Senator Batters: Thanks very much. Yes, the emergency provisions that are being used are exactly what has been used for the last two years. There is a provision of the Criminal Code that was put into place with Bill C-75, I think, that was passed a couple of years ago. In the courts throughout Canada, judges have been interpreting that as being able to use video and audio as need be for their criminal court proceedings for the past two years. So they have had that trial run. That’s why judges are telling me that that trial run has been a dire failure, particularly on trials. However, it works well for some other types of proceedings. That is why I am limiting my amendment to trial only.

They already have the particular provision in the Criminal Code and they’ve been using it for the last two years. This just cements it. I quoted the Barreau du Québec. Their concern is that it makes it more of a default provision to go forward. That is, video trials would always be the way to go.

Senator Tannas: One other question, just for the record. It is my understanding that the formula talked about here does not work out exactly right for representation by population — chronically — for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. But it does work out more or less even for Quebec, and it is the other provinces — the Maritimes, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and, obviously, the territories — that on a representation-by-population basis are slightly overrepresented. So in other words, it is correct that Quebec has not enjoyed any kind of disproportionate favour over the formula discussed yesterday, which is not part of this bill.

Senator Dawson: Senator Tannas, it is not something that is creating a different imbalance. There are imbalances — and we mentioned them yesterday — but this only gives a floor for Quebec. It does not penalize other provinces.

Senator Tannas: I have been following the questions and debate on this, and I just want to be clear. Nothing in this bill favours Quebec or any other province or changes the calculation for representation by population. If we use the example of Quebec, we are setting a floor of 78 seats. Right now, the population of Quebec relative to the population of Canada is about 22.5%. But it has fallen significantly over the last four decades. If we went forward, say, four decades, and it was 20%, all we would do is take the 78 seats for Quebec at, say, 20%, and true everybody else up to make this work. Is that your understanding?

Senator Dawson: It seems that you were listening to me quite closely, senator. Yes, it is my understanding. As we did for the Maritime provinces a few years ago, it is giving a floor. When that floor is established, it means that everybody else will have to go up.

That’s what we are doing now. In the case of Quebec, we were not part of that floor, and now we will be part of the floor.

And I hope the percentage doesn’t continue going down. I wouldn’t want to be as pessimistic as you are, but, that being said, it won’t change the balance of representation in the House of Commons.

Senator Tannas: Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Dawson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Klyne, that this bill be read a third time.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to, on division, and report adopted.)

Hon. Paul J. Massicotte moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, your committee has completed a study of Bill S-5, Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, in obedience to order of reference of Thursday, April 7, 2022.

Bill S-5 represents the first major review and improvement made to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA, in over 20 years. The primary purpose of CEPA is pollution prevention. It provides a legislative and regulatory basis for many programs at the Department of Environment and Climate Change. The bill will, among other things, recognize Canadians’ right to a healthy environment in CEPA’s preamble. It will enshrine the Government of Canada’s duties to protect this right, consider vulnerable populations and cumulative effects in toxic substance assessments and implement a two-track system for the regulation of toxic substances under CEPA.

[Translation]

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources spent five meetings studying Bill S-5 and putting questions to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change as well as officials, members of the industry, associations, Indigenous representatives, non-governmental organizations and experts in various fields. The committee then dedicated another eight meetings to the clause-by-clause study of Bill S-5. Throughout this process, government representatives were present to answer committee members’ questions. I also want to point out that the minister, the sponsor of the bill, and government representatives all indicated that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act will be amended again and that Bill S-5 does not represent all the changes that the government intends to make to the act.

[English]

In its report, the committee is proposing 32 amendments to Bill S-5 and addressing five observations to the Government of Canada.

During the committee’s study and debate, several themes emerged, which are reflected in the committee’s amendments to the bill. These themes address the right to a healthy environment, Indigenous peoples’ rights and participation, animal testing and animal rights, transparency and accountability.

[Translation]

Part 5 of Bill S-5 would enshrine the right to a healthy environment in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and would require the two departments responsible for this legislation to develop an implementation framework that sets out how that right will be considered in the act. The right to a healthy environment is a new concept in Canadian federal law, but similar laws have already been enshrined in constitutions, laws, legal decisions and treaties in countries around the world for several decades. The committee recognized that the establishment of this right would represent a significant improvement to Canada’s environmental laws.

Although the bill introduces the right to a healthy environment, it does not define this right. The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources has proposed a number of amendments to part 5 of the bill. These amendments would help ensure that the implementation framework is consistent with the purposes of the legislation and would require that the ministers define the reasonable limits that the proposed new right would be subject to. The amendments also add the principle of intergenerational equity to the ministers’ considerations.

[English]

Throughout the Energy Committee’s study of Bill S-5, we heard how Indigenous peoples’ rights and their participation in pollution prevention are affected by CEPA. The committee also received evidence that First Nations experience disproportionate exposure to toxic substances. Among other things, the bill would acknowledge the Government of Canada’s commitment to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, in the preamble of CEPA.

The committee considered and adopted several amendments to the bill that strengthened the rights and participation of Indigenous peoples under CEPA and which are in concert with the principles of reconciliation. For example, the committee proposed to amend the preambular commitment of the Government of Canada on UNDRIP by specifically including in the text of CEPA the principles of “free, prior and informed consent,” words that are taken from article 19 of UNDRIP.

This amendment was proposed in recognition of free, prior and informed consent being, as Senator McCallum described it, “instrumental in bringing about self‑determination and self‑governance and independence of Indigenous people.”

The committee is also proposing further amendments to the preamble that promote the meaningful integration of Indigenous knowledge in the CEPA decision-making process. Considering the evidence that the committee heard and the critical concerns raised by its members, it has proposed an amendment that would add a new clause to the bill requiring the ministers to report to Parliament every five years on the operation of CEPA with respect to Indigenous peoples.

[Translation]

Next, the preamble to Bill S-5 discusses animal testing in the context of scientific decision making, toxicity and environmental protection. The Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources is concerned about animal testing and animal rights in general. On this basis, the committee is proposing several amendments related to this issue.

Overall, these amendments would require the federal government to reduce its reliance on animal testing, prevent unnecessary animal testing, prioritize alternatives to animal testing and improve the conditions and processes adopted for animal testing where it remains necessary.

[English]

The Energy Committee is proposing amendments in several areas of Bill S-5 that would heighten government transparency and accountability. In addition to the new requirement for reports every five years on the operation of CEPA with relation to the Indigenous peoples of Canada, the committee is proposing a set of amendments that, when it comes to novel living organisms, would increase public participation and environmental protection. The committee heard that there is an urgent risk to Canadian wild species and Indigenous peoples’ rights arising from the introduction of genetically engineered living organisms into the environment.

The committee is also proposing an amendment that would require the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry to table in Parliament, no later than one year after the bill receives Royal Assent, a report regarding the environmental standards of countries that export products to Canada.

Colleagues, your committee recommends that the Senate pass Bill S-5, including our amendments that strengthen some important aspects of the bill. These changes represent an opportunity to modernize this important legislation all while introducing a new right for Canadians and improving its purpose of pollution prevention.

Your committee also requests that the Government of Canada address the five observations in the report as soon as possible. Thank you very much.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I rise briefly on debate to speak to the amendment proposed by Senator Batters. I thank you for your intervention, senator.

In short, the proposed amendment would remove the possibility of trials in virtual mode, both in the context of summary conviction and in the context of prosecution by indictment. In effect, the proposed amendment would remove the express possibility of the accused appearing remotely during the entirety of a summary conviction or indictable trial and it would further limit what is currently expressly permitted: for an accused to appear remotely in these instances. For these reasons, this amendment represents significant changes that are at odds with both the intent and the purpose of Bill S-4. The intent and purpose is to expand and to clarify the ability of accused persons to appear remotely, particularly to attend their trial remotely.

As I understand it, many of my colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs noted, along with many witnesses who participated in the committee’s proceedings, that at this point in time, particularly as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, there really is no going back, which would be the case if amendments were made to prevent virtual trials entirely or even just those where the evidence of a witness was being taken, as I think was implicit in the questions already posed.

Honourable senators, it is important to highlight that Bill S-4 contains several built-in protections to address these concerns, including a list of considerations to be used in determining whether to allow or require a remote appearance by an accused or an offender as well as enabling a court at any point to cease the use of a remote appearance and to require an in-person appearance where a court “considers it appropriate in the circumstances.” I think that was the thrust of Senator Cotter’s question.

It is also important to note that a significant number of stakeholders, including the provinces, territories, many members of the judiciary and defence bar, are eager to see Bill S-4 enshrined into law, including those provisions which explicitly authorize accused persons to appear at trial by video conference when the evidence of a witness is taken, except during a jury trial.

I also note my understanding that this amendment was proposed at committee and discussed at length but not accepted by the committee, whose work I respect, as I know we all do. For these reasons, honourable senators, I would respectfully urge this chamber not to the support the amendment. Thank you very much.

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is there is agreement for a 15-minute bell?

Hon. Mary Coyle moved third reading of Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

She said: Honourable senators, I am honoured to be speaking to you today from Ottawa, on the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation, whose presence here reaches back to time immemorial. Today is National Indigenous Peoples Day, a day to reflect and celebrate the First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples of each of our regions, and, in particular, our many Indigenous Senate colleagues who enrich the work of our chamber and our lives.

Honourable senators, I am pleased to speak to you today at third reading of Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, an act that, at its core, is about life and the security of persons here in Canada and globally. My second reading speech highlighted the importance of this legislation, given our ever-changing world order.

The bill was sent to Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on June 20. The committee heard from senior officials from Global Affairs Canada, including the Acting Director of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Division and the Deputy National Coordinator of the Canadian National Authority to the Chemical Weapons Convention. As our committee chair, Senator Boehm, said last evening in his report to the Senate, the committee considered a previous iteration of the bill in the last parliament and adopted it — again, without amendment.

Colleagues, it is more important than ever to have effective rules, structures and systems in place to help guide states and businesses in the international system. The work of the United Nations over the past 77 years has helped solidify a rules-based international order — a set of norms, institutions, treaties and arrangements — that has provided rules of the road for managing competing national interests, facilitating international cooperation and fostering peace.

The Chemical Weapons Convention, or CWC, is the perfect example of what the world can accomplish when it comes together for peace. Adopted in 1997, it was the world’s first multilateral disarmament agreement to provide for the elimination of an entire category of weapons of mass destruction.

In November 2019, as a result of significant effort by Canada, the United States and the Netherlands, the Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention took the decision to add four new categories of toxic chemicals to Schedule 1 of the convention’s Annex on Chemicals. Included among these new chemicals was the Novichok-type nerve agent used in the attempted assassination of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, United Kingdom. A variation of this poisonous nerve agent was used in the assassination attempt on Alexei Navalny.

The term Novichok means “newcomer” in Russian and has been applied to a group of advanced nerve agents developed by the Soviet Union.

This addition to the CWC annex renders Canada’s Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act out of date. This is the very issue which Bill S-9 seeks to resolve. Bill S-9 is a simple yet essential bill. It amends Canada’s Chemical Weapons Implementation Act in order to clearly align our act with the Chemical Weapons Convention. Bill S-9 amends our act to remove the old, out-of-date list of prohibited chemicals appended to that act and makes it clear that the current, up-to-date list of prohibited chemicals under the convention is kept by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and is readily available on its website.

During second reading of Bill S-9 on June 14, Senator Ataullahjan, the critic of the bill, said:

I believe Bill S-9 shows good governance, provides clarity for Canadians and reaffirms our engagement to putting an end to the use of chemical weapons.

She also cited the risk of Russia using chemical weapons in its illegal war against Ukraine.

It is clear, colleagues, that Bill S-9 demonstrates Canada’s commitment to the Chemical Weapons Convention and, most importantly, solves the issue of our act being out of date.

Unfortunately, Bill S-9 alone does not reduce the risk of a foreign actor, like the Russian Federation, using a Novichok for nefarious purposes. It does, however, make it fully clear which chemicals are subject to control within Canada.

Honourable senators, Canada has been a proud leader in the fight against chemical weapons. We were one of the first countries to sign the convention on January 13, 1993, and we remain faithfully committed to the work of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Colleagues, as Senator Ataullahjan has said, amending the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act is an act of “good governance.” It has two main benefits. First, it makes clearer which chemicals are prohibited to Canadians without explicit authorization, and, second, it underscores our commitment to the Chemical Weapons Convention and, more broadly, to the rules-based international order.

Honourable colleagues, I would like to conclude with these thoughts. We cannot forget that real people are behind the stories that fleetingly captivate the headlines about dangerous and deadly chemical-weapons use and the threat thereof, as in the case of Ukraine. People from Syria, Iraq and other nations have had their lives ripped apart by the cruel and arbitrary actions of states and, in some cases, non-state actors that ignore the laws, the norms and the obligations — including the prohibition of chemical weapon use — that have evolved over time to help foster and maintain global peace and security for all persons. Many of these people have come here to Canada seeking a peaceful and secure place to live.

Colleagues, yesterday was World Refugee Day. Let us think of the now more-than-100-million people who were forced to flee conflict, violence, human rights violations and persecution and our many fellow Canadians who have come here over the years seeking refuge as we weigh our legislative and political responses to the very real threats they have faced.

Honourable senators, I believe that the Chemical Weapons Convention is a powerful disarmament instrument. Let’s support Bill S-9 and its swift passage to the other place so that Canada’s act implementing that convention is clear and up to date as we advance one of Canada’s important contributions to world peace.

Thank you. Wela’lioq.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on Bill S-9, An Act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

As I stated in relation to this bill at second reading, I would like to thank Senator Coyle for her dedication and her passion, and for once again introducing this bill. This bill allows us to finally uphold our country’s strong stance on controlling dangerous chemicals which can be used as weapons of mass destruction in addition to nuclear and biological weapons.

Let’s not forget that Canada played an important role in the creation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, or CWC, having been one of the first countries to sign on to it in 1993. To this day, Canada continues to actively serve on the executive council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

While I support this bill, I must voice my one and only concern. I worry about the fact that the government allowed the previous bill, Bill S-2, to simply die on the Order Paper during the last Parliament after we dutifully passed that bill through the Senate. Hopefully, this mistake will not be repeated.

I am also concerned about the way Russia has undermined the CWC through its invasion of Ukraine. I am, of course, particularly worried that Russia may go as far as using weapons of mass destruction — including, perhaps, chemical weapons — in Ukraine.

Honourable senators, the potential threat of chemical warfare in Ukraine makes it all the more important that we stand by our principles and support the CWC as strongly as we can. I am pleased that the Senate is about to pass this bill once again. This time I urge the government to ensure its speedy passage through the House of Commons. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Dennis Dawson moved third reading of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation).

He said: Honourable senators, I rose in the Senate yesterday to speak in support of government Bill C-14 and, in the 24 hours since, my opinion has not changed, so I will not repeat myself. I know senators will laugh when I say “I will be brief” — I’ll do my George Baker impression — but I rise today to deliver only a few remarks as sponsor of the bill.

I want to thank my colleagues who spoke yesterday, as well as those who will continue the debate today. Several senators asked questions about the structure of Canada’s representation system. Regional representation, no doubt, is something important to many of us — that’s why we exist as a Senate — and is one of Canada’s greatest strengths as a country. I am glad to see the passionate advocacy among parliamentarians.

For my part, I will do what I can to make inquiries and raise awareness with the government about this issue. In particular, I want to mention the observations raised by Senator Simons on the lopsided representation of Canadians here in the Senate. I want to emphasize that these are important discussions that contribute to the health of Canada’s democracy. However, let me be clear: These are serious issues, but they are beyond the scope of Bill C-14.

[Translation]

In short, this adjustment, an essential part of our democracy since 1871, includes a new calculation of the number of seats allocated to each province and a readjustment of electoral boundaries in each province to accommodate demographic changes and population changes throughout the country.

The problem is that the minimum threshold, the baseline for representation, is outdated. It has to be updated to ensure that no province will ever have fewer seats than it had in the 43rd Parliament.

[English]

What Bill C-14 does not do is institute a particular method for determining the distribution in the House. Canada has always been, in principle and in practice, a modified representation by population. That has always been enshrined in our constitutional formula. To change the formula itself and change our modified representation system would undoubtedly trigger the general amending formula. It would require resolutions here at the Senate, the other place as well as by at least seven provinces totalling 50% of the population of Canada. That, honourable senators, is a tall order.

By contrast, Bill C-14 is a carefully considered bill. It is more modest in its proposal, and it is wholly consistent with Canada’s principles and practice of modified representation by population.

[Translation]

More specifically, it proposes a modest but significant update to the 1985 grandfather clause, which is in section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and guarantees that no province will have fewer seats than it did during the 43rd Parliament. Basically, the update pins the threshold to the year 2021.

This is not the first time we have protected Canadians’ representation this way. More recently, the grandfather clause was similarly amended in the Fair Representation Act of 2011. At the time, it did not trigger the general amending formula.

I believe now, as I did then, that the proposals in Bill C-14 are minor enough and consistent with our modified representation system to need nothing more than a resolution in both houses.

[English]

Colleagues, I promised to be brief, and I hope I have been so. The sooner we can pass this bill, the sooner the Quebec commission can proceed in their work. I urge all my dear colleagues to support the passage of Bill C-14.

Thank you.

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 —

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Bill read first time.)

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

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?