Hon. Peter Harder: Colleagues, I’m going to invoke Senator George Baker, who often said, “I’m going to be brief.” But, unlike Senator Baker, I will be brief.

But I did want to intervene in this debate to make a couple of points to, as Senator Pate said, contextualize our discussion. We wouldn’t be having this debate if it weren’t for Senator Tannas and his motion to refer this item to the committee for hearings.

As other speakers have made clear — the debate, such as it was in the legislature of Saskatchewan, two speeches, no witnesses, no committee; the other chamber, no witnesses, an opposition day debate and a unanimous motion — it was only in the Senate of Canada that we not only had a debate but we also heard witnesses.

And the contextualization of this motion, this constitutional amendment, that you have heard today and as we heard in committee, and indeed as we heard when the motion was first presented, I think, is a tribute to at least a Senate that won’t be railroaded — pun intended.

But I think it also behooves us to ask what our role is in the Senate on such a motion. My view, which I would like to share with you, is that we have to assure ourselves that the motion is constitutionally appropriate and that we are exercising our role as prescribed in the Constitution for amendment purposes appropriately.

I want to assert that we have exercised our constitutional role and this motion, and the amendment it reflects is a constitutionally appropriate mechanism and a constitutionally appropriate conclusion.

But why do I want to speak?

I want to speak because I regret that in the report of the committee there were not observations that also reflected the concerns that we heard, quite apart from whether it is constitutional, which is our primary question. But there were policy concerns raised in the hearings and confirmed in the questioning by senators and, indeed, you have heard some of them today.

I want to put on the record that those are appropriate policy concerns to raise as context, but they are not appropriate to determine whether you support the legislation. I know that’s a fine point, but I’m going back to what the role of the Senate is with respect to constitutional amendments originating in a province.

Senators from Alberta and Manitoba, should your provinces choose to initiate a constitutional amendment as Saskatchewan did, you would be treated the same way. It’s up to the province to initiate this.

And, by the way, the Senate only has a suspensive role, not a determinative one, in these amendments.

So when you hear the context of the debate today, and perhaps other days this week, remind yourself of what our role is and what our obligation is as a Senate. Please support the amendment. But also recognize that the policy issues of retroactivity, of engaging in amendments in the context of litigation, is not done without some degree of trepidation, at least on my part, and I’m sure on others.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

Senator Richards: Thank you for the answer.

[Translation]

An Hon. Senator: Suspend.

Senator Cormier: Yes, if possible.

[English]

Senator Cormier: Absolutely.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Cormier is asking for five more minutes. If you are opposed, please say “no.”

(1750)

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator, would you entertain questions?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Will the senator answer a few questions?

Senator Patterson: Gladly.

Hon. Peter Harder, Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, presented the following report:

Tuesday, April 5, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has the honour to present its

SECOND REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-217, An Act respecting the repurposing of certain seized, frozen or sequestrated assets, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Tuesday, March 1, 2022, examined the said bill and now reports the same with the following amendments:

1.Clause 2, page 2: Replace line 14 with the following:

2.Clause 6, page 3: Add the following after line 25:

Respectfully submitted,

V. PETER HARDER

Deputy Chair

The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you for your comments, Senator Housakos, but, as well, I do not consider your comments a point of order but rather a point of information.

Senator Martin: I have one more question, then. It seems that this is something the government should be focusing on to achieve such a goal. I am wondering if you have had conversations with the minister’s office. Perhaps this is something the government should be putting forward.

Senator Patterson: As I said, no, I haven’t had an opportunity to speak to the minister about it, Senator Martin. But it’s in his mandate letter, so I want to help him achieve his mandate. There are many other things, no doubt, on his plate. I think we can help him achieve his mandate with this bill. It’s precisely what the mandate letter says, and what other parties’ policies say. I like the phrase “use it or lose it.” I think it has meaning. Let’s help the minister achieve one of the bullets in his mandate letter. I will speak to him about this at your suggestion. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 3-3(1) and the order adopted November 25, 2021, I am obliged to leave the chair unless there is leave that the sitting continue. To avoid the double negative about the clock, I will ask one simple question: If you wish the sitting to be suspended for one hour, please say “suspend.”

Senator Martin: When announcing the creation of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the Trudeau government claimed it would attract four to five dollars in private capital for every tax dollar invested. In the five years of the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s existence, this has never occurred or even come close. The Canada Infrastructure Bank’s website currently shows that of $19.4 billion invested so far, about $7.2 billion is from private and institutional investors, and the rest appears to come from different levels of government — in other words, taxpayers.

In February, Minister LeBlanc acknowledged before a House committee that he was not satisfied with the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s ability to raise funds from private investors. Isn’t that grounds for scrapping the Canada Infrastructure Bank, leader?

Senator Dalphond: What do you think of the government bill that has been introduced in the House of Commons last week, Bill C-5, which deals with similar issues? Don’t you think we should start focusing on the government bill and try to study it now to see how it is a better response to the issues we have here and a response that has a better chance to make it to the end of the process?

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a “suspend.” The sitting is suspended for one hour.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

(1900)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bovey, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy, for the second reading of Bill S-208, An Act respecting the Declaration on the Essential Role of Artists and Creative Expression in Canada.

Senator Martin: Thank you, Senator Patterson. This is such an essential service that we take for granted in urban Canada. We’re complaining about the connectivity if it’s not within seconds of us touching a key. You raise some really important points of how the North and rural communities are impacted.

In terms of what you said, the government has a goal to have everyone connected by 2030. That’s eight years away. Would you further expand on this statement and whether your bill will help address this to speed up the process?

Senator Patterson: Thank you for the question. Yes, this is a stated objective of the government. It has been well presented and lauded in official government proclamations and promises. The problem is that the spectrum policy has not been reviewed for years. It has not kept up with successful nations, and we all know that cell phones and broadband are cheaper in other parts of the world. Canadians are often complaining about these extremely high costs. The reason we have not been able to successfully lower costs and deploy broadband to regions of the country, especially the remote regions, is because we have outdated policy, and because the government has treated the spectrum option, dare I say, as a significant source of revenue — I think it was $9 billion in the last spectrum auction — instead of deploying it in ways that promote good public policy.

We need to change the spectrum policy, and we will have a chance of reaching these laudable goals of connections in all parts of this great country by 2030.

The Hon. the Speaker: I apologize, senator, but I will have to interrupt you at six o’clock.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: I am sorry, senator, but your time is up. Are you asking for five more minutes?

Hon. David Richards: Thank you very much. Senator Cormier, I am a Maritimer, as you know. It took me years to get my work recognized outside of the Maritimes. You know, I’m sure, of Acadian, English and First Nation Maritimers who have suffered under this kind of stigma for a long time.

I think as long as the government is involved, there are going to be gatekeepers. I’m very worried about this marginalization of certain people that ideological gatekeepers will impose on artists. Maybe you could reflect on that a bit. Terence, the great Roman philosopher who actually was an African slave said, “I am human, and I think nothing human is alien to me.” When Richard Wagamese, a great First Nation writer, wrote to me and said he started writing because he admired my work, it meant a great deal to me. I think the work transcends all of this. I think it transcends ideology and any other thing — identity politics and other such things we might put to it. So I ask you, will this come into play if there are new government regulations?