observed that consultation processes for future regulatory modernization efforts should be transparent, interactive and inclusive of all relevant stakeholders, not only those already in the regulatory system, but also potential new entrants. I agree with those observations.

[English]

Many of you have also called for a more ambitious regulatory modernization agenda for the government. I also agree with this sentiment. To that end, I organized a briefing for all senators on the Canadian government’s overall approach to regulatory reform, within which this bill, the annual regulatory modernization bill, is only a small part. An important takeaway from that briefing is that the Treasury Board Secretariat has recently established a pilot project to make it easier for individuals and organizations to improve Canada’s regulatory system. I encourage you to check it out at www.letstalkfederalregulations.ca.

There are many moving parts to regulatory reform, only some of which can be addressed through cleanup bills such as Bill S-6. More substantial changes, however, can only be dealt with act by act, which is time-consuming and sometimes politically charged. That is why I believe that the Senate has a special role to play in advocating for regulatory reform and providing leadership on the need for energy, innovation and persistence on this issue. Perhaps we can consider a special study on how we can improve regulatory modernization in Canada and use it as a marker of the Senate’s ongoing attention in this area. That is for another day, and I know other senators have ideas, and I look forward to hearing from them.

[Translation]

Colleagues, your diligent work has been critical in helping to improve this bill and has provided the Senate with an important opportunity to strengthen the regulatory system.

[English]

Bill S-6 will help modernize existing rules to make it easier for Canadians to get things done and to set up regulators, stakeholders and Canadians for success. Let’s send this bill to the other place as soon as possible with a sticky note marked, “urgent.” And then let’s turn our minds to improving the regulatory system writ large. Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, in April I asked Senator Gold a question about Canada’s emissions reduction targets and the fact that the NDP-Liberal government did not consult farmers on meeting those targets. Fertilizer Canada’s own research shows meeting these targets would devastate the entire sector, costing it $48 billion.

Leader, you were unable to say whether they were consulted or to what extent, but you did say that:

. . . I can assure this chamber that the government’s emissions targets are taken in the spirit and on the basis of advice and reflect Canada’s commitment to do its part to reduce greenhouse gases and climate change.

Leader, did the advice you referred to regarding meeting Canada’s emissions targets include advice from Environment and Climate Change Canada and Natural Resources Canada, or did the government ignore them while preparing its targets just as it has ignored the farmers and Fertilizer Canada?

Senator Gold: The government does not ignore the advice. Let me answer your question. I’m advised that the analysis referred to, Senator Plett, is one of the many internal inputs and early inputs that were assessed and considered in the process of developing the plan. The analysis provides a very incomplete picture of internal government analysis. It also does not reflect the final modelling done by the government. The final analysis used as a baseline the latest projections from the Canada Energy Regulator and its trajectory for oil production. The analysis that is referred to also does not incorporate the full scale at which emissions reduction technologies such as carbon capture and storage could reduce emissions. Rather, it focused only on technologies currently available.

I have been further advised that the emissions reduction plan, along with other developing regulatory approaches, shows that, with the right policy signals and the support of frameworks in place, Canada can indeed reach its target of a 40% reduction by 2030, equating to an 81-megatonne cut in pollution.

Senator Plett: Well, I trust that you will get me the answer that I asked for if you don’t have the answer today.

A report in The Globe and Mail on Tuesday cited confidential government documents on the emissions targets released in March. Those documents, including findings from Environment and Climate Change Canada and Natural Resources Canada, showed the government’s targets of an 81-megatonne reduction in emissions from the oil and gas sector by 2030 was completely unrealistic, leader.

The documents showed the industry could only realistically reduce emissions by 43 megatonnes by 2030. Officials at Environment and Climate Change Canada said they would share documents with The Globe and Mail showing how the gap between 43 megatonnes and 81 megatonnes would be bridged. Then, of course, they reneged on that promise. This government constantly tells us it relies on science, but it ignores advice from its own experts.

Leader, can you tell us why the government ignored the more realistic figures on its emissions targets? Will you commit to tabling in this chamber the documents promised to The Globe and Mail on how a gap of 38 megatonnes would be bridged?

Hon. Larry W. Smith: Honourable senators, I rise at third reading in my capacity as critic to speak to Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.

Colleagues, I will offer some brief remarks and highlight some of my concerns based on what I heard at committee from both the government and stakeholders.

The intent of Bill S-6 is commendable, seeking to reduce the regulatory burden for Canadian businesses and create an environment which enables economic innovation and growth. I believe that regular and ongoing efforts around regulatory modernization, as is committed to by the federal government, could be greatly beneficial for the business community in Canada.

As an example, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business told the Senate Banking Committee:

. . . until recently, many small businesses told us that they kept a fax machine for the sole purpose of dealing with governments and meeting their requirements. . . .

I am concerned, however, with the process by which Bill S-6 has been brought to the Senate for study.

To begin, Treasury Board officials told our Senate Banking Committee that public consultations were launched in 2019 via the Canada Gazette in order to allow stakeholders to bring the attention of the government to regulatory issues that impacted them.

Senator Colin Deacon quickly picked up on this process, highlighting that the Canada Gazette may not be the most effective means of communicating with industry today, especially with new and emerging players who are not familiar with the seemingly antiquated process.

I could not agree more with Senator Deacon. The Canada Gazette as a vehicle for consultations and communication with industry today is not the most effective tool.

Many of us here are all too familiar with the outdated, clunky and slow publication process that is the Canada Gazette, and it is being used in an effort to modernize Canada’s regulatory framework.

Colleagues, I think it may be time to bring the Canada Gazette into the 21st century before we bring Canada’s patchwork of regulatory frameworks into the 21st century. Nevertheless, I am pleased to learn that the government has been working on alternative means of consulting with industry, which includes online portals that are designed to broaden the reach of the process to more stakeholders.

Lastly, I would like to highlight the visible disconnect between government and industry, which appears to be a recurring theme at our Banking Committee.

We heard at committee the need for government to not only offer extensive consultations but also to engage with stakeholders.

Speaking about the federal government’s new regulatory consultation portal, Mr. Robin Guy of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce noted:

. . . it’s a new portal, but we have to see how these things work operationally. It can’t just be business putting in feedback without response. There needs to be a two-way conversation, which, I guess, you could call a negotiation. From our side, we would hope that it is a two-way street and that it’s not just information going into a system and never coming back out.

Additionally, Senator Rob Black, Chair of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, appeared before the Banking Committee to speak about the divisions of Bill S-6 that were delegated to his committee. Speaking of the consultation process, he said:

. . . the committee believes that the Government of Canada should ensure that future consultation processes for regulatory modernization bills and initiatives meet several key criteria. In particular, the processes should be transparent, interactive and inclusive of all relevant stakeholders, including both those who are well-established in and those who are new entrants to a particular sector. . . .

Finally, in a submission to our Banking Committee, the Canadian National Millers Association raised concerns that regulated industries had no way of knowing what changes would be included or excluded from Bill S-6 before the final text of the bill was tabled in the Senate. They noted that:

[Treasury Board Secretariat] has liberty and the means (human resources and protocols) to consult with stakeholders on what regulatory modernizations might possibly be included during the drafting of the next [regulatory modernization bill] without disclosing the final content of the bill before tabling in Parliament via either the Senate or the House of Commons.

Colleagues, the stakeholders in regulated industries, in my view, are best positioned to provide feedback on how regulation impacts their businesses.

For example, a more proactive approach to communication by the federal government with industry would have prevented the inclusion of Part 6 in Bill S-6 which, had it not been removed at committee, would have superseded the extensive regulatory revision efforts of Health Canada currently under way on pest‑control products.

Colleagues, Bill S-6 is the first of a series of ongoing legislative efforts to modernize Canada’s regulatory frameworks. As such, the federal government needs to ensure that the process by which regulatory modernization takes place is properly coordinated internally. Moreover, the government needs to commit to more extensive, fulsome and engaging consultations with stakeholders to ensure the regulatory modernization efforts are effective. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Patterson, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence (Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act, 2016, with amendments), presented in the Senate on June 15, 2022.

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Senator Dean, thank you for the report you presented as the committee’s chair.

I want to be sure I understand the amendment passed in committee. The Alberta Court of Appeal decision stated that there is a test that needs to be met, but not necessarily the one that is currently in the act; it could be a slightly less stringent test for the Canada Border Services Agency, rather than the one currently set out in the act.

My understanding is that the amendment that was passed by the committee is to decide on the test, to expand the application of the current standard — which the agency is very familiar with and used to implementing — and, therefore, to expand the issue of searches of devices to cell phones and tablets. Is that correct?

[English]

Senator Dean: Thank you for the question, Senator Dupuis. Yes, indeed, that is precisely the approach that committee members took — moving to what is a pre-existing standard for other purposes under the Customs Act and Preclearance Act, 2016, which is “reasonable grounds to suspect.” That is, as I understand it, the next higher level of threshold that would be available beyond this new concept of “reasonable general concern.” You are correct in your reading of it.

Hon. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, I rise today to acknowledge the important contributions of Madam Fortin and Mr. Plamondon, the two external members of the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight.

Your Honour, I thank you for recognizing their presence here in the gallery, and I’m pleased to speak to you about the work they do as committee members.

As senators know, the Audit and Oversight Committee was established in October 2020, with a mandate to provide oversight on the Senate’s internal and external audits. At first glance, it may look similar in function and appearance to other standing committees. However, this committee is unique because it includes two external members who are not senators. It’s the first time in the Senate’s history that non-senators have been included as members of a committee, and I’m pleased to tell you that their wealth of knowledge has been a great complement to the work we do as a team.

Madam Fortin and Mr. Plamondon are both highly qualified Chartered Professional Accountants who have accumulated decades of valuable experience during their respective careers, and their input into the committee’s work has been of tremendous benefit to me and my fellow committee members. Their business experience and expertise have helped us shape how the Senate’s audit process should function — a topic that is of interest to everyone in this chamber.

As chair, I have benefited greatly from the knowledge and unique insights that they bring to the table. These two external members add integrity and highly skilled competency to the committee’s work, which is of the utmost importance, and their valued contributions benefit everyone in this chamber.

The Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight plays an important role in protecting the reputation of the Senate of Canada, which is strengthened by the engagements of Madam Fortin and Mr. Plamondon.

On a personal note, I hold them both in high regard, and I look forward to continuing the work we do together. I thank them again for their contributions, and I ask all senators to join me in saluting their service. Thank you.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise today during National Indigenous History Month to honour Jose Amaujaq Kusugak, originally from Repulse Bay, now Naujaat, who settled in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, in 1960 and is one of three Indigenous leaders honoured by Canada Post this month with a postage stamp bearing his image and his name in English and Inuktut. Two other Indigenous leaders similarly honoured by Canada Post this month are Harry Daniels, who lobbied to have Métis and non-status Indians recognized in section 35 of Canada’s repatriated Constitution, and Chief Marie-Anne Day Walker-Pelletier, who led the Okanese First Nation in Saskatchewan for almost 40 years.

The Jose Kusugak stamp was unveiled in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, this week by Canada Post with Jose’s family and namesakes present. His widow, Nellie Kusugak, an educator and former commissioner of Nunavut, spoke at the event as well, noting that Jose’s mother had urged him to serve Inuit — a cause to which he devoted his life. He made his mark in many ways, from being a teacher of Inuktut language and history at the University of Saskatchewan Language Centre and later at the Churchill Vocational Centre in Manitoba. His work with the Inuit Cultural Institute in the 1970s led to the creation of the dual writing system widely used in Nunavut today, a mix of syllabics, in which his name appears on the new Canada Post stamp, and Roman orthography. Also, he had a notable career in broadcasting working for CBC North, where he enthralled listeners, and the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation.

He was president of the national Inuit organization Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. And as president of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated in the late 1990s, he played a pivotal role in the implementation of Nunavut, including persuading the federal government to sole source a contract for the building of a new legislature in Nunavut’s capital, and offices and housing in 10 decentralized communities, which resulted in the creation of Nunavut Construction Corporation, an Inuit-owned, Inuit-led corporation which is now a leader in construction throughout Nunavut.

In a tribute written about Jose by the husband of Governor General Mary Simon, Whit Fraser, Jose was described as Nunavut’s “cheerful muse.” He was quoted as saying:

Every situation has a funny side to it. We owe it to our soul and spirit to laugh and see the sunny side of life.

Jose was a loyal Canadian and an Inuk champion who was well known in Nunavut and in national first ministers’ meetings for describing Inuit as “First Canadians, Canadians First.” Thank you.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I rise today to recognize World Refugee Day. This has never been a day for celebration, least of all this year, because this year marks a new threshold of misery, insecurity, heartbreak and displacement for millions of new people.

In Ukraine alone, over 7 million people have fled the brutal and ruthless invasion by Russia. In Afghanistan, we watched in horror as the Taliban returned, resulting in a mass exodus from the country.

All told, today there are over 100 million people who have been displaced. This is a new high. I know that sometimes numbers are meaningless because we hear so many numbers thrown at us, so let me try and put these numbers into some context for you. One hundred million people is more than the entire populations of the U.K., France or Italy, and more than twice the population of Canada. If you pulled together the world’s largest cities — New Delhi, Mexico City and Beijing — you would still not get to 100 million. By all accounts, this number is only going to climb because of climate change, climate migration and, sadly, more conflict.

I believe we need to come to grips with this new normal, yet tragic, way of life. Although I appreciate that Canada has worked hard to bring in Afghans and Ukrainians, we know that our response could be better, faster and more humane. We cannot be reinventing the wheel whenever a new crisis arrives, because there will always be a new crisis.

Canada needs to be better prepared, learn its lessons from the past as well as its successes — such as our response to Syrian refugees — and permanently realign the machinery of government at IRCC, Global Affairs Canada and other departments to create a rapid response mechanism which will make us more nimble, responsive and efficient. We owe it not just to the people who have lost their homes, but we also owe it to ourselves. Thank you.

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, I would like to begin by thanking Senator Klyne for his introduction of our honoured guests. Colleagues, historically, parliamentary committee memberships were exclusive to parliamentarians. It has been like that since 1867. As you have heard, on June 8, 2021, just over a year ago, our Standing Senate Committee on Audit and Oversight appointed our two external members, Mr. Plamondon and Madam Fortin, who are obviously here with us today.

Today, I rise to pay tribute and welcome our new committee colleagues and colleagues of all senators, and I thank them for their excellent work and contributions to the Audit and Oversight Committee over the past year. I recall when we were looking at all the résumés and applications that came in. Senator Dupuis, Senator Downe and I went through many of them. We were looking for people of the highest standard, and I know we succeeded in that endeavour.

It is an honour to work alongside these talented individuals in the service of the Senate and in the service of Canadians by increasing accountability and transparency here in the Senate. Honourable senators, please join me, again, in thanking Mr. Plamondon and Madam Fortin for their valuable contributions to our chamber.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Francis: Honourable senators, I only intend to speak very briefly on behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. The committee wishes to congratulate the Anishinabek Nation for concluding the historic Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement and the shíshálh Nation for leading the implementation of its first formal Indigenous self‑government agreement in Canada. The committee observed that it took 27 years to negotiate the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement, and urges the federal government to ensure continuity in negotiators and staff while supporting negotiation capacity in First Nations communities so that agreements are reached in a timely and efficient manner. Wela’lioq, thank you.

Hon. Brian Francis, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, presented the following report:

Thursday, June 16, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples has the honour to present its

FIFTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-10, An Act to give effect to the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement, to amend the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act and the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, has, in obedience to the order of reference of June 14, 2022, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN FRANCIS

Chair

He said: Honourable senators, after the clerk at the table has read the report, I would like to request leave of the Senate to speak very briefly.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question today is once again for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Leader, as Statistics Canada reported recently, gun crime has gone up under this NDP-Liberal government, yet their response is to bring forward arbitrary bans, soft-on-crime legislation and a complicated buyback program that is still not operational. Meanwhile, illegal guns continue to pour into Canada across our border with the United States.

An answer to one of my written questions on the Order Paper revealed that between 2016 and 2020 the Canada Border Services Agency seized just 225 prima facie crime guns, or guns suspected or known to be destined for illicit use in Canada.

Leader, does this sound sufficient to you? Are you content with poor results on stopping smuggled guns, which are by far the main source of guns on the street? If your government genuinely wants to tackle gun crime, why are you, under Bill C-5, removing mandatory jail time for criminals who smuggle guns into our country?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. There is a lot in there.

Government is attacking the issue of gun crime in a number of ways. The government does not share your views on the importance or efficacy of the measures, nor does it share your views on mandatory minimums — we’ll have an opportunity to debate that.

Is the government satisfied that it has stopped the flow of illegal guns across the border? Of course not. I’m advised, though, that the CBSA last year seized a record number of illegal firearms, and the government, realizing that it has more to do, has invested over $350 million in law enforcement to stop the flow of illegal gun trafficking.

The scourge of gun violence in this country is a serious problem and requires serious responses. That’s what the government of the day is providing to Canadians.