Senator Tannas: I really wasn’t ready to go that far by deleting things that a government is intending to do. I felt it was better that we try to improve upon it while making a point. I was also thinking of the public. This isn’t on the public’s radar screen, but if it were, they would be hopping mad, and they would expect something to be done.

So deleting it leaves us where we are. I think this, at least, has highlighted it and can continue to highlight it.

That’s the best answer I can give. Thank you.

Senator Tannas: Senator Woo and I have an understanding. The reason we went this way is that the amendment specifically asks — begs — for a bill to be placed before us to do our study in a full and complete fashion. It preserves what is there and asks that we have a bill. Did you miss that, or am I not catching the nuance?

Senator Pate: Thank you for that. I agree there has been a lot of discussion, a lot of good intentions around this. I just left a meeting with Indigenous leaders. Their appropriate, concrete question is this: By what percentage will the government commit to reduce the population of Indigenous peoples in prisons by this day next year?

Senator Tannas: Yes, that’s exactly right. Our legal minds here in the Senate, who do such a great job for us, the way that they have written it is that section would stay in, but it would be repealed in two years. That’s to give everyone time.

When you read it, it’s kind of clunky. It seems as if it’s backwards, but it’s not. It’s essentially saying that we have a sunset clause of two years and that these two sentences that are in there proclaiming this wonderful new privacy regime that doesn’t exist would go away if it hasn’t been replaced, essentially.

Senator Gold: I’m really going to exercise restraint in a different context and not address the softball you have just thrown me.

The question of foreign interference is an important question. It’s an interesting question. It is always appropriate to ask questions, but the answer is the same as before. This is a matter that is being considered seriously and responsibly by this government. It is not the case that a foreign registry should be put into place without proper consideration for the consequences to those who may be inadvertently affected or indeed tarred by it. The government is doing the proper and responsible thing, and when it reaches a decision, it will be communicated.

Senator Tannas: I’m glad you raised this. It’s a good one that goes to an episode of “The Crown.”. The finance minister did not say one word about this in her speech. You’re right; it was in an annex to the budget. It was on page 254 of Annex No. 3 of the budget plan for 2023. It says:

Senator Tannas: I’m glad you raised this. It’s a good one that goes to an episode of “The Crown.”. The finance minister did not say one word about this in her speech. You’re right; it was in an annex to the budget. It was on page 254 of Annex No. 3 of the budget plan for 2023. It says:

. . . the government proposes to amend the Canada Elections Act to establish a uniform . . . approach in respect of federal political parties’ collection, use, and disclosure of personal information in a manner that overrides overlapping provincial legislation.

That’s what it said. There is not a peep about it in the budget speech, and here we have one paragraph of two sentences in the back.

Yes, the rules have been sufficiently torqued such that all you have to do is stick it somewhere in the volumes of budget documents, and it qualifies as a budget. If I were asking you the question, I would say, “Can you point me to any line item of spending at which this particular division applies?”

Senator Plett: I was hanging on to the podium for the last 30 minutes. I would respectfully decline questions.

Senator Plett: I was hanging on to the podium for the last 30 minutes. I would respectfully decline questions.

Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Dasko. No, I would not because if making an amendment to the current provision on the Canada Elections Act is already an excess of enthusiasm, I would say that removing that clause altogether would be even more so.

Senator Plett: Thank you very much for that question, Senator Cordy.

Let me just say that the first year I was here, we sat until the third week of July, because we didn’t have somebody that did that. I was reminded a number of times of what Senator Carstairs had done. The Prime Minister, of course, was Jean Chrétien, and she absolutely did that. I applaud her for it. I have reminded our leader in the Senate a number of times that maybe we should do that. I think I reminded my cousin Senator Harder of that when he was the leader as well, so, yes, I would certainly support doing that.

Senator Shugart: Thank you, senator. I would simply refer to the comments about this being a confidence measure, being late in the process, balanced against the fact that, technically, the Senate does have the prerogative or the right to amend the legislation, but that prerogative has to be exercised appropriately. In my judgment, the issues at stake do not justify the use of that prerogative at this stage in the process. That’s what I meant by “disproportionate.”

The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Jaffer: Thank you.

He asked if our presence would lead to anything more than pretty pictures and speeches — if it would lead to any sort of action on the government’s part.

I don’t know if he’s listening or following these hearings. I know that this isn’t a perfect answer, but Bill C-21 is part of the answer that I would have liked to give him at that time.

Honourable senators, Bill C-21 will not solve all of our problems with gun violence. It will not heal the wounds or bring back the loved ones killed by firearms. However, it is a step in the right direction. It is a tool that will help us reduce the risk of firearm-related violence and death in Canada.

After the incident at l’École Polytechnique, I visited the institute as the president of YWCA Canada. I will never forget how Mrs. Edward, whose daughter had been killed, was trying to bring about changes in gun violence. I don’t know if she is alive now, but if you saw her pain — and the pain of all the mothers who lost their daughters at the university — you will understand why we, as senators, have to do something. This bill is not perfect, but it is a start. Thank you, senators.

Senator Shugart: Senator Omidvar, I think the National Finance Committee would be very appropriate. Given the issues at stake, there may very well be other committees of the Senate that would have an interest in the subject. We could organize that and perhaps even broader initiatives that would move this forward.

Senator Ringuette: Thank you for the question. I believe that all of the items you’ve listed should be part of the discussion and part of the analysis. If we are an independent chamber, then we should be able to come to an understanding on the kind of work we want to perform.

I suppose the other question is this: Is the government putting forth omnibus bills because of the growing inefficiency in the House of Commons? If that is the case, then we have to force them to also deal with their inefficiency — for the sake of democracy.

Perhaps sometimes I have too much of an opinion for my own good. Thank you.

Senator Moodie: Would Senator Woo take a question?

Senator Dalphond: Senator Gold, is the federal government prepared to work with all the Indigenous senators on strengthening the Indigenous Languages Act and improving access to services in Indigenous languages throughout the country as soon as possible?

Senator Loffreda: Yes.

Senator Woo: Yes, of course.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Rebecca Patterson: Honourable senators:

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth

And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;

So begins “High Flight,” the aviator’s poem, the official poem of the Royal Canadian Air Force, or RCAF. Today, we learned that two members of the RCAF have tragically slipped the bonds of life. Their CH-147F Chinook helicopter from 450 Tactical Helicopter Squadron at Garrison Petawawa, Ontario, crashed yesterday on June 20, 2023. Two of the four crew members on board survived and were recovered by base firefighters with the assistance of civilian first responders and support from 8 Wing Trenton. The two survivors were taken to hospital in Pembroke and have since been released. They are being monitored by Canadian Armed Forces medical personnel and their comrades in arms.

As the former commander of the Canadian Forces Health Services, I know that the two survivors and their teammates are being well taken care of. As a senator for Ontario, I want to thank all of those, both civilian and military, who helped in the search, recovery and treatment of the Chinook crew. Most importantly, however, as a veteran, as the mother of a soldier and as the spouse of a serving RCAF member, I know how much of a family the Canadian Armed Forces, or CAF, is.

We know service isn’t just about the Canadian Armed Forces members but also about their community. We don’t serve alone. So to the family, loved ones, friends and comrades of the fallen, we mourn your loss and stand with you in your grief.

Senators, the CAF truly is a family regardless of whether you serve in the air force, navy or army, and in times of tragedy, families stand together and support each other. Therefore, I ask of you, my new Senate family, to join with me and please keep those affected by this tragic accident in your hearts and on your minds.

In closing, I’d like to again read from the aviator’s poem:

Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue

I’ve topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace

Where never lark nor ever eagle flew—

And, while with silent lifting mind I’ve trod

The high untrespassed sanctity of space,

Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

We will remember them. Thank you.