Senator Tannas: It has been an unforgettable session in so many ways.

On behalf of the Canadian Senators Group, I would like to thank senators and all staff for their commitment to fulfilling the nation’s business on behalf of Canadians. It is truly a privilege to work with each and every one of you. Have a good summer.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, I too want to extend my very best wishes to all senators, our staff and employees of the Administration who serve us so well. I want to, of course, associate myself with all the expressions of gratitude and respect that were spoken by my leadership colleagues.

I want to thank my leadership colleagues for the work they do and the way in which they conduct themselves in our meetings, deliberations and negotiations. It is a privilege to work with such wonderful people.

A lot has happened this session. A number of kind of unexpected, odd, unusual and significant things have happened. I want to share some highlights that come to mind that I will remember about the last few months.

Work-related, Parliament’s Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying was brought back into existence post-election to continue an important Senate initiative of reviewing the law.

We weren’t back here very long in February before we involuntarily hosted the “Freedom Convoy” in Ottawa. I frankly have never seen anything like it. The enthusiasm of the participants, unusual as they were, was something that I don’t think any of us who were here and walked the streets will ever forget.

We also saw the very first use of the Emergencies Act. That was historic. I think the Senate distinguished itself in the debate just prior to the withdrawal that was watched by hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

Senator Patterson: During the debate.

Senator Tannas: Yes, I would. This would be the last one, because I know we want to move forward.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: The whips propose 30 minutes. If all senators agree to 30 minutes, it shall be 30 minutes. If one senator says “no,” it shall be an hour. Do we have an agreement on the 30-minute bell?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) moved third reading of Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced extreme intoxication).

[Translation]

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 the sitting be suspended to await the announcement of Royal Assent, to reassemble at the call of the chair with a five‑minute bell.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 10:58 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on May 5, 2022, the Senate adjourned until Tuesday, September 20, 2022, at 2 p.m.)

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. As I have said many times, the situation Canadians are facing with passports is unacceptable. That is the position of this government, which is doing everything it can to find a solution.

If Canada commits to organizing such an event, I have faith that it will do so capably and with the brio it is known for.

[English]

Senator Patterson: Thank you.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I take it from your question, Senator Plett, that you’re not going to become a donor to the Liberal Party of Canada.

The cabinet of this government is composed of very competent and very dedicated people. I do not accept your characterization of their role in some of the problems — real though the problems are — that face Canadians. It would be invidious for me to single out the many competent members who serve this country well and honourably.

Senator Lankin: That’s barely enough time, but I will.

Senator Gold: I do not agree with the characterization of the individuals you mentioned, and so the answer, then, of course, to your question is no, I do not agree.

Senator Patterson: Senator, I think you were saying we have to pass the bill or there will be a vacuum in the law. Would you say that what you’re advising the Senate is that although the bill may have flaws, which I believe may be corrected by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, it’s still better than doing nothing?

Senator Saint-Germain: Exactly.

Senator Patterson: Would you take another brief question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Lankin has two minutes left of her time.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Honourable senators, I appreciate very much being able to participate in this debate, and I thank Senator Plett. I appreciate hearing about the discussions writ large and — not breaking confidence — the discussions of the leadership. I’ve heard some of these things as other people have been talking in the lead-up to this debate. One of the things that perhaps hasn’t been brought out was a clear desire to work through all of the legislation in a way that would bring us to a close today. I truly appreciate Senator Plett and his reference to the national holiday in Quebec tomorrow as one of the things that we traditionally respect, and I respect and agree with that.

I also appreciated his question to Senator Patterson. Senator Plett, I’m not there to say “hear, hear” in person to your remarks across the floor, but I want to say that one of the reasons I appreciate you is that your preambles are almost as long as my mine usually are, and so I feel a little comforted by that.

However, on the serious nature of this motion before us, I share a lot of the concerns that have been raised by my three brother senators. I speak from a different end position, but I share the concerns. I’ve come to a different conclusion, and I appreciate the opportunity to set that forward and how I worked through the issue.

When we held Committee of the Whole with Minister Lametti, I have to admit that I found that process unusual and one that gave me concern. I would rather have had a short committee process than the Committee of the Whole, but the leaders unanimously agreed with that process and put that forward. And I felt I could glean a lot from that.

Of course, as all of us do, I have reached out and sought other opinions with respect to the actual provisions of Bill C-28. I’m not speaking about that right now, I’m speaking about the motion before us. I have heard views from many women’s organizations, pro and con, moving to fix the loophole in the way it has been suggested now or not fixing it now, coming back in the fall with a report after having passed it, and, if amendments are required, seeking to pressure the government to do that or waiting and doing those amendments in the fall.

I’ve heard from many, so a lot of the views that we are failing to hear, as both previous senators said, have come to us through other routes. That’s not as helpful as having an open public record of these, although I know many senators in the debate on the actual bill this afternoon and this evening will put those forward, and we will hear quotes from many of those organizations.

Senator Patterson listed a number of organizations. I know and have worked with those organizations. I know and have worked with the executive directors of those organizations, who are in place today, over the years, and I respect the points of view they put forward, as I do the other organizations that have taken a different position.

I’m aware that after the court decision was released there was a huge response for the government to act quickly. In fact, I believe there might have been a letter — I might have been a signatory to it; I haven’t had a chance to go back because we’re all very busy at this point in time — calling on the government to act quickly. My recollection is that maybe over 30 senators participated in that call, as well as many external organizations.

One of the reasons I’ve come to a position in feeling that I can support this motion before us is that the government themselves moved quickly to fix this problem. The question of whether the fix is correct is what we need to examine. But they moved quickly.

(1540)

I have confidence this particular government wants to fix this. I also have confidence, having seen unanimous consent in the House of Commons, that all the political parties’ representatives, duly elected and accountable through elections, believe that a quick move is important. I have confidence in that.

If, over the course of this summer, there is another case that comes forward in which the defence is successful, and it is determined to be because of the provision in Bill C-28 is not adequate, I have confidence that every one of us, every political party and the government of the day will respond again to bring forward a way to fix that. There is a united political, parliamentary, governmental, executive branch resolve to do the right thing here, and I applaud that.

When I learned about the unique solution in the House of Commons, which I learned about during Committee of the Whole, my first reaction was a little bit of outrage. Why didn’t I know that coming into this? As I reasoned through it, I brought the temperature down and thought about it over the course of the evening and I applauded the transparency of the minister in telling us that, because it was not information we were aware of. And I know the flurry around the chamber in terms of wondering, “What’s this?” was shared by many.

Despite that novel approach — and it’s novel in the suggestion of a committee looking at the provision afterward — I felt it was very important that we stay true to the role of the chamber of sober second thought. I had to work through all of my frustrations about the sheer number of Senate bills, the number of pre-studies, the orchestration by the leaders to get us through this work — and I appreciate their work on that — but I had to work through that frustration. Part of that frustration, as we all know, is the end-of-session frustration that comes along.

I had to create nuance in my own mind; I challenged myself to consider nuances regarding the general systemic issues that are brought about by the fact that we have a minority government in the House of Commons and that it takes two parties to dance, that there is an opposition and a government and the time for and the timing of debate on a whole range of things also led to the desire of the government to bring forward Senate bills and pre-studies.

It’s frustrating.

But there is nuance between the systemic and the situational. This is situational. I’m not going to repeat Senator Plett’s comments about the timing of this court decision and the need to respond. I think it is.

I believed, when I heard about the solution in the House of Commons, that we needed to have the opportunity to review this provision in committee and be able to take account of the report from the Justice Committee of the House of Commons, which will come forward this fall; they have to report by December 31. My understanding was that such was going to be the suggestion to us as well. I protested that in what I hope was a constructive way. You’ll see the motion has us taking the opportunity of an extended period of time that would take us through to the end of March, I think it is, so that we can review and have the benefit of the report of the House of Commons.

I also believe that it was incredibly important that there was an accountability exchange with the government, even though I have the confidence that, on this particular issue, they would respond if there were to be a court case or if the reports coming out of the testimony of witnesses and the deliberation of committees demanded that such be the case and they saw the logic of that.

I really believed there had to be an accountability measure. So I suggested — again, constructively, I hope, and I appreciate that the leaders accepted this — that there had to be a response from the government to the report from the Senate and a timeline given for that.

Once again, some people said, “Well, how do we know they’ll respond?” They can ignore it; governments of all stripes over the years have ignored those things. If we put forward amendments today, how do we know they would respond? They will sometimes accept amendments and other times not, and all of the situational pressures at this moment will exist with respect to looking at amendments as well.

So I do not like the situation that we’re in, but I can see the nuanced difference between the situational matter before us, the procedure that is before us and the systemic issues that we need to continue to deal with and to push back on. I appreciate the leaders who do that; I appreciate the role that Senator Gold fulfills. I know the Government Representative Office pushes back often. I believe the government understands more and more. I also know we’re in a minority Parliament. Will the day get better?

I also challenge myself with this: Is this the time to stand up and say “no” like Senator Patterson? He arrived at a decision with respect to leave, and whether he will, in terms of the bill itself, we have to debate this afternoon. We’ll deliberate, and I will listen to that. But is this the opportunity to stand up and say “no” and to put it to the government and push back in such a way this isn’t dealt with?

I believe that something right now is better than nothing. I would hate if there were a case where a successful defence is mounted, as was in the consideration of the court decision that is before us. I would hate for that to happen, but if there is no provision to fix this it can happen for sure because of the precedent that has been set by the court.

So I believe there are potential problems with this actual wording that may lead to innovative defence strategies that, in the case of significant severe intoxication, may lead to another court case. The chances of that happening over the next few months before this study and work is done — or the next five months until the report comes out of the House of Commons — then the period of our review can be shorter than longer if we choose. I believe that either situation is imperfect. That’s the imperfect world we live in.

With respect to the speakers who have gone before me, and with respect to the collective level of concern that we have, we should reassert our role on an ongoing, systemic basis as a chamber that follows the work of the duly elected and accountable politicians in order to provide added value in the spirit of, as the Supreme Court decision said, not competing with the House of Commons but being complementary. This particular motion does the best it can in the situational circumstances in which we find ourselves. One more time, I want to say that I appreciate the very difficult work of the leadership groups to arrive at this approach.

With that, I’ll finish my remarks. Thank you very much.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Would Senator Lankin accept a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to remind you that, pursuant to the order made earlier today, all proceedings on the bill must be completed today. If the bill is adopted at third reading, we will proceed to third reading. If there is a request for a standing vote, the bells will ring for 15 minutes.

Senators can only speak once in proceedings on the bill, and the default time for senators is 10 minutes. The leaders and facilitators have 30 minutes, and the sponsor and critic have 45 minutes.

If we have not completed proceedings by 9 p.m., we will proceed to dispose of all remaining questions at that time without further debate.