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

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

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Senator, I would definitely say no regarding the specific question you are asking.

When we talk about modern slavery and forced labour, the terms are not synonyms for hard work. You can have hard work, and it doesn’t have to be modern slavery. In the definition of forced labour, you have the notion of constraints. It can be a debt bondage or a confiscation of your documents. Obviously, exploitation is part of it. It’s a definition that’s different from hard labour, which can happen in construction sites and in many places in Canada.

Honourable senators know that children working in Canada is a provincial jurisdiction and different provinces in Canada have different rules about it. In general, when a human being is not yet 18 years old, there are restrictions. They can work before the age of 18 on the condition that they go to school and work does not interfere with schooling. In Canada there are already laws that apply to children that will not be touched by this particular bill.

Now to the essence of your question, no, I don’t think that family farms will be touched. If you go back to the bill, we’re talking here about large enterprises. I will read the definition of what we’re talking about so that you know we’re not talking about your regular family farm.

The entity covered has at least $20 million in assets or has generated at least $40 million in revenue, and/or employs an average of at least 250 employees. This is not a family farm; however, it could be an agribusiness that, for example, imports tomatoes and transforms them. They would probably be touched if they are big, but not the family farm.

The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you for raising that, Senator Kutcher. I have just been informed by the table that it’s one of the tablets in the chamber, and we are trying to ascertain which one it is. Is an honourable senator in the chamber using tablet Zoom12?

Can you wait until we resolve this, Senator Quinn, or is it pertinent to this?

Hon. Jim Quinn: It’s pertinent to this. There are at least four other ZoomGal users on our participant list.

Senator Woo: I’m a ZoomGal.

Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much. I want to go back to something I referenced in my speech last evening, and thank you very much for your communication when you acknowledged that you had listened to my speech. You then will recall I referenced a Speaker’s ruling on rule 12-5. I won’t go into all of the detail, but there is one very specific statement I’m going to ask you to interpret, based on the position you have taken about group ownership of the individual member’s position. It says that if a senator withdraws from a caucus, rule 12-5 would cease to apply. The senator would retain any then current committee membership, unless removed either through a report of the Committee of Selection or a substantive motion adopted by the Senate.

Senator Woo: I’m hesitant to share private correspondence, but you are inviting me to, so by all means. I believe what I said to you was that we are pleased for you to have the seat, and it would be subject to whatever decisions the Senate makes as a whole on the portability or non-portability of seats.

To me, that would imply that if this report is passed, then seats would stay with the group, should you choose to leave.

I’m certain I also said in my email to you, and I don’t want to say it would be extraordinary, but we should not expect that we would take seats away willy-nilly. In fact, I have an expectation that, should you choose to do something different, and the question of your seat came up, we would talk to you about it and we would try to find you another seat. But that is only if perhaps by a new member joining the Senate maybe we’ll get somebody with extraordinary fisheries experience, even better than Senator Manning’s, joining our group, and that person really wants to join fisheries. In that circumstance, we may say to you, “Senator McPhedran, can we work something out?”

But this is not about punishment or vengeance. It’s not about some kind of a power trip. It’s about finding solutions. We are all about finding solutions, but we need tools to find solutions, and I believe this Selection Committee report gives us one of those tools.

Senator McPhedran: First of all, I’m loving this discussion tonight. I’m also in awe of how you managed to deflect the questions with your erudite answers. However, I’m going to see if we can stay focused.

In some ways my question ties in with the reference that Senator Woo made. Under the current set of rules, if I were to be given a committee seat and then I was to change my affiliation or my non-affiliation, I would get to keep that seat for the session, correct?

With the Selection Committee report, if it’s voted on and accepted, anybody who changes affiliation or for any reason their group is in need of some corrections — shall we say — their position can be yanked from them under the proposed report. Is that correct? Thank you.

Senator McCallum: I want to thank you for the comments you made.

Senator Housakos: I don’t think it’s that at all. It’s a question of maintaining respect for proportionality and respect for the operational semblance of this institution without it becoming the Wild West where votes on seats become negotiable with groups. On the contrary, if you or I want to change affiliations, yes, I will lose a voting right on a committee because, again, there must be respect for proportionality, but it doesn’t prevent me from doing work.

In this Parliament, I no longer serve on the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee. That’s one of my loves. As you can see from what I do in this chamber, I do a lot of work on human rights and on foreign affairs issues. About 80% of what I do here is touched upon at the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee. Unfortunately, because of our group’s proportional representation, we’re down to two members on that committee, so two of us had to cede our seats. I was one of them.

Do you think in any way it hinders my capacity if I’m in this group or any other group to move the motions I’m moving, to table the private member’s bills I’m moving? Do you think I will be prevented from participating in the debate on issues of Foreign Affairs and International Trade? Absolutely not. I will be there. I will be participating. I will be asking questions, but I won’t be casting a vote, officially, on behalf of my group or any other group in respect of that proportionality.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Kutcher, do you have another question?

Hon. Claude Carignan: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

This summer, Canadians learned that the Trudeau government had petitioned the courts to prevent the families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy from accessing information from the Parole Board of Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada in preparation for the parole hearing of Paul Bernardo, the man who murdered those two young girls.

(1450)

The government objected to the release of this information to the families on privacy grounds and won the case. The Trudeau government then shamefully demanded that the families pay the government’s legal fees, which came to just over $19,000. The judge reduced the amount to $4,000.

How can the Trudeau government possibly justify foisting its legal fees on these families, who have already suffered so much from the loss of their child?

Senator Housakos: Absolutely.

Senator Boisvenu: In our society, the principle of rehabilitation depends on accountability. If the government pays for all citizens’ expenses, we are making citizens unaccountable. If an individual commits a traffic violation, such as impaired driving causing bodily harm, the justice system will order an electronic starter device to be installed in their car at a cost of roughly $800. The system ensures that it is the individual who committed the offence who pays for the ignition interlock device. When a criminal record is expunged, why make society pay fees that should be charged to the criminal?

[English]

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of December 8, 2021, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Monday, December 13, 2021, at 6 p.m.

Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Patterson, for your question. I cannot speak for your group, but I can tell you definitively that, in the ISG, chairs and deputy chairs that are designated to the ISG through the negotiation process are selected through a democratic process by the members of that committee. They know that the important criteria have to do with expertise. They have to do with the ability to chair meetings. They have to do with real-life experience.

I’m very confident that ISG members make wise decisions in choosing their chairs and deputy chairs.

[Translation]

Senator MacDonald: Again, you didn’t answer the question. To accept the release of the two Michaels as being out on bail is to give validity to these illegal detentions of these two Canadians for over 1,000 days. That is something Canada shouldn’t do and I’m sure it is something Canadians do not accept. To say they are out on bail implies that Canada somehow accepts these conditions that the two Michaels have to follow to maintain their release.

Senator Gold, why does the Government of Canada accept that the two Michaels are out on bail?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, as you know, there were two candidates for the position of Speaker pro tempore. I wish to thank both the Honourable Senator Bovey and the Honourable Senator Ringuette for having put their names forward for consideration, giving the Senate two excellent choices.

The voting process established pursuant to order and announcement has now concluded, and the Clerk has compiled the results. I am therefore pleased to advise you that the Honourable Senator Ringuette will be Speaker pro tempore for the remainder of the session. Pursuant to the established process, the following motion is deemed moved, seconded and adopted: “That the Honourable Senator Ringuette be named Speaker pro tempore for the remainder of the session.”

Colleagues, I know that, like me, you will wish to congratulate Senator Ringuette on her new responsibilities, and I know you will join me in thanking Senator Bovey for standing as a candidate.

Thank you, Senator Ringuette, for all your diligent work for the Senate, and my very heartfelt congratulations and best wishes.

[English]

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Would you take a question, Senator Woo?