Hon. Bev Busson: Today, honourable senators, an unsung Canadian hero is being laid to rest. Staff Sergeant (Retired) Bill Fridgen lived to be 105 and was, until last Wednesday, May 11, one of the oldest World War II veterans and the oldest living RCMP veteran.

George William Fridgen was born in Saskatchewan, the first of 10 children, on April 27, 1917. He joined the RCMP in 1941, and after volunteering to be seconded to the Royal Canadian Navy during the Second World War, served 33 years in the force, primarily in P.E.I., Regina, Sarnia, Toronto and Ottawa.

To put Bill’s incredible career and legacy in perspective, I should tell you that his RCMP regimental number shows that there have been approximately 55,000 members engaged between then and now. As his grandson stated, he was older than Betty White. Bill’s grandson has recounted a couple of light stories that Bill loved to tell his grandchildren.

As part of the personal protection detail in Ottawa in the 1950s, Bill saw his fair share of world leaders.

As a highlight of his career, he and his partner were assigned by the commissioner of the day to guard the U.S. President and Mrs. Eisenhower at a Quebec fishing camp and watch over their VIP party from another boat. They were told sternly, “Never let the President out of your sight!”

The next day, with the police duo losing few fish that bit their lines, they lost a more important catch: in the chaos of a sudden thunderstorm, they lost the President and his fishing party.

As the rain abated, the other boat was finally found nearby — behind the shelter of a small island.

After Bill and his partner gifted their catch to the VIPs, the President departed in an RCMP float plane. Bill never received feedback from his superiors, except a copy of a cryptic letter from President Eisenhower thanking the RCMP for special services.

Ever a peaceful and charming man, Bill only had to draw his service revolver one time. In Summerside, P.E.I., he was assigned the task of breaking up a moonshine operation deep in the bush. After days of suspenseful surveillance in the woods with only cold, canned food to eat, Bill and his partner confronted their unsuspecting targets, pistols drawn. His excited partner blurted out, “Okay, hands, put up your boys,” to the confused suspects.

During those days, members of the RCMP were forbidden to marry for five years after joining and were required to obtain permission to do so. Despite this delay, Bill and his wife, Mary, had 4 children — 2 boys and 2 girls — resulting in 11 grandchildren, 13 great-grandchildren and 2 great-great-grandchildren. Today, in Iroquois, Ontario, a large gathering of family, friends and well-wishers — accompanied by the RCMP Honour Guard — are together to celebrate his long, fruitful and meritorious life.

Thank you for your service, Bill.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, which deals with the subject matter of those elements contained in Part 10 of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.

Hon. Jane Cordy introduced Bill S-246, An Act respecting Lebanese Heritage Month.

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate, no later than September 16, 2022, a report on issues relating to human rights generally, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Senator Plett: Of course, my question was not related to any of what you just said. I was asking why your government failed to deliver on a promise that it made in 2019. Senator Gold, you never even touched upon it. We should have statements instead of Question Period here and then we could answer our own questions, because it seems that’s what we have to do.

Leader, since Russia invaded Ukraine almost three months ago, we have heard a lot of talk about your government and its support of Canada’s defence capabilities. It is clear again that those are just words. The written answer that I received relating to our national search and rescue capability shows there is no plan to station enhanced helicopter capacity to meet search and rescue needs in the Northwest Passage area. The answer also states that the air force is already reduced to borrowing parts between maintenance and operational Cormorants.

Leader, how can you possibly justify such a low state of readiness? Why is your government unable or unwilling to live up to the promises to enhance search and rescue operations in Canada? Please don’t tell me how much you support the air force unless you can tell us why you have not taken these crucial steps.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. To the best of my knowledge, the government does not have any plans to repeal that. As with other taxes and benefits, the alcohol excise duty rate is automatically adjusted each year to account for inflation, as you point out in your question.

Colleagues, this is the right approach. It provides certainty to the sector while ensuring our tax system is fair for all Canadians. I have been advised that the increase is less than one fifth of one penny for a can of beer and, indeed, there are specific measures that take into consideration the needs of craft brewers. Currently, low-alcohol beer — beer with less than 0.5% alcohol by volume — is subject to excise duty, while low-alcohol wine and spirits are not.

I’m further advised the government will eliminate excise duty on low-alcohol beer effective as of July 1, 2022. This will bring the tax treatment of low-alcohol beer into line with the treatment of wine and spirits with the same alcohol content, and make Canada’s practices consistent with those in other G7 countries.

The government recognizes the important contributions that Canadian wine, beer and spirit producers make to the Canadian economy.

Senator Quinn: It’s interesting that the people we have been speaking with from the industry are reporting serious concerns with respect to loss of jobs, not only in their sector but also in sectors that use alcohol products, such as the tourism industry, bars, restaurants et cetera, and that the risk of job losses in the current environment of high interest rates is a real probability. If the government does not introduce a bill to repeal the escalator clause, could you support the Senate introducing a Senate public bill to repeal the excise tax clause and return to the annual raising of excise tax, if needed? After all, millions of Canadians like to enjoy a glass of wine or a cold beer but, as is, this excise tax will be putting it further out of reach for the average Canadian.

Senator Plett: Honourable senators, the Government of Canada, regardless of its political stripe, has been supporting important projects over years, long before the expensive and ineffective bureaucracy of the Infrastructure Bank was created. It should continue to support worthwhile projects, even after the Infrastructure Bank is abolished, as a committee of the other place recommended earlier this month.

Leader, last month, you also mentioned the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link project to Nunavut from Manitoba, a project that the Conservative Party has supported, as you may know. In the memorandum of understanding for this project, which was signed over two years ago, in February 2020, the Infrastructure Bank is said to be playing an advisory role. At the time, the former CEO told the media that the Infrastructure Bank might invest in this project, but it doesn’t appear that it has happened.

Could you also please inquire, leader, as to what the current status is of the project and whether they have invested?

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: second reading of Bill S-8, followed Motion No. 42, followed by Motion No. 41, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

[English]

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

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

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

(On motion of Senator Harder, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné:

That, in accordance with rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to examine the subject matter of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, introduced in the House of Commons on February 2, 2022, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate; and

That, for the purposes of this study, the committee be authorized to meet even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, with the application of rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto.

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

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, I must admit that I wondered whether I should rise to speak today after seeing that this debate was merely a stalling tactic. However, I think it is important to explain to Canadians why a pre-study of this bill is a good idea in this context.

My speech will focus on the principle of the pre-study and why it is important to our work on this bill.

I was rather taken aback by some of the objections that were raised yesterday in debate. While the Senate prides itself, and rightly so, on taking more time than the House of Commons to study bills and on giving Canadians more hours and more opportunities to make their voices heard, testify in committee and share their expertise with us as we provide sober second thought, here we are spending hours debating whether it is a good idea to conduct a pre-study on a complex bill, particularly one that has been the subject of misinformation.

Although, historically speaking, most of the pre-studies conducted by the Senate committees over the past 30 years have focused on omnibus bills, including budget bills, 42% of them were on non-budgetary issues.

I will soon come back to the pre-studies, but first I want to say how surprised I was yesterday at some of the questions that were put to the Government Representative in the Senate, Senator Gold, about introducing government bills in the Senate. I am talking about “S” bills, including Bill S-8, which we just studied.

The question asked yesterday by my esteemed colleague, Senator Carignan, is as follows, and I quote:

 . . . the job of the Senate and of senators is not to provide sober second thought to measures introduced by public servants, but to properly study bills passed in the House of Commons . . . .

Does this mean that the Senate should no longer directly study government bills, as it has done on several occasions? Yes, I am puzzled, honourable senators.

In the second session of the Forty-first Parliament, as the Conservative government’s representative in the Senate, Senator Carignan introduced six of these government bills, as he himself can attest. I have a list of those bills. Was he going against the role of the Senate at the time? The answer is obvious.

Allow me to get back to the pre-studies. I also noted that during the second session of the Forty-first Parliament — a session that lasted less than 20 months — the Senate conducted 10 pre-studies, just 4 of which were on budget bills. We must therefore conclude that the majority of these pre-studies, or 6 out of 10 of them, were on non-budget bills. I have a list of those, too. If something is good for one government, isn’t it good for another?

Honourable senators, although we should learn from our institution’s past, we must not be limited by it. The Senate is the master of its own destiny. I think that pre-studies are a worthwhile use of our time and resources, because they allow us to review complex government bills more efficiently and to better organize our own parliamentary business during key periods, for example, before we adjourn for the summer.

[English]

I know there are concerns that Bill C-11 will be amended before it is introduced in the Senate which, in the view of some colleagues, would make these pre-studies a waste of the Senate’s and its committees’ time. However, I do not come to the same conclusion.

I believe, on the contrary, that the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications would be able to ensure that it receives key witnesses who can share their expertise on the substance and underlying principles of this bill, which will not be changed by future amendments.

These pre-studies could highlight the major policy proposals and issues associated with those complex bills, both this bill as well as Bill C-13. This would allow us to be ready and to act efficiently at the appropriate time.

It should also be noted that a pre-study does not preclude a study. It will be up to the committee members to make these recommendations and/or observations to the Senate following the conclusion of their work and changes made to the bill. Additionally, a pre-study in one or two committees does not prevent the many other committees of the Senate from proceeding with substantive studies and inquiries.

Pre-studies are a way to better organize our work in a timely manner. This is also an efficient way to prevent the use of time allocation measures — if we are efficiently organized, there will be no logic for any government to use this tool. If it were to be used in spite of our efforts, then it would be up to us to govern ourselves accordingly.

Some colleagues will also argue that these pre-studies are not necessary, as we are not on the eve of an election or at the end of a parliamentary session. However, this should not prevent us from being proactive.

Bill C-11 is a government priority. It was in the government electoral platform, as we know, and has been in the other place since the last Parliament.

In its current form, Bill C-11 was introduced in the House four months ago. In its previous form, Bill C-11, then Bill C-10, had even passed third reading in the House of Commons and was sent to us at the very end of the Second Session of the Forty-third Parliament. We are, therefore, fulfilling our role by being adequately prepared when Bill C-11 arrives in this chamber. I believe that the most effective way to do it is through prior study in committee.

Another argument in favour of these pre-studies is very simple. We currently have the time and resources to conduct them. We have few government bills on the legislative agenda, and the two committees targeted by these motions — this current motion and the one regarding Bill C-13 — have no government business on their agendas. So why delay this work?

In my opinion, there is no reason to do so, and Canadians would be right to blame us for a gross dereliction of our responsibility if we do not pre-study Bill C-11 and Bill C-13.

Colleagues, let us get our act together and let us act responsibly. We are spending time and energy in a debate that would be way more relevant if it was on the substance of this bill. Let’s not waste our time bickering but rather use it wisely. Thank you, meegwetch.

[Translation]

Senator Saint-Germain: Of course, former leader of the government in the Senate.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Senator Saint-Germain, yesterday our colleague Senator Carignan suggested it’s not the job of the Senate to provide sober second thought on measures introduced by public servants but to properly study bills passed in the House of Commons. I’m wondering if you’re aware that under Senator Carignan’s leadership as then deputy leader with our colleague Senator Martin moved a government motion to pre-study the former Bill C-23, known as the Fair Elections Act, on April 1, 2014, and subsequently gave notice of time allocation on the same day, limiting debate on even the need for a pre-study.

On that same day during Question Period, Senator Carignan was asked about the pre-study of Bill C-23, to which he responded:

As I often say, further study is further study, and having the opportunity to study a bill at the same time as the House of Commons does not mean we cannot fulfill our role of sober second thought after the bill passes in the House of Commons and is sent to us in the Senate. It is better to make as many improvements as we can. If we have the opportunity to study this bill twice, so much the better.

Therefore, Senator Saint-Germain, do you share this view that Senate pre-studies can allow the Senate to engage in proper study and debate and complement the work of the elected House of Commons?

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Gold, for the question. I just consulted my list of the pre-studies, tabled then by the government, and I see Bill C-23. My chart is in French, so I will read in French.

[Translation]

The bill in question, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, was a non-budgetary bill. I see that the bill was introduced by MP Pierre Poilievre and was the subject of a pre-study by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on April 8, 2014, and passed in the House of Commons on May 13, 2014.

[English]

This gives me the opportunity again to make this comment. Why is it good under a specific Parliament, a specific government, and not good under another government? I think that we have to ask this question, and I reiterate that pre-studies on complex bills are relevant, so I don’t blame the previous Conservative government at all. However, what I do not agree with is the inconsistency in the consideration of the relevance of pre-studies and even of the tabling of government bills in the Senate, when so relevant. It’s not always relevant. It does not need to become the new normal. I do agree with this, and I agree with Senator Carignan to that end; but obviously, during the current context, from my standpoint, there is no doubt that Bill C-11 and even Bill C-13 deserve pre-studies.

Senator Gold: Thank you.

I do want to remind colleagues that in my speech, as in that of Senator Saint-Germain, we made it clear that this does not preclude all stages of inquiry, which the Senate will decide upon.

But, senator, during the debates in this chamber on Bill C-10, there was much criticism of the proposed legislation and, dare I say, much misinformation. All of that aside, I’m confused as to why initiating a pre-study on Bill C-11, proposed legislation that purports to address the criticism of the previous iteration — Bill C-10 — is somehow unacceptable. The major complaint we have heard — even in your remarks, colleague, which I appreciate, so thank you — is the lack of time that we have to do our work properly.

The motion here is offering time, and it’s offering time free of any reporting deadlines and any procedural constraints.

So whether we receive the bill on day one or in week two after a pre-study has begun, we will be ahead of the game. That doesn’t prevent us from doing our work, including all the stages thereafter once we do receive the bill. So what am I missing?

Senator Dasko: Thank you, Senator Gold. My view of this process is that I feel it’s a lesser process. From what I have observed, it doesn’t feel like it’s a thorough process; it seems to be truncated, in my observation. It also doesn’t allow us to make amendments.

So from what I have observed, I feel that it’s lacking.

I know you have given some assurances of time, but at the same time, senator, yesterday, you did talk about the absolute need and the pressures coming from various communities. I understand there is pressure. I live in Toronto, and the cultural community in Toronto is very supportive of this bill. They want this to go forward.

But when June comes — and it’s just around the corner — we always get this feeling of pressure to pass bills. I fear that we have this pre-study coming down the track along with the end of June coming, and they end up colliding with each other. Then we end up getting pressure to pass a bill.

In this case, I worry we will be in a process that doesn’t allow us to examine it the way I feel it should be examined, especially given the uncertainties in the other place and what they will do, as well as what sorts of amendments and changes they may come up with. The last time this happened, it was really rather a mess. You might remember from last year what happened in their committee and all of the amendments. They were rejected by their Speaker and they had to go back. It truly was a mess.

That is where I am coming from with my concerns. This is coming along this track and the end of June is there; we know what June is like. You yourself have said that there is an urgency to get this bill passed because of the various stakeholders and so on who are involved. So this all leaves me just a little bit suspicious.

That’s where I’m coming from. Thank you.