The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Steve Farlow. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Deacon (Ontario).

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

Hon. Senators: Hear, Hear.

[English]

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Will Senator Dawson take a question?

Senator Dawson: With pleasure.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, during the 2019 federal election campaign, the Trudeau Liberals made several different commitments to our small businesses that have not been fulfilled. As I have raised previously, it appears the Trudeau government is breaking its promise to cut the cost of federal incorporation by 75%. As well, the promise to end credit card swipe fees on GST and HST is being buried in endless consultations.

Leader, in 2019, your government also promised to eliminate fees for business advisory services such as mentorship and training from the Business Development Bank, Export Development Canada and Farm Credit Canada.

Leader, could you tell us if these fees have been eliminated and, if not, why not?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Senator Jaffer: Yes, “consent of the accused,” Senator Plett. You can debate later. It is my turn. What I would say to you, senators, is that it was very clear to us that there was enough protection in the act to have trials. These are not all trials. For example, if the technology wasn’t available, obviously there wouldn’t be a video trial; the accused would have to appear in person. It is only in certain circumstances that the court “may allow.” Honourable senators, I want you to remember that it is not “shall.” It is “may.”

Senator Batters: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, this week we will be paying tribute to the Senate pages who will be leaving us this summer. Senate page A.J. Hancock will be leaving and A.J. unfortunately cannot be with us today, but she has just graduated from the University of Ottawa with an Honours Bachelor of Arts degree in History with a minor in Economics. She will begin her Master of Arts degree in History this fall at the University of Ottawa to focus on Canadian consumer history. She is excited to continue her studies at the graduate level with a full academic scholarship.

(1500)

A.J. is grateful for the opportunity to have worked as a Senate page with such an amazing team. Thank you, A.J., for all your hard work and dedication.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Honourable senators, in respect of the limited amount of time, I will put what might have been a question and supplementary together.

Senator Batters, I am inclined to agree with the analysis you put forward, but I wasn’t there at committee. One part of our job, particularly when an amendment comes at third reading — which is kosher; there’s nothing wrong with that — is to understand both sides of the arguments. To the best of your ability, would you articulate the arguments against your amendment? As we know, the committee rejected it. What did the senators who discussed this have to say? Why were they critical of it? And what witnesses came forward who took a position opposite to you and what did they say? Thank you very much.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Thank you, Senator Batters, for your amendment. I want to intervene for a few minutes to let senators know that regarding trial for a summary convention offence, the bill states the court “may allow” it. Considering the circumstances, the court may allow, “with the consent of the accused and the prosecutor” if the accused is not in custody. If the accused is in custody, the court may allow it with the consent of the accused.

Regarding a trial for an indictable offence, the court “may allow.” Honourable senators, I keep saying “may” because it is not “shall.” The court is not bound by it. Considering the circumstances, the court may allow an accused to appear by video conference, “with the consent of the prosecutor and the accused,” except “when evidence is being presented to the jury.” Then the accused has to appear in court.

For a plea, “the court may, with the consent of the prosecutor and the accused. . . .” And regarding sentencing, the court may allow “with the consent of the prosecutor and the offender. . . .”

Honourable senators, I’m not going to speak for all of the members who supported or didn’t support this, but it was very clear the court “may allow.” Obviously, I have not spoken to the same judges to whom Senator Batters has spoken, but looking at what is in the bill, it says the court “may allow.” So the judges who had a problem with the issue would not have to allow a video trial. It is in there. The court “may allow” with the consent of the accused and the consent of the prosecutor. Senators, I think there is enough —

Senator Plett: Consent of the accused —

Senator Gold: Access to justice has been an issue of concern — and properly so — ever since I was a law student so many years ago. Much needs to be done, as we have discussed in this chamber many times.

The best answer I have is to rely upon the work of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which heard the witnesses, which considered your amendment and others that were proposed and — for all the reasons that were known to the committee — decided not to accept the amendment.

For the reasons that I outlined, that is the government’s position as well.

Hon. Claude Carignan: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Leader, during question period on May 31, I raised the issue of the slow processing of passport applications and the long wait times in passport offices. At the time you replied, and I quote:

The government is aware of the challenges and is listening to the staff on the ground. I have been advised that the government has created new centres to increase production capacity. It has hired approximately 500 new staff members and created a new online tool . . . .

Then you stated the following: “The government will continue to work on this issue to reduce the wait times . . . .”

That was three weeks ago, and it seems that the more people and tools there are, the longer the wait time gets. Can you explain why, over the past three weeks, the lineups have gotten longer rather than shorter, even though the government supposedly took steps to correct the situation?

Senator Dasko: Senator Dawson, I may have missed this over the past few weeks when this bill was being discussed. Can you explain why this bill did not go to committee? Thank you.

Senator Dawson: That’s beyond my pay grade.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those opposed to the motion in amendment will please say “nay.”

The Hon. the Speaker: Pursuant to the order of Monday, June 20, I leave the chair for the Senate to be put into a Committee of the Whole on the subject matter of Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced extreme intoxication). The Honourable Senator Ringuette will chair the committee. To facilitate appropriate distancing, she will preside the committee from the Speaker’s chair.

(1700)

[Translation]

On the Order:

The Senate in Committee of the Whole in order to receive the Honourable David Lametti, P.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, accompanied by no more than two officials, to consider the subject matter of Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced extreme intoxication).

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended and put into Committee of the Whole, the Honourable Pierrette Ringuette in the chair.)

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

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

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gagné, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., for the third reading of Bill C-24, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023.

The Hon. the Speaker: Caleb Rudyk has just graduated from the University of Ottawa with a Bachelor’s degree in Biopharmaceutical Science with a specialization in Genomics. He has been so proud to be able to represent his hometown of Vegreville, Alberta, as a page in the Senate of Canada over the last year. Caleb hopes to continue working in the public service next year, and he aspires to study law in order to work in the legal domain of the pharmaceutical industry.

He is so grateful to have had the opportunity to serve in the Senate alongside such wonderful colleagues, and he will never forget this incredible experience.

Thank you kindly for all your hard work, Caleb.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Call in the senators.

Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Batters negatived on the following division:

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

(On motion of Senator Kutcher, bill, as amended, placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné, for the second reading of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.