Senator Tannas: Certainly.

Senator Gold: No; the answer is no. It is true that the Canadian Armed Forces are facing challenges, as you point out, but it is not true that we are not prepared to play our role. On the contrary, we have long-standing partnerships with our allies, including those who are in that region.

As I already explained in response to a question on the same topic, there are very specific reasons why Canada was not part of this small group. It is about the nuclear submarines that were central to this organization. That being said, Canada continues to play an important role everywhere, but especially in defending our interests in the Asia-Pacific region.

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who do such a great job for us, the way that they have written it is that section would stay in, but it would be repealed in two years.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 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.”

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 Jaffer: Thank you, leader. You spoke the kinds of things I would like to see. When my family came, we also got housed and treated in a very humane way. But, leader, that’s not been the experience of some refugees — some, not all. Last week, you said the government is looking at a directive to stop the detention of minors and also improving health services for refugee claimants and migrants.

Why is the government not also reviewing the broader practice of detaining refugees, claimants and migrants in jails in Canada?

Leader, I know what you’ve said. I’m not expecting an answer from you because you’ve said it. May I respectfully ask that you speak to the government, which you do on a regular basis — I’m not trying to be rude — and ask, “How long will this go on,” and let us have the answer? Thank you, leader.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I have no information on any negotiations between the government and potential suppliers, but thank you for the suggestion and I’ll add that to my inquiries with the government.

[English]

Senator Woo: Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

The point is that we haven’t studied the Canada Elections Act, its implications for privacy and how to craft an appropriate privacy regime for political parties. I think that assertion is accurate.

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 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 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 Tannas: Yes.

Senator Ringuette: Yes, Senator Deacon, I am aware of those issues — having been an elected person, and having worked in a partisan caucus. The Privacy Commissioner has his specialty in regard to privacy, but the Canadian people want transparency in our political parties and in our democratic process. How will the other place — with all four political parties — be able to justly balance the two? I wish them a lot of luck.

[Translation]

Senator Woo: If you’re referring to a delay of the vote on the BIA, I think the answer is unequivocally no, for all of the reasons you’ve heard from my colleagues, including Senator Shugart. However, if you’re talking about a delay in the sense of coming up with an alternative approach to deal with the substantive question of privacy in the Canada Elections Act, yes, I agree with that. I don’t know what that approach would be. Someone has talked about a motion, a study or a bill. There could be different options. That I would be in support of.

Senator C. Deacon: Would Senator Woo take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, we were all saddened to learn of the military helicopter crash that occurred yesterday near Petawawa, which left two crew members dead and two more wounded.

Our thoughts are with their friends and families, and with all members of the Canadian Forces, as we express our condolences for those lost and our hopes for a full recovery by the injured.

Honourable senators, please join me in rising for a minute of silence in memory of those who did not survive this tragic incident.

(Honourable senators then stood in silent tribute.)

[Translation]

Senator Batters: Thank you. I’m very sympathetic to your point of view on this. Perhaps one of the most egregious examples of how this government, several years ago, used a budget implementation act was to plug a 200-plus-page carbon tax into a budget implementation act, with no ability to really debate it or amend it or anything like that in that sort of fashion.

I’m part of the Legal Committee, and we were discussing this Canada Elections Act change and found that it was not a great way to do it, to say the least. Is that what your amendment precisely purports to do — simply remove that part of it? It wasn’t specific in the actual amendment, so I wanted to give you a chance to explain.

Senator McPhedran: As I understand it, Bill C-47 is, in effect, a confidence vote. It’s a budget bill. Could you please help me understand the nature of this amendment? What impact will this amendment, if we were to accept it, have on the ability of the government to function?

Senator Woo: Yes.

Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much. I wish to ask for clarification.

You made excellent comments. I wish we were doing this differently, but the reality is that 96% of Canadians would like to see some legal privacy rights related to political parties. If we pass this bill unamended, there’s nothing; there is intention. I’ve dealt with open banking, digital government and digital identity for four years now and the intention for progress to be made. It’s like the sign in the British pub: “Free beer tomorrow.” If you come back tomorrow, it still says, “Free beer tomorrow.” I learned that the hard way.

My concern is that there is 10 years of evidence that there is no intention. Did you consider that?

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?