Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) moved second reading of Bill C-16, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023.

She said: Honourable senators, I have the pleasure of introducing Appropriation Bill No. 1, 2022-23, the government’s interim supply bill.

[English]

I will speak at length on this bill at third reading.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak as critic on Bill S-208, An Act respecting the Declaration on the Essential Role of Artists and Creative Expression in Canada. I would like to begin by commending Senator Bovey on introducing such a comprehensive and ambitious bill.

As some of you may know, I enjoy painting in my spare time. It’s a hobby that I cherish, as it is a creative outlet that brings me much-needed serenity in this very chaotic time.

In our current economy, with rising prices and Canadian families struggling to make ends meet, I cannot help but worry about Canadian creative minds. How can our artists flourish when it seems we have been merely surviving for the past two years? Senator Bovey’s office has met with over 600 artists across the country to better grasp their realities. Youth focus groups revealed that young Canadians do not see the arts as a viable future and have turned away from traditional means of funding their work.

Traditionally, artists often rely on gig work and grants to get by. This means that a classically trained violinist, for example, who has been honing their craft since the age of four with great sacrifices and completed a degree in music at a reputable university, would normally divide their time between performing with a local professional orchestra, teaching privately during the week, performing with their ensemble and performing at weddings on the weekend. That’s if they are lucky. The work-life balance is non-existent, to say the least, and many work a collection of minimum-wage jobs to make ends meet. They may also spend months applying for grants from the Canada Council for the Arts, but return on the time invested is never assured. Needless to say, many change career paths along the way.

Those who do not have the privilege of a formal education are often disregarded as the arts, like many other areas of our society, have their gatekeepers who seek to promote excellence. This reminds me of the struggle of naive artists — known for rejecting or lacking conventional expertise in the depiction of real objects — who may lack formal, acknowledged methods.

Today, creative minds have turned to social media to gain visibility and possibly funding from fans or sponsors. Some Canadian creators truly managed to shine online during the worst of the pandemic. This was the case of throat singer Shina Novalinga who uses TikTok to share parts of her life and Indigenous culture, such as throat singing duets with her mother, traditional hair braiding and food. Sadly, social platforms such as YouTube and TikTok may distribute and share users’ content without credit or compensation. I believe this is testament to the government failing Canadian artists.

Before the winter break, I spoke on the Afghan crisis and the disappearance of many forms of arts and culture. My heart still aches when I think of musicians who buried their instruments, artists who abandoned their work before fleeing the country, and the persecution that those who remain must endure, simply because they need to express the melodies that are the bedrock of their culture. The videos of the Taliban smashing musical instruments in front of the artists was very difficult to watch.

In Canada, we are fortunate to have freedom of speech, but our society is not built to cherish those who continued to make us laugh during the pandemic, dance in our kitchens or escape into another world when this one was too much to bear. Some workers in the performing arts sector are still scrambling after the last surge in cases caused by the Omicron variant. As Arden R. Ryshpan, the Executive Director of the Canadian Actors’ Equity Association, said:

Just when we thought we were seeing a light at the end of the tunnel, it turns out that the light is an oncoming train.

This has led to a talent drain in the arts, with many relying on part-time jobs or going back to school to retrain. At first glance, Bill S-208 may seem too ambitious or idealistic. But at its core, it simply requires the government to apply an art lens to its operations. We have already spoken on the importance of using Gender-based Analysis Plus to take a gender- and diversity-sensitive approach to our work. In fact, the Government of Canada committed to using GBA+ to advance gender equality in Canada in 1995, but lacks any legislation to enforce its active use in policy-making.

Unlike GBA+, Bill S-208 will make the application of an artistic lens to all legislation mandatory by putting the onus on the Minister of Heritage to develop an action plan to operationalize the declaration in order to recognize the essential role of arts to society, increase access to the arts and events, improve the ability to engage in the arts, improve the ability of artists to benefit from their work while freeing them from cultural appropriation, address disability barriers and encourage investments.

To do so, the Minister of Heritage will be called upon to consult with key stakeholders, including the Ministers of Labour, Crown-Indigenous Relations, Justice and Health, as well as with many other interested organizations and artists. The minister must also convene a conference with stakeholders and ministers in order to develop an action plan.

Bill S-208 is also about governmental accountability and transparency. At the end of each fiscal year, the minister must prepare a report that sets out the implementation of the action plan and the activities undertaken by the department to achieve the objectives of the declaration as set out in the bill. This will ensure a constant evolution of the action plan by identifying its progress and its weaknesses.

I believe Bill S-208 has merit: namely, by inviting ministers to work together, as the government is well known for working in silos. I look forward to the bill being studied at committee to better understand the broad scope assigned to the Minister of Heritage as well as the implementation of the bill.

The “Declaration on the Essential Role of Artists and Creative Expression in Canada” touches on specific issues that will undoubtedly require further study, such as cultural appropriation. I believe this may fast-track the implementation of Article 11 under UNDRIP, and I hope this protection will be awarded to all marginalized Canadian artists. Additionally, I have concerns regarding the constant consultation of artists, as they already face an undervaluation of their work and time. In fact, to this day some patrons continue to offer exposure rather than proper remuneration to emerging artists.

Honourable senators, while we may not all speak the same language, celebrate the same holidays or share similar experiences, the arts transcend these differences. I believe Bill S-208 is important to our collective future. Decisions we make today will affect how we rebuild our country coming out of the pandemic. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Cormier, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ataullahjan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, for the second reading of Bill S-224, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons).

Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Senator Kutcher. As a child of the Cold War, it seems strange to stand in the Senate of Canada and talk about Russian plots. It seems like something from a Cold War movie. I wouldn’t have thought that it was plausible until we saw the reporting in the United States about Russian actors manipulating Facebook to create mob mentalities, creating both fake Republican pages and fake Democrat pages and then setting the pages against each other.

So it’s incumbent upon us, first of all, as citizens — all of us, not just senators — to practise what I call “social media hygiene.” Don’t share something if you don’t know where it’s from or what it is. The more outrageous and anger-provoking the post, the less likely it is to be true.

I have sometimes seen people retweeting stuff they know is nonsense ironically or to call it out. Don’t do that because when you share things and interact with them, the algorithm doesn’t know you are “hate-sharing.” The algorithm just thinks, “Oh, people want to see that.” So be careful in how you use social media. We talk about safe sex. Well, practise safe tweeting.

It’s also incumbent upon us — in an age in which so many people get their information filtered through social media platforms — to think about what the correct responsibility of those platforms should be and what our responsibility should be as legislators to ensure that — not that we’re censoring debate — we’re providing some kind of filter for the information so that all of the lies do not get the algorithmic juice to rise to the top.

I think it’s fair to ask the major platforms, whether that’s Twitter, Facebook, YouTube or all the new ones that come along, what their protocols are to guard against malicious campaigns by foreign actors that are clearly designed to poison democratic debate in Western democracies.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. I don’t know the answer to that, but I suppose we’ll know next week. If I have an answer before then, I will certainly report back.

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-233, An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income. Rather, I rise today to speak to the viral misinformation and disinformation about this bill and to confront some of the near delusional paranoia circulating on social media about it.

For weeks, our Senate email and voice mail boxes have been overwhelmed by thousands of messages from angry, frightened Canadians outraged by Bill S-233, or at least by the lies they have been told about Bill S-233. There are so many desperate letters sent to us by people who have been manipulated and terrified into believing outrageous conspiracy theories. There are letters from people who believe Bill S-233 to be a fascist plot, a communist plot, a Masonic plot, a eugenics plot, a Jewish plot, a plot by the World Economic Forum or the World Health Organization, a sinister scheme orchestrated by — your choice — Klaus Schwab, George Soros or Bill Gates, or the ever‑popular illuminati. Many believe Bill S-233 to be the first step on the path to one-world government, or the new world order or to a system of state social surveillance, such as the one the Chinese government in Beijing calls “social credit.” Others are convinced the bill contains provisions for digital ID or digital currency that will allow the government to track and control us all.

This, my friends, is no accident. I believe there is an organized campaign afoot to spread destructive propaganda about Bill S-233, targeted online fear mongering specifically designed to terrorize frightened seniors and those with disabilities and to scare vulnerable Canadians into believing their pensions and disability benefits are about to disappear. It is a campaign purpose-built to erode public trust, not just in this government but in Canadian democracy itself.

Take this tweet posted on March 11 by Peter Taras, a former Ontario candidate for the People’s Party of Canada:

Bill S-233 is currently waiting for third reading in the SENATE, if passed it will be made law which means if you are not vaccinated you will not receive EI, CPP, OHS, Social Services or Pension that YOU PAID INTO.

That post alone has been retweeted almost a thousand times, and pretty much every single word of it is untrue.

Bill S-233 is not a government bill. It is not at third reading. And even if we were to pass it, we all know it would not become law, not right away. It would be sent to the other place for more debate and study.

This bill absolutely does not make the payment of a guaranteed basic income contingent on your vaccination status. Indeed, under the terms of Senator Pate’s proposal, there would be no such type of social-virtue testing or qualification for the receipt of such an income at all. Nor would a basic income take the place of Employment Insurance, workers’ compensation insurance, the Canada Pension Plan, or any other company or private pension.

Even if we passed Bill S-233, it wouldn’t create a guaranteed basic income. All the bill really does is call upon the government to consider how it might create a framework for how a possible future guaranteed basic income program might work. Nonetheless, Twitter and Facebook and Reddit and YouTube are filled with posts that repeat word for word the same falsehoods as the tweet I just read you.

Many of the letters and phone calls we’ve received go much further than fears about pensions. Some express concern that once Canadians become dependent on a guaranteed basic income, the government would be able to leverage that dependency to force people to conform. For example, here is an extended excerpt from an email I received on March 16:

I suspect that ‘a guaranteed livable basic income’ creates a dependency upon government and lays down a foundation for creating digital identities tied to bank accounts and all other government agencies, both federal and provincial. Over time, abusive, controlling powers would be assumed and invoked by dictatorial means. We would then be locked into a social credit system that is fascist, communistic and totalitarian, thereby erasing the standards of democracy, our Constitution, the Rule of Law, and our guaranteed Rights and Freedoms.

An email from March 23 mined a similar vein:

There will be more vaccines to take and other medical procedures the gov[ernment] wants you to undergo! If you don’t comply with just one of them, your account will be closed and you won’t be able to buy food! You won’t be able to do anything! Not even work.

One recent email suggested Bill S-233 was part of what it called:

. . . the sinister plan for humanity under a New World Order and One World Government, starting with John D Rockefeller’s Masonic Creed.

The letter went on to link Bill S-233 to a long-term, worldwide plot that included the assassinations of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy.

Other messages link Bill S-233 with transhumanism, a concern which is not, as I had first assumed, about gender identity but about an alleged plot to turn us all into bionic cyborgs. One said:

The Transhumanist war has begun . . . .We are now experiencing the long awaited planning of the sociopathic elite, as Klaus Schwab unleashes a world domination plan with the intent of changing the face of humanity forever.

Another correspondent wrote:

Bill S-233 is just the beginning. We are losing our freedoms to a group of elites that want to depopulate and control mankind, enslave us to experimental transhumanism, and the removal of any Christian and Godly devotions.

A common theme that runs through many letters is a persistent paranoia about the World Economic Forum, a belief that Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland are subject to the control of German-Swiss economist Klaus Schwab. Many seem to believe that Schwab’s agents have infiltrated the government and that Schwab, who is best known for throwing parties for plutocrats in Davos, is somehow simultaneously both a communist and a Nazi.

This excerpt from a letter I received March 10 is pretty typical:

Nobody voted for Nazi Klaus Schwab. Nobody even knew he existed 2 years ago. He has NOTHING to do with Canada or any other country. Schwab holds a statue of Lenin in his office! This is NOT CANADA. We are NOT going BACK to NAZI GERMANY. Please see NUREMBERG CODE & TRIALS.

Other letters accuse senators and the Senate of outright treason. An email I received March 6 stated:

This is CANADA . . . not North Korea, not Russia, you are employees of the people! NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE WEF OR THE WHO.

Just this afternoon — we probably all received the same email — was a letter that claimed the adoption of a guaranteed basic income would lead to the forced sterilization of Canadians of child-bearing age and the killing off of the elderly and the disabled.

I must say that many other letters are not from conspiracy theorists or anti-vaxxers at all. They are simply and heartbreakingly heartfelt notes from ordinary Canadian seniors and relatives of seniors who truly believe that this bill will steal their CPP and private pensions.

As senators, we’re all used to receiving angry letters and calls, but this campaign is qualitatively different. Three years ago my inbox was full of very angry mail about Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, but even when some of those concerns were hyperbolic and exaggerated, they were based on fact and on the actual content of those bills. The campaign against Bill S-233 is something entirely different. It is a shadow war concocted and orchestrated to protest something that doesn’t even exist.

Some of you may worry that by reading these letters into Hansard I’m giving these theories undeserved attention, but we cannot ignore the elephant in the room. We must call out these myths and lies. Let us be clear: There is nothing in Bill S-233 that would require any Canadian to be vaccinated or medicated. There is nothing in Bill S-233 that relates to digital ID or digital tracking or digital currency. There is nothing in Bill S-233 that is in any way akin to the Chinese social credit surveillance model.

Senator Kim Pate, who has spent her entire adult life advocating for the civil rights of the vulnerable, the marginalized and the forgotten, is not an agent of Klaus Schwab. She is not part of the globalist elite nor a Davos hobnobber. As her long record of public service attests, she is the last person who would ever want to see a single Canadian lose a pension or job, and that’s why her bill does nothing of the kind.

I can attest personally that Senator Pate is not hell-bent on turning us all into cybernetic transhumans.

Many of the concerns of our many correspondents are perfectly valid and based in fact. Some have argued that a guaranteed basic income would sap productivity and reward shirkers for doing nothing or lead to labour shortages. You might not agree, but that’s a perfectly rational critique.

Some have argued that Canada’s COVID-battered economy could not afford such a program. I would counter that it is entirely possible that a well-designed program might actually save money, streamlining the number of social welfare support programs we have in this country. But, again, an argument about possible costs is perfectly reasonable.

Some correspondents have raised legitimate questions about the bill, which I happen to share. The bill proposes to extend a guaranteed basic income to those 17 and up, and while I understand the logic of supporting emancipated teens or teens who have fled abusive families, most 17-year-olds don’t need a basic income. Nor can I agree with Senator Pate’s proposition to pay a guaranteed basic income to non-Canadians, such as temporary foreign workers. I have my own constitutional concerns as an Albertan about setting up such a federal income framework without the full cooperation, support and buy-in of the provinces, territories and First Nations.

We also need to be mindful of inflationary pressures that a basic income might create, especially in overheated rental markets such as in Vancouver and Toronto.

So yes, it is perfectly possible to have a good faith, rational debate about the pros and cons of a universal basic income, and the pros and cons of Senator Pate’s particular suggested model. But it is next to impossible to have that debate while Canadian citizens, especially seniors and those with disabilities, are being subjected to a relentless campaign of online psychological terrorism.

I have tried to use Twitter and Facebook to dispel the myths about this bill. I have tried to answer letters from people who just seem honestly confused. One woman I will call Missy was so frightened by what she had heard about Bill S-233 that she told me she was thinking of leaving Canada. After I explained what Bill S-233 actually said, she thanked me.

She wrote back:

You have truly helped me. I will do my best to spread what you have told me. It’s scary, how convincing this can be. I admit I fell for it, and fed into it at time.

She added, “It’s scary to live in fear every day.”

And that, of course, is the point of this whole disinformation campaign: to create fear and distrust; to keep people scared and vulnerable; to erode our social contract, the social fabric and our confidence in our fellow Canadians, replacing it with suspicion bordering on paranoia.

The purpose of this strategy isn’t to defeat Bill S-233, which has only the smallest chance of becoming a law anyway; no, it’s to whip up a hysterical frenzy to convince ordinary Canadians — decent, caring Canadians like Missy — that their political leaders and their political institutions are not to be trusted and then to trick and con ordinary, caring people just like Missy into sharing this fake information with their families, faith communities or their friends on Facebook.

Rebutting such insidious campaigns is not easy. Although I did connect with Missy, I had less luck with a more recent correspondent. She wrote to me this weekend that she could not sleep over her fears that Canadian seniors would lose their pensions. When I tried to explain that Bill S-233 just wouldn’t do that, she accused me of gaslighting her and demanded that I never contact her again.

In her excellent essay published recently by The Line, Conservative Strategist Melanie Paradis coined a perfect phrase for those corrosive disinformation campaigns: she called them “thought scams.” She likened them to those Nigerian prince letters we all used to get that tried to con us out of our money. But these “thought scammers” aren’t primarily interested in getting rich. Instead, they are interested in stealing our faith and our trust. They are interested in stealing our Canada.

If we, too, fall prey — if we start demonizing our political opponents, portraying them as treasonous and corrupt — then we forfeit our ability as senators to have any good faith debates over vital public policy questions.

Today, my friends, I am asking you to join me in standing up to the “thought scammers.” I ask you not to give a wink, a shrug or a smirk when you see one of these “thought scams” spreading because you think it might help your side or your team in the short term. I ask all of us here to stand united today, not in full‑throated support of Bill S-233 but in united support of truth, reason and Canadian democracy itself. We in the Senate of Canada must stand as a bulwark against the tide of lies. We can and we must, my friends.

Thank you, hiy hiy.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Dagenais, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Pate, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean, for the second reading of Bill S-233, An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I rise at second reading in support of Bill S-224, which is sponsored by my colleague, Senator Salma Ataullahjan. The senator asked me to be the critic of this bill to amend the Criminal Code regarding trafficking in persons, and I accepted without hesitation.

Human trafficking is a very serious offence in Canada that involves a trafficker who recruits, transports, conceals and threatens violence against a victim, over whom he or she often exercises coercive control for the purpose of exploitation. In 2019, 95% of Canadian trafficking victims were women and girls. Some 71% of cases involved sexual exploitation, but the crime covers any form of forced labour that is similar to slavery.

Human trafficking is a more serious offence than procuring because of the trafficker’s behaviour of threatening, coercing or deceiving the victim and abusing his or her power over the victim. Unfortunately, this crime is on the rise, with over 500 cases in 2019, and it is difficult to prove.

Trafficking in persons was added to the Criminal Code as an offence in 2005. A 2018 report from Public Safety Canada summarizes the challenges associated with enforcement. Victims are often reluctant to report their situation, since they tend to believe that the success rate of prosecutions is very low. Prosecutors, for their part, find it difficult to reach the high threshold of evidence required for trafficking cases. The statistics are startling. In 2019, 89% of human trafficking charges resulted in a stay, withdrawal, dismissal or discharge. Less than one in ten charges resulted in a guilty verdict.

Given that this crime was identified only 15 or so years ago, the justice system is still finding it difficult to understand the scope of the trauma felt by the victims, including the fact that some victims develop an attachment to the trafficker. The traumas, the drug addiction and mental health problems affect their memory, which makes their testimony particularly difficult. To survive, the victims might also make up stories, which complicates the search for the truth.

For all these reasons, it is imperative that the trial not rely on the victim’s performance during her testimony or her state of mind at the time of the exploitative situations.

For many years, survivor advocacy groups have been criticizing the section of the Criminal Code that Bill S-224 is proposing to change. Why? Because under the current subsection 279.04(1), the Crown must demonstrate that the victim could reasonably expect — given all the circumstances — that her safety would be threatened if she refused to be exploited.

This wording places a heavy burden on survivors, who are not always aware of coercive control mechanisms. This type of control may be exercised without any perceived danger to the victim, who is rather targeted to be humiliated, isolated, exploited or dominated. Moreover, many women do not even realize that they are being trafficked, because in the vast majority of cases the exploiters are friends, acquaintances, or current or past lovers, in other words relationships where emotional blackmail is often present.

This is not just a matter of opinion. As Senator Ataullahjan already mentioned, the wording of the current section 279.04 of the Criminal Code does not meet the definition of trafficking in persons used in the Palermo Protocol, which constitutes the international reference on the issue. Unlike the current section 279.04, this protocol focuses on the behaviour of the exploiter, not on the victim’s perception of danger. The Canadian government ratified this protocol in 2002, and we therefore have an obligation to protect the victims of trafficking.

[English]

According to the International Justice and Human Rights Clinic at the University of British Columbia School of Law, asking victims to prove reasonable fear may be a barrier to conviction for human trafficking. The requirements of the human trafficking offence are more onerous than those of other offences of a similar nature. For example, in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, trafficking in persons is also prohibited, but it does not require that an individual believe that their safety would be threatened. This is a more appropriate standard.

The new section proposed by Senator Ataullahjan has the great merit of sticking to the vocabulary of the Palermo Protocol and therefore to focus on the actions of the trafficker and not on the fears of his victim.

That change in language proposed in Bill S-224 is even more necessary because this crime has a disproportionate effect on Indigenous women and girls, who are 10 times more likely to be victims of trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation than non-Indigenous women and girls.

Among the groups I have consulted, other suggestions for changes were proposed. For example, la Fédération des maisons d’hébergement pour femmes — a federation of women’s shelters in Quebec — suggests adding the idea that the trafficker is trying to take advantage of the victim’s state of vulnerability, which is at the heart of the definition of sexual exploitation in the United Nations. The federation would also like the notion of coercive control to appear in the proposed article.

For its part, the Canadian Council for Refugees suggests broadening the definition of what constitutes trafficking by adding the notion of threat in general, and not just the threat of violence, in order to better reflect the reality of the trafficking of migrants or refugees for whom threats of denunciation or deportation are often used the most.

The main priority, however, is for the Senate committee to study first and foremost the significant change to the Criminal Code suggested by Senator Ataullahjan. I strongly believe it is time that we adapt our Criminal Code to the reality of women and girls who are victims of human trafficking. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: Thank you, Senator Lankin. The primary role of this bill is simple. There are organizations that are state sponsored — or connected with some of these tyrannical and authoritarian regimes around the world — operating in Canada, and many are directly and indirectly subsidized. They work under the veil of being intellectual institutions or research centres, and often they’re not even veiled. They’re state-run, multinational corporations that are directly affiliated with some of these authoritarian regimes. This registry simply states that any time one of these organizations, entities or corporations act to influence government officials — MPs, senators or senior bureaucrats — to sway public policy or to intimidate, directly or indirectly, office-holders or Canadian citizens, they would face the full thrust of the law.

Of course, this bill also amends the Criminal Code, adding some stiff financial penalties and jail terms for those who are found guilty of breaking the law in this particular case.

Is there any weakness in this bill? I don’t think there is. As we all know, laws are fluid in this country. We put them forward with the best of intentions, and I believe this will be a great first giant step forward. We will become more vigilant, because the number one challenge facing all democracies, including Canada, is authoritarianism around the world. Unfortunately, with countries like China, Iran and Russia, we have evidence to show that they’re very active right now within our borders, within various institutions, and according to reports we have to take action.

Quite frankly, I think this is the first giant step forward. It’s badly needed and would be the right thing to do at this juncture.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Would Senator Housakos take a question?

Senator Housakos: I have looked at the Australian model. I find it is a lot more rigid than what we’re proposing over here. Again, I did not want to go outside of the realm of public office‑holders and public officials in this particular instance. I’m very cognizant of the fact that I don’t want to infringe upon the private life of corporations and other entities in Canada. There’s always a fine line. Is it something that we can look at? Do we want to strengthen it up to the point where we hold people accountable once they leave public office? I’m not averse to those kinds of suggestions, amendments and changes as we go along.

Clearly, we have a problem — based on the reports we’ve seen from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and our intelligence services — and we are being infiltrated at the highest levels in our institutions right now. This would be the first step, and as we go along we need to continue to be vigilant. As we also know, it doesn’t address cyber and social web influence, which is very powerful.

I think this is very concrete and specific. It deals with entities that are affiliated with these totalitarian regimes that are very often trying to influence our public institutions and our public Crown corporations in various other sectors.

Senator Housakos: Absolutely.

Senator Boehm: Senator, thank you very much for your comments. Near the end of your comments, you referred to both the United States and Australia as having foreign agent registry-type legislation.

In the case of the Americans, it goes back to 1938. It was definitely pre-internet, leaflets, newspapers and that sort of thing. In Australia, it was 2018, so it is much more recent. The Australian legislation has a component in it that would require any former cabinet minister who acts on behalf of a foreign entity to register or face sanctions, and in both cases there are sanctions there.

As you put this forward, I’m wondering to what extent you’ve been influenced by these two bits of legislation from other countries, given that there’s much consideration going on in other jurisdictions, particularly Europe at this time, to look at ways and means.

Senator Housakos: Senator Woo, I can tell you that your op‑ed and comments over the last while have garnered enough attention without me having to draw any attention to them.

Where we fundamentally differ on in this debate is that China is a tyrannical state. It’s unfortunate that a member of the upper chamber doesn’t recognize that. We don’t recognize that what happened in Tiananmen Square as an accident. It was tyranny. What is going on with the Uighur people is tyranny. It is something that is recognized around the world, including our own Parliament, and it is shameful that we didn’t recognize it in this chamber.

To stand up and say that you take exception to the comments of me referring to the administration and the regime in China as tyrannical is in itself outrageous.

The United Front is just one example of an organization operating in Canada funded directly to uphold the principles of that tyrannical regime. Organizations like Huawei are state funded. They’re international multinationals that have been recognized by organizations like CSIS and the RCMP in engaging in security espionage right here in our country.

We’ve had these organizations. Our security forces tell parliamentary committees that we need to take action and do something about it. I find it outrageous that a parliamentarian questions the veracity of that information and questions the veracity of where we are vis-à-vis a democracy and the Republic of China.

Senator Woo: I take it from your non-answer that you consider all legally constituted entities in China to be subject to the direct or indirect control of the Chinese state. In that case, I ask you why would we not register a cultural organization in China that wants to promote cultural ties with Canada and, through its agent here in Toronto or Montreal, wants to speak with me, for example, about having a concert in Calgary or some other city? Why would somebody representing that institution in China, in a “tyrannical” state, subject to the direct or indirect control of the Chinese Communist Party, not be registered and perhaps punished if he or she were to speak to not just me but to any of us in here, including, of course, our colleagues who support the arts? We heard earlier today about the motion to give more attention to the importance of the arts in this country. Why would someone representing that cultural institution not be covered under the registry?

Senator Oh: He’s lying to you. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion, as amended, of the Honourable Senator Dalphond, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy:

That the Senate:

1.recall that, despite the commitment found in section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to have a fully bilingual Constitution, as of today, of the 31 enactments that make up the Canadian Constitution, 22 are official only in their English version, including almost all of the Constitution Act, 1867; and

2.call upon the government to consider, in the context of the review of the Official Languages Act, the addition of a requirement to submit, every 12 months, a report detailing the efforts made to comply with section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 5:30 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, I rise today to join the debate on what I consider to be a crucial discussion regarding the ability of the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty of sober second thought. I want to thank Senator Tannas for putting forward this discussion. I do so as an independent senator and not as ISG facilitator. This is a disclaimer — a preemptive move. I want to share my view on this issue, knowing very well that some of my ISG colleagues will agree and some will disagree. This plurality of opinion and expertise paired with mutual respect is, I believe, one of the strengths of our group.

Allow me first to speak to the context surrounding this motion and on the existing tools we currently have at our disposal. I will also share my thoughts more precisely on the content of the motion that aims to solve the problem that we often face nearing the end of a session or before rising for the winter and summer recess: the rush and the inability to properly study and improve bills coming late to the Senate. I believe we can all agree that the Senate is the master of its own destiny. We should not accept or fold in the face of pressure from the government or the House of Commons that would prevent us from fulfilling our role as senators. On this, I concur with Senator Tannas. However, I believe we have now, within our rules, the power and the ability to provide our sober second thought while working in a complementary way with the elected House as the Canadian public expects us to do.

Let me continue by citing some of the tools that we have at our disposal. We have the ability to do pre-studies on bills that we know will arrive late for our consideration in accordance with rule 10-11(1). This practice is beneficial because it allows us to be ready for debate and, eventually, amendments when the bills arrive in circumstances requiring a diligent and timely response.

We also have, in exceptional circumstances, a simple, yet effective, option: sitting for a longer amount of time. When it comes down to it, the onus to properly study a bill is on us. Notably, there are no rules that say we must adjourn three days after the other place. So then why not sit for one week, two weeks or any amount of time that is needed to complete the work Canadians expect us to do? Bills do not arrive in the Senate with an expiry date, after all. I know some of my colleagues will argue that sitting longer would not solve the issue and that we could not amend bills while the House is adjourned. But I see it differently. Let’s remember that the Senate is the master of its own destiny. There is nothing preventing us from amending these late-arriving bills and sending them back to the other place.

Actually, I agree generally with the notion that the bad planning of the House is not the Senate’s emergency, as stated by the leader of the Canadian Senators Group. However, it is up to senators to express the collective and individual will to sit on days when they do not wish to and stay later than what is indicated on proposed sitting calendars in order to achieve the goal of having thorough examinations of pieces of government legislation.

I want to address the questions surrounding the notion of sending a Senate amendment on a piece of government legislation back to an adjourned House of Commons. Doing this is not simply an ISG problem, a CPC problem or a CSG or PSG problem. It is, in fact, not a Senate problem at all. This is a government-of-the-day problem. This is a House of Commons problem. It is their problem to address it if the situation arises.

We shall keep in mind that the Speaker of the House of Commons has the authority to recall MPs during those break periods in accordance with rule 28(3) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. As for us, we would only be fulfilling our constitutional duty, and frankly, colleagues, I do not believe we shall then have to apologize for doing our collective job in keeping the government to account.

Consequently, I also wish to address Senator Tannas’s statement made in his speech of February 8 that “. . . CSG senators will not grant leave to facilitate or waive our rules on the passage of any legislation anymore.”

While I agree that waiving leave of the Senate is an important tool at our disposal and that the practice of granting leave has been vastly used — maybe overused — in this pandemic period, I strongly disagree with this Pavlovian response to deny leave. It doesn’t mean that because of some past abuses there is no merit in granting leave to some urgent issue that would, if legislation is adopted swiftly, greatly benefit Canadians. For example, would any colleague who cares for public interest really be comfortable denying leave of an urgent supply bill, even in a case where that bill had been thoroughly studied by our own expert senators at the National Finance Committee? I don’t believe so.

Allow me to use the example of Bill C-10, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020. It was passed in one day in the Forty-third Parliament on March 13, 2020, at the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We passed Bill C-10 with leave of the Senate to provide important benefits to Canadian citizens and enterprises for the difficult times ahead.

It was necessary at the time to meet the needs of Canadians and it may still be necessary in the future. While in the worst peaks of this pandemic, we had the duty to act timely in the best public interest. This is not a nuance, colleagues. It is the realpolitik we were then in. Hopefully, the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic is behind us, but we are not immune to tragedies or natural disasters that would require urgent action and approval.

To further highlight the negative effects of this dogmatic approach — and even ill-conceived sophistry — I would like to refer to the debate we had recently on the Emergencies Act. The choice of some of our colleagues to deny leave on a request to waive the usual one-day notice and expedite the debate, while totally valid within our rules, ended up slowing down our work and ensuring that many senators — 16 for the ISG alone — were, in the end, not able to rise and speak to this vital issue. Had this permission been granted, we could have debated on the Friday and on the following Monday.

And what about Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code to ban the practice of conversion therapy? It was tabled in late June 2021 in the Senate, but we were not able to pass that bill because leave was then denied for us to do a pre-study. That bill had close to unanimous support in the chamber and was urgently requested by independent experts and the LGBTQ2+ community. Furthermore, it was adopted with leave of the Senate in this new legislature. So, then, why needlessly block its pre-study last summer?

I must say, I think those examples prove the counterproductive nature of this practice and are not in line with the ideal of legislating in the best public interest.

It is, furthermore, proof that Motion No. 30 is superfluous. Since the opening of this Forty-fourth Parliament, Senator Tannas himself has used our rules almost systematically to deny leave, thus preventing the Senate from being rushed by the government or the other place.

I do not agree with the terms of the debate as expressed in the third point of the motion. Limiting debate time to 20 minutes with 5 minutes to each senator would mean that only four could speak up during debates. I feel it would be greatly unjust, letting aside the superficiality of this approach.

Between the recognized groups, the Conservative caucus, the non-affiliated senators and the government representatives, somebody is assured to go unrepresented.

For my own group, the ISG, the option would not be viable. Even in the case where one of our members should rise and speak to the urgency of a bill, it would be impossible for the senator to do so as a spokesperson or representative for the group. Other ISG senators could disagree and feel unrepresented in the debate.

I am sure many of my colleagues from other groups will feel the same way. This approach is simply not aligned with the realities of the contemporary Senate.

However, I must salute Senator Tannas on his openness to suggestions and improvements, which demonstrates his long‑standing and unwavering dedication to the efficiency of the Senate.

Colleagues, the motion before us today is a political statement. It is a demonstration of bravado in response to frustration from the perceived dismissiveness of the other place, which I share. However, it is not necessary nor substantiated if we take a closer look at the rules and if we have the collective courage to apply them properly in combination with a good plan for our parliamentary work.

Moreover, it is only a temporary solution, considering it would only be a sessional order and would not amend any of our Rules. It is so unsubstantiated that, for instance, the Government Representative in the Senate has not, either in the last Parliament or in this new one, used the pressure tool that is time allocation. Instead, he has sought to build consensus among senators. We must keep working in this collegial way.

I will now conclude, hoping that Senator Tannas will still be my friend, with the wise words of a former senator, the late Michael Pitfield, taken from the foreword of the book Protecting Canadian Democracy: The Senate You Never Knew:

Longstanding experience in public administration has taught me to approach anything as challenging as Senate reform with prudence and a reserve of humility. . . .

Those wise words shall inspire us to take our distance from group branding and political bravado. Rather than safeguarding the Senate’s sober second thought, this motion would lead us to the denial of the various options we are already provided with by our Rules and by the rules of the other place. Actually, it would simply delay our parliamentary works, both in the chamber and in committees, at the detriment of the timeliness required in times of need.

That is why I will not support this motion.

Senator Gold: Well, to my dear colleague at the Senate, thank you for your remarks, thoughtful as always.

Senator Lankin, you have had the benefit of being in the chamber since the beginning of the current government. I am sure that you will recall that, over the last six or seven years, the Senate has spent considerable time and effort on many critical and crucial pieces of legislation, such as cannabis legislation, gun control legislation, Indigenous reconciliation legislation and legislation regarding medical assistance in dying.

The Senate’s treatment of these issues, its robust study and debate on these issues are well-documented and, might I say, were done with very little government pressure, were done collegially and without time allocation motions. There has not been one yet used.

We also know how frequent it is — we are living it these days, also — for government items to be adjourned, to sit on the Order Paper for weeks on end with no debate whatsoever, with no speaker, sometimes for many consecutive days, if not longer. There is little that the government can do in these circumstances to prevent this.

I come to my question.

When you look at the entire record of this government, especially taking into consideration, as you noted, the uniqueness of the pandemic through which we have lived for the last two years, in your heart of hearts do you really think that the government has been guilty of irresponsibly or unnecessarily rushing the work of the Senate?