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.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and your ongoing attention to the serious human rights violations in China and the crackdown on freedom in Hong Kong.

The government continues to work with its allies to do what it can in this regard. With respect to your question regarding former Chief Justice McLachlin, that’s a decision that the former chief justice has made and I have no further comment on that.

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.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable colleagues, I rise today as the critic — a friendly one — of Bill S-225, An Act to amend the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act (investments), which was sponsored by my colleague, Senator Ataullahjan.

Colleagues, this important bill is about money — the money of Canadians; your money and mine. It’s a bill about clarity for investors and about accountability. It’s a bill about limiting and ultimately eliminating the horrific damage, mostly to civilians, done by a certain class of weapons. Ultimately, colleagues, this bill is about global responsibility and humanitarian leadership.

Colleagues, I would like to start off by bringing this topic closer to home. As far as I can tell, cluster bombs have never been used on North American soil. But a weapon with some similar characteristics and impacts has been used in cases of domestic terrorism in the United States.

Colleagues, do you remember the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing when two bombs went off near the finish line, instantly turning that location of athleticism and excitement into a gruesome scene of bloodshed and chaos?

At approximately 2:49 on the afternoon of April 15, two pressure cooker bombs loaded with nails and ball bearings went off, killing two women in their twenties and an eight-year-old boy, while more than 260 other people were wounded. Sixteen people lost legs, with the youngest amputee a seven-year-old girl. The devastating impacts were both immediate and long-lasting for the people affect that day.

Now, colleagues, with that human devastation in Boston in your minds, transport yourselves back to the Vietnam War era. Colleagues, just imagine the situation between 1964 and 1973 for the farmers, small business owners, school children and the elderly people of Laos when the United States Air Force and the CIA’s own airline, Air America, as part of its secret war, dropped two million tons of ordnance — more than all the bombs dropped during the Second World War — decimating that country and its people.

Laos is the most bombed country in the world per capita. The U.S. dropped the equivalent of a planeload of bombs every eight minutes, 24 hours a day for nine years. By 1975, one tenth of the population of Laos, or 200,000 people, was dead and twice as many were wounded. It is estimated that at least 25,000 people have been killed or injured since the war because of unexploded cluster bombs — people trying to eke out a living in their rice fields or children innocently playing with these shiny objects.

A cluster munition, colleagues, is a container filled with small submunitions. The container may be a shell, a rocket, a missile or another device. It is dropped from aircraft or fired from the ground. It opens up in the air and releases a carpet of submunitions over a large area.

The submunitions, or bomblets, are often the size of a tennis ball, and are actually fairly similar to those pressure cooker bombs used in Boston in that they are packed with more than 300 pieces of metal designed to destroy human targets. The blast of one submunition can cause deadly shrapnel injuries in a 65‑foot radius and injure anyone within a 328-foot radius.

Colleagues, we now have documented cases of cluster munitions being used by the Russians in their war in Ukraine, including the shelling of a railway station in Kramatorsk, killing at least 50 civilians, including children, and injuring many more.

Photos from Ukraine indicate that unexploded submunitions now contaminate residential areas of Kharkiv. Shopping mall parking lots, city streets and residential areas are now contaminated with these deadly, unexploded weapons.

In the 2020-21 period, cluster munitions were used in Syria, and by Armenia and Azerbaijan in the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Since the end of the Second World War, at least 23 governments have used cluster munitions in 41 countries, some using them on their own citizens.

The U.S. has used cluster munitions in Cambodia. I mentioned Laos. They have used them in Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Yemen.

In addition to using them in Ukraine, Russia has used cluster munitions in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Georgia and Syria.

There are 16 countries, colleagues, that produced cluster munitions, including the U.S., China, Russia, Iran, Israel and North and South Korea.

Colleagues, with that background and context of cluster munitions, let’s turn our attention to Canada and to this bill, Bill S-225.

Canada participated in the Oslo process that produced the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and advocated for strong provisions on victim assistance and on international cooperation and assistance.

The process and the substance of the convention were modelled on the Ottawa Treaty that banned anti-personnel landmines in the late 1990s. That was a significant international diplomacy achievement for our country, Canada.

Canada signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions on December 3, 2008, and ratified it on March 16, 2015, with it coming into force that September. The convention prohibits the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions. It also requires the destruction of stockpiled cluster munitions within eight years, clearance of cluster munition remnants within 10 years and assistance to victims, their families and affected communities.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions has a total of 110 states parties as well as 13 signatories who have yet to ratify it.

Canada has never produced, nor has it used cluster munitions, although we did purchase them. In accordance with the convention that we have signed, Canada destroyed its stockpile of over 13,000 cluster munitions and 1.36 million submunitions.

Colleagues, the bill we have before us today is a bill which would amend Canada’s Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

When Parliament passed Bill C-6 in 2014, there was much criticism from a number of MPs, senators and from Canadian and international expert civil society organizations. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines — Cluster Munition Coalition called it the worst legislation of any state party to that convention. Colleagues, critics have found Canada’s legislation to be flawed on two counts.

First, critics said then — and they still assert now — that Canada’s cluster munitions law allows for Canada to participate in military operations where cluster munitions are used with other countries which are not signatories to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, including the U.S. — a close ally of ours. This is something known as military interoperability.

Observers indicated that there had been a long, drawn-out, interdepartmental battle largely between the then-Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of National Defence, and that a political decision was taken supporting the Department of National Defence’s position on this provision in the law, which ultimately passed on November 6, 2014.

That’s the first area of concern. But that’s not what this bill is about.

The second area of concern related to our existing cluster munitions law is the omission of a clear and explicit — and I underline “explicit” — provision for prohibiting Canadian investment in companies manufacturing cluster munitions or their components.

Domestic and international critics indicate that Canada’s legislation fails to meet the standards of the historic Convention on Cluster Munitions that it is supposed to uphold, and they are surprised that the Liberal government did not act immediately to clean up the law when it came into power in 2015.

Colleagues, the bill we have before us, Bill S-225, addresses one of those two loopholes in our current prohibition of cluster munitions legislation — that matter of investments.

This is the second time Senator Ataullahjan has tried to address this important gap by introducing legislation amending the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

In 2017, Senators Ataullahjan and Jaffer and former Senator Hubley spoke in favour of the previous Bill S-235 at second reading. The Senate actually referred the bill to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, but it did not progress from there.

Senators, as stated so clearly by our colleague Senator Ataullahjan in her recent second-reading speech:

Bill S-225 aims to bring the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act in line with the spirit of the convention. By explicitly prohibiting investments in cluster munitions manufacturing, we would set clear guidelines for Canadian financial institutions . . . .

We know that some of these institutions welcomed this idea over a decade ago. Bill S-225 also closes other related loopholes by prohibiting Canadian financial institutions from loaning funds to the manufacturers, and it prevents them from acting as a guarantor for their loans.

So, colleagues, you might be asking yourselves — as am I — what Canadian companies are these that have been investing in these cluster bomb manufacturers in the U.S. and other countries? Might I, through my investments, be inadvertently causing Canada to be in contravention of this important convention, and might I also be unwittingly contributing to the pain and suffering of innocent people in other countries?

Colleagues, where does the proverbial buck stop?

In the most recent Stop Explosive Investments report issued in 2018, seven Canadian companies had been identified as investors — and I said “had been” because we don’t know who is today — in cluster munitions producers. These are: Power Financial Corporation, AGF Management, BMO Financial Group, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Scotiabank, Sun Life Financial and Toronto-Dominion Bank.

In 2016, four Canadian companies, CI Financial, Manulife Financial, Royal Bank of Canada and Sun Life Financial, were identified as being in the so-called Hall of Shame for investing in cluster munitions producers. In that year, the group tracked $12 billion in investments by 49 global firms. Canada is not alone in this.

An updated list of companies should be available in the Stop Explosive Investments report to be released later this year, and it will be very important for all of us to have a look at that report. Let’s hope that more companies have moved over from the Hall of Shame to what they have also developed, which is called the Hall of Fame. I’m confident that there has been some movement.

Colleagues, I would like to commend Mines Action Canada, the Cluster Munition Coalition, PAX, Human Rights Watch, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Humanity & Inclusion and all organizations working hard every day to prevent future cluster bomb atrocities, to clear the significant, unexploded ordnance in many regions of the world and to ensure care for victims.

Shining a light on the investors and companies producing these weapons and supporting them to move out of the so-called Hall of Shame into the so-called Hall of Fame is a critical part of this important work. Who would want to do this? I’m sure our Canadian companies don’t want to be there.

Colleagues, Canada has a proud history of working with its international partners to create a more peaceful, humane and just world. Preventing human rights abuses and protecting lives is what drives Canada’s interest in shaping and joining international efforts to regulate weapons.

In addition to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, Canada is a signatory to other international conventions and agreements on a whole variety of weapons, including biological and toxin weapons, chemical weapons, certain conventional weapons and anti-personnel land mines. Canada is not currently a party to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Bill S-225 seeks to improve the way Canada meets its obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Colleagues, with cluster munitions being deployed in several regions of our world today, and with the flaws identified in our current law, it is time to move this bill along to committee for further study and serious consideration.

Honourable colleagues, before I conclude, I would like to share a quote by renowned Nova Scotian pacifist, feminist, community activist and member of the Order of Canada, the late Muriel Duckworth, who said:

. . . war is the greatest destroyer of human life, the greatest polluter, the greatest creator of refugees, the greatest cause of starvation and illness. . . . .

I don’t know how you reach people who are making money out of making war, who are getting prestige out of making war, who are exerting their power and are getting more power by making war.

Honourable colleagues, with this bill Canada can stop the flow of Canadian money to the manufacturers of these horrific instruments of killing and maiming, and, hopefully, we can influence our international peers by our actions. Ultimately, this is one more step toward saving innocent lives and preventing human suffering.

I can’t think of a better reason to move a bill forward. Let’s move this forward, colleagues.

Wela’lioq. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Patterson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tannas, for the second reading of Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (property qualifications of Senators).