The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?

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

Hon. René Cormier moved second reading of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

He said: Honourable senators, I would first like to point out that the lands on which we are gathered and where I am speaking to you today are part of the unceded traditional territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people.

Esteemed colleagues, we live in a Canada that is proud of its cultural diversity and enriched by its linguistic diversity, and it is a real privilege for me to speak today in my capacity as sponsor of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada stated the following in Ford v. Quebec:

Language is not merely a means or medium of expression; it colours the content and meaning of expression. . . . It is also the means by which one expresses one’s personal identity and sense of individuality.

It is with those words in mind that I rise today to speak to this important bill for the future of language rights in our country.

[English]

Colleagues, we have before us a pivotal piece of legislation. Bill C-13 modernizes Canada’s official languages regime. As a member of an official language minority community, I am particularly honoured to sponsor this bill and see to the final stages of its study and its eventual adoption into law.

[Translation]

The fact of the matter is that the Official Languages Act has had many positive effects on our lives and the lives of our families and our francophone, francophile and anglophone communities. This legislation helped turn Canada into the country it is today, and it is a pillar of our parliamentary democracy.

Its positive effects are still being felt by francophone families coast to coast to coast, whether they live in Acadia, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Yukon or Nunavut, and by English- and French‑speaking families in Quebec.

As minorities, Canadian official language communities are shaped by the dynamics of resilience, resistance, alliance and inclusion. We all win, honourable colleagues, when we have equal access to both official languages. Having two official common languages in Canada enhances the vitality of our communities and strengthens relations between all Canadians. The Official Languages Act holds an important place in Canada’s political, social and constitutional landscape.

Many of us have witnessed the evolution of official language rights since the passage of the first act in 1969. Our two official languages have been an integral part of Canada’s history since its founding, but they were strengthened by the adoption of the first Official Languages Act.

You will recall that all this began in 1963, when the Government of Canada created the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. This commission conducted a review of the state of bilingualism in Canada to address the concerns expressed by francophones, particularly about the inequality they experienced within the federal government.

[English]

It was further to the recommendations of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission that the first Official Languages Act was adopted in 1969, making English and French the two official languages of Canada. This was a watershed moment in the history of our country. The resulting linguistic duality would now shape important parts of the country’s image and culture, one that is integral to how most Canadians recognize themselves today.

As a result of the act, the federal government now had an obligation to better communicate with Canadians and provide them services in both official languages. In addition, the act put in place obligations that promoted access to justice in both official languages and formalized the use of the two official languages in parliamentary proceedings.

[Translation]

Since then, Canada’s linguistic landscape has continued to evolve, particularly as provincial and territorial governments have taken part in the evolution of these language rights. For example, in 1969, New Brunswick officially declared itself a bilingual province. In fact, it is still the only province that proudly holds that status, though it hasn’t come without challenges, I have to admit.

In the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, not only are English and French recognized as official languages, but Indigenous languages are as well.

In 1977, the Government of Quebec passed the Charter of the French Language. In 1985, Manitoba took the necessary steps to meet its constitutional obligation with respect to legislative bilingualism, and in 1986, Ontario passed the French Language Services Act, which recognizes the right to use French in the legislature, requires that laws be passed in both languages and guarantees the right to receive provincial services in French in certain regions.

[English]

Indeed, since the Official Languages Act was first adopted, the three territories and all provinces have adopted statutes, policies and programs that guarantee services in French or that recognize the contribution of their official language minority communities.

Significantly, there was also the 1982 adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which, among other gains, guaranteed the right to minority language education, a right that is crucial for the vitality and flourishing of English and French minority communities.

In 1988, an amended Official Languages Act was adopted. In addition to preserving the achievements of 1969, this version guaranteed the right to work in the official language of one’s choice in federal institutions under certain conditions. In addition, the act now contained a new part, Part VII, which featured a new commitment by the Government of Canada to advance English and French in Canadian society.

The act also contained a new commitment to support the vitality of official language minority communities — that is, francophone communities outside Quebec and English-speaking communities in Quebec.

[Translation]

The Official Languages Act was amended again in 2005 on the initiative of Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, whose memory I salute. The objective was to strengthen Part VII of the act by adding the obligation for federal institutions to take positive measures to implement the government’s commitment and to make Part VII justiciable if the commitment to take positive measures was not fulfilled.

That being said, the Official Languages Act has not been reviewed or amended since 2005. Canadians agree that a review is needed. What’s more, over the years, the jurisprudence on language rights has become clearer. All of these legislative components represent the foundation of our language regime.

It is also through the implementation of administrative measures, regulations and programs that the Government of Canada ensures that its national vision is put into action.

Honourable senators, as we look back on the evolution of Canada’s language regime, let’s recognize today that Canada’s official languages are at the heart of our history, our culture, our values, our identity and our social contract, and that the time has come to modernize this regime for the benefit of all Canadians, both today and for generations to come.

[English]

Why is it so important to modernize our Official Languages Act now? Because we should never lose sight of the fact that the act is among the reasons why our two official languages are spoken and celebrated across Canada today. We can take pride in our official languages; in our language regime, which includes Indigenous languages; and in the resilience, the endurance and the strength of conviction our two official language minority communities have shown over the years.

The act has ushered in significant changes in Canadian society. Indeed, the rate of bilingualism in Canada has increased by 50% since the adoption of the original Official Languages Act.

Now, 30-plus years since the last major update, the Official Languages Act is overdue for modernization, and such modernization is necessary to ensure that the act keeps pace with a society in evolution, one marked by technological, social and demographic realities that did not exist in 1988.

[Translation]

The bill before us is the reflection of a comprehensive consultation process. The bill introduced by the Minister of Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is part of a progressive history that evolved in step with Canadians’ expectations.

Despite the progress made since 1969 at the federal, provincial and territorial levels, the fact remains that we need to act swiftly in modernizing Canada’s official languages regime, because the recent census caused a state of emergency by highlighting the significant decline in the number of bilingual Canadians who are able to express themselves, live and work in both official languages.

[English]

The bill is the result of consultations with stakeholders across the country, a process that began in 2019. Numerous stakeholders have engaged in this national conversation. Parliamentary committees, the Commissioner of Official Languages, community organizations, researchers, professional associations and unions have all submitted briefs and research reports. Let us not forget the provinces and territories that have shared their respective visions, positions and aspirations when consulted.

We should also remember that our Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages had already proposed changes to the act in 2019 in its final report, entitled Modernizing the Official Languages Act: The Views of Federal Institutions and Recommendations, and provided important guidance during its pre-study of Bill C-13, which was effectively considered in the version before us. Colleagues, we should take pride in this important contribution to the national conversation from our committee and the Senate.

I wholeheartedly recognize and appreciate the vital work our newly appointed Speaker of the Senate has contributed to our studies on this important matter.

[Translation]

I’ll set aside my text for a moment, colleagues, to congratulate and thank our new Speaker, the Honourable Raymonde Gagné. Thoroughness, commitment, collaboration, goodwill and determination are all words that come to mind when I think of her contribution to the study of this bill and to official languages in general. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Senator Gagné, for your valuable contribution. The Franco-Manitoban community, the Canadian francophonie and all of Canada can be proud of you. Thank you.

[English]

No one can deny our country has undergone a considerable transformation in the last 30 years, an even greater one since the first Official Languages Act was passed over 50 years ago. Modernization, therefore, not only addresses today’s challenges but anticipates the challenges we will face in official languages tomorrow.

[Translation]

The bill reflects the vision set out in the reform document released by the Government of Canada in February 2021. This vision was articulated around six guiding principles, and I think it is important to present them clearly, since they form the basis of the new version of Bill C-13.

The first guiding principle is the recognition of linguistic dynamics in the provinces and territories and existing rights regarding Indigenous languages.

This guiding principle stems from the fact that linguistic realities vary considerably from one region of the country to another. This is also true for provincial and territorial language regimes. All provinces and the three territories have adopted legislation, policies or programs to guarantee that they offer services in French or to recognize the contribution of their official language minority communities.

There are a variety of provincial and territorial language regimes that the Government of Canada takes into account in the framework of its support for official languages. There are also key areas of intervention where powers are exclusive or shared between the different levels of government, such as education, health, culture, immigration and justice.

Pursuant to this guiding principle, the government says it wants to work with Indigenous peoples to protect, promote and enhance Indigenous languages. This bill does mention that. It includes a clause clarifying that nothing in the Official Languages Act abrogates or derogates from any rights or the maintenance and enhancement of other languages, and it explicitly mentions the reclamation, revitalization and strengthening of Indigenous languages.

[English]

The second guiding principle of the Official Languages Act reform calls for providing opportunities to learn both official languages.

Canadians have a positive view on bilingualism, and most of them recognize its benefits. However, despite the efforts and expressions of interest of families who want to see their children enrolled in immersion programs, the 2021 census has sounded the alarm. The bilingualism rate among English speakers outside of Quebec is stagnant.

The current government has supported second language learning for years through agreements with the provinces and territories. That said, it wants to go further and has explicitly recognized its commitment to encouraging access to official language learning in this bill.

[Translation]

The third guiding principle of the reform is support for the institutions of official language minority communities.

Without minority language institutions and services, there are no public spaces in which official language minority communities can live in their language and achieve their full potential. The Government of Canada proposes that the modernized act promote the development of the full potential of these communities by supporting the vitality of institutions in key sectors.

The government must also provide essential tools for the defence of language rights, in particular by protecting access to the Court Challenges Program, explicitly recognizing that programs aimed at early childhood development form an integral part of the educational continuum, and establishing a strengthened immigration policy that contributes to achieving official languages objectives.

The fourth guiding principle is the protection and promotion of French throughout Canada, including in Quebec.

This bill recognizes the predominant use of the English language in Canada and North America and the fact that this makes it imperative to protect and promote the French language. The purpose of the act, as proposed in this version, is clear: to promote the advancement of the substantive equality of status and use of English and French and to protect official language minority communities.

Bear in mind that, with respect to language rights, the courts have confirmed that substantive equality, as opposed to formal equality, is the correct norm to apply in Canadian law. This norm essentially means that we must consider the needs of the minority community to ensure equal access to services of equal quality for members of both official language communities. In the preeminent case R. v. Beaulac, former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Michel Bastarache wrote that the purpose of the act, and I quote:

 . . . affirms the substantive equality of those constitutional language rights that are in existence at a given time.

Bill C-13 explicitly sets out that substantive equality is the norm for the interpretation of the act.

Bill C-13 also enshrines in law that language rights are to be given a large, liberal and purposive interpretation and are to be interpreted in light of their “remedial character.” For example, section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is remedial in nature because, according to the courts, it is designed, and I quote:

 . . . to correct, on a national scale, the progressive erosion of minority official language groups and to give effect to the concept of the “equal partnership” of the two official language groups in the context of education. . . .

This principle will guide the interpretation of the act in order to ensure better protection for official language minority communities.

The bill also recognizes that the private sector has a role to play in promoting and protecting French. With the modernization of the Official Languages Act, Bill C-13 ensures that federally regulated private businesses do their part to protect and promote French in Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence outside Quebec. To that end, it provides for rights and duties that will ensure that consumers can communicate with certain federally regulated private businesses in French. It also provides for language-of-work rights so that employees can carry out their work and be supervised in French.

[English]

The fifth guiding principle of the reform calls for the Government of Canada to lead by example by strengthening the compliance of federal institutions. The Government of Canada and its institutions must be exemplary in their implementation of the act. This bill contains concrete measures to ensure access to the justice system in the official language of one’s choice.

The bill also contains measures to strengthen the role of the Treasury Board in monitoring the compliance of federal institutions with their official languages obligations and holding them accountable, while building on the role played by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the minister’s expertise in determining the needs of official language minority communities.

This bill also calls for brand-new powers for the Commissioner of Official Languages — who currently plays an ombudsman role — in enforcing the act. The commissioner now would no longer be limited to making recommendations but would enjoy a range of more compulsory powers, including an order-making power.

[Translation]

Lastly, the sixth guiding principle of the reform of the official languages regime calls for us to look beyond the immediate official languages needs.

Clearly, the linguistic landscape is changing, and Canadian society is changing rapidly too. This bill includes a whole new act that will ensure that the legislation remains relevant for generations to come. The bill also includes a requirement to conduct a periodic review of the provisions and implementation of the legislation.

It is a reflection of a desire to carry out an ambitious reform.

To be clear, the bill sets out new areas of intervention, such as post-secondary education in a minority context, francophone immigration, bilingualism on the Supreme Court, the right to work and receive services in French in federally regulated private sector businesses, as well as a new governance framework for implementation.

Bill C-13 represents significant progress towards ensuring the viability of both of our official languages and the vitality of our official language minority communities across the country.

I would now like to focus on some of the key provisions in this bill.

[English]

The bill provides for important adjustments that include measures to strengthen the oversight of the act by the Treasury Board Secretariat, which, for its part, has a mandate to monitor and report on federal institutions. An amendment in the other place further establishes the ministerial role for coordinating the Official Languages Act with the President of the Treasury Board.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage will continue to have a government-wide coordination role in terms of the preparation and delivery of the government’s five-year strategies, also known as “action plans.”

The bill seeks to balance the various roles and responsibilities while ensuring that the federal government remains above reproach and free from any perception of conflict of interest. This issue was raised by former commissioner of official languages Graham Fraser in his 2008 report, in which he stated that:

Central agencies should also avoid being judge and jury to their own proposals, and that is why they should avoid taking on program responsibilities.

Professor and Distinguished Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute Donald Savoie echoed this concern in his speech at the closing summit of the Cross-Canada Official Languages Consultations on the next Action Plan for Official Languages, stating that “. . . central agencies cannot be both judge and jury with respect to their efforts.”

Thus, the bill provides for a combination of responsibilities that builds on the respective strengths of these two institutions, a formula that has the advantage of having several ministers work together to raise awareness of official languages issues and to find solutions.

[Translation]

Bill C-13 also includes measures that considerably strengthen Part VII of the act, which concerns the advancement of French and English. By significantly consolidating this part and specifying the nature and scope of the positive measures that all federal institutions must take to support the development of our francophone and anglophone minorities and promote French and English in Canadian society, this bill takes into account the demands that were clearly expressed during consultations. Bill C-13 states that the positive measures must be concrete and taken with the intention of having a beneficial effect on the implementation of some of the government’s commitments, especially the commitment to protect and promote French.

[English]

In fact, Bill C-13 will add to the act a list of concrete examples of positive measures, for the benefit of federal institutions. Thanks to the bill, the Treasury Board will also be better equipped to monitor the compliance of federal institutions with their duty to take positive measures.

More concretely, the bill will ensure that the Treasury Board, in consultation with Canadian Heritage, establishes new policies and regulations to support federal institutions in taking positive measures, while holding them accountable for fulfilling their obligations. It is important to note that an amendment made in the other place will further ensure that the government considers the addition of linguistic clauses in bilateral agreements with provinces and territories. This was a significant request from communities that many senators, I think, have heard.

[Translation]

From now on, when taking positive measures, federal institutions will have to consult the communities in a “meaningful” way by doing the following activities:

[English]

An important principle of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, embodied in the Official Languages Act, is the advancement of substantive equality of English and French in Canada.

One of our two official languages faces an inescapable reality — and here, of course, I am referring to French, which is a minority language and quite vulnerable, I might add. Demographic realities on the North American continent have long been an important challenge for the defence of the French language in Canada. In recent years, the French language in this country has experienced a significant decline. Despite efforts undertaken over the past few decades, the latest census data confirms that the demographic weight of francophones continues to shrink. We must therefore ensure that any modernization of the act considers the fragile reality of the French language in Canada and includes concrete steps to counteract its decline.

The bill contains concrete measures to protect and promote French, including a requirement to adopt a francophone immigration policy, complete with objectives, targets and indicators to guide government actions.

The bill also supports sectors essential to the vitality of official language minority communities and protects and promotes strong institutions serving those communities.

[Translation]

The Government of Canada also recognized that the private sector has a role to play in protecting French and, for that reason, the bill provides for the creation of a new law, the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, which seeks to create a new regime for federally regulated private businesses.

Right off the bat, I want to emphasize that the bill contains amendments that were unanimously adopted in the other place. These amendments reflect an agreement in principle with Quebec and serve as an important testament to co-operative federalism. The goal is to harmonize our language regimes to advance the protection and development of the French language while fully maintaining the rights of English-speaking communities in Quebec.

All of these proposals seek to make official language minority communities places where people can live fully in the official language of their choice.

It is expected that the new regime will provide greater protection for French, benefiting francophones across the country, and will enhance the vitality of Canada’s official language minority communities.

Honourable senators, Canadian society is changing rapidly, and yet the Official Languages Act has not been thoroughly reviewed since the late 1980s. The bill therefore provides for a mechanism to review the act every 10 years, to make sure it remains current and has a positive impact from generation to generation.

Bill C-13 represents only one part of the reform of the official languages regime. The bill contains only the legislative measures that were shared by the Minister of Official Languages in February 2021 with the release of the public reform document, which also set out regulatory and administrative measures.

According to the information I have received, the regulatory process could be launched once the bill receives Royal Assent. These regulations are vital to fulfilling the vision that inspired this bill and the implementation of certain key measures.

In concrete terms, the reform begins with Royal Assent, but it will not fully take shape until regulations are made and the subsequent implementation of certain measures and new systems takes place as a result of orders-in-council.

Three regulations will be created. One will clarify the terms and conditions for the positive measures to be taken by federal institutions. Another will establish the framework for the new regime for federally regulated private businesses. The third will establish the scope of the new administrative monetary penalty system. This is one of the new powers granted to the Commissioner of Official Languages.

This new vision also provides for a set of administrative measures, which will be part of the pan-Canadian official languages strategy, better known as the Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-28.

Although this flagship official languages strategy is independent and self-contained, it is implicitly linked to Bill C-13 in that it is one of the main vehicles for implementing the administrative and legislative measures of the reform.

Colleagues, I believe I can say that the Parliament of Canada is committed to the modernization of the Official Languages Act, as are many Canadians who are proud of their official languages.

[English]

I’m delighted that we can now study this bill. Like you, I’m eager to see a modernized act that will protect the French language and slow its decline in Canada, one that will promote and enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and one that will advance the substantive equality of English and French in Canada. The protection of minorities is a foundational principle of our Constitution, and our chamber serves as a forum to our linguistic groups.

[Translation]

I also want to acknowledge the invaluable work done by the parliamentarians at the other place and the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, who have been studying the issues associated with modernizing this quasi‑constitutional legislation since 2017. Thanks to your unwavering commitment, we can now proceed with the study of this important bill for Canada.

In closing, honourable colleagues, allow me to say, on a more personal note, that our official languages, our Indigenous languages and all the other languages spoken in this vast land that is Canada deserve to be cherished, to be spoken, to be protected, to be celebrated and to be kept alive. Maintaining, using, promoting and developing both of our official languages needs to be done with a keen awareness of the importance of ensuring the survival and development of Indigenous languages in Canada.

Like all languages, our two official languages are dynamic and are influenced by other languages. The words that make them up are coloured by a variety of tonalities. That is what makes them so strong and rich. As an Acadian writer of French origin, Newfoundlander Françoise Enguehard, wrote:

A language . . . is to be celebrated year-round, to be polished, to be learned and mastered, to be defended when called for, to be celebrated when possible, and above all, to be used.

Thank you for listening. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on the unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation at the second reading of Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada’s official languages. In speaking to this bill, I must above all acknowledge that the official languages are also a symbol of colonialism for Indigenous peoples in Canada. Besides the issue of territory, the predominant use of English and French has been at the expense of Indigenous languages and much more.

Having grown up in a minority community as a francophone, I acutely understand the role of language in identity construction and in understanding and preserving a people’s collective memory. It is important to remember that Indigenous languages are also part of the rich linguistic, cultural and identity tapestry of our beautiful and great country. We must recognize this facet of our history and take an interest in these languages and their vitality.

[Translation]

Of course, English dominance has also come at the expense of the francophone community in Canada. Let’s face it, the reform of the Official Languages Act is necessary and urgent. The demographic weight of the francophone minority has been steadily declining for decades, based on the criteria of mother tongue, language used at home and first official language spoken. We must act now to reverse this trend that threatens the vitality and development of our communities.

From the outset, I want everyone to know that I support Bill C-13 and want it to be passed as soon as possible. However, I believe it is important to point out the elements that are missing from this bill. My speech will take a critical look at this bill, given the importance of the language rights of francophones in minority situations and the fact that we have been waiting for a substantial reform of the Official Languages Act for over 50 years.

Confederation in 1867 marked the first time that the Constitution Act recognized the use of both English and French in Parliament as well as before the federal courts. In 1969, the first federal Official Languages Act was passed. The breakthrough at the time was section 9 of the act, which required every federal government department and agency to ensure that “the public can obtain available services from and can communicate with it in both official languages.”

The language rights of Canadians were further strengthened when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was entrenched in the Constitution in 1982. The Official Languages Act was then revised in 1988, affirming the government’s commitment to enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities and supporting and assisting their development. This brings us to today, May 2023, and the arrival of Bill C-13 in the Senate.

As the Italian poet and philosopher Giacomo Leopardi said, “Patience is the most heroic of the virtues precisely because it has not the least appearance of heroism.”

With the finish line so close, this quote highlights the heroes who have been working behind the scenes on this reform for several years in order to present the Government of Canada with a thoughtful and restorative reform proposal. I am thinking in particular of all the individuals and organizations working to defend francophones in minority situations, many of which have been working hard on this file for nearly 10 years and served as the catalysts for the modernization of the legislation.

[English]

It is also worth mentioning the patience of Canadians who aspire to become bilingual or to have their children do so. As an officially bilingual country, Canada should establish a legislative framework that allows for substantive equality of rights holders, but also for equal access to language immersion and learning of the other official language. Canada must provide itself with the means to achieve its ambitions.

Despite all these legislative developments, juxtaposed with developments in the courts, from the Société des Acadiens case to the Beaulac case, the demographic weight of francophones has declined over the years, as has the use of French in Canada. The proportion of people outside of Quebec whose first spoken language is French has decreased from 6.6% in 1971 to 3.9% in 2011.

In its current form, Bill C-13 is the result of hard work by French language minority communities and could possibly reverse this trend. However, this bill also has significant shortcomings.

[Translation]

Based on the pre-study conducted by the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and the testimony of several witnesses, I have identified what I believe to be the most important elements that are not in the version of Bill C-13 that we just received from the other place. By the way, I congratulate Senator Cormier on his excellent presentation of Bill C-13.

If you participated in any of the discussions about the Official Languages Act reform, then you surely heard that the stakeholders’ main request is for the Treasury Board to be responsible for coordinating and ensuring the implementation of the Official Languages Act. That was also one of the recommendations that the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages made in its report entitled Modernizing the Official Languages Act: The Views of Federal Institutions and Recommendations.

Minister Joly’s white paper, which gave rise to Bill C-13, explains that, when it comes to official languages, and I quote:

Accountability measures are fragmented into multiple processes and reports, and they are not always conducted in a timely manner.

It also states, and I quote:

The Treasury Board already has considerable powers . . . but the use of these powers has declined over time . . . .

The government then commits to, and I quote:

Strengthen and expand the Treasury Board’s powers, notably the power to monitor compliance with Part VII of the Act . . . .

The government also commits to, and I quote, “[a]ssign the strategic role of horizontal coordination to a single minister. . . .”

The bill does not make the Treasury Board responsible for implementing the entire Official Languages Act, but only Parts IV, V and VI and certain sections of Part VII, specifically subsection 41(5), which deals with positive measures, and paragraph 41(7)(a.1), which deals with bilateral agreements.

Clearly, Bill C-13 is inconsistent given that it requires the Treasury Board to exercise this role only for certain sections of Part VII, contrary to the intention expressed by the government in the white paper. When the time comes to review the act, I would like to see if it would be better to extend these duties to all of Part VII.

It does not make sense to me that the government, the House of Commons and the official languages committees of both chambers agree on this point, but that Bill C-13 restricts the scope of the Treasury Board’s powers in this manner.

Nevertheless, this bill and the amendments concerning the central agency partially address the concerns of organizations representing the interests of official language minority communities by expanding the Treasury Board’s powers and replacing its discretionary powers with duties.

For years, the act has been applied in a haphazard and incomplete manner, and this change will strengthen official languages oversight and accountability throughout the Government of Canada.

Bill C-13 was inconsistent in another way, in that it gave a leading implementation role to Canadian Heritage. The Official Languages Committee at the other place set matters straight by giving the Treasury Board the responsibility of assuming this leading role within the federal government as regards the implementation of the act. I am pleased with this correction that was made by the other place.

Although the Commons committee adopted an amendment to promote the inclusion of language clauses in agreements with the provinces and territories, the provisions on bilateral agreements are not binding and the minimum content of the language clauses was not defined.

The wording is so weak that I doubt if incorporating this provision will actually produce a result.

However, the federal government’s legal duties in relation to official languages do not stop at the moment it transfers money to the provinces and territories. Far too often, official language minority communities do not have access to the funding they are entitled to in order to grow and thrive. This systemic problem is seen at every level in our communities, from early childhood to the post-secondary level, and in community services.

Given that Bill C-13 lacks provisions to make the language clauses binding, we will have to monitor the implementation of those provisions vigilantly as a chamber of sober second thought. The federal spending power must respect its duties toward official languages. It may even be a constitutional rights issue, if it involves rights holders under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That is the segue to my third point.

Access to comprehensive data on primary and secondary school attendance is essential, since access to these schools is subject to a numerical criterion. “Where numbers warrant” means parents and school boards must be able to justify their demand for minority language educational facilities by proving to the provincial and territorial authorities that there are a sufficient number of children who have that right under section 23 of the Charter.

The provisions of Bill C-13 concerning the enumeration of rights holders are neither binding nor broad enough. For example, the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, or FNCSF, asked that the bill provide that the federal government commit to periodically enumerating children under section 23 of the Charter.

An amendment was presented at committee in the other place to require the enumeration, not the estimation, of the number of children of rights holders under the proposed subsection 41(4) of the Official Languages Act. However, an amendment to the amendment modified the text as follows, and I quote: “The Government of Canada periodically estimates, using the necessary tools, the number of children . . . .” That weakens the proposed amendment severely.

The public servant who appeared before the committee explained the alternatives as follows, and I quote:

In short, enumerating means counting. If we really want to count rights-holders, then we need to be able to use other tools that fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. . . .

If we are talking about coming up with an estimate, then only the federal government can do that. We would be using a snapshot. If we choose the term “enumerate”, then we really need to go through the provinces to get the exact numbers on an ad hoc basis . . . .

I am having a hard time understanding how shared jurisdictions present an obstacle to creating an obligation to enumerate children who have the right to minority language education. The promotion and respect of official language minority rights are a federal government responsibility. The government has a duty to advance the equality of status and use of the official languages under section 16(3) of the Charter. I hope that we will carefully study the matter of enumeration at the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.

The FNCSF also asked that the Official Languages Act require federal institutions to take into account the needs of the rights holders’ school system when disposing of federal real property.

An amendment adopted by the House of Commons provides that federal departments and institutions must consult with minority communities and take their needs and priorities into account when developing a disposal strategy.

The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages will have to examine the details of that amendment.

In Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique v. British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada found that rights holders are entitled to an educational experience that is substantively equivalent to the experience at nearby majority language schools.

Including provisions in Bill C-13 regarding the disposal of federal lands could prevent similar cases, with a view to achieving substantive equality between majority and minority communities in a given province or territory.

This situation is repeated too often in our communities.

I would be remiss if I didn’t also point out some positive things about Bill C-13.

Francophone immigration is a determining factor in the demographic weight of francophones in Canada. Immigration is also one area of jurisdiction where the federal government can act and exert a significant influence on the make-up of new arrivals to Canada.

Even though there has been a 4.4% francophone immigration target for nearly 20 years, it is outdated, since it does not help maintain the demographic weight of francophones in Canada. The government recently reached that target, but that was a first.

Clearly, we need much more than a simple francophone immigration policy. The elected members at the other place really understood this issue and its importance for the vitality of our communities and the French fact in Canada.

As a first step in the right direction, the bill sets out Canada’s duty to adopt a policy on francophone immigration that includes objectives, targets and indicators to increase immigration to francophone minority communities.

In order to improve this provision, the Official Languages Committee in the other place unanimously adopted an amendment that provides that the federal government must recognize the importance of francophone immigration by restoring and increasing their demographic weight, which suggests an obligation of result.

As far as francophone immigration is concerned, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada in Bill C-13 finally gets a clear, precise, binding mandate. The public service must operationalize a cultural shift that is promising for the future of our communities.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator, your time has expired. Are you asking for five more minutes? Honourable senators, is five more minutes granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Percy E. Downe: Honourable senators, we have before us today Bill C-13, the first major change to the Official Languages Act since 1988, and it reflects a series of recommendations to update the legislation. The Official Languages Act was originally introduced in 1968 and passed in 1969 — almost 55 years ago — and 54 years ago, this was groundbreaking and important legislation that has served our country well over the years. Colleagues, times have changed, and the bill before us today is a missed opportunity to include Indigenous languages in our Official Languages Act.

The Official Languages Act of 54 years ago was the right thing to do in 1969, and now, in 2023, we have the opportunity to also do the right thing and give Indigenous languages equal status and the same legal protection as our two official founding languages.

Colleagues, we have to step back and ask ourselves if the policy of our two founding languages — French and English — is a carryover from our colonial past. Prior to francophones or anglophones arriving in this part of North America, there were many Indigenous languages already spoken here. Those are the true founding languages of the land on which we now live.

Colleagues, is it not better to reflect on the true history of Canada and recognize that we may have many Indigenous languages as founding languages? Can the Senate play a major role and also seize this historic opportunity to send Bill C-13 back to the House of Commons and tell them to do better, tell them to include protection of Indigenous languages in this bill and tell them to provide the same legally enforced protection to Indigenous languages that we provide to English and French in this country? Colleagues, let us embrace the new Canada. Let us embrace the future rather than resisting change and fighting for the status quo.

The beginnings of Bill C-13 that is before us lay in the 1963 Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which provided the push for the legislation which followed. Speaking in support of the Official Languages Act in the House of Commons in 1968, then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau said:

In all parts of the country, within both language groups, there are those who call for uniformity. It will be simpler and cheaper, they argue. In the case of the French minority, isolation is prescribed as necessary for survival. We must never underestimate the strength or the durability of these appeals to profound human emotions.

Surely these arguments are based on fear, on a narrow view of human nature, on a defeatist appraisal of our capacity to adapt our society and its institutions to the demands of its citizens. Those who argue for separation, in whatever form, are prisoners of past injustice, blind to the possibilities of the future.

We have rejected this view of our country. . . .

That is what then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau concluded. These powerful words from 1968 would also apply to Canada today when we discuss Indigenous languages. But they were spoken over half a century ago, before there was a more complete understanding of the Indigenous culture of Canada.

But make no mistake: As early as 1963, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was explicit about the importance of language to culture, stating:

Language is also the key to cultural development. Language and culture are not synonymous, but the vitality of the language is a necessary condition for the complete preservation of a culture.

That same argument can — given our heightened awareness of Indigenous culture and history — be extended today to Indigenous languages.

More recently, in its June 2015 final report, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called upon the federal government to “. . . acknowledge that Aboriginal rights include Aboriginal language rights.”

Colleagues, today the governments of Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and British Columbia are the only areas in Canada that have passed legislation aimed at protecting and promoting Indigenous languages. When the Truth and Reconciliation Commission reported, the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau committed itself to implementing all its recommendations. In addition, Canada supports the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in which culture and language rights are central to 17 of the declaration’s 46 articles and its protection and promotion of Indigenous culture.

For example, Article 13 of the UN Declaration states that:

Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.

Article 8 specifically mentions that:

Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or the destruction of their culture.

To that end, and in response to the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous Languages, which received Royal Assent on June 21, 2019.

Unfortunately, the Indigenous Languages Act, unlike the Official Languages Act, does not provide legal protections for Indigenous languages in the same way that the Official Languages Act protects both official languages. The Indigenous Languages Act promotes Indigenous languages through positive measures, but the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages does not have the same enforcement powers as the Commissioner of Official Languages, powers which are being strengthened in Bill C-13 before us. More importantly, those who believe their Indigenous language rights are being violated have no recourse to courts for those perceived violations under the act, unlike Part X of the Official Languages Act, which allows for complaints to be remedied by a federal court.

Why are there no similar court remedies in Bill C-91, the Indigenous Languages Act? Colleagues, it is an act of good intentions, an act of reassuring words and a paternalistic pat on the head, but no enforcement.

In the past, the Senate has shown leadership on language issues. Bill S-3 was introduced in 2005 by the late senator Jean‑Robert Gauthier, and was intended to give some teeth to the Official Languages Act by stressing the binding nature of the commitment set out in Part VII of the act. Second, it imposed obligations on federal institutions regarding the implementation of this commitment.

Third, the bill included a remedial power that allows the courts to monitor the implementation of the act by governments. This bill was passed by both houses of Parliament and received Royal Assent in November 2005.

Colleagues, we owe it to the Indigenous community to embrace the new Canada we are building together. The old Canada thinking in this bill is partly the result of the distorted history we all studied when we were in school and the massive gaps in our knowledge of the Indigenous community, their customs and their society.

This absence of knowledge in Canadian society about our Indigenous history is slowly ending, and this bill should give legal protection to Indigenous language rights, thereby moving past the outdated view of only two official languages.

Once again, colleagues, the Senate, if it has the will — as it has done in the past — can improve language legislation and change the status quo.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

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

(On motion of Senator Gold, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)

[English]

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I move that this bill be adjourned in my name for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, for the second reading of Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, hello, bonjour, tansi.

As a senator for Manitoba, I acknowledge that I live on Treaty 1 territory, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji‑Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples, and the homeland of the Métis Nation.

I acknowledge that the Parliament of Canada is situated on unceded and unsurrendered Algonquin Anishinaabe territory.

[English]

I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-226, introduced in the other place by Member of Parliament Elizabeth May, Co-leader of the Green Party of Canada, and sponsored here by my esteemed Manitoba colleague Senator M.J. McCallum.

Honourable senators, it is heartening to note that this is one of the rare private member’s bills that received government support, as you heard when Senator Gold spoke in favour earlier this week.

It is my hope that I can best voice my support for this bill — which asks the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to develop a national strategy to counter environmental racism — by noting the ways in which passage of this bill will bring Canada more into alignment with existing international obligations including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Let us recall that apologies have been issued by Canada to Indigenous peoples, and now we must see actions to match. Bill C-226 could well galvanize such actions.

Having reviewed other contributions to this debate, the international context has certainly been mentioned, but I hope it will be helpful if I add some more detail to this aspect of why Bill C-226 is so deserving of our support.

Allow me to begin to observe why alignment with and implementation of our international human rights obligations is important and relevant to this bill on countering environmental racism.

To quote the Institute for Research on Public Policy just yesterday:

While Canada has long had a stellar reputation internationally for protecting human rights, our domestic track record is more dismal than that reputation would suggest. Time and again, decision-makers have failed to implement United Nations human rights treaties and recommendations at home on issues including the rights of Indigenous peoples, racism, gender equality, refugees and migrants, disability, housing, law enforcement and corporate accountability.

At the core of Canada ratifying any international rights treaty is our constitutionally entrenched commitment to equality rights, as well as the practical outcome that people in Canada can not only know and claim their rights, but — through implementation — they can also live their rights.

In the international context, Canada has recognized various human rights implicated by hazardous substances and wastes through its ratification or accession of seven United Nations human rights treaties. Under these treaties, Canada has specific obligations. These obligations, assumed voluntarily by Canada in signing and ratifying such treaties, clearly set out commitments to protect, respect and fulfill universal human rights, including the right to life and dignity; health; security of the person and bodily integrity; safe food and water; adequate housing; and safe and healthy working conditions.

Canada has specific obligations regarding the human rights of all people in Canada — all underpinned by protection from discrimination. These rights and obligations combine to create a duty for Canada to counter environmental racism.

In Bill C-226, we see a practical, measured way for Canada to take some big steps forward in bringing Canada more into alignment with existing international human rights obligations.

With the bill’s short title, national strategy respecting environmental racism and environmental justice act, it is set out in this bill that the national strategy must include measures to examine the link between race, socio-economic status and environmental risk; collect information and statistics relating to the location of environmental hazards; collect information and statistics relating to negative health outcomes in communities that have been affected by environmental racism; and assess the administration and enforcement of environmental laws in each province. It must also include measures to address environmental racism in relation to possible amendments to federal laws, policies and programs; the involvement of community groups in environmental policy-making; compensation for individuals or communities; ongoing funding for affected communities; and the access of affected communities to clean air and water.

In his 2020 report on Canada, the UN Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes — after visiting a number of racialized communities, and meeting with government representatives in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec — noted:

Canada has obligations regarding the rights to information, participation, access to justice and remedies, and specific obligations regarding the rights of Indigenous peoples, children, different genders, workers, minorities, migrants, and persons with disabilities, among other vulnerable groups . . . .

Together, these rights and obligations create a duty for Canada to prevent exposure to toxic and otherwise hazardous substances. The only way to protect against violations of the above human rights is to prevent exposure. . . . However, businesses have critical responsibilities to prevent exposure as well.

To respect my time boundaries today, I’ll limit references to former UN special rapporteur Baskut Tuncak in his report on Canada, but I do want to note that he acknowledged that Canada has ratified all international chemicals and wastes treaties, and is in the process of moving toward adhering to the Basel Ban Amendment to the Basel Convention, which Canada adopted in 1992, with the primary objective of protecting human health and environments from the adverse effects of waste. If Canada respects and implements the Basel Ban Amendment, hazardous waste can no longer be exported to other countries from Canada.

The UN special rapporteur also noted numerous concerns; for example, he noted the “jurisdictional quagmire” faced by Indigenous peoples — where reserves often fall between the cracks of federal and provincial jurisdiction, posing a risk for unregulated exposures. For example, throughout Canada, provincial drinking water quality standards are not applicable on reserves, and federal standards are not legally binding, as they have yet to be set. As stated by the UN special rapporteur, “Jurisdictional separation is not an excuse for shortcomings by the Government in taking prompt action to address toxic exposures.”

He also noted:

. . . marginalized groups, and Indigenous peoples in particular, find themselves on the wrong side of a toxic divide, subject to conditions that would not be acceptable elsewhere in Canada.

Honourable colleagues, environmental racism has two main components: distributive spatial injustice and procedural injustice. The first is concerned primarily with the inequitable location of industrial polluters and other environmentally hazardous projects, and the second focuses on institutional mechanisms and policies that perpetuate inequitable distribution of those activities.

Close to home for me, year after year, Indigenous leaders in Manitoba present well-documented actions of Manitoba Hydro that — as they have noted — show how these two components of injustice operate in systemic ways to the detriment and, far too often, the destruction of First Nations communities.

According to Wa Ni Ska Tan, an alliance of Manitoba First Nations:

Manitoba Hydro has profited for over a hundred years at the expense of its First Nation partners. It pushes for the development of devastating hydroelectric mega projects to make millions of dollars exporting power to the United States, and Indigenous communities pay the price a thousand times over. New partnerships . . . are more of the same, with communities being saddled with millions of dollars in debt — on top of cultural and environmental costs — for a generating station that provides little or no economic benefit.

Colleagues, there is a cruel irony in the fact that many First Nations families report high electricity bills — often upward of $500 per month. This seems particularly unfair, as the power is generated from their now-destroyed ancestral lands.

In short, in Manitoba, Indigenous traditional livelihoods and ways of being are often undermined or destroyed by environmental racism. For example, Senator McCallum has spoken here about the negative impact of “man camps” — how the influx of external workers for hydroelectric developments can lead to increased sexual exploitation, substance abuse and social disruption, exacerbated by incidents marked by racism and sexism that have led to violence and loss.

In concluding his report on Canada, the UN special rapporteur made a number of recommendations that are addressed positively in Bill C-226. I will note one that relates directly to the adoption of this bill: “Establish a sound environmental justice framework based on the principles of procedural justice, geographic justice, and social justice . . . .”

Colleagues, given the importance of the issues discussed, and being conscious of how time will become more limited for non‑government bills as we navigate the precious — and pressured — final weeks before we rise in June, I now invite your active support for this bill. Let’s send it to committee for continued study as soon as we possibly can.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, entitled Amendments to the Senate Administrative Rules, presented in the Senate on May 16, 2023.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of May 17, 2023, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, May 30, 2023, at 2 p.m.

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

(On motion of Senator Gold, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)

[English]

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

Hon. Peter M. Boehm moved:

That the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, entitled Strengthening Canada’s Autonomous Sanctions Architecture: Five-Year Legislative Review of the Sergei Magnitsky Law and the Special Economic Measures Act, tabled in the Senate on Tuesday, May 16, 2023, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Foreign Affairs being identified as the minister responsible for responding to the report, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, entitled Strengthening Canada’s Autonomous Sanctions Architecture: Five-Year Legislative Review of the Sergei Magnitsky Law and the Special Economic Measures Act.

This comprehensive report is the culmination of eight meetings between October 26, 2022, and February 15 of this year. Over the course of the committee’s study, it heard from 26 expert witnesses, including officials from Global Affairs Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, legal and banking experts, renowned academics, sanctions advocates and members of civil society. I will highlight three particularly high-profile witnesses from whom the committee was honoured to hear.

Bill Browder is an author and head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign. His lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, was, of course, the inspiration for Canada’s Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the Sergei Magnitsky Law.

Evgenia Kara-Murza is Advocacy Coordinator of the Free Russia Foundation. Her husband, Russian political activist and opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza, is imprisoned in Russia on charges of treason, partly for speaking out against the war in Ukraine. Like her husband, Ms. Kara-Murza is an unwavering and courageous long-time advocate for introducing Magnitsky laws around the world and targeting Russia in particular with Magnitsky-style sanctions.

Finally, we heard from our dear former Senate colleague and my predecessor as chair of the committee, the Honourable Raynell Andreychuk. It was former Senator Andreychuk who spearheaded Canada’s Sergei Magnitsky Law by sponsoring then Bill S-226, which received Royal Assent on October 18, 2017.

Senator Andreychuk’s bill and the date it became law provided the impetus for the committee’s study. The Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act prescribes a report and review requirement under section 16. Section 16(1) states:

Within five years after the day on which this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and of the Special Economic Measures Act must be undertaken by the committees of the Senate and of the House of Commons that are designated or established by each House for that purpose.

This is the procedural answer to why the committee undertook this study and when, but it was not thrust upon us either. The committee actively sought authorization from the Senate to conduct this study, which was granted on October 17 of last year. In my completely unbiased opinion, the Senate Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee was best placed between the two houses of Parliament to take this on, given both the Senate’s strong reputation for committee work and the Senate’s less partisan nature.

Section 16(2) states:

The committees referred to in subsection (1) must, within a year after a review is undertaken under that subsection or within any further time that may be authorized by the Senate or the House of Commons, as the case may be, submit a report on the review to Parliament, including a statement of any changes that the committees recommend.

Well in advance of the one-year mark, that is what the committee has done, colleagues, and I’m expanding on that a little bit today.

Part of the reason I as chair was so keen on the committee undertaking the first comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the Sergei Magnitsky Law and of the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA, was because, as we all know, sanctions have been one of the most used diplomatic tools and one of the most debated issues of the past 15 months since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022.

Also, these legislative instruments have become increasingly important in the government’s tool kit, particularly as the United Nations Act is used less frequently given the gridlock at the United Nations Security Council on sanctions issues — and so many others. In other words, colleagues, both procedurally and topically, this was the right time for this study.

As the report states, over the course of the study, witnesses highlighted various improvements made to the sanctions regime over the past five years, including the creation of the Consolidated Canadian Autonomous Sanctions List. However, witnesses also said that the Government of Canada must improve how it communicates information on autonomous sanctions to the public and called on the government to develop clear guidance on the interpretation of sanctions regulations.

After hearing from the 26 expert witnesses, the committee concluded that Canada must outline the goals it wishes to achieve through the imposition of sanctions and must analyze the results regularly.

It was clear in our deliberations that the committee believes in the usefulness of the Sergei Magnitsky Law and the Special Economic Measures Act. However, as is outlined in the report, the committee is making 19 recommendations to improve the coherence and operation of Canada’s sanctions regime. I wish to highlight a few of the more consequential recommendations.

Recommendation 19 calls on the government to:

. . . amend the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to require that new regulations made under either Act include a sunset clause that would prescribe a date for the termination of the sanctions regime unless renewed prior to the expiry of the term.

As the committee heard, there is a fair bit of precedent in the use of sunset clauses and sanctions laws around the world, including by the European Union and the United Nations.

Dr. Meredith Lilly, a professor at Carleton University’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, summarized the need for sunset clauses during the committee’s meeting on November 2, 2022. Dr. Lilly said these measures could “. . . ensure that outdated and unnecessary sanctions are removed, and it can also decrease the politicization of the sanctions.” She further argued that automatic sunsetting clauses:

. . . force a discipline on the public service to continuously monitor and stay abreast of the developments to inform any renewal decisions.

Basically, the committee is advocating for sunset clauses to amendments to Canada’s sanctions regimes to ensure that the laws always serve their intended purposes and are, without politicization, consistently reviewed by well-informed policy‑makers.

In recommendation 18, the committee recommends that committees of the Senate and the House of Commons conduct a comprehensive review of the two acts every 10 years to ensure that Canada’s autonomous sanctions regimes remain fit for purpose. This recommendation is deliberately non-prescriptive to give the government of the day flexibility in determining how to amend the Sergei Magnitsky Law in this regard.

What this could look like, in my opinion, is that to ensure ongoing review, the designated committees in the Senate and the House of Commons could alternate five-year periods so that, in effect, the Sergei Magnitsky Law and SEMA would each be reviewed every five years, and by each committee every ten years.

For example, the Senate Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee reviewed the laws in 2023; the House committee could do so in 2028; then it would be back to the Senate in 2033, et cetera.

Other fundamental recommendations include those on communication; interdepartmental cooperation; administration and enforcement; collaboration with allies, civil society and the academic and research communities; and delisting.

With regard to interdepartmental cooperation, the committee noted the establishment of a sanctions bureau at Global Affairs Canada and the need to ensure that officials engaged in sanctions work — especially in the RCMP, CBSA, FINTRAC, CSIS and CSE — are well versed. Increased cooperation among domestic departments and agencies also requires closer collaboration with similar units in jurisdictions with which Canada is allied.

On communication, I was struck by the extent to which a more effective sanctions regime comes down to better communication with the public regarding the effects and implementation of autonomous sanctions. That is why recommendation 10 calls on the government to:

. . . provide more detailed identifying information on sanctioned individuals and entities in the regulations made pursuant to the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law).

The committee further recommends:

The government should also include detailed identifying information in the Consolidated Canadian Autonomous Sanctions List, along with the justifications for listing individuals and entities.

Colleagues, I will not recite every recommendation. I simply wished to highlight a few that I feel are particularly important.

I encourage those of you who are interested to read the report, as it is, I think, an exceptional piece of work, of which I am proud as chair, on a subject that is both crucial and timely, especially given the significant increase in the use, by Canada and our allies, of autonomous sanctions since Russia invaded Ukraine.

I wish to thank committee members and other colleagues who participated in these meetings, the staff — in particular, the committee analysts who drafted the report — and the expert witnesses, without whose time and commentary this study would not have happened and this report would not exist.

Colleagues, there may be other senators who wish to speak on this report. I very much look forward to more debate on this important topic. It is my hope that this motion, and thus the report, will be adopted very soon — as in very, very soon — so that we can maintain momentum and start the clock on the 150 days the government will have to provide a full and detailed response. Thank you very much.

Hon. Lucie Moncion moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, this report contains a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to amend a section of the Senate Administrative Rules.

The provision in question, section 11 of Chapter 3:03, currently states that the consent of the Internal Economy steering committee is required for any commercial use of the Senate’s intellectual property, except by way of fair dealing, an exception set out in the Copyright Act.

The committee recommends that this provision be amended such that the steering committee’s consent is no longer required when the commercial use is insignificant in nature or when a statutory exception other than fair dealing applies.

[English]

The Senate of Canada creates and owns a variety of intellectual property, from the recordings of debates in the chamber or in committee to the material we make available on our website to communicate our work to Canadians. Per the Senate Administrative Rules, requests from members of the public to use this intellectual property are addressed by the Administration, specifically by the Communications Directorate, with the support of the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. As is currently required by the section at issue in this report, whenever a request has a commercial element to it, no matter how incidental, insignificant or improbable, the Administration will bring it to the steering committee for direction.

By adopting this report, the Senate will simplify the process by which requests from the public are addressed, as it will reduce the number of requests that must be considered by the steering committee while preserving its role in approving or rejecting significant commercial uses of intellectual property.

I would add here that the Administration will provide quarterly reports on the requests it receives and how they have been handled.

Finally, this report will also add reference to statutory exceptions to intellectual property generally and confirm the Administration’s current practice, which is to comply with Canadian law and any exceptions that might apply.

Thank you. With this, if there are no questions or debate, I move the adoption of the report.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Honourable senators, given Senator Boehm’s admonition, I’ve decided to speak now rather than next week. As a result, my comments may be less organized than I would like them to be.

I have no disagreement with the chair’s summary and I want to thank him, Deputy Chair Senator Harder and all my colleagues for the excellent work that we did on this report.

Colleagues, the report was very much about the machinery and mechanics of our sanctions regime and how we could make it better. It included questions of administration, clarity of sanctions tools, coordination with allies, reporting, as well as consideration of unintended consequences.

We spent much less time, though, on the question of efficacy, which is to say, “Do sanctions work?” On this, the closest that we came to a conclusion is, “It’s difficult to say.” That is in the official press statement.

When it comes to the traditional criteria for measuring the success of sanctions — i.e., change of behaviour or deterrence of such bad behaviour in the future — I did not hear a single witness say unequivocally that sanctions have been successful. On the other hand, we did hear that sanctions may be considered successful based on a number of other criteria that are non‑traditional. These include the desire to punish, the need to show solidarity with allies and the need to appeal to public sentiment.

Unfortunately, these other criteria are not the ones that we officially cite as reasons to have sanctions in the first place. Perhaps these new criteria are, in fact, the reasons for Canada to have sanctions — but if that is the case, let’s be honest in saying so.

The reason I raise this issue is because, of late, we have become the world champions in autonomous sanctions and perhaps have forgotten, as Senator Boehm has rightly pointed out, that sanctions are one among a number of diplomatic tools that we have to address difficult international problems and, indeed, that sanctions may not even be the best tool for a particular problem.

You know the old saying about the tendency to use the tool you have in front of you to deal with a problem. If you have a sledgehammer, that is what you will use; however, it’s not clear that a sledgehammer is the best tool, indeed.

Ultimately, sanctions are a form of economic coercion, and we take great umbrage, of course, when economic coercion is directed at us.

The proliferation of the use of sanctions, the widespread use of sanctions, the increasing tendency and preference to use sanctions, the finessing and the extension of different types of sanctions, while possibly necessary, is ultimately a statement on the failure of diplomacy. I’m not sure this is a gold medal situation.

This is a real concern because we’re actually going around the world talking about how we are the world champion in autonomous sanctions. When we say this, I don’t know which of the new criteria we’re using to give ourselves this award. Is it that we get a gold medal because of our solidarity with allies in imposing sanctions? Is it that we get a gold medal because we are the best at punishing people? Is it that we get a gold medal because we are the best at the political appeal of sanctions, the populist instinct for wanting to do something about a difficult situation? I don’t know, but I am pretty sure that we do not yet have the evidence that the traditional criteria — change of behaviour and deterrence — have been met in awarding ourselves any top prize.

Honourable senators, this problem is compounded by the issue of inconsistency in the application of autonomous sanctions, which, by the way, is one of the findings in our report but probably one that will not be given very much attention. It is important, though, because inconsistency in the application of autonomous sanctions is not just a trivial case of “whataboutism,” but it fundamentally undermines the slender moral authority on which we have to impose sanctions in the first place. It is a recommendation, and I do hope we pay attention to it.

Sanctions have real and long-term consequences for affected countries, even when they are attempts at targeting just the bad guys. They are difficult to unwind once they are applied, which is why I so much agree with one of the recommendations around the sunset clause for autonomous sanctions. This too is an important finding of the report, and I hope it gets serious attention.

To conclude, honourable senators, this report was a very useful exercise in our statutory review of the Sergei Magnitsky Law. I hope the government will take it seriously. When we come around to the next five-year review or — in the case of Senator Boehm’s suggestion — the next ten-year review, I hope that we will be able to say with some satisfaction that we’ve actually reduced our use of sanctions and that we’ve become smarter in the use of ongoing sanctions, not because we are turning our backs on injustices in the world but because we have found a better way to address them. Thank you.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I’d like to adjourn the motion standing in the name of Senator Housakos.