Senator Seidman: Thank you, Senator Galvez.

It’s clear that the provinces — and I did talk specifically about the Government of Ontario and the Government of Quebec, who desperately wanted these rapid antigen tests — had some millions delivered by the federal government, but they didn’t get the tests they were promised. Ontario went out and purchased, independently of the federal government, an additional 44 million rapid tests. Quebec also took the initiative and ordered 100 million rapid antigen tests. I presume these come out of the provincial budget. The provinces don’t come back and try to bill the federal government for those tests. If the federal government is procuring rapid tests worth more than $4 billion, they need to be accountable for where these tests end up.

As far as the type of tests that are used — and Senator Galvez, you’re right. They’ve evolved over time. There is no question — the ones being used now are far more sensitive and specific than they were originally.

You will note in my presentation I was quite disappointed that we haven’t encouraged more Canadian companies to develop and manufacture these tests here at home, because that would give us more control over our ability to procure and distribute them. I do have a list here of the manufacturing companies and suppliers. There are two Canadian companies authorized by Health Canada to sell and produce them, one in Ontario and one in British Columbia. Then, there are Canadian companies that supply foreign-made rapid antigen tests. That means only two Canadian companies are actually manufacturing, producing and, obviously, sending tests to the Canadian government.

The Canadian government is procuring them from these two companies. Though, there are three companies, as I said, that get these tests from outside the country but then distribute them here.

There are seven international companies manufacturing COVID-19 rapid tests, and Canada is procuring tests from the seven companies in the United States. Then, there are four international companies outside the United States in other places that we are also procuring tests from and having delivered to this country.

That gives you an idea of the vast number of tests. When it comes down to it, there is no question that we should be looking at the tests that are the most sensitive and the most specific and that give us the best certainty that we’re getting the information we want.

As I said — and I think it’s ultimately the most important thing to remember about these tests — their value as a public health screening tool is enormous, because a rapid antigen test tells you whether or not you’re infectious today. That isn’t the case with the PCR tests. That’s why we need to understand the value of the rapid antigen tests and that they should be available right across the country.

Senator Wallin: Quickly, I have the two points. First, do we need to be spending this amount, the billion dollars in spending, given that the provinces have already purchased these tests on their own and we have duplication with two bills with an equivalent amount of spending? Do we need all that money at this point if the provinces are doing it? Second, in terms of these tests, is the data collection you referred to as poor when it comes to other issues, like impacts of the vaccine, impacts of the disease, et cetera?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: I do if we have another couple of minutes.

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

(On motion of Senator Gold, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.)

On the Order:

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

Whereas on October 21, 1880, the Government of Canada entered into a contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Syndicate for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway;

Whereas, by clause 16 of the 1880 Canadian Pacific Railway contract, the federal government agreed to give a tax exemption to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company;

Whereas, in 1905, the Parliament of Canada passed the Saskatchewan Act, which created the Province of Saskatchewan;

Whereas section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act refers to clause 16 of the 1880 Canadian Pacific Railway Contract;

Whereas the Canadian Pacific Railway was completed on November 6, 1885, with the Last Spike at Craigellachie, and has been operating as a going concern for 136 years;

Whereas, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has paid applicable taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan since the Province was established in 1905;

Whereas it would be unfair to the residents of Saskatchewan if a major corporation were exempt from certain provincial taxes, casting that tax burden onto the residents of Saskatchewan;

Whereas it would be unfair to other businesses operating in Saskatchewan, including small businesses, if a major corporation were exempt from certain provincial taxes, giving that corporation a significant competitive advantage over those other businesses, to the detriment of farmers, consumers and producers in the Province;

Whereas it would not be consistent with Saskatchewan’s position as an equal partner in Confederation if there were restrictions on its taxing powers that do not apply to other provinces;

Whereas on August 29, 1966, the then President of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Ian D. Sinclair, advised the then federal Minister of Transport, Jack Pickersgill, that the Board of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had no objection to constitutional amendments to eliminate the tax exemption;

Whereas section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies;

Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, on November 29, 2021, adopted a resolution authorizing an amendment to the Constitution of Canada;

Now, therefore, the Senate resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the annexed schedule.

SCHEDULE

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

1.Section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act is repealed.

2.The repeal of section 24 is deemed to have been made on August 29, 1966, and is retroactive to that date.

CITATION

3.This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, [year of proclamation] (Saskatchewan Act).

Senator Tannas: When I said “listless,” I think there were members from different sides who were talking about their hesitation on this.

There is a political element to this that I think we need to recognize in the unanimous motions that went through both houses. That’s not supposed to influence us here. So to me, again, it begs us to do our homework even more than if they had done in-depth studies and made those decisions.

You raised another good point, though. How did Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba get hung with this bill? How did they come to shoulder the burden for tax exemptions for the CPR? What role did the federal government play in this?

The Canadian Pacific Railway line from coast to coast is a benefit to all Canadians. Why are those three provinces the only ones where this right exists?

Is there some obligation or role that might rightly be put to the federal government? That’s an interesting question for our committee to delve into as well. It might not get answers, and we’re certainly not going to bind the Canadian government to anything.

Again, there are so many questions that deserve an answer before we have a vote.

Hon. Scott Tannas: I’m happy to rise to speak on Motion No. 14. I’ve listened to the speeches that were made and some of the questions. For me, they raised a number of questions, and the following questions are just a sample.

I wonder: Are governments really this enthusiastic about unilaterally and retroactively taking away the rights of an organization that negotiated these rights in good faith and shouldered the risk and the obligations that were detailed on a contract that exists? That was the first question I had as I listened to the speeches. Are we really going to take away some kind of a legal, negotiated, executed right and make it retroactive for 50 years?

I thought maybe I misunderstood, but no, that’s what we’re talking about here, or at least I think we are.

One of the comments or some of the implications were somehow that in 1966, Canadian Pacific gave away or agreed to give away their provincial tax exemption. We must realize that we’re talking about a very small exemption. It applies only to the running of the railroad through the province. It doesn’t apply to any of the other activities that in 1966 Canadian Pacific had. Remember, Canadian Pacific in 1966 had ships, an airline, a chain of hotels, a huge oil and gas company, an enormous real estate company, a coal company and a railway in Canada only.

Did they really, in 1966, give that away? Did it get thrown in with the request around property taxes? If they didn’t, then why are we going back to 1966 in this motion? What is the magic of 1966 if it’s clear somewhere else, possibly clear in a court decision, that they did not give up provincial taxes? I don’t understand it. It’s a question that I think we should try to find an answer to.

The other one was that, as I was listening to the speakers, Senator Gold, Senator Cotter and Senator Arnot, they all mentioned in their speeches that we needed to deal with this quickly, with alacrity; it should be passed quickly, and I wondered why. Why was there a rush after 150-some years? Why suddenly did this have to happen quickly?

If you go back and look at Hansard, “quickly” and “with alacrity” were mentioned multiple times with no explanation as to why. So what was that about?

I wanted to know how much due diligence had been done in the other places. I haven’t done much due diligence, but it was interesting to know that the Saskatchewan legislature debated this for four minutes and 30 seconds. The House of Commons had an opposition day on it with some kind of listless debate that appeared like there was uncomfortableness but it was a foregone conclusion. I don’t believe it went to committee but I’m not sure. I didn’t get a good feeling, when I took a cursory look at the due diligence path behind us, that there was a lot of transparent due diligence by legislators.

I also wondered about precedence and what precedents we might be setting with this particular motion, as I understand it, and I’m not 100% clear that I do understand it. I do know that Canadian Pacific has a similar set of rights and obligations in the province of Alberta and in the province of Manitoba. So I suspect that whatever it is we do here, if we pass this, I think we will be obligated when Alberta comes and Manitoba comes to do the same thing.

Hon. Paula Simons: Senator Tannas, I, like you, am from Alberta. And I, like you, am still learning about this situation. I met with CP, who told me that their lawsuit against Alberta would be for what is now about $95 million in taxes that they feel they have paid unfairly.

I’m just wondering, as Albertans, do we have an obligation as Alberta senators to do more investigation about what the implications are of this proposed constitutional amendment for the people and the taxpayers of Alberta?

Senator Tannas: I think that’s a role we potentially could play in bringing all of this to light. With the parties retreated to their corners, and if we bring them together, maybe a solution with the hammer still in the hand of the Senate — there may be something that can be done over the next little while.

I think it’s worth the discussion and us getting educated and taking this matter seriously. I agree that it was a fundamental unfairness that happened when those provinces were formed.

On the other hand, there’s a great, wonderful story of Canadian Pacific to be told there — the fact that for their 25 million acres of land there were parcels side by side that the federal government took and used to sell and generate money for the treasury and populate the country. It was, no thanks to Pierre Berton, a wonderful story of an organization that got done what others couldn’t get done and helped us fulfill the national dream.

I think we owe it to everybody to try to fix this without a sledgehammer as crude as we have here.

Senator Tannas: No, I’m not bothered by it. We have a job to do. We could pass everything that came here unanimously or that came through other legislatures, with our apologies for being in the way, if that’s what you think we ought to do.

We need to do our due diligence. Quite frankly, this has turned into something that is a little more complicated than was presented to us. I would also say the unanimity, and the lack of debate and research in the other legislatures, create a flashing red light — not a green light for us to do the same. It should be encouragement for us to actually perform sober second thought rather than wave it through. Therefore, no, I’m not at all troubled by us taking the time.

There are two elements to your question. One is whether we would be showing disrespect to the House of Commons or the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan by holding committee meetings and trying to get to the facts so we can have an informed vote. I don’t think that’s the case.

Regarding the time issue, my motion is for March 31. In that time frame, I believe there are three weeks of sitting time for study by the Legal Committee, which I don’t think is seized with any legislation right now; I could be wrong. That should be plenty of time to get to the facts. I think they can be garnered with a relatively small number of witnesses.

As far as timing goes, the fact is that the rush about this, as I’ve come to understand — and I might be wrong — is that Saskatchewan and Canadian Pacific have their final arguments in court set for sometime in May and that we’re being asked to do this because there is some calculation that Saskatchewan will lose this lawsuit, so we must take the legal rights away from Canadian Pacific before the judge rules.

So now that we all know that — or at least I think I know that; maybe the committee will tell me that’s wrong — and if those are the facts in the case, I think we have time to go to March 31 and do the deed if it needs to be done in April. That would be well ahead of final arguments and a decision by the judge.

Hon. Denise Batters: Thank you, Senator Tannas.

First, I don’t think Saskatchewan should be punished, because Saskatchewan took some proactive steps to get a sizable amount of money they believe is justifiably ours. To this point, Alberta and Manitoba have not taken those particular steps.

My question to you is about the House of Commons. You described it as a “listless debate,” to quote you. However, I just wondered if you knew that that was an entire opposition day motion that the official opposition Conservatives brought forward and debated. An opposition day motion takes about six hours of debate, so a substantial length of time was devoted to that debate in the House of Commons. Then it was unanimously passed in the House of Commons, including by the federal justice minister. I wanted to get your opinion on that.

Hon. Brent Cotter: Senator Tannas, I have two or three questions. As you know, I’m not in opposition to the matter being considered in a timely way, and I want to state that publicly and on the record.

I would invite you to offer your thoughts on this dimension of it. In the lawsuit that was brought against the federal government, the judge found that large exemption in relation to federal taxes had been — which was also to run for a very long time — taken away by federal legislation over the years. Are you offended by that happening in the way in which you’ve just described this seeming to be unfair to a corporation that made a contract a long time ago? I guess I’m saying that the Government of Canada made the same contract with respect to itself but then took away CP’s rights over the decades.

I have another question after this, but I would be interested in your thoughts.

Senator Tannas: I agree. That is an interesting twist to all of this; that the initial lawsuit that CP put forward to try and assert what they believed were their rights with respect to federal taxes, they lost. Part of that decision where they lost has given rise to the fact that that court, as I see it, provided a lot of light for CP to then go to the next step to assert their rights in the provinces, and in particular in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba.

The federal government seems to have their fingerprints in different spots all over this, including this famous 1966 agreement that was done on behalf of the provinces. Frankly, the best result, rather than asking legislatures to yank, retroactively, legal contracts out from under parties, would be for the federal government to work toward solving this problem in a way that didn’t involve the courts. I guess they’ve had 100 years or so to do that and haven’t done it. It is an interesting element to this.

Senator Simons, me and others, we did a bit of research — and I know you’ve done a lot of research — but in the bit of research I did, I felt there was a story that needed to be clear in all of our minds when we do this, especially because I’m sure we’re going to be asked twice more to do the same thing.

Senator Cotter: Thank you. I appreciate the answer. I actually hope that we’ll be asked twice more. In fact, we might be the initiators of it. We might ask others to do what we want.

I would offer this context. The federal government seems to have gotten out of its obligations with this tax exemption vis‑à‑vis CP. My guess is that the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Manitoba and the Government of Alberta would have done the same thing if they could have, but they are kind of handcuffed by the constitutional constraint. There is an equity that cuts across all four of the folks that got sued, but three of those folks have their hands tied behind their back by this constitutional constraint.

It seems that if we continue to be sympathetic to that constraint, we’re basically saying we’re sympathetic to CP not paying its share of taxes in these three provinces for a very long time. While it’s not a purely legal kind of interpretation — you seem to be, strangely enough, embracing the legal framework and I’m wandering into the political sphere — we really should be looking for the fairest solution. That might require some dialogue. Are you open to that as a way of thinking it through?

Senator Tannas: We did hear about a large number here in debate and in the bit of work that I was able to do. That certainly appears to be the high side of things. The Federal Court, as I understand it, is a lot narrower. Nonetheless, it is still $100 million or something like that. It’s a lot less, but it’s a lot of money and there is still the issue of going forward. This has to stop. It should. By the way, so should Canadian Pacific’s obligations. They have obligations in perpetuity as well. The Saskatchewan legislature, I don’t think, thought to relieve Saskatchewan of that obligation that’s in the contract, but they do have an obligation to operate a railroad across the country in perpetuity.

Who knows? One hundred years from now, that might not be a good bet, but that’s for another day. The point is that there was this money issue. Just in the little bit of work I did, I agree, Senator Dalphond, that the numbers I heard from other sources, other than what I heard in the chamber here, are significantly less.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Tannas, I do believe your motion was seconded by Senator Wallin, to send it to committee? Thank you.

Are honourable senators ready for the question?

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

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

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the second reading of Bill S-220, An Act to amend the Languages Skills Act (Governor General).

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond moved second reading of Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID-19 response and other measures).

He said: Esteemed colleagues, I rise today to start second reading of Bill S-4, whose title is a bit of a mouthful. It is called An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID-19 response and other measures).

As its long name suggests, this bill is connected to the COVID-19 pandemic, which exposed certain legal practices in the criminal justice system that were in need of modernization to avoid unnecessarily exposing stakeholders and other individuals to the virus. In addition, these changes would make the criminal justice system more efficient by taking advantage of available technologies. As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention.

This bill is, for all intents and purposes, identical to Bill C-23, which was introduced in the House of Commons on February 24, 2021, by the Honourable David Lametti, who was and still is the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. That bill did not make it through the other place before Parliament was dissolved last summer for the general election.

[English]

The content of Bill C-23 was the result of significant discussions among the federal, provincial and territorial governments. I understand that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has met several times since the beginning of the pandemic with his provincial and territorial counterparts to discuss the impact the pandemic has had on the justice system and has taken careful note of their suggestions for possible legislative reform.

Similarly, Bill C-23 had been informed by the work of the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19, a committee co-chaired by the Right Honourable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Richard Wagner, and the Minister of Justice.

The pandemic has been a challenge for all Canadian courts. This bill, if adopted, will provide certainty and clarity for courts and litigants, and it will standardize the availability of modernized procedures across the country.

[Translation]

It makes sense for the government to reintroduce this bill, which will provide greater flexibility in the administration of criminal justice and free up judges to hear more cases. This will help ensure that the timelines set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan are respected.

This time, the government is reintroducing its initiative in the Senate for several reasons. First, this is not a money bill. Second, the bill reflects a broad consensus among justice system stakeholders who see these changes as likely to improve and simplify the administration of criminal justice. Third, introducing the bill in the Senate will maximize the parliamentary system’s ability to study government bills.

In the case of this government bill, we will be acting not as a chamber of sober second thought, but as the instigating house, which can make amendments without seeking the consent of the House of Commons via message.

Nonetheless, we will have to undertake a careful study of the 37 pages describing the proposed amendments, as well as the 27 pages of explanatory notes. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is the most appropriate venue for an in-depth study of these amendments, and I hope it will deal with the bill quickly.

For now, let me lay out the main provisions and explain what they would do.

[English]

First, the bill seeks to clarify and expand the current remote appearance regime that explicitly allows accused persons to appear by video conference or audio conference.

Colleagues, you may remember that in Bill C-75, that we adopted in 2019, we added six new provisions in Part XXII.01 called Remote Attendance by Certain Persons.

The general principle outlined in section 715.21 is that “. . . a person who appears at, participates in or presides at a proceeding shall do so personally.” The use of “. . . audioconference or videoconference, in accordance with the rules of court . . .” is permitted in certain circumstances once certain requirements are met. It’s not a general access.

Bill C-75 added provisions found at other parts of the Criminal Code to facilitate the administration of justice, including the possibility of a remote appearance by the prosecutor or the lawyer acting for the accused at the appearance stage of the criminal proceedings where the accused is asked to enter a guilty or not guilty plea. There have been varied interpretations of these provisions and their scope.

The bill will clarify the ability of accused persons to appear by video conference during preliminary inquiry hearings and trials for summary and indictable offences, including when witness evidence is being heard, except where evidence is being taken before a jury. In other words, jury trials will have to be in person.

However, it is important to mention that these trials and preliminary inquiries will be held only by consent. The accused has to be agreeable to proceed that way, and where the court is of the opinion that it is appropriate, with regard to all the circumstances, including listed factors, such as the suitability of the location from where the accused person will appear and the right to a fair and public hearing.

The bill will also permit an accused to appear by audio conference when pleading guilty or receiving a sentence, but only if video conferencing is not available, with the accused’s consent, and where the court is satisfied that despite not being able to see the accused, judges and lawyers are able to assess the conditions for accepting a guilty plea.

The bill includes some important safeguards for accused persons appearing remotely, whether by audio conference or video conference and regardless of the stage of the criminal process. For example, if an accused person appearing remotely is represented by counsel, such person would need to be given the opportunity to speak with counsel privately.

Moreover, if an accused person is appearing remotely and is not represented by a lawyer, the court would need to ensure that such a person is able to understand the proceedings and that any decisions he or she makes are voluntary.

Second, the bill would also increase the use of technology in the jury selection process, including permitting prospective jurors to participate by video conference, since the jury selection process often requires the physical presence of a large number of people at the courthouse or at another venue.

Bill S-4 will allow the remote participation of prospective jurors by video conference for the jury selection process but only under certain circumstances and with the consent of the parties and at the discretion of the court. This will provide courts with greater flexibility in allowing the jury selection process to take place in less-crowded locations.

In some provinces, sometimes 100 to 500 people are called for jury selection. That is a lot of people waiting in corridors and in large rooms, especially during a pandemic.

This will provide courts with greater flexibility in allowing the jury selection process to take place in a safer manner. It will ensure that a lack of access to technology does not hinder a person’s ability to participate in the process, and the option to appear in person will continue to be available where technology is not provided.

Bill S-4 will allow for the enhanced use of technology to draw the names of prospective jurors in the jury selection process. As you may know, the list is made up of 100 or more names and somebody has to draw by hand from the list one name at a time. That takes some time and involves some manipulation. So the bill will authorize the use of technology to draw names of prospective jurors in the jury selection process. It is a type of electronic bingo.

Currently, this part of jury selection is done manually. The bill will ensure electronic or automated technology is used to draw the cards at random. This is a change that should contribute to greater efficiency for jury trials across Canada. Incidentally, this was tried in British Columbia during the pandemic. They used an electronic device to randomly select the first 10 jurors to be called to the room in order to avoid people mingling.

Third, the bill will expand and update the existing telewarrant regime so that applications for a wider variety of search warrants, authorizations and orders can be made by telecommunication instead of a police liaison officer attending the office of a judge. When I say “attending the office of a judge,” it means attending in the corridor next to the office of the judge. The papers are presented to the judge, and they are returned signed, or not, by the judge.

Under the current telewarrant framework, the police can apply for a handful of search warrants and judicial authorizations to investigate only indictable offences where it is impracticable to appear personally to present the application to a specially designated justice or judge as the case may be. A parallel process also exists to obtain wiretap authorizations by telecommunication in very limited cases.

During the height of the pandemic, reduced in-person court operations have presented challenges to law enforcement officials in obtaining some search warrants and other judicial authorizations that cannot be applied for electronically.

The bill proposes to expand the telewarrant process to a wider range of search warrants and other judicial authorizations provided in the Criminal Code, such as tracking warrants and production orders. The amendments will also expand the availability of the telewarrant process by making it available in relation to any offence, not only an indictable offence.

This is a procedural change that I think will improve the situation and will unfortunately deprive, from time to time, a judge from having a brief conversation with a police officer.

This will not affect the legal threshold for obtaining a warrant. That will remain the same. The judge, from whom the authorization is sought, will have to ensure the legal threshold is complied with.

The bill will streamline the current telewarrant regime in a number of ways. First, it will permit applications to be presented by means of telecommunication, such as by email, without the need to show that it is impracticable for officers to appear personally before a justice. These changes will result in a more efficient use of police time and court resources while respecting social distancing guidelines when applicable.

The bill will maintain provisions that allow police to make oral applications when needed, but only in cases where a justice or a judge is satisfied that it is impracticable for the officer to present their application in written form via telecommunication. That could be the case for a very urgent application.

Furthermore, the bill would remove the limitations on who can access the telewarrant process and who can issue telewarrants. The new process will be available to any law enforcement entity — and not only to a peace officer — who may apply for such an authorization and any level of court that may issue such an authorization, order or warrant.

Four, the bill proposes to introduce some flexibility in the process of fingerprinting including when it could be done if it were not done at the first opportunity.

During the pandemic, officers have faced situations where obtaining fingerprints of people charged with committing a criminal offence in a timely way was causing some difficulties and even health risks for those involved. There will be, for example, that person who is charged and refuses to go to the police station so as not to be exposed to other people or just the danger of being too close to the police officers who do the fingerprinting.

The need to have fingerprints collected at the time of arrest has placed both law enforcement officials and accused persons at unnecessary risk on occasions. The ability of police to obtain fingerprints has been disrupted during the pandemic due to physical distancing requirements, which has led to significant operational challenges. It’s difficult to hold the thumb of somebody else and still be at a meter of distance.

Bill S-4 would allow fingerprinting of accused persons to occur at the bail stage or at later stages of the criminal justice process where previous attempts at fingerprinting were not possible due to exceptional circumstances, such as the risks posed by COVID-19. But I want to be clear. This bill would not change the rules in terms of who may be subject to identification procedures such as fingerprinting. It would simply allow for fingerprinting to occur at a later date without the police force losing the ability to collect the fingerprints.

[Translation]

Fifth, the bill contains a series of amendments that empower the courts to manage certain administrative and other matters more effectively.

The Criminal Code currently permits courts to adopt case management rules when accused persons are represented by counsel. However, when the accused is unrepresented, all administrative matters covered by rules of court must be dealt with in the courtroom before a judge, as is done for accused persons who are represented by counsel. In some cases, these matters could be dealt with by an officer of the court. Unfortunately, this judicial time is not being used effectively.

This bill proposes to expand the courts’ ability to make these rules for unrepresented accused persons and to ensure they are enforced, allowing court personnel to deal, out of court, with administrative matters for those cases as well.

Sixth, certain amendments would harmonize the rules that apply to the execution and seized property reporting stages for all search warrants, whether they are sought in person or by electronic means.

Under the current system, a report must be prepared when a seizure takes place. The report is sent to different people depending on whether it is prepared under a regular warrant or a telewarrant. In addition, the system does not make it easy to locate a copy of the report for the person subject to the seizure. The bill would harmonize the process at this level, which would increase access to information on the execution of search warrants and the property seized during a search.

Finally, the bill also includes technical amendments arising mainly from the passage of Bill C-75 in 2019, as well as related amendments to other federal acts. It would seem that when we passed Bill C-75, certain changes to the numbering of sections and related administrative changes were not made. Let us correct this.

I invite you to read the bill at the time of day when you are most alert, because that will help. To all my colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I will say this: We will soon be meeting to examine the pages of amendments with the assistance of representatives of the Department of Justice, who will be able to clarify the meaning of the provisions.

In the meantime, I would be happy to respond to your questions and comments. Feel free to contact my office if you require further information.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

[English]

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

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I rise in strong support of Senator Omidvar’s bill, Bill S-217, the Frozen Assets Repurposing Bill.

This is an important piece of legislation with the potential to build international momentum against human rights abuse and corruption, as well as to help improve the situations of victims of these people. Senator Omidvar first initiated this bill almost three years ago and I hope we will collectively give this matter some priority with committee study in the near term.

Bill S-217 builds directly on another important Senate initiative, that of former Senator Andreychuk, who led the passage of the Sergei Magnitsky Law in 2017 with Bill S-226. That law now allows for the seizures, freezing or sequestration of assets in Canada of corrupt foreign nationals responsible for human rights violations or corruption.

In Canadian law, assets may also be seized, frozen or sequestered under the Special Economic Measures Act which deals with sanctions, and the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, which deals with requests by foreign countries in turmoil.

This bill will take the next logical step by providing a mechanism to distribute frozen assets to appropriate individuals or organizations.

This distribution will take place according to the five principles Senator Omidvar described in her speech in December: first, accountability for human rights abusers; two, justice for victims; three, due process in court for any distribution of assets; four, transparency in terms of both the identity of the officials and the value of their frozen assets; five, compassion with meaningful actions to the repurposing of resources to help vulnerable people.

Establishing this proposed law will further advance Canada as a leader in human rights. Senators can be proud to break this new ground together if we have the will to act.

On substance, Bill S-217 is nothing to fear. The concepts are already well established in our domestic law relating to the proceeds of crime, such as in the Seized Property Management Act. For this reason, I would suggest that this legislation is ready for expert input on the details at committee.

For example, I will note an interesting debate involving the Honourable Irwin Cotler and lawyer Brandon Silver of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights in Montreal, and the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy and our colleague Senator Omidvar.

The subject of that debate, published in Policy Magazine in 2020, was to what degree frozen assets should go to individuals affected by the wrongful actions, through individual claims, as compared to a more population-focused approach, at judicial discretion. This is a question within the principle and scope of the bill, appropriate for committee consideration. I look forward to hearing expert perspectives.

I would also note that under section 8, Bill S-217 permits distribution to both affected individuals and populations as appropriate to the circumstances, including through contributions to humanitarian relief. I’m sure that would be very useful to Ukraine.

With worsening human rights crises around the world, Canada must always take a stand for what is right. In some situations, this is best done through diplomatic channels, and in other situations through legal, parliamentary and public communications avenues. In some situations, all these avenues may have to play together, but they always play beneficial roles.

In this chamber, we have the benefit of advice on optimal approaches from colleagues with expertise in foreign affairs like Senator Harder, Senator Boehm and others, as well as the benefit of advice on international human rights, legal avenues, from colleagues like Senator McPhedran, Senator Jaffer and others.

On this point, I will note the successful collaboration in this chamber that led to the Senate’s adoption of a motion in June of last year regarding the Philippine government’s unjust and arbitrary detention of Senator Leila de Lima.

With Bill S-217, we have a clear opportunity to improve our domestic law to better address foreign human rights violations, and in so doing to improve the situations of victims and encourage positive action in the global community. We should seize the momentum.

Thank you to Senator Omidvar on this important initiative, and I think that the time has come to send the bill to committee.

Thank you, meegwetch.