The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Woo, do you have a question or would you like to enter debate?

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.

(1500)

[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.

(1510)

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]

Senator Carignan: When the state of emergency was lifted, Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland said, and I quote, “The accounts were frozen to convince people taking part in the occupation and illegal blockades to leave.”

How can you justify seizing bank accounts without a warrant and without legal authorization when the only objective is to convince people to move vehicles parked on Wellington Street?

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

Senator Gold: Senator Mercer, we all, of course, wish the same for all of our brave men and women who serve our country and are in harm’s way.

Canada has taken a series of steps with its NATO allies to ramp up sanctions against Russia for its illegal acts. Even more were announced today, as you would know. Canada is in constant contact and in consultation with its NATO allies with regard to the lethal and non-lethal assets and supports we’re providing to Ukraine and will continue to be so.

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

That, pursuant to rule 12-18(2), for the remainder of this session, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be authorized to meet at their approved meeting time as determined by the third report of the Committee of Selection, adopted by the Senate on December 7, 2021, on any Monday which immediately precedes a Tuesday when the Senate is scheduled to sit, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding a week.

The Hon. the Speaker: Excuse me, Senator Poirier, I have to interrupt you.

(At 9 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on November 25, 2021, the Senate adjourned until 2 p.m., tomorrow.)

Appendix—Senators List

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to the order adopted December 7, 2021, I would like to inform the Senate that Question Period with the Honourable Steven Guilbeault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Environment and Climate Change, will take place on Thursday, March 3, 2022, at 3 p.m.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, Senator Mockler.

[English]

The current situation in Ukraine, as you point out, and I think we all would understand, underscores the importance of energy security of our allies in Europe and, indeed, around the world. The news of companies interested in investing in Canada is, of course, welcome news. As we work with our European allies to address the geopolitical and socio-economic challenges that are presented by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the government is considering all measures to preserve energy supply chains in Canada and, where possible, worldwide.

Canada is well positioned to become a major player in the global LNG industry. The government is taking action to become the world’s cleanest producer of LNG. Now, on specific projects, such as the one that may emerge in Saint John, the government oversees and is committed to fair and thorough impact assessments grounded in science and traditional knowledge. The government remains committed to addressing the potential impacts of development, while ensuring that good projects go ahead.

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of February 24, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022; and

That, for the purpose of this study, the committee have the power to meet, even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, and that rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) be suspended in relation thereto.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Those opposed to the motion to adjourn and who are in the Senate Chamber, please say “nay.”

Hon. Senators: Question.

Senator Woo: No, except that I am sure all of us will want to think through the American example when the matter goes to the committee.

Hon. Colin Deacon, pursuant to notice of February 24, 2022, moved:

That the Senate adopt the following Environmental and Sustainability Policy Statement, to replace the 1993 Senate Environmental Policy, adopted by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration:

The Senate of Canada is committed to reducing the Senate’s carbon footprint to net zero by 2030 and to implement sustainable practices in its operations. Achieving this goal requires a whole-of-organization approach which prioritizes reduction of outputs and utilizes standard-leading emission offsets. The road to net zero will include quantifiable regular reporting on progress towards target. These actions are to demonstrate leadership as an institution on climate action, to encourage accountability of federal institutions and to inform the legislative process.

The Senate is committed to achieving its objective through adherence to the following principles:

That the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration examine the feasibility of implementing programs to establish:

(a)an accountability framework and annual reporting cycle;

(b)the promotion of climate-friendly transportation policies and reduced travel;

(c)enhanced recycling and minimizing waste;

(d)a digital-first approach and reduction in printing;

(e)support from central agencies to allow the Senate to charge carbon offsets as part of operating a sustainable Senate; and

(f)a process for senators and their offices to propose environmental and sustainability recommendations; and

That the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration acquire any necessary goods and services to examine the feasibility or to implement these recommendations.

Hon. Diane F. Griffin: Honourable senators, thank you for your support. I wasn’t sure we were going to get to this stage tonight, but I really appreciate your indulgence in allowing me to speak to this motion today. I will be brief.

My comments will serve as a prelude to the more fulsome remarks that Senator Deacon will give either later this day or another. I’m the warm-up act for the main attraction.

Senator Deacon, Senator Carignan, Senator Anderson and I worked together since last May on a report that was presented to the Internal Economy Committee in February this year. We were tasked with some recommended short-, medium- and long-term actions that the Senate could take to make our institution more environmentally sustainable.

Our advisory working group report, which is available on the CIBA website, includes 11 recommendations. But the motion before you today asks you to approve two things: the proposed environmental policy statement, and the path that the Internal Economy Committee will take going forward.

The new principles-based policy statement would replace the Senate’s current environmental policy, adopted in 1993. We propose this principles-based policy statement, rather than a policy, in order to take a whole-of-organization approach. The statement is not prescriptive. We have a collective goal of reaching net zero by 2030, but what is practical for one directorate may not be for another. Therefore, we recommend the creation of “green teams,” and Senator Deacon will tell you more about this in his presentation. These green teams will be within individual directorates and an accountability framework to ensure integration into Senate-wide operations. Objectives and targets will be defined and reported.

The second part of this motion that will come from the group would empower Internal Economy to further examine the recommendations and include it in our report which: one, would secure external expert advice; two, empower the directorates of the Senate, senators and their staff; three, integrate a robust accountability framework into Senate governance.

Honourable senators, I thank Senator Deacon and his staff. They have done a lot of hard work on this, as well as Senator Carignan, Senator Anderson, their teams, our collaborators in the Senate Administration, the Library of Parliament analysts and Public Services and Procurement Canada. I know it’s starting to sound like a cast of thousands, but it was a small working group and we reached out to many. It was a great opportunity.

We have an opportunity here to show leadership and to serve as a model for other legislators in Canada and elsewhere. I therefore encourage you to support this motion when it comes to a vote. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Omidvar, seconded by the Honourable Senator Audette, for the second reading of Bill S-217, An Act respecting the repurposing of certain seized, frozen or sequestrated assets.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-217, An Act respecting the repurposing of certain seized, frozen or sequestrated assets.

I want to start by thanking Senator Omidvar for bringing this bill forward, for reaching out to me to discuss it and to seek my support. Senator Omidvar has already tabled this bill on two occasions, and I admire her tenacity. I also hope the third time is the charm.

I can tell you off the top that I absolutely do support this bill, just as I hope there will be support for a bill I intend to bring forward with an amendment to our Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, or the so-called Sergei Magnitsky Law, providing for more transparency in the ownership of assets of officials being considered for sanction.

I believe it will further strengthen the Magnitsky Act and strengthen our ability as a country to properly deal with corruption and human rights abuses around the world. That, in a nutshell, is what Senator Omidvar is seeking to do with this legislation: strengthening the way we deal with the likes of Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and those who benefit from doing their bidding, not only to exact some degree of justice for their victims but also to show them that their egregious behaviour will not be tolerated by Western democracies. The need to do that couldn’t be better illustrated than by what we’re seeing right now with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

I spoke in the last Parliament about Sergei Magnitsky, for whom the Magnitsky Act is named, when our former colleague Senator Thanh Hai Ngo and I called for Magnitsky sanctions against Chinese and Hong Kong officials for what was happening in Hong Kong and for what was happening, and is still happening, to the Uighur Muslim people at the hands of the communist regime of China.

I think many of our colleagues often think these motions and calls for sanctions are merely symbolic or perhaps an attempt to score partisan political points, but I hope you’re now starting to appreciate that they’re anything but. The truth is we need to be unafraid to start applying these kinds of measures and this kind of thinking when dealing with the world’s thugs and bullies.

That’s why I’m supportive of this legislation. I believe it takes the natural next step of providing justice for the victims and, in practical terms, alleviating some of the stress for those countries and agencies who are left to pick up the pieces from the damage caused by these tyrannical regimes. It is also punitive and, in my opinion, we need more of that. We need justice; we need fairness.

One of the principles behind this bill is very simple: corruption shouldn’t be rewarded, period. So if you’re corrupt, we will find you. We will name you. We will take all of the wonderful treasures you amassed as a result of your corruption, and we will use those ill-gotten gains to take care of the innocent people whose lives you ruined or tried to ruin because of your thirst for power.

We need to send a loud and clear message that the days of corruption, paying off and living the high life off the misery of others while they live in fear and squalor are over and should never ever be tolerated.

Canada wouldn’t be alone in moving on legislation of this kind. With both countries agreeing to sanctioning oligarchs as a result of the invasion of Ukraine, Switzerland already allows for the repurposing of frozen assets, and the U.K. is considering similar legislation.

Just yesterday, Alaska Congressman Don Young announced plans to introduce legislation that would allow U.S. authorities to seize Russian mega yachts and auction them off to fund humanitarian aid and other just causes. We should be doing the same, but to do so we need to pass this bill quickly.

We could go one step further, as suggested by Senator Omidvar, in the case of Ukraine. Canada could lead the way by proposing a global fund consisting of the monies purloined by Putin and his oligarchs to sustain the humanitarian and reconstruction needs that would follow, a fund that could be administered by the legitimately elected government of Ukraine. But, again, any such action would require this bill to become law.

Let’s not waste any more precious time, colleagues. Let’s get this bill into committee, get it passed and over to the other place without delay. Many voices are calling for it.

We have all been watching the tragic events unfold in Ukraine over the past week. No matter what happens in the coming days and weeks, the human toll is enormous. We’re already seeing tens of thousands of people flocking to the borders as they flee their homeland. They will now be added to the more than 82 million other displaced people around the world, more than half of whom are children, in what Senator Omidvar rightfully called a “displacement calamity.” More than 82 million people have fled their homes because of armed conflict, violence, persecution and human rights abuses by bullies and thugs.

As Senator Omidvar pointed out:

This is the second-highest number of the forcibly displaced since the Second World War and the numbers continue to rise daily. This has created a significant strain, especially on those jurisdictions that border the places they came from, and they themselves are challenged to meet the needs of their own citizens, let alone thousands of arriving refugees.

The truth is we have a tendency to get very caught up in the news of the day, to be moved by the pictures and videos from countries like Ukraine — and before it, Afghanistan, Hong Kong and Venezuela — and then, unfortunately, we very quickly seem to move on, business as usual. It’s easy to go back to our own lives and almost forget about what’s happening all the way over there. But now in Ukraine, we are seeing a threat to international order and stability that is so grave we will no longer have that luxury, colleagues. I believe that what we are facing now are not simply isolated acts of aggression and human rights abuses but rather a global rise of totalitarianism. We need to confront that head on, without reservation and unequivocally. While we are also quick to want and pledge to help in the early days of these types of tragedies, the truth is we eventually return to our own lives while the work of taking care of these people has only just begun.

Resettlement doesn’t happen overnight. Take the situation last year in Afghanistan, for instance. We all would have opened our homes in that instant as we watched the horror of people swarming the airport trying to get out of Kabul. But the truth is many of those people and many more who did manage to get out of Afghanistan prior to Kabul falling are now displaced. They remain displaced.

I know many of our offices have been working with Afghan refugees, thanks to the tireless efforts of Senator McPhedran, and while there have been some success stories, this is a long, arduous and expensive process. But what Senator Omidvar is proposing is, as I said, a practical and logical solution.

Colleagues, while I appreciate Senator Omidvar referring to what’s being proposed here as thinking outside of the box, it really isn’t. I don’t say that as a criticism or to be dismissive, but only because I want to point out that it’s not so radical that it should consume us for any great length of time. It is straightforward and already has broad support.

As a matter of fact, as Senator Omidvar pointed out, it’s something that we in the Conservative Party of Canada had in our electoral program in 2021, and it was in the Liberal Party of Canada’s electoral program in 2018. It was also in the mandate letter to then foreign affairs minister François-Philippe Champagne, which has me questioning why it hasn’t been acted upon already. But I don’t want to be accused of being partisan, so I would say it’s obvious that both the current government and Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition support the intention of this legislation. I see no reason to delay its passage, and we should commit this to the committee stage as soon as possible.

The purpose of this legislation is:

. . . to seize the frozen assets of corrupt foreign officials held in Canada through court order and repurpose them back to alleviate the suffering of the people who have been harmed most by their action.

This, colleagues, is a no-brainer. It’s obvious.

Now, I know that on its face it may make some people feel uncomfortable, especially having recently witnessed our own government arbitrarily freezing bank accounts and the mayor of Ottawa musing about the city taking possession of protesters’ property to sell and use the proceeds to pay for policing and cleanup. Yes, that is and should be troubling. But what Senator Omidvar is proposing is nothing like that. If anything, this bill guards against that sort of overreach because her legislation would remove politics from the equation, instead placing the decision making in the hands of our courts.

It’s similar to what we see in class action lawsuits in which assets are frozen and can ultimately be used to fund any damages awarded. What Senator Omidvar is proposing would ensure that same due process, adherence to the rule of law and compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would provide transparency of the process but also of the assets that have been seized, which we currently do not have. Our government publishes the names of the officials who have been sanctioned, but not their assets. As noted by Senator Dalphond, this process is already entrenched in Canadian law in the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, so we aren’t reinventing the wheel here.

No offence to Senator Omidvar — I’m in no way attempting to diminish her proposal or the work done on this bill by her and her office and the World Refugee & Migration Council. I applaud you for applying this principle to this issue.

My motivation for driving home the point that the intended purpose of this bill isn’t entirely radical is for the benefit of our colleagues so that they can be comfortable with it. The principle of taking from a perpetrator, especially one who benefited financially from their crimes, to give to the victim or victims is one in which I believe wholeheartedly, if for no other reason than it being called justice. Furthermore, it alleviates the toll on the system as a whole. It really is straightforward, colleagues.

The criminals get punished. The victims receive some justice and much-needed support, and the system doesn’t break under the weight of it all. It’s all done through the rule of law and due process. And with that, I reiterate my whole-hearted support for this bill and implore my colleagues to do the same and get this bill to committee forthwith and approve it as soon as possible.

Thank you, colleagues, for your attention.

Hon. Brian Francis: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill S-220. I want to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking to you from traditional and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people.

I also wish to thank Senator McCallum for the powerful speech she delivered last Thursday.

I am a proud L’nu, also known as Mi’kmaq. I am living proof of the resistance and resilience of my people. We are still here despite the colonial and genocidal actions perpetrated by Canada and its institutions and actors. We continue to fight to regain control over our lives and futures while working to heal from historical and ongoing trauma.

In my role as a senator from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, I have the distinct privilege and responsibility to speak up in support of First Nations and all Indigenous peoples, and in this particular instance to share my perspective on the importance of ensuring that, in the context of reconciliation, Indigenous languages are treated as equal rather than subservient to English and French.

Colleagues, generations of Indigenous peoples in Canada have been deprived of opportunities that others take for granted. We suffer from lack of access to basic services and infrastructure due to chronic underfunding. We suffer from poorer health outcomes and lower life expectancies. We suffer from higher rates of poverty and homelessness. We suffer from lower levels of education and economic success. And we suffer from overrepresentation in the criminal justice and child welfare systems. The odds are against us since before we were born.

I have serious concerns about Bill S-220. In my opinion, the bill reflects a lack of awareness and understanding of the harsh realities faced by Indigenous people across Canada. Moreover, it amounts to a continuation of the status quo, which has directly contributed to exclude, rather than include, Indigenous peoples from participation in all aspects of public life.

The appointment of Mary Simon as the first Inuk and Indigenous person to serve in the role of Governor General of Canada is historical and inspirational. It should be celebrated by all as an important step forward in recognizing the linguistic plurality of Canada. Rather than putting into question her capacity to serve in this role, we should applaud that Mary Simon speaks English and Inuktitut and has committed to improving her French. In 2022, French and English should not be considered more valuable or superior to Indigenous languages.

Like Mary Simon, I am a survivor of the Indian day school system. Like Mary Simon, I was not given the opportunity to learn French in my childhood. The close to 200,000 of us who attended these federally run institutions received a substandard education. There was a greater emphasis on religion than academics. As a result, many of us were left with a lack of basic literacy and numeracy skills.

Unlike Mary Simon, I am not fluent in my Indigenous language, due to the intergenerational impact of the Indian residential and day school systems. There are not many around me who can fluently read, write and speak in Mi’kmaw. Those of us who became fluent in English struggled for many years.

Thirty years ago, educational outcomes for Indigenous youth were grim. Not enough has changed since. The graduation rate for non-Indigenous people is 88%; for on-reserve Indigenous people, it can be as low as 36%. Is it any wonder, then, that Indigenous people obtain a bachelor’s degree at one third the rate of non-Indigenous people?

Not many get to have the long and distinguished career — inside and outside of the public service — that Mary Simon has enjoyed. Very few, if any, have walked in her shoes. That she was able to retain her Indigenous language of Inuktitut at a time when Indigenous languages were suppressed or extinguished makes her story even more remarkable. Her remarkable success is not the rule but the exception.

I’m not here to say that learning French or English or becoming bilingual is not important, however, too often, Indigenous peoples have been squeezed between the squabbles of colonial interests. In the context of the assimilationist and genocidal actions inflicted by the state on generations of Indigenous people, it is not difficult to see how Bill S-220 would serve to perpetuate harm rather than alleviate it.

My language was taken from me. I was forced to learn English. Too many Indigenous peoples across Canada endure the same fate. To those who decry that Mary Simon had many years in the public service to learn French in order to succeed, I would urge them to reflect carefully on why she never did. Then I would ask them: Do you not see the cruelty in telling Indigenous peoples, whose language and culture were violently stolen, that they must learn yet another colonial language to be deemed worthy or deserving of serving Canada?

Colleagues, many Indigenous people continue to struggle to reclaim their culture and languages, but it does not have to be this way.

I wish to highlight the success of the Mi’kmaq in Nova Scotia. In the 1990s, when high school graduation rates were close to 30%, the Mi’kmaq in Nova Scotia began to exercise control over their education in their communities, including by creating successful immersion programs where children thrived in both English and Mi’kmaq. Today, the high school graduation rate for Nova Scotian Mi’kmaq students is 90%. Like Mary Simon, many of those students are retaining their Indigenous language. In my opinion, that should be the standard across Canada.

However, Bill S-220, if successful, would signal to these students that even after succeeding academically and retaining their Indigenous language, they would still not be good enough to serve the public good in Canada. Is that really the message we want to send to our Indigenous children and youth?

For the price of my culture and language, I received a substandard education that left me struggling to compete with my peers. For the price of my culture and language, I was taught English but not French. For the price of my culture and language, I am now being asked to rebuild the barrier Mary Simon broke down. Is that fair? No, it is simply not.

Colleagues, I suggest to you that as it is currently envisioned, Bill S-220 would be a step backwards from the good work we have accomplished in recent years. In my first years sitting among you in this chamber, the Indigenous Languages Act was passed. Against the myth that only French and English are foundational to Canada, the preamble of the act recognizes Indigenous languages as the original languages spoken on these lands. Yet, the Indigenous Languages Act stopped short of making Indigenous languages official federal languages. I say “federal” here because Inuktitut, among others, is an official language in the Northwest Territories as well as in Nunavut. This omission must be corrected.

The Indigenous Languages Act spoke to Call to Action 14 of the national Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It was also a small step towards Call to Action 13: “We call upon the federal government to acknowledge that Aboriginal rights include Aboriginal language rights.”

In the context of the bill before us today, Senator McCallum called for Indigenous languages to be enshrined in the Constitution, and I agree. We must consider how this could be accomplished, and how Call to Action 13 may be better served.

Only two languages are explicitly protected by name in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our Constitution. Importantly, the Charter does not fully outline or advance the language rights of English and French. Instead, as two examples, the advancement of language rights is found in acts such as the Official Languages Act and the Language Skills Act. Simply put, acts like these operationalize those rights.

Indigenous or Aboriginal rights are also recognized and affirmed by the Charter. This language is important because the Charter is not the source of those rights. Slowly and judiciously, Indigenous rights have been laid out by the Supreme Court of Canada, and those outlined are not exhaustive.

In terms of language rights, I wish to point out that the Official Languages Act does not extinguish the legal and customary rights of other languages.

Colleagues, I cannot support Bill S-220, because of its exclusionary intent. However, if the bill goes to committee, I support Senator Dalphond’s suggestion to look at the constitutional validity of using the Language Skills Act to put restraints on the appointment of the Governor General.

I would add that we should use this opportunity to consider how we can begin to operationalize Indigenous language rights. As an example, we could consider changing “both official languages” to “any two official languages.” This change would not diminish the prevalence of French or English as official languages, as assuredly these two languages are more common in Canada.

But while some may lament that Mary Simon does not speak both official languages, I would respond that she does speak two official languages of Canada — one of the original languages and one of the later languages — and I hope that more of our original languages will make that transition to official languages provincially, territorially and federally.

Many of us now begin our speeches with a land acknowledgement. As Senator Dalphond rightly noted, Mary Simon told us, during the recent Speech from the Throne, that land acknowledgements must move beyond symbolism.

This brings me to my final point. I want to preface my comments by saying I have the utmost respect for my colleagues, and I believe them when they voice their support for reconciliation. But I wish to express a dire warning that supporting Bill S-220 in the current context is not in line with efforts to reconcile past and ongoing wrongs.

If we are not willing to withstand some discomfort in the face of noteworthy achievements by Indigenous peoples, reconciliation becomes a hollow, performative act. True and lasting reconciliation is not meant to be easy. It has to be accompanied by actions to disrupt racist and colonial discourses and practices, including the myth that Canada was founded on linguistic duality. The truth is that Canada was not built on linguistic duality, but rather it paved over a linguistic plurality.

We are charged here with legislating on matters that will impact Indigenous peoples, but it feels like time and time again there is a lack of understanding and awareness of the true history of Canada. If we really want to ensure that Indigenous people are not unduly impacted by our decisions, we must urgently address this gap.

To make it a prerequisite for the Governor General to speak English and French — rather than English, French or an Indigenous language — undermines the path towards meaningful and tangible reconciliation.

I understand French may be dying, but Indigenous languages across the country have been strangled for decades, and many have already been killed. In my opinion, protecting the French language does not need to happen at the expense of protecting Indigenous languages. Why should it?

Colleagues, Bill S-220 disregards historical and current realities preventing Indigenous peoples from not only learning or maintaining our Indigenous language, but also becoming fluent in English or French, and, even less, both.

As Senator McCallum said, we are not asking you to learn our languages; we merely ask that you do not stand in our way, as has so often been the case. Please keep this in mind as you deliberate on Bill S-220. Wela’lioq, thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Black, seconded by the Honourable Senator Griffin, for the second reading of Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada.

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.)

(2040)

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).