Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: consideration of Motion No. 114, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

The Hon. the Speaker: That was just a point of clarification. I don’t believe it’s a point of order. I had the choice. I was clarifying the position, so I will call upon the Orders of the Day.

The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator McPhedran. Yes, I was even reminded today that I had said that yesterday. I must admit that a lot of questions being asked have very long preambles. I had a list of people, and I had you on the list after Senator Housakos. I had other senators also who asked to be added to the list, and I tried to respect the order that has been given to me. That is my explanation, and I will have you on the list. I have other senators whom I didn’t recognize who were on the list also. So I will keep that in mind.

Yes, I had yesterday mentioned that, but, again, I’m trying to be respectful of the groups and also the non-affiliated senators.

Just a reminder, please keep your preambles short and get to the question as soon as possible so we have more time for more senators to ask questions.

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

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: I have a question, a point of clarification. It may be a point of order. I have the distinct recollection that yesterday when I was not able to complete my question, you said very clearly that you were going to recognize me today and give me the opportunity to do that. I would very much appreciate knowing why that did not happen.

I need to say that I’m a non-affiliated senator. The system that operates in this chamber discriminates against me. It limits my opportunities to speak, so it was very precious to me yesterday when it seemed that you were going to be fair and let me speak today and continue my question. I would really like to understand why that did not happen.

The Hon. the Speaker: That was just a point of clarification. I don’t believe it’s a point of order. I had the choice. I was clarifying the position, so I will call upon the Orders of the Day.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answers to the following oral questions:

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 8, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Martin, concerning the cost implications of Bill C-13.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 18, 2023, by the Honourable Senator Wells, concerning a Canadian airline crew detained abroad.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Yonah Martin on June 8, 2022)

On March 1st, 2022, the Minister for Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency tabled 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 the House of Commons. Bill C-13 is still currently under study by parliamentary committees.

On March 18, 2022, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) sent a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (PCH), requesting information on the direct and indirect expenditures related to the administration of Bill C-13 as well as related tax expenditures, among others.

On April 6, 2022, the Deputy Minister of PCH, provided a response to the Parliamentary Budget Officer regarding his questions about the costs of Bill C-13. Seeing as a copy of the response from PCH would be posted on the PBO’s website, the department was advised to not include, in the response letter, any information that is confidential or still under the seal of Cabinet. Due to an administrative error, additional confidential information was not sent in a timely matter. When this error was discovered, the department immediately corrected this mistake and provided the additional information.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable David M. Wells on May 18, 2023)

Transport Canada takes all allegations of incidents involving aviation safety and security seriously. The responsibility for aviation security and investigation for incidents at the Punta Cana International Airport rests with the Dominican Republic.

Transport Canada has investigated within the scope of its authorities by reviewing details of the incident provided by both Pivot Airlines and Dominican authorities. It has assessed whether there were compliance issues in the Dominican Republic with international aviation security standards and conducted an on-site aviation security assessment of the Punta Cana airport. This assessment included the area where the incident occurred, which Transport Canada would not normally be allowed to see since it is a private terminal.

Dominican authorities appear to have taken the necessary steps to address possible vulnerabilities. During Transport Canada’s on-site assessment, no major security issues were discovered. Transport Canada continues to collaborate with authorities to encourage the continuous improvement of aviation security.

No further review of this issue is planned by Transport Canada.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, let me say, first of all, I’m speaking as a senator from Alberta and not in my capacity in any way as the leader of the Canadian Senators Group. I rise to speak to Bill C-47, known as the budget implementation act. I would suggest that it should probably be renamed the “budget implementation and a bunch of other stuff act,” but we’ll leave it where it is.

This is my eleventh year here and the eleventh June when I have seen a budget implementation act come through.

I want to make my comments today really around three things, first of all, the growing problem, as I see it, of omnibus legislation on a wide range of issues, unrelated to the actual implementation of a budget.

I want to highlight what I believe is one of the most egregious items that would stand as an example of the growing problem which we have in this bill that we are being asked to pass today.

Finally, I will propose a simple amendment that would provide a vehicle for us to improve this legislation, which I believe is our job, as always.

I’ll start with the budget implementation problem that I believe we have. Page 30 of the Liberal 2015 electoral platform states:

Stephen Harper has . . . used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

I believe it’s as true today as it was then that this is an undemocratic process, at its worst; at its best, I think it adds efficiency.

Nonetheless, that was a platform of fresh ideas and new ways of doing things. I believe it was brought forward with the best of intentions.

A few months after Parliament reconvened with a new government, the first budget implementation act under the Liberal government was proposed, and it ran to 179 pages, which was seven pages longer than the egregious last budget implementation act of the Harper government. We didn’t start out very well on the fresh and good idea of limiting omnibus budget bills. We now know that we are over 400 pages — for the last six or seven budget implementation acts that have been presented, we’ve reached up to 800 pages, in one case.

Colleagues, a budget implementation act, in its absolute purest form, should be a list of required legislative items that are tied to the spending and the revenue lines in a budget. Much of this budget implementation act does, in fact, do that. But budget implementation acts now — and going back many years — contain a litany of legislative items that are unrelated to the actual budget, but have been placed in the bill for convenience, efficiency or time sensitivity.

Sometimes — and I worry it is happening more frequently now — items are also stuffed into the budget implementation act for the purpose of avoiding proper scrutiny. I think that should concern us all.

My wife and I enjoyed the Netflix show called “The Crown.” I don’t know how many of you saw it; I recommend it if you haven’t. In the opening episode, a dying King George has the young mother and bride Elizabeth — the soon-to-be queen — in his study because he knows he’s dying, and he needs to start schooling her on the practical elements of being the monarch. In that episode, and in that particular scene, he’s there with the red box in his study. The red box has all of the papers that the king is supposed to read regarding what is happening in the government. He explains that to Elizabeth. He said, “Here is a very important thing to do.” He lifts up the box’s lid, takes all of the papers out and turns them upside down. He said, “What they don’t want me to see is on the bottom.”

That brings me to Division 39 of our budget implementation act. It is, in fact, on the bottom. It is on page 409, and it is the last division in the budget implementation act.

It deals with the privacy laws that apply to federal political parties. Essentially, up until 2018, federal political parties were exempt from privacy legislation. In 2018, the government passed legislation that required federal political parties to develop and adopt a formal privacy policy. They never said what had to be in it. They never said there had to be any consequences. They just had to have one — that is the legislation that exists today.

In 2018, when they included that tiny provision — that forced political parties to have a privacy policy — it was proclaimed by the minister as the first step in the protection of privacy for citizens.

Five years later, nothing has changed. As far as I can tell — in the research that my office and I did — there is not a single other organization in this country that is not subject to privacy laws except for federal political parties.

What did we get in this bill? It’s interesting — we got nothing. If you read it, we have a declaration that said that what exists is a uniform, exclusive and complete regime to protect citizens’ privacy in regard to political parties. That’s all it said. It didn’t provide for anything other than that — there were no details; there was nothing.

All we have at this moment are those words that mean exactly nothing.

Some would suggest — and I think Senator Loffreda mentioned this — that the declaration sets the stage for future legislation, just like the first step five years ago set the stage for future changes. In fact, Senator Loffreda, in his second-reading speech, said the following when talking about the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that studied this particular provision:

In its report, the committee reminds us, “The amendment creates a framework for a potential future regime. It does not actually establish any such regime.”

He went on to say:

I appreciate some may feel the division is not robust enough and does not go far enough, fast enough. So I would urge the government to make this a priority and not delay any further.

I think that is a fair and optimistic view by a self-proclaimed optimist, and I’m a fan. It’s important to look for the best in people and look for the best of intentions; I believe that way of thinking is my reflex as well.

A more cynical view of this potential division would be that this declaration is meant to be a shield to protect the status quo — where political parties operate with impunity, while provincial privacy commissioners are being bombarded with complaints because there is nobody else to complain to. They are looking to take action. In fact, in one province, they have begun a court challenge.

As cynical as it might be, some are of the view — and it was mentioned at committee, but it might not have been on the record — that there is no intention to change. There is simply the intention to place the shield here that would prevent the provinces from acting on behalf of the citizens of their own province in the vacuum that exists right now regarding accountability.

So my amendment, which I will get to in a few minutes, builds on the work and the words of our committees and simply provides a timeline in which this “new regime” must be developed and brought forward. It gives two years, whereupon if nothing is done, then this shield — this fig leaf — drops away.

If optimists are right, two years is plenty of time to get the proper legislation in place. If the cynics are right, then this shield — the fig leaf — to protect the status quo and keep other regulators away would drop off and allow provincial regulators to again take up the case on behalf of their citizens who believe that they have been wronged by political parties and their data and their privacy. That’s it. It’s that simple for me.

This isn’t the only division in the budget implementation act that is troublesome. There was a host of items. We’re going to change a bunch of items in the Criminal Code. There are other items that need proper scrutiny and were put in this bill for reasons that were not always explained. In fact, I asked Minister Lametti a question about this bill, and he had an interesting comment. It was quick and off-the-cuff, but he said that he doesn’t always like what goes into a budget implementation act, and he believes sometimes that they should be full bills, but it’s not always his decision, so fair enough.

Before I read my amendment, let me just say a couple more things. I think we have a growing problem, and I think it is the Senate’s problem. Clearly, the evidence shows that we are suffering not just through financial inflation in Canada, but our budget implementation is also suffering from the same inflation — 172 pages in 2015 to 430 pages today. I believe if we don’t do something, someday we will see more situations where governments are using both good and undesirable purposes in their budget implementation acts.

So, someday — maybe it isn’t today — we’re going to have to do something about it. If this government serves its full term, and there is a deal, as we know, on confidence and support, we’ll have two more budget implementation acts, one in 2024 and again in June 2025. We should reflect between now and then and prepare to better manage these — to actually manage rather than react — rather than have I don’t know how many times by how many people in how many reports we’ve said that there were items in this bill that were inappropriate to be in this bill, yet we’re not going to do anything about it today. I’m going to propose something. I expect to lose spectacularly. That’s okay. We’re all going to get a chance to stand and begin our reflection on what we need to do here.

I believe for the utility and the sustainability of the Senate, this is an issue that we need to tackle. We need to communicate what we want to do appropriately with the House of Commons going forward, and we need to do this before the government changes. Imagine if we delay and all of a sudden we all get the religion when the government that didn’t appoint us is now in power and we decide we’re going to do something like this; we’ll look like a bunch of hypocrites. So let’s think about it between now and next year, and let’s figure out how we deal with this issue between us and the House of Commons.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.)

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of June 20, 2023, moved:

That the document entitled Proposals to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, outdated terminology and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes and Regulations of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect, tabled in the Senate on June 20, 2023, be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

The Hon. the Speaker: In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Tannas, seconded by the Honourable Senator Osler:

That Bill C-47 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,

(a) on page 402, by adding the following after line 5:

(b) on page 402, by adding the following after line 10:

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Would the senator take a question? Thank you, Senator Tannas, for your remarks. You alluded in the early part of your remarks to the promise to amend the standing orders. Are you aware that the standing orders in the House have, in fact, been amended on several occasions consistent with the electoral promise of 2015? Can you provide us with a short summary of those changes to the standing orders?

The Hon. the Speaker: In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Tannas, seconded by the Honourable Senator Osler:

That Bill C-47 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,

(a) on page 402, by adding the following after line 5:

(b) on page 402, by adding the following after line 10:

Hon. Scott Tannas: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-47 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,

(a) on page 402, by adding the following after line 5:

(b) on page 402, by adding the following after line 10:

Hon. Leo Housakos: Would Senator Tannas take a question?

Hon. Pat Duncan: Senator Tannas, will you accept a question?

Hon. Denise Batters: Would Senator Tannas take a question?

An Hon. Senator: Hear, hear.

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