Senator Plett: Yes, we are.

Senator Plett: I wonder whether the senator would take a question.

Senator Patterson: Thank you for the question, Senator Plett.

Greater legal minds than mine have weighed in on this bill since it was introduced in a hurry in the other place. As I pointed out in the letter I just read, there is a clear concern that the evidentiary burden on the Crown in this bill is too high and that, in fact, there is a risk that this will allow the acquittal of persons who use this defence.

In fact, this association of concerned women’s groups has suggested simple amendments that will fix that problem of the evidentiary burden. So that perhaps could have been discussed and considered by our eminently qualified Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. We could have had a bill before us and a recommendation on an amendment that would fix that flaw.

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.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Plett, would you take a question?

Senator Plett: I have a feeling that would be a pretty short list, and it wouldn’t take you very long. Well, it might, because you might not be able to think of any.

Leader, the Trudeau cabinet currently also has a finance minister who offers nothing new to Canadians in dealing with record inflation and who thinks she has done enough, a Minister of Agriculture who charges Canadian farmers a 35% tariff on fertilizer — which hurts them, not Putin — a heritage minister who forces his bill, Bill C-11, through the House in a completely undemocratic process, a House leader who wants hybrid Parliament to remain long after most Canadians have returned to work — in fact, they just passed it again today. To top it all off, we have a divisive, out-of-touch Prime Minister who thinks nothing of interfering with an active police investigation of a mass murder to advance his own political agenda.

Canadians deserve much better than this, leader; don’t you agree?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I was hoping that I wouldn’t be the first one because my notes are set up for debate. Nevertheless, I will try to make some assumptions on what certain people would have said and debate them.

Honourable senators, quite frankly, I was unsure. Senator Gold decided not to take part in the debate, and I was wondering whether I wanted to. I really think both sides of this issue and the motion raised will be presented fairly in our debate today. There are, clearly, a couple of different opinions on whether we should be bringing forward a motion that looks a lot like a programming motion. I’m certainly happy that it doesn’t say that it’s a programming motion, but I do feel that it is important that some facts be put on the record.

I stress that I do not believe we are creating a precedent with this motion, that we are not changing in any way how the Senate works and what the powers of the opposition as a group and individual senators may be.

Let me start by saying that the motion to limit debate and pass Bill C-28 quickly was adopted in the House unanimously, which is one of the reasons why we also support the motion and will, later today, support Bill C-28.

There was no time allocation in the other place, just an agreement on how to do things properly and quickly, and it was a negotiated agreement accepted by all sides. And that is what I want to stress: This is an agreement that was accepted by all sides.

There may be senators here who have an issue with this agreement and who have an issue with what we are doing, and I have an issue with the way the government has operated on some things, including Bill C-28 and the government not getting it to us in a timely fashion so it could be debated a little bit more thoroughly here and sent to a committee for study. Instead, we had to accept second best, and that was Committee of the Whole with a justice minister who, quite frankly, I do not think gave us the answers we needed.

So the agreement that we reached is something similar to what they have in the House. We reached an agreement on process, not on whether we like the bill. We reached an agreement on process, and all senators who stand to speak to this motion today who are part of a caucus — or we like to call them groups now, or anything else we want to call them — have elected leaders, and they have indeed been elected. Senator Gold has been appointed, but Senator Saint-Germain has been elected by her group. Senator Cordy has been elected by hers, Senator Tannas by his, and I indeed by mine, and I thank my colleagues continually and am continually amazed at their confidence in me. I certainly appreciate it.

This was decided by all of the leaders, and we signed on to this. We all said we have to develop a process. We are here in the final days and the final hours of a fairly long sitting.

Over in the House of Commons, I’m sure the ministers’ drivers are at the doors ready to rush them out of town, those who have not left yet, and the rest of the members of all parties are ready to go home.

Tomorrow is Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, an extremely important day in the province of Quebec, and certainly the fact that it’s Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day is an important issue for me. We don’t celebrate the same holiday, but we needed to do something to come out of here. We could have done something other than have this motion and come back here next week — at taxpayers’ expense — and debated this some more. We wouldn’t have gotten anywhere; we wouldn’t have changed it. The House has gone home. We could amend it; they wouldn’t be dealing with it and we would be running the risk of horrendous crimes happening across our country. Defences would be mounted because people were intoxicated, and this is not something I want.

I have argued many times in this chamber how the government is bringing us legislation that our government leader here and the government over in the other place are saying is time sensitive when there is nothing time sensitive about it. However, this bill, colleagues, is time sensitive. We need to pass this bill before we rise.

The minister said he was happy with the study, and we had a motion that the Legal Committee will study this, and we will get a report on this and will hopefully improve it, but we need to move forward.

The Senate has adopted similar motions in the past. For example, the MAID and legalization of cannabis bills were negotiated agreements, agreed by all caucuses and group leaders. There was no motion to limit debate or impose the will of the government on the opposition or other senators.

I had a part in negotiating the time frames in those where we changed some of the speaking times to 10 minutes from 15 minutes so everyone could have a say, but we did some limiting, and I believe that is good. I do not want to limit one senator from having his or her say here today, and, of course, we have passed motions that we are sitting until midnight, and that’s fine. We will sit here until midnight. We sat late last night, and this is normal.

Motion No. 53 allows Bill C-28 to receive second and third reading on the same day. Again, nothing very unusual about that. Agreeing to forgo the delays stated in the Rules is not something new. There are numerous precedents in our recent and not‑so‑recent past showing that we have done that. Bill C-28 is not a long and complex bill. It’s a very straightforward bill. The issue it touches is technical, but the bill is straightforward. So not having longer delays between first and second reading and then second and third reading is not prejudicial, and there may be senators who say it is prejudicial. It is not prejudicial.

Looking at the number of senators who have expressed willingness to speak on Bill C-28, I don’t think organizing the debate the way Motion No. 53 does will take away the right of any one senator to put on the record his or her opinion on the bill and even propose amendments. We have allowed the time. There is nothing in the motion that says we cannot put forward amendments.

The time limit on the motion is that we have to call the question by 9 p.m. tonight and, again, that is not time allocation. When the opposition signs on to a process that the government has brought forward, that cannot be interpreted as time allocation. That can be interpreted as two, three, four or, in this case, five sides getting together and having unanimity. Colleagues, I don’t think I’m breaking any confidence here, but we had unanimity on this issue. We had differing opinions on leave, for example, and, of course, leave wasn’t granted when Senator Gold brought this forward, and Senator Tannas made that clear.

I’m sorry again if I’m breaking confidence, but I don’t think I am. Senator Tannas made it clear to Senator Gold: Bring a motion in such a way that, if you are not granted leave, you have allowed yourself the one-day notice you will need to get this through. We will not hold you up here on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. We will not ask you to come back, but don’t ask us to give you leave because you know our group, our caucus, is inherently opposed to giving leave, as they have shown. But Senator Tannas was a willing participant and a willing recipient of the concept of what Senator Gold then did.

Today is June 23 — I may be repeating myself here — and tomorrow is a holiday in Quebec. Historically, the Senate does not sit on that day. Prolonging debate on Bill C-28 just for the sake of it would force us to come back for a few days next week at a large cost to taxpayers and is unnecessary.

Lastly, I want to point out that the motion provides for a thorough study of the issues surrounding Bill C-28 by our Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I already mentioned that. Again, this is something all groups agreed to. Let’s make sure the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee studies it. They have given Senator Jaffer and her committee a mandate to bring this forward. This is a government motion. This comes from Senator Gold, and I have every confidence in our members on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that they will do a thorough job of this. It should be made clear that this is a very integral part of the agreement.

So, colleagues, I know there are those — including in my own caucus — who do not want to give in. We do not want to give the government what they want, and that’s fair. However, there comes a time when you develop processes, and over the years that I have been involved — Senator Harder will bear witness to this, as will Senator Gold — I have never, when I have made an agreement, agreed that we will pass a bill by a certain time. I have agreed that we will allow the question to be called on a bill by a certain time. That’s a distinct difference, and not one leader out of the five of us committed one of you, colleagues, to how you were going to vote.

We only committed that we will do this, that we will do this today and that we will do it in an orderly fashion. We limited some speaking times, but we did not limit the number of speakers, so I encourage everyone to speak. I also encourage that we go through with this. The time will come later in the day when I will be speaking on Bill C-28 and I will make my wishes known on Bill C-28. I will have some things to say, but now we’re talking about this motion. I encourage all of us to have our say, but let’s move on to the debate on the bill, a very important bill that has received all-party support at the other end, as it should. This is an issue that concerns each and every Canadian. It is time sensitive and has to be passed before we leave here tomorrow. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, it is common practice to honour special Canadians during Senators’ Statements. Well, today, I want to do just that, and recognize and honour one of our very own.

Right here in this chamber there is a senator, a man, a father and a force to be reckoned with when it comes to advocating for the rights of victims of crime. Senator Boisvenu, today I wish to pay tribute to you for your incredible courage to battle for a cause so near and dear to your heart.

Twenty years ago today, our colleague was faced with an unbearable tragedy — a father’s worst nightmare. I can’t even imagine the emotions you went through following the kidnapping of Julie, and that was sadly just the beginning of this tragedy. The heinous situation worsened with the realization that Julie faced forcible confinement, rape and was eventually murdered by a repeat offender.

Honourable senators, the darkness of these words and actions are heavy, unconscionable and so emotionally charged. But, somehow, Senator Boisvenu found the force and the courage to turn this horrendous tragedy into a fight against violence towards women and to improve and respect the rights of victims of crime.

Senator Boisvenu managed to turn the pain and sorrow that he and his family suffered into a life journey to support others as they struggle with similar horrors. The tremendous pain he and his family have dealt with, and continue to deal with, fuels his relentless dedication and advocacy work.

As he said recently in an interview, Senator Boisvenu has the ability to reach out to families who are victims of crime, including fathers who are going through a wide range of emotions such as anger and despair. Having a common experience of trauma naturally allows him to be able to provide support, which is often desperately needed. This also uniquely positions him with tremendous credibility as a public voice for these families.

He is the founding president of the Murdered or Missing Persons’ Families’ Association and the force behind the compensation for victims of crime legislation that was adopted in the National Assembly of Quebec as Bill 25. He is also the co‑founder of a shelter for abused women, Le Nid, in addition to a camp for underprivileged youth.

The role and public responsibility the Honourable Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu has taken on to fight violence against women have ensured preventative campaigns and impactful and sustainable security improvements not only in Sherbrooke but also on a larger scale.

Senator Boisvenu, I tip my hat to you. Through great adversity, you have made it your duty and mission to relentlessly defend and speak for others.

I know you humbly say that your advocacy work is a way to keep the memory of your daughter Julie alive. Well, Senator Boisvenu, there is no doubt that your daughters Julie and Isabelle have one heck of a father. They chose you well.

Senator Boisvenu, thank you for all that you do.

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

Leader, the answers provided by you and Minister Blair yesterday, that no pressure was put on RCMP Commissioner Lucki, are difficult to believe because we’ve all heard it before.

The very morning the SNC-Lavalin scandal broke in February 2019, the Prime Minister stood before Canadians and said the allegations in The Globe and Mail are false. It wasn’t long before we found out that those allegations were true. The Prime Minister told a powerful woman what he wanted to happen in order to advance his political agenda, regardless of rules, laws or propriety. Minister Wilson-Raybould said no and was fired.

Now we have the same situation, leader, but Commissioner Lucki saw what happened when a woman says no to the Prime Minister. In fact, several women have been tossed aside over the years, and she did as she was asked.

As I said yesterday, Lia Scanlan, the RCMP’s former director of strategic communications in Halifax, said in her own testimony, “. . . we have a commissioner that does not push back.”

Leader, who is the Gerald Butts in this situation? Who in the Prime Minister’s Office spoke with Commissioner Lucki about an active police investigation?

Senator Plett: Thank you, Senator Patterson, for that speech. Let me say at the outset about your analogy of David and Goliath that David was never a minority; he had God on his side. Nevertheless, Senator Patterson, my question really is this: I felt the other day when we passed four government motions in a matter of an hour that I needed to leave and go take a shower.

I suggested to the Leader of the Government in the Senate here a few minutes ago that I needed to wash my mouth with soap after supporting the government. So I take no great pride and pleasure in supporting what I believe has certainly been, even in this particular bill, a shirking of responsibility.

There is a difference here, in my opinion, and I will get to my question immediately. The difference is that this, in my opinion, was not precipitated by the government. It was precipitated by the Supreme Court of Canada. They struck something down. They forced the government to do something and, quite frankly, they forced the government to do something, in my opinion, in too much of a hurry. This is not like a campaign promise that was made two years ago and then two years pass before they come forward with the bill.

Senator Patterson, you alluded to having a couple of suggestions, and they were certainly thought out, about the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee having a quick meeting or having a second Committee of the Whole. What would have been the purpose, other than we would have heard some people?

We really didn’t have the time to do anything about it, other than what we have done now — voting on a bill, hopefully passing the bill, then having the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee do a study, sending a report to the government, having the government respond in a certain period of time and hopefully correct something that indeed is flawed. What could we have done better with the path that you possibly suggested?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-19, “Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1.” It feels good to be on the right side of the angels again on this speech.

It actually wasn’t a bad experience, Senator Gold, to vote with you. We should try that more often.

Honourable senators, I will not be long on this, I assure you.

Senator Marshall gave an absolutely crackerjack, excellent rundown of the many problems with this bill in her excellent speech. There are many problems, and I think she outlined almost all of them. Thank you, Senator Marshall. She says there are still some to go. She should have briefed me, because I would have pointed the rest out.

I want to take a few minutes to draw your attention to some important observations, because I know you will want to know about them. The bill we are about to vote on stands as a stark example of the incompetence that has dogged this government for the last seven years. You may have missed it in the crush of business recently, but this legislation came to us from the other place after being amended in 64 different places, including the deletion of 51 clauses. This is unprecedented for a budget implementation act.

This is a 440-page omnibus bill crammed with many measures that should never be in a BIA, as noted by a number of senators. For a while, this government was able to use COVID as a “get out of jail free” card. Their repeated claims that they needed to rush legislation through without adequate oversight and study were made under the shadow of a global pandemic and parliamentarians had little choice but to comply for the sake of public health and economic stability.

Honourable senators, those days are gone. The government can no longer shield itself from its own incompetence by claiming that it is because of the pandemic. The crisis of scrambling to make policy in the midst of an unforeseen global pandemic is behind us. Yet the only evidence that this government has succeeded in moving on this is the fact that they have added chaos to incompetence.

Every direction in which you turn today, you see this government scrambling to contain the consequences of its incompetence which is bursting through the cracks like a dam about to let go.

We have a Minister of Foreign Affairs whose department thinks it’s a great idea to send a representative to a party at the Russian embassy. As Russian shells bomb residential neighbourhoods in Ukraine, killing women and children, disrupting global food supplies and threatening world peace, Minister Joly’s deputy chief of protocol, Yasemin Heinbecker, joined the festivities at the embassy here in Ottawa. This is incompetence.

Over at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, there is a backlog of more than 2.2 million immigration applications, and Minister Fraser has no clue how to fix it — none. Meanwhile, the government promised to help 40,000 Afghans immigrate to Canada. To date, only 10,565 applications have been approved. There is nothing but chaos in this department.

Then there is the debacle of trying to fly anywhere from Canada and finding nothing but chaos at the airports. The transport minister has no solutions to offer and just blames it on out-of-practice travellers. Colleagues, you and I have been travelling. We’re not out of practice, and the same chaos affects us as it does anyone else. I don’t know who is out of practice here.

Go to a passport office. Chaos ensues there as well. People are camping out and lining up all day long to try to get their passports processed, only to be turned away and told to try again tomorrow. The government is clueless, and Minister Gould has no solution for the mess.

Minister Freeland has out-of-control inflation, colleagues, a budget that is beyond balancing and a debt load that threatens to crush future generations. There is no plan to rein in spending or inflation, which, as you know, now sits at 7.7% — the highest since 1983.

Who was in government in 1983? What was the name of that prime minister?

Under Minister Hussen’s oversight as the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion, the cost of homes has skyrocketed to a place where home ownership is now out of reach for an entire generation. Their only solution? Well, they have none. Chaos reigns.

Meanwhile, Minister Guilbeault has released new emissions targets which everyone knows the government will never hit and which the media has described as hinging on “hopes and miracles.”

Minister Mendicino, whose nose is getting longer by the day, is scrambling to explain why he misled Canadians by saying police forces asked the government to invoke the Emergencies Act. And Minister Blair, colleagues, is shovelling as fast as he can to explain why Commissioner Lucki promised to use the mass murders in Nova Scotia to advance Liberal government policy.

Minister Rodriguez is trying to do what no one in any other democratic country has tried to do: control the internet. While Minister Sajjan is just trying to be the first in line at the airports. This is what this government has brought us this session: incompetence and chaos. And in the midst of it all, in the final days of the sitting, the Prime Minister leads by example by jetting off to some faraway land. No one knows where. No sense of responsibility. No sense of urgency. No sense at all; just incompetence. Fiddling while Ottawa is burning.

What did they do today? What’s their business before they leave? Bringing in another hybrid motion forever, because there just might be another pandemic on the horizon. This has worked so well; let’s bring in another one. Let’s add another $2 or $3 trillion to the debt.

Colleagues, we are about to vote on Bill C-19. This bill does not deserve our support or your support. There is, however, a silver lining here, colleagues. There is hope. The Conservative Party of Canada will have a leadership vote on September 10. Our 700,000 members will be electing a leader. There is hope. The saviour is coming. Let’s just wait. He will be there.

In the meantime, let’s do the right thing — let’s throw this budget in the garbage. Let’s show the Prime Minister we are independent. Every one of us, we are independent. Some are Conservative independents, some Liberal independents or relative independents or — I still can’t understand how you can call yourself Canadian Senators. Canadian Senators are indeed the only independent senators group. Colleagues, let’s show our independence. Let’s vote down this budget that does not deserve our vote. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, it is so good to see that, depending on whether it suits our purposes or not, our principles about leave as well as other things can change as they need to. We certainly appreciate that.

Not to put a damper on anything, but I have about a 75-minute speech here, so that puts us to what time? Sorry, colleagues, the rest of you may not be able to speak. You may as well go home, and Senator Gold and I will take care of the rest of the business.

I was reminded by my lovely wife today that I made a mistake earlier when I said that I had voted with Senator Gold. She said that I was supposed to remind him that, in fact, Senator Gold had voted with the opposition in the last vote, and not the opposition voting with him. I want that corrected for the record, please. Senator Gold, we appreciate that you voted with us.

Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced extreme intoxication). I have already said that I will support this bill. I am going to spend at least 10 minutes telling you why I shouldn’t. Then I will turn myself into a pretzel, like those who give leave one day and then don’t the next, and vote for something that I will be telling you for 10 minutes that we shouldn’t ever support.

This bill purportedly responds to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in Brown and Sullivan last month, which found that section 33.1 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional. The ruling by the Supreme Court came down on May 13, 2022. We heard nothing from the government on this matter for five weeks. I think the Prime Minister was on an airplane.

Suddenly, the bill was tabled just before the end of the session on June 17. No debate was scheduled on the bill for four full days, colleagues.

Then we were told that the bill we have before us, Bill C-28, must not only be adopted in extreme haste, but must essentially be adopted with no substantive legislative review at all. This, of course, is what our friend and colleague Senator Patterson was concerned about earlier today.

Honourable senators, for five weeks we heard absolutely nothing and then suddenly, as is customary with this government, panic set in. The government claims that in the five weeks from the court decision to last week, it was busily consulting on this bill. It claims that since the court rendered its decision it has consulted with about 30 groups. That is quite a large number.

Minister Lametti claimed, during our brief meeting in Committee of the Whole with him this week, that these groups almost unanimously approve of the government’s response to this bill. This is surprising, colleagues, on several levels.

First, it is surprising that the government was able to consult in a fulsome way with 30 groups in just one month, but that is what they say they did.

On other bills, this appears to have been completely beyond the government’s capacity. Just this past Monday, the Senate passed Bill S-7, which was also a government response to a court ruling from October 2020. Bill S-7 was introduced in response to a decision by the Court of Appeal of Alberta that struck down a section in the Customs Act. On that matter, the government was given 18 months by the court to introduce legislation in response to its ruling. Yet not only was that deadline missed but, as senators found out when the bill was studied at committee, the government had actually consulted with absolutely no one prior to introducing the bill. That was an extremely complex bill involving extremely complex legal issues.

Now we have this bill, which also deals with an extremely complex legal issue. Yet, if we are to take the minister’s word for it, in just one month the government was able to fulsomely consult with groups that unanimously approved the government’s course of action.

Honourable senators, I have to say that this stretches the imagination. I believe there is another explanation as to why the government took so long to introduce this legislation. It is quite simply due to the fact that its priorities are elsewhere. This is not a government that pays a great deal of attention to policy details. It throws borrowed money at problems and does not pay much attention to how money is spent.

It makes you wonder, colleagues, how there could be those of us — or you — who voted an hour ago for a completely out‑of‑control budget. There are even those who call themselves conservatives who voted for it. I find it extremely strange that we have conservatives who voted for that — conservatives who ran on a platform of being a conservative. Yet here they are.

I am not sure how many of you listen to Simon & Garfunkel. I am of that age. As Simon & Garfunkel sang, “Heaven holds a place for those who pray.” So, conservative colleagues, there is hope for you if you repent. A few years ago, Chuck Cadman promised to keep the Paul Martin government alive. After he voted he said that he then had to go and ask God for forgiveness. God forgave him, and he will forgive you.

And this government does a lot of signalling and proclaiming colleagues. I am sure that in relation to this decision by the Supreme Court, someone saw a potential political opportunity. It was an opportunity to look decisive. I do not intend to speak very much about the substance of the bill, as you may have already realized. That is better left to others. Senator Patterson has a lot more to say about that. But I do note that many senators in this chamber have, in only a short time, raised some very significant issues.

Senator Carignan referenced a learned professor at the University of Montreal, one who specializes in criminal defence who argues certain dimensions of extreme intoxication may not be covered by this bill at all. On Tuesday, Senator Cotter said:

. . . what I worry about here is that the proposal, as heartfelt as it is, will miss the mark and almost nobody will be able to be convicted under this provision.

Senator Cotter and I did not start off on the best of terms, but I certainly have come to respect the tremendous knowledge that he has and the expertise that he brings to the Legal Committee, and I respect that quote.

Senator Pate quoted Sean Fagan, counsel for the defence in the case in question, when she said, “. . . the law would be entirely ineffective due to the burden placed on prosecutors.” I recognize informed concern and skepticism when I see it, and it is informed concern and, I’m sure, some skepticism, Senator Pate. This is why I’m so concerned about the way in which the government is attempting to frogmarch this bill through both the House and the Senate, and even that it is doing so badly.

On Tuesday, the government’s vaunted hybrid system crashed. We all know that. We shut down here because we could no longer operate. Fortunately, our Leader of the Government has not to this point suggested that we continue with this horrible system of hybrid since. I have the fullest confidence in him that he will not come forward with that. I want it in Hansard that I trust Senator Gold that he will not bring this forward.

But the government’s House leader, Mark Holland, wants and was just given another year of this system that has already failed us so many times. Why? Because he says there might be another pandemic coming, honourable senators. There just might be. Dr. Ravalia, have you heard of a pandemic that is coming?

Senator Ravalia: No.

Senator Plett: Senator McCallum, thank you very much for your question and thank you for your concern.

Senator McCallum, you know that I have the utmost respect and regard for you as a senator, for you as an Indigenous leader and for you as an advocate for Indigenous women and girls.

Do I believe that this will stop violence against women and children? Without question, I do not believe it will stop that. Do I believe that it is one measure toward stopping it? Yes, I do. Do I believe that targeting sport shooters and hunters will prevent murder? No, I don’t.

I am really trying to make sure that I get at the heart of your question. Do I have a concern for Indigenous women and children, and for the violence perpetrated against them?

Let me just simply, Senator McCallum, say this: I have a concern for every woman, every child that experiences some of the violence and the horrific things that have been perpetrated upon them, as we talked today about Senator Boisvenu and his daughter. It is regardless of whether they are Indigenous, Aboriginal, White, Black — I’m sorry, I do not differentiate between any races, between any ethnicities. Violence against women and children is horrific no matter what colour you are.

[Translation]

Senator Plett: Absolutely.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Senator Plett, you made remarks like, “No one will be convicted,” “entirely ineffective,” and “sinks to a new low.”

I am very concerned about this bill and have a right to feel very concerned. Do you feel there will continue to be violence against women once the bill is passed? My specific concern is violence against Indigenous women, considering there has been no progress toward resolving the issues connected to the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

What I want to ask all of the Senate tonight is: Don’t we matter as women? It boggles my mind that the patriarchy is deciding this issue, but it is violence against women we are looking at. I am so very concerned about it. Thank you.

Senator Plett: I would like to ask the senator one quick question, if he will take it.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, the end of the parliamentary session presents us with an opportunity to reflect on the last few months. And you can believe me when I say it has been wonderful to find ourselves face to face in large numbers in person in this chamber. Hybrid Parliament was meant to be a temporary measure in response to unusual circumstances. Sadly, the government moved that our hybrid sittings carry on longer than anticipated. The resulting effects weren’t minimal and meant that our capacities were reduced. Our committee meetings were reduced, which, regrettably, led to less parliamentary oversight and decreased accountability.

I also want to thank our interpreters, who have gone above and beyond in providing exceptional service. Hybrid sittings have taken a toll on them, and we have heard this over and over again. The technical difficulties we faced caused them more grief than anyone else in this chamber. While they were often stretched thin in their personal capacities, when hearing their voices on the audio, no one would have known. Thank you for your perseverance this year.

Senator Plett: The last few months, colleagues, have been challenging for Canadians. We’re seeing record-level inflation. Canadian families are having trouble affording day-to-day necessities. News headlines reflect the heaviness of world events. The war waged by Russia in Ukraine has shaken the world and brought about tragedy and uncertainty for many. My heart goes out to those who have found this year particularly demanding.

Colleagues, it is not my intent to take this time to criticize the government, but an honest reflection on this session requires me to at least acknowledge the unique challenges we have faced and continue to face. I sincerely make these comments when I say I am disappointed by steps this government has taken that have restricted freedoms of Canadians, sowed division in our country and reduced the efficiency of our Parliament. We have witnessed — not pointing fingers — one of the most contentious moments in our country’s history, brought about by the culminating frustration of Canadians after rough years caused by the pandemic, not by a government, but by the pandemic. We witnessed the shameful unprecedented use, quite frankly, of the Emergencies Act. My sentiments on this are no secret, colleagues, and I remain deeply concerned about the precedent that was set by an unjustified invocation of the Emergencies Act.

That being said, colleagues, I am proud of our collaboration in this chamber to ensure the respect of Canadians and of the Charter. I am especially proud of my own caucus, the opposition, and the role we have played in this important session. I truly believe that our interventions and lively debates on this matter contributed to the eventual revocation of the Emergencies Act and served the best interests of Canadians.

To be sure, colleagues, some moments were worth celebrating — moments when we have come together and passed legislation that will act to best serve Canadians, including this very evening, colleagues. Although we do not always agree, I know our debates are always conducted in good faith and with the objective of serving this great country to the best of our abilities.

Colleagues, you have all gotten to know me over the last years. I shoot from the hips. But let me be clear: I have the utmost respect for each and every person in this chamber.

Senator Yussuff and I went to dinner, and if you just indulge me for a few minutes — we’re going to be gone until September 20, so I think we can take a few minutes. Senator Yussuff invited me to dinner a week and a half ago. Now here is the former president of Unifor and the former president of the Conservative Party of Canada — not the pair that you would likely normally expect to be sitting and breaking bread. And I thank him for that because we had something in common when he said, “Don, you and I believe in Canada. You and I would do anything for our country.” He said, “We may not agree on the path to get there, but we do agree on the love for our country.” Senator Yussuff, thank you for that.

I want to offer a special thanks to my leadership colleagues as well. Senator Gold, I know you’re already missing the questions that I have been asking and I know you will long for those questions in the next while. Give Nancy my regards, but I know that Nancy will not be of equal substitute to the questions that I have been asking.

As you have the summer, though it was never our goal to be agreeable on government business, it continues to be a pleasure to work with you and, Senator Gold, I look forward to resuming our lively debates and Question Period come September.

Senator Saint-Germain, it has been a pleasure. It really has been. We have collaborated. We have worked together. Senator Saint-Germain, you and I developed what Senator Tannas called a programming motion. I do not agree with the concept, but we have worked well together. I have enjoyed every minute of it. I wish you and all of your colleagues a great summer.

Senator Cordy, what I regret the most is that we have seen too much of each other in here and not enough of one another in Florida. My golf has continued more than yours has. I wish you and Bob a great summer, and hopefully we can play a game of golf this summer.

Senator Tannas, I know that you have lost your way a little bit, but I pray that you will find your way back. It was a pleasure working with you, Senator Tannas, in our caucus and it has been a pleasure working together with you in your caucus. I wish you a great summer as well.

Although we are often on different sides of an issue, all of your discussions and negotiations have been invaluable. I thank you and wish you all a great summer break.

Senator Furey, I do want to play that nine-hole golf course that you were talking about. I wish you and your family well, Senator Furey. I appreciate your fair deliberations and your fair running of this chamber. It is not an easy task. I could say especially with this government, but I will leave that for another day. Senator Furey, thank you for all that you have done, I wish you a great summer break.

I want to echo Senator Gold’s comments about the Speaker pro tempore as well. Senator Ringuette, you have done a remarkable job, especially when we have been in a Committee of the Whole. You have no idea how much I have appreciated your fairness and the way that you have taken ministers to task and cut ministers off. I have appreciated that more than you will ever have imagined. Especially a few ministers that I could name.

A special thank you to the Black Rod, his office and pages. What a great group of pages we have had. Greg Peters, thank you for your work, appreciate that. Your dedication and professionalism to the chamber are remarkable.

To our security and our Parliamentary Protective Service, I feel safe walking into this building. I feel safe walking around this building. The other day when we had a fire alarm, they told me, you go ahead and go back to your office, don’t worry about it. I am not sure whether they hoped that I would get stuck in my office or whether everything was okay, but nevertheless I do appreciate everything that they do for us.