Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition) moved second reading of Bill S-237, An Act to establish the Foreign Influence Registry and to amend the Criminal Code.

He said: Honourable senators, it is very apropos that after all the questions regarding foreign influence on the debate on Bill S-233 and the good questions from Senator Kutcher, I will be dealing with it a little more, regarding an issue in terms of foreign influence in our institutions. There are many ways that foreign entities can influence our institutions and our country.

Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill S-237, which would amend Canada’s Criminal Code and establish a foreign registry for entities and individuals who seek to influence Canadian policy and Canada’s democratic institutions and processes on behalf of identified foreign regimes.

Foreign interference and influence are not new, but with the advancement of technology and information sharing, it is becoming more pervasive and is likely being used as a tool by authoritarian regimes. In this regard, the occurrence is increasing and thus making it a growing threat. Canada’s intelligence agencies have long been warning about this threat of malign foreign influence toward our democracy and our society. Several reports have outlined these warnings, including the 2019 CSIS Public Report, released on May 20, 2020, and the 2019 Annual Report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.

The 2019 CSIS report states that espionage and foreign-influence activities are directed at Canadian entities both inside and outside Canada and are direct threats to Canada’s national security and strategic interests.

It goes on to warn of the vulnerability of democratic institutions and processes, including our elections. Furthermore, according to a hot issue note prepared for a March 24, 2021, committee appearance by then Minister of Public Safety Bill Blair:

Through its mandate to investigate threats to the security of Canada, CSIS has seen multiple instances of foreign states targeting Canadian institutions and communities. The scope of potential foreign interference activities can be broad, encompassing a range of techniques that are familiar to intelligence agencies. These include: human intelligence operations, the use of state-sponsored or foreign influenced media, and the use of sophisticated cyber tools.

Honourable senators, we have all witnessed and many of us have voiced concerns about the impacts of foreign interference and influence on our democracy and our foreign and domestic policy. This is not a partisan issue. On the contrary. The truth is, if we don’t start addressing it in a meaningful way, it will absolutely erode public trust in our elected officials and our processes and institutions.

I know there certainly was a lot of talk about foreign involvement in the recent “Freedom Convoy,” in particular about foreign financing, something that was not actually borne out during committee hearings in the other place.

Some have also expressed concern about foreign involvement and funding of other protests, including all manner of illegal blockades in Canada. Leaving aside the particular political agendas of different activist groups, I know from the tweets and public statements of many of my colleagues, the issues of foreign interference and influence concerns you as much as it does those of us on this side of the chamber. I hope that means, in addition to your always thoughtful reflection on all legislation that comes before this chamber, that I can also count on our support for this particular bill as it seeks to remedy something for which we’ve all expressed concern.

Foreign interference and influence are real, and it is very much happening right here in Canada. In many cases, it is financial and, in other cases, it comes in the form of disinformation; sometimes both. In the worst cases, those acting on behalf of foreign regimes have intimidated and even threatened Canadians and others on Canadian soil or threatened their loved ones back home in order to silence them or influence their actions, including how they vote in our elections. While we already have laws in Canada to deal with some aspects of these coercive actions, such as removal of persons by the Canada Border Services Agency and penalties under the Canada Elections Act, far more can and should be done.

And, no, the answer isn’t in chipping away at our freedoms and democratic processes and institutions by ourselves. The last thing we should do to fight foreign disinformation, for example, is to limit free speech. That is not to say we shouldn’t reject the promulgation of foreign propaganda from our airwaves, as we did recently with Russian state-controlled broadcaster RT, formerly Russia Today. But that is a very different beast than censorship of our own citizens. We should not seek to emulate the tyrannical regimes against which we are attempting to guard by silencing our own citizens.

That is why I was troubled to learn of Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly’s comments during a house committee last week in which she testified regarding foreign propaganda:

My mandate as foreign minister is really to counter propaganda online. Social media companies need to do more. They need to make sure that they recognize that states have jurisdiction over them, that they’re not technology platforms, that they’re content producers. And it is our way collectively to make sure that we can really be able to have strong democracies in the future because this war is being fought with 21st-century tools, including social media.

Colleagues, while I’m happy to hear this government express concern over foreign interference, I am less than comforted by Minister Joly’s comments. The first job of any foreign minister is to defend the national interest and the values we hold as Canadians, which include free speech. So I repeat: The answer to combatting foreign interference isn’t to censor our own citizens. Instead, the foreign influence registry and accountability act will force greater transparency by exposing those who do seek to influence, on behalf of foreign regimes, our policies, public debate and decision making.

By identifying those acting in the interests of a foreign entity rather than in Canada’s interests, we introduce a measure of accountability for both those agents and the officials who receive them. Why shouldn’t we have such a registry? Do Canadians not deserve to know who is lobbying their public officials on behalf of foreign entities?

This is no different, really, than the lobbyist registry. The Lobbying Act recognizes that free and open access to government is an important matter of public interest and that lobbying public office holders is a legitimate activity. The registry proposed by this bill is no different. It recognizes that lobbying by foreign entities and individuals as a matter of public interest and benefit to Canada is a legitimate activity. However, the Lobbying Act also recognizes that Canadians and even public office holders themselves should be able to know who is engaged in these lobbying activities. The very same can and should be said about those lobbying public office holders on behalf of foreign entities.

I would argue that, on that principle alone, this legislation should be passed without hesitation. Colleagues, transparency, openness and public accountability are vital elements in Canada’s democracy process. We shouldn’t abandon those principles in our efforts to combat foreign interference in our affairs.

This bill does just that. For those are of you unconvinced of the need for such a registry, and others who will make the argument that this legislation and any such registry would or is meant to target one particular entity or one particular group of people, allow me to further make my case.

From the Government of Canada’s own website — again, from that hot issue note prepared for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s then Minister of Public Safety Bill Blair’s appearance at committee — I quote:

Threats to Canada’s national security, such as foreign interference and espionage can harm multiple areas of our society. They can have impacts on our democratic processes, our economic prosperity, our critical infrastructure, and even members of our communities.

It goes on to say:

CSIS has observed persistent and sophisticated state-sponsored threat activity for many years now and they continue to see a rise in the frequency and sophistication of this threat activity.

This note, available to read on the Government of Canada’s Public Safety website goes on to describe the nature of these activities. It states:

Canada has observed state-sponsored information manipulation employed by certain regimes aimed at reshaping or undermining the rules-based-international order. These states are manipulating information, including employing disinformation, to sow doubt . . . discredit democratic responses . . . and erode confidence in values of democracy and human rights.

It is important to note that disinformation, originating from anywhere in the world, can have serious consequences including threats to the safety and security of Canadians, erosion of trust in our democratic institutions, and confusion about government policies and notices . . . . State-sponsored disinformation campaigns are an example of foreign interference.

Honourable senators, some of that was in reference to our response to COVID-19, but CSIS does equally warn of the threat more broadly. In an effort to counter foreign interference in the 2019 federal election, the government created the SITE Task Force, which stands for Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections. So concerned was our government with electoral interference that they did this.

It’s not good enough to only be concerned with this when you think it negatively affects your chosen outcome. We have heard a lot about alleged Russian collusion with or in favour of Donald Trump in the United States, but the issue of foreign interference is much broader. What I believe we face is a deeper systemic challenge related to foreign interference by authoritarian states.

We need look no further here in Canada than what happened in our most recent federal election with, amongst others, the author of this bill, the bill’s predecessor and former member of Parliament Kenny Chiu. Mr. Chiu lost his seat in the 2021 election in large part because of a disinformation campaign about his bill — a disinformation campaign that was clearly linked to a foreign power. Writing in the journal Policy Options in January, Sze-Fung Lee and Benjamin Fung noted that the tactics used against Mr. Chiu were indicative of foreign interference, and said, “. . . these tactics could be deployed against any group in an information and psychological warfare campaign.” Imagine — Mr. Chiu introduced legislation aimed at curbing the very thing to which he fell victim.

Elaborating on their findings, Ms. Lee and Mr. Fung noted that the use of fake news is widespread in diaspora communities via social media apps like WeChat and WhatsApp. They point to research that indicates people tend to accept misinformation as fact if it comes from a credible and trustworthy source, and that feelings of “trust” can also be based on feelings of familiarity. Ms. Lee and Mr. Fung write:

The reliance on internet information often results in the creation of an “echo chamber” that is further exacerbated by the filter effect of the online algorithm. Applications such as the “WeChat Moment,” a feature in WeChat, which is widely used by the Chinese community, similar to Facebook and Instagram, allow individuals to view others’ stories. Thus, the Chinese community is being trapped in the vicious cycle of reinforced information consumption patterns.

The authors of this article highlight that Beijing was able to use Mr. Chiu’s pro-democracy, anti-communism activism and his vocal criticism of Beijing’s atrocious human rights record to depict him and his bill as radically discriminatory against the Chinese. They were successful in categorizing the bill’s primary objective as being one of suppressing pro-China opinion, and perhaps most troubling to many in the Chinese diaspora community, as a means to surveil organizations and individuals in the community right here in Canada.

Honourable senators, we will never know if this campaign of disinformation alone is what ultimately cost Mr. Chiu his seat in the Greater Vancouver area, but there is no denying that it occurred and that it at least, in some part, played a role or very well could have played a role in him losing his seat. That’s cause enough for concern. Whether it was the primary cause of Mr. Chiu’s defeat or not is immaterial to the fact that we must take steps to ensure against it happening in the first place to Mr. Chiu or anyone else.

Our colleague Senator Woo will no doubt take just as much exception to this bill as he did with Mr. Chiu’s original bill. Senator Woo has been quite vocal in questioning the validity of the argument of foreign interference. He has asserted that the attacks on Mr. Chiu may simply have been indicative of a debate within the Chinese community. In his opinion piece in Policy Options from January of this year, our colleague Senator Woo takes issue with the idea behind Mr. Chiu’s bill because “many Chinese entities . . . could theoretically be subject to direction from the Chinese state,” because they operate from the territory of that authoritarian state. Well, yes, Senator Woo; that is precisely the point. The reality is that in an authoritarian system, an entity that is based on such a state could indeed be acting as an instrument of that state.

In my view, just because the investigation and management of this problem is complicated by the web of influence and control that an authoritarian state possesses, it does not mean that we should not take action to protect ourselves. I would argue that regardless of the challenges, it is imperative that we take action. And no, that does not mean that Mr. Chiu’s legislation or mine is an attempt to single out any one group of people. I think it is highly irresponsible and dangerous for anyone, much less a holder of high public office, to make such a claim.

An example of the disinformation campaign that was perpetrated on Mr. Chiu comes from a WeChat post claiming that this bill’s predecessor would have had extremely negative consequences for immigrants from mainland China. It claimed, quite obviously falsely, that the bill would automatically harm economic, cultural and technological exchanges between Canada and China. The post goes on to claim that because the bill was undoubtedly targeting mainland Chinese associations. Perhaps the most egregious of the claims about this bill was that the bill aims to control and monitor mainland China’s speech and behaviour. Honourable senators, that’s just ludicrous and ridiculous. I think all of us here can understand just how ridiculous it is.

Unfortunately, Senator Woo reiterated and attempted to further legitimize this false narrative in his opinion piece, going so far as to suggest that exchanges between a Canadian member of a Chinese cultural group and a senator may be subject to a registry. Honourable senators, that is an absolute misrepresentation of the purpose of this bill and also a misrepresentation as to what a registry would look like in practice.

This bill is not attempting to target or single out China or Canada’s Chinese diaspora; far from it. What this bill is about is understanding the nature of foreign involvement and potential interference by authoritarian regimes in Canada. I believe that we must take the steps needed to try to better understand and address the challenges represented by such entities in our nation. Nobody, least of all yours truly, is suggesting that foreign interference in our democratic institutions, policies and processes is limited to just one actor; far from it.

The communist regime of China is just one example of a state that is most certainly engaged in such practices. It’s well known and understood. It’s accepted and recognized. I’ve also mentioned Russia. We can’t observe what occurred in the United States and then claim that we are somehow immune to the same influence and interference.

In the lead-up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there is no question that information warfare played a key part in Russia’s state strategy. Part of that campaign has been to manipulate and shape international opinion. In this regard, we need to understand that Russia’s intervention in Ukraine did not begin in 2022, it began years earlier, and Russia’s parallel disinformation campaign has been an integral element of Russian state strategy.

If we’re speaking about Russia, we must also consider Iran. According to a study out of Simon Fraser University’s School of Communication, Russia and Iran appear to have been the most active in targeting Canada with disinformation.

Simon Fraser professor Ahmed Al-Rawi bases his arguments to this effect on analysis he has carried out of tweets, identified by Twitter as coming from Russian and Iranian state actors. These were posted between 2010 and 2019. Professor Al-Rawi calls the campaign of disinformation repeated and systematic.

In a Toronto Star article last year discussing the study, Professor Al-Rawi said that he had seen tweets by Iranian trolls written in French falsely linking former prime minister Stephen Harper to ISIS ahead of the 2019 election. He’d also seen Russian trolls falsely suggesting that the man who killed six people in a Quebec City mosque in 2017 is innocent. Then, there are the memes of Justin Trudeau — hundreds of them, the Toronto Star points out — that the author describes as sexist and include images using Photoshop of the Prime Minister “wearing headscarves paired with Islamophobic messaging.”

Professor Al-Rawi calls this “microtargeting,” and its objective is to sow division in Canadian society and to mobilize certain groups. In some instances, these tweets promoted certain positions about events that were happening outside Canada, including some as early as in 2014 at the time of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. We continue to see such campaigns, now related to disinformation around the invasion of Ukraine.

Honourable senators, this is not a partisan issue. This is a matter that should be of grave concern to us all, both as parliamentarians and as Canadians. However, it’s not just disinformation with which we need to be concerned. Members of various diaspora communities here in Canada have anecdotal evidence of overt threats and attempts at intimidation being carried out within their communities. The objective has been to dissuade people from voting, speaking out against a regime or being activists, which we take for granted in our democracy.

Canadians are often threatened — not only their own safety but also the safety of loved ones back home in order to achieve the desired effect. Activists for human rights are told that if they continue to speak out their parents, brother or sister back home will pay the price. These aren’t idle threats, colleagues. Often, the message is delivered or reinforced through a phone call with their loved one who may have just received a visit from the authorities.

Rukiye Turdush, a Canadian Uighur activist, described Chinese police making videos of their visits that could then be played for their Canadian relatives.

They’re not even covert about it anymore. They’re very overt, as we recently saw with the threats against the Chief Executive of Hong Kong Watch, Benedict Rogers. Using the draconian national security law, Mr. Rogers was threatened with a large fine and imprisonment by Chinese authorities because of his activism against the Communist regime and standing up for the people of Hong Kong. If they’re that brazen with someone who has such a high public profile, colleagues, imagine the tactics and threats they employ against others.

Other countries engage in similar practices. Take the case of Javad Soleimani. Mr. Soleimani’s wife was among the 85 Canadian citizens and permanent residents who were murdered on January 8, 2020, by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, when they indiscriminately and unapologetically shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752. After speaking out about the murder of his wife and so many others by the IRGC, Mr. Soleimani started receiving messages stating that the IRGC was aware of his activities, that they could target him anywhere and that he had better be careful. Imagine facing those kinds of threats and intimidation on Canadian soil. Mr. Soleimani reported the incidents to police, but says not enough has been done to alleviate the growing fears of Iranian Canadians.

Mr. Soleimani told a media conference in late 2020:

One day Canada was the safest place for all of us to live, but currently it’s not at all safe.

From that same press conference, The Canadian Press detailed the story of Chemi Lhamo, a University of Toronto student who recalled a harrowing tale of harassment to which she was subjected when she ran for student government in 2019. Ms. Lhamo spoke of the thousands of messages she received that included threats of rape and murder directed at her and her loved ones. Ms. Lhamo brought these messages, as well as reports of being followed on campus, to various law enforcement agencies, including the campus police, Toronto police, Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canadian Security Intelligence Service. As Ms. Lhamo stated:

Ultimately, I still do not have a physical piece of paper that says, here’s a report that we did, or here is the information on the people that have been threatening to kill you on Canadian soil.

Honourable senators, this is happening right here on Canadian soil to Canadian citizens. It’s happening in our communities, on our university campuses and throughout our institutions. We must do something to address it.

Colleagues, I don’t profess that this bill is a cure-all. However, in terms of seeking to better catalogue foreign attempts to influence our political leaders and our institutions, I believe that it can be an important first step. It also builds on what was proposed by former MP Chiu and incorporates an amendment to the Criminal Code that also strengthens our ability to hold accountable those who do not respect our laws and, indeed, our democratic system.

What this bill does not do, colleagues, is target one group of people or new Canadians coming to this country. New Canadians are looking for a better life. They are often looking to leave behind the oppression that was endemic in the country they left. They are looking to ensure the oppression they left behind does not follow them to these shores. In that regard, this bill seeks to ensure that everyone in Canada can pursue their dreams and live their lives free from threats and intimidation.

This bill has widespread support from Canadians. A Nanos Research poll conducted last year showed that 88% of Canadians surveyed supported the passage of a foreign agent registration act to combat foreign influence. The call for a foreign agent registry also comes from a wide array of civil society and community groups, including Canada-Hong Kong Link, The Central and Eastern European Council in Canada, Saskatchewan Stands with Hong Kong, Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project, Vancouver Society in Support of Democratic Movement and the Council of Iranian Canadians.

Honourable senators, at a time when all the world’s democracies face an unprecedented threat, Canada must take firm measures, similar to the legislation that has already been enacted by many of our democratic allies, such as Australia and the United States. This bill will provide transparency and give us an important tool to better protect our democratic order against attempts being made to potentially subvert that same order.

I strongly urge you to support this bill in order to strengthen and protect our democracy, our democratic institutions and our freedom. Thank you.

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 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?

Senator Housakos: Thank you for that very thoughtful speech. Again, it was well articulated.

Senator Tannas, I hope we’re still friends after I ask the question, but we’ve done a fair amount of naval-gazing in this place. We’re always looking at the Rules. Of course, I’m not against the idea of constant improvement. Nothing is static. We should review the Rules.

However, I’ve been here a number of years, and at the end of the day, we have rules to give certain advantages to the government. We have rules to protect the role of the opposition. I’ve looked at the last few parliaments. Have there been any examples where we haven’t found a consensus to make sure the opposition’s voices are heard? Are there any examples where this chamber hasn’t respected the agenda and timelines of the government in order to respond to important issues, be it during COVID or what-have-you?

It seems that every time we engage in debate here, we need to fix something. I listened to your speech carefully, and it doesn’t seem that the proposition that we have here is fixing anything. Is it really fixing a problem that exists?

Second, we also have time allocation, which the government, of course, has hailed as a badge of honour due to the fact they’ve never used it, which it is, because it also indicates that we have found consensus among leadership, even though we’ve added so many leadership groups.

Would you agree that we’re not really fixing anything at this particular point with this motion?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I agree with what you said in your speech, but I wanted to ask a question about something specific that has always seemed very simple to me but that also seems to cause huge problems: our schedule.

The problem I have with Senator Tannas’s motion is that it doesn’t take into consideration what we can do to give ourselves more time to study bills. I have to tell you that it’s bewildering how, during the first months of a parliamentary session, we’re always rushed because of upcoming break weeks. We have very little time because of break weeks and our three-day schedule here. That said, our senators’ schedule is surely the main tool we have to work longer hours so we can study government and private members’ bills more in depth.

Ever since I arrived, it has seemed to me that we can’t expect any sympathy from the public if we say we don’t have enough time to study bills, especially if people take a close look at our schedule. I know what I’m saying is a little harsh, but I think it would give us a lot of power if we could all agree to modify the schedule.

Hon. Marty Deacon: Thank you for your speech.

Something I think we’re all thinking about is how we practise and do our work, how we are efficient and how we can do better. I have great empathy and respect for the day we spent before Christmas, on December 17, which was much guided by Senator Tannas. I thought that was a very important day. We took an extra day. I’m sure for some folks that might have even been a stressor going into Christmas, but it was good to have that day and to be able to step back from it.

I am continuing to ask my question — and thank you to Senator Lankin, also — on the problem we’re trying to solve. I hate to be that basic here, but I find that’s where I need to go back to because we do have a set of standards, a set of rules, that we follow. And we do have a problem that we all seem to look at, at the end of June and before Christmas, that we never want to be in again. We want to get away from this.

Is the problem that we don’t have the collective courage and understanding on how we can take the rules of the game in this frankly oversized sandbox — and I mean that in the kindest of ways; I really do, but it’s an oversized sandbox — of understanding how we can progress forward so that we are not sitting again — we might feel an artificial sense of security because we have heard — yes, we have heard — that we might be in a somewhat more stable position until 2025. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but we’ve heard that. So people might think, “Oh, well, this isn’t a rush because I think we’ve got some time.”

What is the collective courage that we need, in your opinion, to make this right within the rules of the game in this sandbox?

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for the question. You referred, as I also did in my speech, to courage. But courage is linked to remembering, each and every day, why we are here. We are here to give sober second thought to the government bills, to the elected chamber’s analysis of those bills, first and foremost, and to make sure that Aboriginal peoples, vulnerable peoples, regions and people who have no other voice than ours are duly represented. The courage is taking the needed time to do so but not to interpret and use the rules for other objectives.

We are also responsible for our own organization. If we interpret and use the rules in a way that is not aligned with sober second thought, we are accountable to Canadians for that.

Personally, I just don’t like having to rush at the end of a session but, at the same time, what if we never took the time to amend, when so needed, the bills that we really believe need to be amended at the end of a session? Do we then have the courage to send back those bills, to send back a message with amendments to the other place? I do believe this is part of the problem because then the onus will be on us for not having done our job in a timely manner.

But the first condition, I do believe, or the first goal that we should have, is to better organize our work. Frankly, there is a need there, and I think that belief is pretty unanimous.

To that end, I commend the Rules Committee for the work and the dynamism they are having now. I know that the Selection Committee, if and when it has to act, will be acting as well.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Thank you, senator, for your intervention. We are still friends.

I wanted to ask for your comments on a couple of things. First of all, let me say I totally agree with you. I know Senator Mercer mentioned this at Christmastime.

We have to be brave enough and apply the right amount of sobriety to a decision to reject any argument that says we shouldn’t amend because the House of Commons has gone home. I agree with you. If we collectively say we will do that, then I have no problem staying here for as long as it takes to thoroughly study bills at the end of sessions. But it is galling that we are asked to whistle something through, not study it properly or be able to deal with amendments.

I want to associate myself with that portion of your speech.

I think I said that I don’t believe that Motion No. 30 is going to fix all of our problems, but there have been some scenarios, and you mentioned some in your speech. Let me give you some scenarios where this would be helpful.

We know that in our Rules a piece of legislation needs two days to go from first reading to second reading, and one day to go from second reading to third reading. This would eliminate that. Instead, at second reading the leader could stand up and say, “This is an emergency. We need to get rid of the two days and the one day, and we need to focus on this because of time.” We could then take it from there. We could send it out for a two-day study. We could do whatever we want, but we’re not wasting time on days.

The scenario that I also wanted to raise was one that didn’t happen but very nearly happened in this chamber in the last week, and that would have been back‑to-work legislation where the modus operandi would have been to ask for leave and would have put at least one member of this chamber in the incredibly uncomfortable spot of granting leave in order to speed up back-to-work legislation. If we had this, that senator and others could exercise their right to object without having the wheels go off the cart.

I’m wondering what piece of the Rules you would imagine we could use that could then replicate this in a way that is within the Rules. In other words, how do we suspend without granting leave and requiring every single senator to sit with their mouths shut and on their hands in cases where maybe it’s a religious thing, maybe there is a key piece of social legislation that they vehemently oppose? That’s familiar, where there is an emergency and we need to get it through for whatever reason. That was being somewhat sold to us at Christmastime on Bill C-6.

How do you see this going? This may not be the answer, but I’m interested to know what thought you gave to some of those scenarios that we have confronted or very nearly confronted.

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, senator. You see the problem that I see. Even from Quebec City, it takes me six hours to come here, but we disagree on the solution.

I do believe we could organize our time in order to sit during the usual three-day week that we have planned but to reorganize our schedule and rethink this. At the same time, I also believe that if we have the courage to send a message with amendments to the other place and that means that the Speaker of the House will have to call back the other place, then they may also want to reorganize their work.

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

(On motion of Senator Gagné, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)