Hon. Claude Carignan: Would Senator Cormier take another question?

Senator Carignan: Senator Cormier, you understand, of course, the importance of defending both official languages. Any minute now the House of Commons will be voting to refer the bill to a committee following second reading stage.

Over the next few days, the House of Commons committee should be starting to study the provisions of the bill to modernize the Official Languages Act; the debate will be held first in the House of Commons and then in the Senate.

Doesn’t the committee have other important topics to study on official languages, to ensure that the government respects both of our official languages?

Senator Carignan: I will continue reading the quote.

At second reading in the Senate several senators expressed concern that the bill, as reintroduced, had received so little attention in the Commons. Its supporters pointed out that the bill’s predecessor had been examined by a Commons committee and, despite the expressed concerns, had been passed unanimously. However, the Senate’s Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs held thirteen meetings on the bill and examined it in considerable detail, hearing from almost thirty witnesses, including among others representatives from the Canadian Bar Association, the Writers’ Union of Canada, the Department of Justice, and the Elizabeth Fry Society.

Following this study and in light of the many concerns presented at public hearings:

 . . . the Committee recommended that the bill not proceed, and the full Senate adopted this recommendation without division.

The Senate’s decision on this bill was based on a far more intensive investigation than occurred in the Commons . . .

What does this example show us? It shows us that if the Senate properly and meticulously performs its role, it is beyond question essential to our democracy. I therefore urge honourable senators to not be led astray and to focus on our fundamental role of being a chamber that complements the House of Commons.

I will be voting against Motion No. 41. Thank you.

Senator Carignan: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 41, to authorize a pre-study of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

Again, the government is asking us to do a pre-study of a bill that may not have moved far enough through the House of Commons.

(1620)

In our recent debates on Senator Gold’s motion, much was said about the Senate being responsible for the use of its time. Indeed, esteemed colleagues, the Senate is an independent legislative body that manages its affairs according to its rules, practices, customs and traditions.

Although the Senate, as conceived by the Fathers of Confederation, is a chamber of sober second thought, it also has a duty to undertake inquiries in order to hold the government accountable for its decisions. We conduct these inquiries of our own free will and at our own direction. Furthermore, you know as well as I do that the Senate has the power to legislate, except in the case of money bills.

Let’s return to the Senate’s main role of taking a second look at government bills and, more generally, at bills passed by the House of Commons.

We must undertake this task with consideration for our specific mandate of representing the regions and protecting minorities. The Senate was created as a counterbalance to an elected chamber that represents the people, but where the anglophone majority could overwhelm the francophone minority. The equal representation of regions thus became a foundational principle and ensured greater protection for less populated provinces.

Confederation in 1867 was made possible by this commitment to a Senate serving as the counterbalance to the government and supporting the principle of equitable representation of the regions.

The Senate is then one of the three fundamental pillars of the democratic system that make up the Parliament of Canada. It is a pivotal player in shaping our body of law, and its role cannot be trivialized or relegated to that of a mere advisory body. When legislation is passed in the House of Commons, it is sent back to us for a thoughtful and, ideally, non-partisan second look.

The Senate is known and respected for its thorough and studious review of legislation. Similarly, Senate studies regularly end up influencing the passage of public bills because of their quality.

The predecessor to Bill C-13 is Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. It was introduced for first reading on June 15, 2021, a few days before the summer recess and a few weeks before the prorogation of Parliament, which occurred in August 2021 and came as no surprise to anyone. When we look at the history of Bill C-32, we can see that it went through first reading on June 15, 2021, but the second reading, committee review and third reading stages were not completed.

The Trudeau government waited five years and eight months to introduce its bill to modernize the Official Languages Act, with the only result being that the bill was introduced in the other place at first reading and then it was never debated.

So, yes, I was quite surprised when I learned that we would be debating a motion regarding a pre-study of Bill C-13. This government dragged its feet for so long on this file that the fact it is asking us now to do a pre-study of this bill seems very odd indeed.

I would remind colleagues that the Senate does not normally begin studying a bill before the other place has completed its study. Bill C-13 is still at second reading in the House of Commons at this time. After four sittings during which the House debated this bill, the government adopted a time allocation motion on May 20, which means that the bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages today.

Aside from the fact that the government, for unknown reasons, suddenly seems inclined to expedite the study of this bill, there is absolutely no reason the Senate should bow to the government’s will and abandon its customary and constitutional practice of carrying out a second review of the bill once it has been passed in the other place.

During debate on Motion No. 41, Senator Gold and Senator Saint-Germain quoted statements I made when I was government leader in support of the pre-study of certain bills. Indeed, as I said earlier, I recognize that a pre-study can be useful under certain specific circumstances. However, it must not become routine, because that would distance the Senate from its fundamental role as a chamber of sober second thought. Most importantly, a second study carried out by the Senate must not supplant committee work in the House of Commons.

Therefore, when considering a pre-study, the bill to be studied must at a minimum be in the legislative process in the other place, the committee study must ideally have been completed and amendments must have been presented. There must be a certain urgency to moving the bill along, whether because the end of the session is imminent, or there is a legal requirement or the bill has such a narrow but important application that it is vital to deal with it as quickly as possible. Those are some elements that need to be considered. However, the Senate is master of its own schedule and it may take into account any other consideration in determining the pertinence of a pre-study of a bill. I must insist that pre-studies should not become the norm, but rather the exception.

In that sense, Professor Paul G. Thomas, in a work edited by our former colleague, Senator Joyal, entitled Protecting Canadian Democracy: The Senate You Never Knew, rightly points out, and I quote:

The original role of the Senate was to complement . . . the House of Commons, which . . . was seen as the centre of political life in the country.

Other than the pre-studies on supply bills that are usually done in the Senate, six pre-studies were done under my leadership in two years, in 2013 and in 2014. With two exceptions, namely the pre-studies for bills C-15 and C-23, all of these pre-studies were done after second reading stage in the House of Commons, and especially after the committees tasked with studying them held their meetings.

Bill C-15 was a bill to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Land and Resources Devolution Agreement, a very specific bill limited to a region. With regard to Bill C-23 on reforming the Elections Act, the House of Commons committee began its meetings before the Senate did, but we agreed with the government that we would conduct a parallel study so that the government could benefit from the considerable electoral experience of several senators. This was actually effective, because several amendments that were made in the House of Commons came from the Senate.

If you will bear with me, we could take a look at some of the examples of pre-studies we did in the Senate when I was the government leader.

The committee concluded its study of Bill C-24 on citizenship on June 3, 2014, and the Senate started its pre-study on June 10, 2014. A House of Commons committee finished studying Bill C-36, to amend the Criminal Code in response to a Supreme Court ruling, on July 15, 2014, and the Senate started its pre-study on September 9, 2014.

A House of Commons committee finished its study of Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, on March 31, 2015, and the Senate started its pre-study on March 30, 2015.

Honourable senators, I don’t think I could be accused of excessive or inappropriate use of pre-studies in the Senate. In nearly every case, the Senate committee started its study after the House of Commons committee completed its own study and had already heard from witnesses and made amendments, all before the pre-study.

I reread the statement Senator Gagné made when she moved her motion, and, frankly, I did not see even a shred of justification for a pre-study of Bill C-13.

Actually, honourable senators, there are more reasons to refuse this pre-study than there are to authorize it. The first and most important reason is that this pre-study flies in the face of the very reason the Senate exists. A number of us point out every once in a while that we are a chamber of sober second thought, which is what the Senate was conceived to be. It is becoming increasingly worrisome to see the government use the Senate to advance its own legislative agenda, either through pre-studies or by simply introducing government bills in the Senate. In doing so, the government is adding to the Senate’s workload and preventing it from fulfilling its duty of sober second thought, relying on the wisdom and vast expertise of its members.

(1630)

Also, as I have already amply demonstrated, no one has provided us with any evidence of whatever urgency might justify a pre-study. Quite the opposite is true. While I am in no way denying the importance of modernizing the Official Languages Act, I believe that this must be done in an orderly, careful manner, taking the time to do it properly, without putting the cart before the horse.

In response to a question from Senator Plett, Senator Gagné said the following to justify a pre-study of Bill C-13:

I believe that’s one more reason to conduct a pre-study, in order to guide the government and inform its analysis.

You see, colleagues, with all due respect to Senator Gagné, this statement clearly illustrates that the government’s representatives in the Senate do not have a clear understanding of the duties of our institution. If we want to guide the government and inform its analyses, our preferred tool is our power of inquiry. That is how we should be informing the government’s actions, as much as possible. Using pre-studies to guide and inform the government would pervert our own actions. It would essentially turn us into an advisory committee and betray the role we have played in the federation since 1867.

To give Senator Gold some credit, when he was trying to justify a pre-study of C-11, he at least could point to the somewhat more extensive history of that bill’s predecessor, Bill C-10. He certainly did not convince us, but at least he had a few slightly more substantial arguments to rely on.

In the case of Bill C-13, other than the text of the bill itself, we are faced with a complete lack of analysis, debate, testimony or any kind of serious thought from the other place. Asking us to proceed with a pre-study of Bill C-13 is tantamount to asking us to do the work of the House of Commons, which is certainly not our role. I have said it and I will say it over and over again, this is a chamber of sober second thought whose objective is to enrich the work of the House of Commons and improve bills, not to do the House’s work.

If we constantly stray from our purpose and allow ourselves to be drawn into the legislative vagaries of the government, our very essence will be lost, and we will certainly lose our way in the confusion of purposes, not to mention it will be difficult to distinguish between the two chambers.

As I briefly mentioned earlier, in preparing for this speech, I had a quick look at the book edited by our former colleague Senator Joyal on the history and functions of the Senate. The book is entitled Protecting Canadian Democracy: The Senate You Never Knew, and I highly recommend reading it.

To explain the importance of sober second thought, I have selected a passage written by Professor C.E.S. Franks, who recounted a situation that occurred in the Senate as follows:

The “Son of Sam” Bill. In October 1997, Bill C-220, with unanimous consent and without amendment passed second reading, committee, and third reading stages in the House of Commons all in one day and was forwarded to the Senate. The bill, a private members’ bill amending the Criminal Code and Copyright Act to prevent convicted persons from profiting by writing works describing their crimes, was essentially similar to bill that had died on the Order Paper of the previous Parliament. That bill had received Third Reading in the House despite potentially serious concerns expressed by the House committee that had examined it: that it exceeded the criminal law power, that its effect would reach beyond the incarceration period, and that it addressed a problem that was already being resolved intergovernmentally.

Hon. Marty Deacon: Will the senator take another question?

Senator Plett: I don’t know. Are we?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for his question and for raising this important issue. The government is aware of the challenges and is listening to the staff on the ground. I have been advised that the government has created new centres to increase production capacity. It has hired approximately 500 new staff members and created a new online tool to assist passport applicants and direct them to the best option for submitting their application. The government will continue to work on this issue to reduce the wait times that Canadians are facing.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Senator Moncion, I’m curious; you seem to suggest that if these committees sat and examined these pieces of legislation that somehow the House would respond to it. Do you have assurances that is their intention?

Senator Cormier: The committee chair and committee members had nothing to do with the fact that the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages was not able to sit on Monday.

I am speaking for myself, and not for the other committee members. The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages expressed a genuine desire to work on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, and it is committed to diligently and meaningfully studying this issue.

We hope to meet as often as possible to get this job done, but, yes, some of the decisions that were made prevented us from meeting as often as we would have liked.

I think that we need to undertake this work that is so important to Canadians as soon as possible.

[English]

Senator Simons: In fairness, Senator Dawson, I opposed a pre-study last year, too, for very much the same reasons.

I think we just have to be practical here. As I say, I’m not taking this position philosophically. It’s not because of years of parliamentary precedent. It’s not because of partisan reasons. The bill is going to be studied in committee six times this week in the House of Commons. They could be in clause-by-clause study by next week, and we could have the bill very shortly. I just don’t know that there is much point in starting up the mechanism of a pre-study when, if we waited 48 hours, we might be able to start a study in earnest.

Senator Gold: — to the Senate’s views when, in the case of the four pre-studies that have been alluded to — Bill C-14, Bill C-91, Bill C-92 and, most recently, Bill C-7 — the Senate interventions had a material impact on the amendments that were accepted in the other place? We played an important role in improving legislation. Why not in this case as well?

Senator Wallin: Well, I mean, this is what we’re dealing with, that kind of request. We have kind of merged the two issues in that we have a request to pre-study legislation, but then we are told that we can roll that into a different kind of long-term process. That’s not how we do business. Either we do a pre‑study, as we have just completed on the budget, or we do an appropriate committee study in which we choose our timetable, we choose our witnesses and all of those things.

These are two different creatures, and they don’t just meld.

[Translation]

Senator Tannas: I caught your “if the study goes into September,” meaning that it might not. Depending on how you listen to things and how sensitive you are to the circumstances, it can be imputed many different ways.

I don’t feel that way about it. This is a bill with a large amount of controversy, as far as I can tell. I don’t know what the fuss is, but there is a lot of controversy around it. Why would we rush into the politically charged environment that is over in the House of Commons when we don’t have to? The government has said, “Take as long as you want. We want to get this right,” et cetera. Why would we rush in and potentially diminish the work we will do afterwards by being seen to be part of the show in the House of Commons?

Senator Tannas: Sure.

Senator M. Deacon: I think you are articulating well something that we are all trying to work through and make the best decision in terms of balancing whether we can do a pre-study. Pre-study provides another layer of information, hearing from witnesses and getting to the heart of what some of the issues might be with this bill. One says, “Could we start a pre‑study?”

The other piece of what you are talking about I think is clear: This is not, for you, in this moment and with this bill, the right time.

I’m trying to take it all in. My question for you is this: If we were sitting here and it was March 1 or October 1, would your criteria or mindset shift or would you still feel the exact same way? I think the time of year is a factor and what that can or cannot mean in “the heat,” as you describe it.

Senator Tannas: I think one of the elements is the fact that we are here, that there are still people with a light in the window and that we could somehow tie this all up by the end of the session and before we rise.

For me, it is the controversy and the fact that I was persuaded by thinking about — we have an experience going on right now where some of us — not me, but others here — have had a ringside seat to what a House of Commons committee looks like vis-à-vis the Joint MAID Committee and the committee studying the Emergencies Act. I think we do not want to be very close to that in terms of the decision that we have to make when it is controversial.

I also believe that nobody is going to be listening to whatever advice we might give in that forum such that it would generate any kind of meaningful or valuable advice that would inform the decisions that are made in that committee.

I would not be worried about the time element the way that I am now, but I still come back to the one issue of whether we should or need to get involved — when, in fact, we don’t need to and traditionally we have not.

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Honourable senators, today I rise to draw your attention to and celebrate Canadian artists with disabilities and those who are deaf. Their substantial contributions in all artistic disciplines are too often forgotten or put to the side.

The three international languages — movement, music and the visual arts — take on particular prominence for creators with disabilities. Special organizations and associations provide services or arts programming for people with disabilities, like Kingston’s H’Art Centre, which I have spoken about before. Their multidisciplinary programming includes visual art, music and theatre. Musicians with disabilities perform alongside members of the Kingston Symphony, plays are produced with actors of various disabilities and the richness of their visual arts is well known.

Arts AccessAbility Network Manitoba, the voice for the province’s artists and audiences with disabilities, is dedicated to the full inclusion of artists and audiences with disabilities into all facets of the arts. Supporting artists in achieving their artistic excellence and gaining a higher visibility, they also promote policies and practices to make the arts more accessible to all Manitobans. Providing access to resources, they bring artists with disabilities and stakeholders together. The disability-led and disability-informed front of house and backstage audit of concert halls and theatres, now under way, will develop a database of accessible venues.

Vancouver Adapted Music Society supports and promotes musicians with physical disabilities in the Metro Vancouver area. Formed in 1988 by two musicians with high-level disabilities, they operate a fully accessible recording studio, proving disability is not a barrier to creativity.

Individual artists with disabilities or those who are deaf have certainly made an impact in Canada and abroad. Deaf actress Elizabeth Morris, for instance, has been on stage at the Edinburgh International Festival. Playwright Debbie Patterson’s work, filled with poignant and honest insights, has been presented to great acclaim across Canada. Frank Hull is a well-known, inspirational movement wheelchair dancer and choreographer living with cerebral palsy. Winnipeg’s Ted Howorth, an acclaimed printmaker who has exhibited internationally for decades, did not let his life in a wheelchair stop his innovative and complex printmaking practice, or compromise his excellence as a fine arts professor.

We have all received a beautiful cushion woven by Senator Cotter’s daughter and her colleagues. No one can say that art, in all disciplines, made by artists with disabilities lacks creativity or excellence.

Colleagues, the needs are great across this country for both artists and audiences who have to deal with their disabilities or deafness. May we listen to their voices, act and celebrate their work and help to ensure everyone can participate as they wish and as they can. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Honourable senators, on the eve of National Indigenous History Month, I would like to draw your attention to the recipients of the First Peoples (First Nations) Medal, one of the honours created by the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec, the Honourable J. Michel Doyon. This medal has just been awarded for the second time on May 19 to members of the First Nations of Quebec for their exceptional contribution as citizens of the First Nations of Quebec.

Awarding a medal to First Nations members and a medal to members of the Inuit Nation is in keeping with the tradition of the presentation of medals by the Lieutenant-Governor, which dates back to 1884. Lieutenant-Governor Doyon considers these two medals to be a special symbol of the outstanding contribution that First Nations and Inuit members make to society as a whole and a gesture to foster closer ties and reconciliation between First Nations and Inuit Nation members and Quebecers. This institutional recognition is significant.

When this award was created, the first ceremony, held on December 16, 2019, honoured Anne Archambault of the Malecite Nation, Dr. Kenneth Atsenhaienton Deer of the Mokawk Nation, Viviane Gray of the Mi’kmaq Nation, Dr. Darlene Kitty of the Cree Nation, Kim O’Bomsawin of the Abenaki Nation, Eva Ottawa of the Atikamekw Nation, Major-General Jocelyn Paul of the Huron-Wendat Nation, Dominique Rankin of the Algonquin Nation, Glenda Sandy of the Naskapi Nation, Dr. Stanley Vollant of the Innu Nation and Édith Cloutier of the Algonquin Nation.

The First Peoples Medal for members of the Inuit Nation was awarded for the first time on October 12, 2021, in Kuujjuaq, to the following individuals: Lolly Annahatak of the municipality of Kangirsuk, Zebedee Nungak of the municipality of Kangirsuk, Tommy Palliser of the municipality of Inukjuak, Aani Palliser Tulugak of the municipality of Puvirnituq and Eliyasi Sallualuk of the municipality of Puvirnituq.

The second ceremony to present the First Peoples (First Nations) Medal took place on May 19, 2022, at Parliament House in Quebec City, and honoured the following individuals: Lise Bastien of the Huron-Wendat Nation, Denys Bernard of the Abenaki Nation, Daniel Brière of the Malicite Nation, Pénélope Guay of the Innu Nation, Dr. Ojistoh Horn of the Mohawk Nation, Robert Kanatewat of the Cree Nation, Oscar Kistabish of the Algonquin Nation, and Loretta Robinson of the Naskapi Nation.

These individuals are involved in a very wide range of human and professional activities, including everything from cinema, Indigenous culture and spirituality, medicine, media, support for women who are victims of violence, education, politics, administration, community health and sports. They have all made invaluable contributions.

Colleagues, as an honorary witness for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I appeal to each of you to reflect on what the Senate can do, as an institution, to contribute to the necessary work of fostering reconciliation and closer ties.

[English]

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on April 28, 2022, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on May 27, 2022, its seventh report, which deals with the subject matter of those elements contained in Part 8 of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.

[Translation]

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question today for the government leader concerns a now-cancelled soccer game between Canada and Iran that was scheduled to take place in Vancouver. Instead of showing leadership and immediately condemning this game, first the Prime Minister said it was up to the organizers to explain it. A few days later, he said border agents would determine whether Iran’s team would be permitted into Canada.

Leader, the NDP-Liberal government has failed the families of Flight PS752 at every turn. Just weeks after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps shot down this plane, the Prime Minister bowed his head to the Iranian foreign minister and shook his hand.

Last year, a lawyer for the families called the Trudeau government unhelpful in their civil case — and now this.

Leader, could you confirm that, prior to the cancellation of this game, your government approved visas and work permits for the Iranian team to come to Canada?