Hon. Jim Quinn: Senator Gold, regardless of the outcome of the vote on a pre-study for Bill C-11 — and, I would add, Bill C-13 — would you agree to make arrangements for members of the Transport and Communications Commitee and, I would add, as well, members of the Official Languages Committee to receive, when we return from next week’s recess, a copy of the technical briefing binders and any other briefing material supplied by government when reviewing legislation? I would find it vastly more valuable than that of a technical brief and a PowerPoint deck. If the main point of a pre-study is to be informed, why wouldn’t the government provide committee members with this information, regardless of the outcome of these pre-study votes?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. I don’t want to presume your vote on this motion, Senator Quinn.

I’ll make inquiries as to what material can be provided. It is certainly open to the committee, once it is seized with the mandate of a pre-study, to request both from officials and from the government, and my office will use its good offices to facilitate that. I can’t give you a definitive answer about the specifics of what is appropriate to share at this juncture of the process.

Senator Quinn: Senator Gold, you mentioned in your replies to various questions that committees are masters of their own procedures. Would you support an amendment to these motions to leave it up to each committee to determine how to prioritize these pre-studies in order to better balance their workloads and ensure that committees are masters of their own proceedings, especially given that these are pre-study proposals that will undoubtedly continue to be studied when and if they land here from the other place?

Senator Gold: Such an amendment would be quite unnecessary, Senator Quinn, with respect. The operating principle in this Parliament is that government bills and government legislation receive priority over others. We have a process in place, through Selection and Administration, to provide for the allocation of committee spots and the priority to be given appropriately, and it is for the committee, once it is seized of a mandate, to decide how to organize its work. Such an amendment is something that simply would be unnecessary in this regard. The Senate and the committees have all the tools they need.

Senator Gold: Let me take both of your questions in turn.

Our committees are the masters of their own procedure. If this motion passes, the committee will decide who it wants to hear and when. It will certainly want to hear from ministers and officials, and it may very well want to hear from witnesses that are otherwise at present in the other place. It may have a different set of witnesses, but that’s in the prerogative of the Senate committees.

What we do best, though — and what I fully hope we do in this and every case — is to provide a more rigorous study, a less partisan study. That’s what we are known for, and I certainly expect us to continue in that honourable tradition.

In response to your second question, I never said that it’s our problem that it is a minority Parliament. Minority parliaments are a very regular feature of our Canadian parliamentary system, as we all know. The reality is that in a minority situation, things are not in the exclusive control of the government. It’s not only that they need to find dancing partners not only to pass legislation but to literally get them out of second-reading debate, where they are often obstructed by opposition doing their job as they see fit, just step by step.

Those of you who sat in the other place and are familiar with the rules know that their rules are different than our rules. Things do not necessarily move as globally and effectively there as here.

Finally, in a minority Parliament, there are opposition days. There are many days in the month devoted exclusively to the agendas, motions and priorities of opposition parties.

When you put all of that together, it may be satisfying from a partisan point of view and it may be partly felt from a principled point of view that somehow it’s the government’s fault that things don’t get moved as quickly as they would in a majority Parliament — especially a majority Parliament that is not averse to using closure. However, the reality is that we can’t control what happens there. We can only do our best to do our work as we see fit.

Again, we have the tools to apply ourselves to use our committee talent and resources to dig into this important bill so that when it does arrive here, we can add that much more value and do so in a responsible way that is less encumbered by the constraints of time and committee capacity.

Hon. David Richards: Senator Gold, would you take a question, please?

Senator Gold: Unfortunately, I do not agree with you or with that suggestion. Senator, you know how much I respect the Supreme Court, our judges and the importance of that ruling. It’s all well and good to quote from the reference, but I encourage you to read the debates dealing with Confederation and everything that has been written about the Senate. I also encourage you to reflect on the many roles that the Senate plays.

I would also refer you to the text of the Constitution of 1867. Why does the Constitution give the Senate the same legislative power, except for appropriation bills retained by the House of Commons, if the Senate’s only role is to wait for a bill to be introduced? We have had the constitutional power to legislate on our own initiative since 1867. Bill C-10 was thoroughly studied and debated in this chamber, because although we had not finished our deliberations, it arrived in the Senate with amendments, so it would not be all that radical to say that we are doing our part and accomplishing the work that is expected of us.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, I listened carefully to your case for asking for a pre-study on Bill C-11. I must say that this cannot possibly have been your idea because I know you to be a reasonable man.

Pre-study in the Senate is not a tool to be used lightly. It is a tool that is available to us when there is an urgent public need or when it is of urgent public interest. I haven’t heard anywhere in your statement any compelling case that Bill C-11 somehow responds to some kind of urgent public interest.

My understanding and recollection is that this government received a mandate in the fall of 2021. It recalled Parliament prior to the end of 2021 — an urgent, pressing public issue that they tabled the legislation over in the House only at the end of February.

Furthermore, I also want to highlight that we are in a situation right now in the other place where — for all intents and purposes — for the last little while, the government has a majority parliamentary standing in the House where, again, if a bill were of such urgent public concern, we would have seen the House deal with that issue urgently.

When we have had pre-studies of bills in the past, they have usually been supply bills or they have been in response to an urgent public need that deals with a crisis and we needed to get monies out the door quickly. The government makes a compelling case, and usually both houses, in those instances, acquiesce, take on our responsibilities and exercise that tool of pre-study.

The government has been in power for seven years, with a majority government for four and a half. They didn’t table legislation dealing with this telecommunications issue until the fall of 2020. Now, they are tabling legislation knowing full well that there was no way we would deal with this legislation in the manner that we had highlighted at the end of the last debate on this issue.

There was a consensus among all our colleagues that this bill needed a long, in-depth study. It was a controversial bill that satisfied certain sectors in our society and dissatisfied others, requiring a fulsome, robust debate and discussion.

For all intents and purposes, we have no more than three to four sitting weeks. We are all well aware of the challenges we face in terms of resources and the capacities of our committees to be able to sit more than they are currently. Therefore, the question I have is — knowing full well that this bill has what is far from consensus from stakeholders in our society — do you believe, pre-study or not, that this government will somehow get this bill out of the House of Commons and the Senate before we adjourn for the summer?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question.

I won’t repeat myself; I know others are waiting to ask me questions. I will give notice that I will continue answering questions, but I will not go until four o’clock.

I will not repeat what I said. I think this is a government priority. This government is entitled to advance its priorities and objectives. Pre-study, I think, is a responsible tool we can use to do the work for which we were summoned.

With regard to your further question about the time that may remain in our sitting, we are getting ahead of ourselves. We are here to debate a pre-study and not what the ultimate path of this legislation may be.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. As I tried to make it clear in my speech, and as the motion makes clear, there is no reporting deadline. That was to address whatever concerns or — dare I say — suspicions there might be that this is just a Trojan horse so we can ram it through at the end when it arrives at the last minute. That is not the intention of the government. Quite the contrary.

As I said in my speech, once the bill arrives here, whether the pre-study is still ongoing — and let’s hope it gets here while the pre-study is still ongoing, because that means we will get it earlier rather than later, which would be our hope — but once the bill gets here, regardless of whether the pre-study is ongoing or completed, it will then have to go through — and properly so — second-reading debate, and then it will be sent for committee study, and the committee will decide how long it needs to study the bill that we have received, and then it will go to third-reading debate.

As I said, Senator Lankin, I appreciate the question, and that pathway can only be determined and discussed amongst leaders. Ultimately, the Senate pronounces on that and decides, just through the normal operation of our rules of debate and the like, how long the process of second-reading debate, committee study and third-reading debate will be.

I hope that answers your question.

Senator Patterson: Thank you for that. Senator Gold, this is perhaps a little bit of a wrinkle on Senator Quinn’s question, but you just justified having a pre-study of Bill C-11 so that members of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications will have a better opportunity to understand its content. Could this goal of improving the understanding of a bill not be better accomplished by a briefing, which could be available to all senators and not just members of the Transport and Communications Committee?

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Senator Gold, you got my attention by putting to us today that the alternative to pre-studying Bill C-11 and another equally controversial bill you have given notice of is to wait and do nothing. Senator Gold, you know we have very limited committee time due to the current hybrid situation. We have, at a quick count, about two dozen Senate public bills that need consideration by our committees.

Instead of waiting and doing nothing, why don’t we devote our precious and scarce committee time to giving those thoughtful Senate public bills the consideration they deserve in our committees? Would that not be a very useful alternative to waiting and doing nothing?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. I was referring to doing nothing with regard to this bill, senator. I have utmost respect for the Senate, for the public bills and the studies that senators do that are not government business, and that’s just a fact.

However, it is also a fact that our primary constitutional obligation is to review government legislation, and that is what the Senate was set up to do in 1867. This is a point that has been made not only by me but by many others in this chamber, and, indeed, it is reflected in the priority that we have decided to give to government legislation when there is competition for committee time, and government matters and public bills are both competing for the same spot.

It is clearly the case that government matters take priority, and that is in no way to denigrate the important work that is done by senators and committees on public bills and studies.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question, senator. I have heard many times how important it is that bills get proper study in committee and not be rushed through. It is passing strange, if I could borrow a phrase from my colleagues from the East, to think that somehow a briefing is a proper substitute for hearing witnesses, interrogating witnesses and engaging in the kind of good work that senators and Senate committees do. With respect, no, I don’t think that is anywhere close to a substitute, and thank you for the question.

[Translation]

Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you, Senator Black, for your question and also for having the courtesy of providing it to me in advance.

I’m happy to tell you that on April 27 of this year the committee heard testimony from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which has over 2,000 members, representatives from right across the country.

As part of its testimony, FCM discussed its work with rural communities, noting that it provides training at regional levels so that smaller municipalities can learn how to use the federal government’s climate data in their infrastructure planning.

The committee also plans on inviting individual municipalities, including rural ones, to testify at the committee on this important study.

The FCM will be recommending some municipalities that have shown leadership on this issue to testify at committee on this study. I also want to underline that as per the tradition of the Senate, just because senators don’t serve on the committee on a regular basis, every senator can follow and participate.

Also, I encourage yourself and all members of this chamber that have recommendations in terms of witnesses on this important study to make them to our steering committee, as those would be more than embraced. Our clerk expects to have the input from the FCM and, in order to plan going forward, our witnesses. We look forward, as usual, to making sure that our study is all-encompassing and making sure that all regions of the country are well represented.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. It is not about a preference for appointing people who are not bilingual. Candidates for key positions, and I am talking about the positions you just mentioned, are selected on the basis of a whole host of criteria related to skills, experience, availability, willingness to serve and so on. Language is an important factor but not necessarily the only factor.

With regard to the Government of Canada’s commitment to this issue, it is important to point out that approximately 40% of public servants are bilingual. The government is moving forward with revisions and with Bill C-13. I hope that we will soon have the opportunity to thoroughly examine this bill, which is an important step in protecting and promoting French and linguistic minorities in Canada.

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Honourable senators, I rise with gratitude to Asian Canadians and immigrants. The positive impacts of their cultural heritages on Canada and global understandings are significant. Rich, centuries-old Asian cultures weave through Canadian society, past and present. Artistic expression, at the core of all Asian cultures, is embodied within bronzes, ceramics, textiles, calligraphy, scroll paintings and leading-edge contemporary two- and three-dimensional art. Inspirational Asian artworks from the 3rd century BC forward are in the Royal Ontario Museum and the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria. Pieces from each gallery have been featured in national and international exhibitions and publications over decades.

Asian art has long inspired Canadian artists. Asian-born Canadian artists have expressed their dual heritages. Immigrant artists from Asia have unquestionably added to Canada’s cultural fabric.

In 1972, Victoria artist Pat Martin Bates, originally from New Brunswick, received a $5,000 Canada Council for the Arts grant to travel the route of Alexander the Great. Persian miniatures, manuscripts, architecture, gardens and artists inspired her pierced, painted and printed light boxes exploring cultures and linkages between global religions. She has spearheaded artist exchanges from Japan, China and India.

Canadian-born on Vancouver Island, Takao Tanabe is a Canadian art star of Japanese ancestry and a recipient of the Governor General’s Award in Visual and Media Arts. This internationally acclaimed artist, alas, lived the dark side of Canada during the World War II when he and his family were sent to a Canadian internment camp. However, his stellar teaching and painting careers and his large-scale landscapes and abstractions convey a unique sensibility of light and space.

Immigrant artists come from all parts of Asia. Aliana Au, who first trained in her native Guangdong, came to study at the Winnipeg School of Art in 1974. Her work transits both traditions, evoking deep insights into cultural interactions.

Artist Gu Xiong, now an acclaimed University of British Columbia fine arts professor, was in Tiananmen Square that fateful day of the 1989 massacre. He came to Vancouver soon after and has exhibited across Canada.

Jin-me Yoon, Senator Martin’s friend, immigrated from Korea. She celebrated the 1971 Canadian Multiculturalism Policy in her art, the act that enabled her family to immigrate. Her contributions to art and teaching are consistently celebrated.

Living in British Columbia, prominent painter Tad Suzuki’s recent Toronto solo exhibition was truly successful.

Colleagues, three minutes is too short a time to give even a tiny sense of artists’ insights, traditions and creativity from all across Asia. But close to home, let’s look at our own Senator Ataullahjan’s colour-filled, inspirational paintings.

This Asian Heritage Month, I herald the passion, dedication and creative integrity of all Asian artists. Canada is richer for it.

Thank you.

Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Toronto Mayor John Tory were there. His colleagues from the Toronto Star and the journalism community were there. His family and friends were there. Last Wednesday, 400 of his closest friends gathered together in downtown Toronto — of course — to honour and celebrate our friend, John Honderich, who passed away suddenly on February 5, 2022.

It was a party that John would have loved. Mayor Tory bestowed posthumously the Key to the City. Former Toronto Star managing editor Mary Deanne Shears talked about John’s days leading crusades both inside and outside the newsroom. Former city councillor Gord Cressy recalled growing up with John at Bedford Park Public School and how this child of privilege began at a young age to give back to his community.

John’s son Robin Honderich told stories of growing up with sister Emily, John’s devotion to his grandkids Sebastian and George and his love of grand gestures and storytelling.

John Honderich was the long-time editor and publisher of the Toronto Star, which is Canada’s largest daily newspaper with the largest readership in this country. He was devoted to excellent journalism and was willing to pay for it. He was a relentless advocate for social justice. He was a Toronto booster and a national city builder, and he left this country a much better place.

John began his career in 1973 as night copy boy at the Ottawa Citizen, delivering late-night food orders to reporters and editors. He joined the Toronto Star in 1976, going from an economics reporter to Ottawa bureau chief, to Washington bureau chief, and upward to editor-in-chief in 1988 and publisher in 1994. He left that job after a decade but returned as board chair until 2020, when Torstar was sold to new owners.

Under his leadership, the paper won countless awards — way too many to mention here — and several of these awards recognized the impact of journalism in creating positive change.

I remember an extensive series in the Toronto Star where they accessed Toronto police data and found that Black drivers were much more likely than White drivers to be ticketed by police, taken into police stations and held overnight. Many Torontonians were shocked by these findings of racial profiling, but others were shocked that the Star actually did this kind of journalism. This was in 2002 — 18 years before the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020.

John personally received countless awards, including the Order of Canada. What I will miss is his big smile and how much fun it was to hang out with him, talking and chatting about all matters, large and small. There should have been much more time. John, you left us too soon. Rest in peace.

Senator Plett: It would be nice if the Prime Minister occasionally had to fill up his own tank of gas; he might be more understanding of this problem.

This morning, we learned that consumer prices in April rose 6.8%, year over year — again, something that doesn’t affect the Prime Minister. Despite record inflation and an unaffordability crisis for Canadian families — not the Prime Minister — the NDP-Liberal government thought that last month was a good time to raise the carbon tax on gas by 25%. It doesn’t affect the Prime Minister.

Leader, your government was asked to suspend the carbon tax to give Canadians a break. Again, this is an action entirely within your government’s control that would lower the cost of gas for all of us Canadians who have to pay for it ourselves and who are just trying to get to work — yet your government rejected it.

In British Columbia in April 2018, the Prime Minister was asked about high gas prices. He said it was “. . . exactly what we want.” At that time, $1.60/litre was considered high.

Leader, isn’t it the case that your government rejected ways to lower gas prices for Canadians because high gas prices are, in fact, exactly what the Prime Minister wants?