Senator Duncan: Senator Tannas, in light of the fact that Diamond Tooth Gerties has been licensed since long before I was legal to be drinking or gambling there — I was, honest — do you not think that because these special provisions were licensed by Canada and they have worked all these years as tourism and as an economic generator, and because the Yukon also has government-to-government-to-government relationships with First Nations, perhaps it would be worthy of study by your committee or by the group studying this legislation? To that effect, I would not consider proposing an amendment without substantial consultation — to Senator Batters’ point — with the territory and the First Nation governments. It needs to be all three at least.

Senator Tannas: It is technologically neutral. It doesn’t speak to whether or not a First Nation has the right to make book in Ontario. It doesn’t say it can’t. It doesn’t say it can.

It’s the same problem that the provinces have with each other. It’s the same problem that we have with the Bahamas. It is sovereign governments that don’t know how to protect their own gaming in a world that is the way it is.

Court is probably the best way to go, but this bill will not impact it, positively or negatively — in my opinion and in the opinion of the counsel for drafting — one way or another.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Senator Woo: Your speech is very timely given that we’ve just received the response from the foreign minister on the sanctions from the Magnitsky study, one of the findings of which you may recall is that the efficacy of our sanctions regime, particularly autonomous sanctions, including Magnitsky and some of the others you have described, have not been proven. We’re not clear that sanctions actually make a difference, based on the objectives that were set for sanctions — changing behaviour and so on.

I’m very supportive of the idea of war reparations along the lines of what happened after the Second World War. I’m not so sure about your proposal.

I’ll give you a preamble before I ask my question, but it sounds to me that while we talk about the importance of upholding international law, what you’re proposing essentially is executive power to override accepted international law, which strikes me as undermining a principled stand on the importance of upholding international law.

The reality of central bank assets is that most of them — about 70% — are held in U.S. dollars, maybe 20% to 30% in euros, the balance in Japanese yen and perhaps a few other small currencies, and a small amount in gold, which means that most of the foreign assets of any central bank will be held in the United States.

That gives me pause when you talk about how we should set the example. Not for us, because there really are very few central bank assets held in Canada. It gives me pause as to what kind of message and lesson, to use your term, we are passing to the United States, which has used its power to seize central bank assets in ways that are perhaps less edifying than you would present.

The Iraq example is not particularly encouraging when you think about how subsequent events in Iraq have unfolded and how the money could have been used for reconstruction. The example of Afghanistan is particularly discouraging, because the assets of the bank have been seized essentially to pay Americans off for the World Trade Center.

What leads you to think that this example, which really will be mostly for the Americans, will be used in a way that, in fact, respects international law and which promotes peace and comity in our world rather than more conflict?

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Woo. I’m trying to locate the question. Forgive me for trying to locate it.

Your first question is whether this is against international norms. I’m simply going to repeat what people far wiser than me have said. Again, Laurence Tribe, a well-known U.S. constitutional lawyer, said that Russia cannot hide behind international norms when it is breaking every one of them itself.

On the question that we are doing this so that the U.S. will follow, we all know that the U.S. system is “executive-order-happy,” if I may use that term. They tend to use it at many times.

Our proposal is different because even if it is executive action that generates the seizure of assets, it has to be grounded in the conditions of SEMA — the Special Economic Measures Act; those two conditions have to be met. There has to be a breach of international peace and security, and there have to be gross human rights violations.

The proposal that is being considered in the U.S. actually mirrors this proposal and anchors executive action — seizure of state assets — in domestic law. We’re a step ahead of them, if I may say, because that is precisely what we are doing. It is not cowboy, willy-nilly executive action. It is executive action based on certain conditions and criteria.

I hope I located your question.

Senator Woo: If I could then ask the question more specifically, which I think I did at the very end, what gives you the confidence that our American friends, who will be the principal users of this example you’ve set, will, in fact, use this tool with Canada as the cover, as setting the example? Because we’re not going to use this; this is not principally for Canada.

What gives you the confidence that they will not use it in a way that, in fact, violates international law and harms the prospects of countries simply because they have a political disagreement with those countries?

I hope that question is very clear this time.

Senator Omidvar: It is very clear. If the U.S. follows our example and anchors their legislation on state asset seizure in domestic law, as we are doing, then we will have set the right path.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Klyne: Yes.

Senator Batters: In your speech tonight you referenced that Russian assets in Canada were thought to be “negligible.” I’m just wondering what basis you have to say that, because I thought that that wasn’t the case. It seems like every so often, when we hear about potential oligarch assets in Canada, we hear that there have been, thus far, relatively limited real results produced by actions taken by Canada’s government.

I actually thought that very little had been seized thus far in Canada. Why do you think that there is just a negligible amount left?

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Batters. In December of 2021, just before Russia invaded Ukraine, according to the public accounts of Russia, state bank assets totalling $16 billion were located in Canada. Russia subsequently removed $16 billion to Belgium in, as I said, likely a pre-emptive move. This is all public information that I had gleaned.

What I don’t know is if they’ve got anything left outside of, maybe, their embassy here.

Senator Cotter: Thank you.

This is a fascinating initiative, Senator Tannas. It raises a variety of fascinating potentials and also some challenges.

I want to begin by channelling Senator Batters, if I might. In Saskatchewan, there are casinos on reserve — on roughly five reserves. Every dollar that is earned in those casinos goes back to First Nations communities now as is.

Second, that money is distributed, pro rata, to all the bands in the province, even the ones in the Far North that could never sustain a casino even if they wanted one; there would be no customers.

So empowering individual First Nations that are in attractive geographical locations to have the jurisdiction to operate their own casinos seems to be, quite frankly, a disruption of that fairly equitable arrangement in Saskatchewan. The band outside of Saskatoon — my good friend and yours, Darcy Bear, oversees a casino on the White Cap Dakota reserve, but the money that casino makes gets pooled in a province-wide arrangement. It seems to me that your proposal makes it possible that Chief Bear could carry on with his casino and keep all the profits, which would be great for White Cap Dakota — as it is for some First Nations around Phoenix, for example — but it is not so good for the rest of the province.

Could you comment on that?

Senator Tannas: Yes, and you’re right —

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you. I’d still like to add one thing to the question you’re going to ask: Can the law be changed?

It seems rather absurd to spend millions of dollars on hotel rooms for up to a year, I’m told, rather than to ask and fund non‑profits capable of rehousing them for less in society, and helping them. This seems like an inconsistency that needs to be corrected.

Senator Tannas: Until six o’clock, I’m open.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate, I ask:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules or previous order, for today’s sitting, five additional statements be added at the beginning of Senators’ Statements with regard to the recent attacks in Israel and the situation in the Middle East.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today, not as the Government Representative in the Senate but as a human being and as a Jew.

Let me begin by thanking all of you who have reached out to me over the last week and a half. Your support and understanding mean a great deal, more than you may realize.

Jews have been called the “People of the Book” because words matter. Words can comfort and words can heal, but sometimes words simply fail. This is such a time, at least for me.

What words can capture the horror that we witnessed a week ago on Saturday on the Jewish Sabbath? What words can heal the memory that is seared into the souls of Jews around the world of seeing children ripped from their parents’ arms and slaughtered before their eyes, of the systematic butchering and massacring of innocent people in the deadliest attack against Jews since the Holocaust? Words fail me.

Along with millions of Jews around the world, I have family and friends in Israel. Some went to Israel straight from the concentration camps, others came to live in the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. Some are serving on the front lines, others are living in the very communities that were invaded by Hamas. And, yes, colleagues, some are being held as hostages in Gaza as I stand here today.

Colleagues, dear friends, this is very personal for me. In the face of such brutality, such inhumanity, such horror, I wish I had the words to comfort all of those who are grieving and who are trembling and suffering in fear, but the words keep failing me, so I turn to my own tradition for guidance.

In Pirkei Avot, which is a rabbinic text written 18 centuries ago, it is stated that we should not offer comfort to someone while their dead still lies before them. So the best that I can do is to feel the pain and loss — and the fear and dread — that have been visited upon my people; to honour the memory of the dead; to mourn with their family, friends and communities; to hope for the speedy recovery of the injured; to work for the release of all those held hostage; to hope that the innocent victims trapped in Gaza, whatever their religion or nationality, are provided the humanitarian assistance they so desperately need; and to pray that all of them — their family, friends, and good neighbours, all the innocent people caught up in this brutal war — be spared any further sorrow.

Thank you.

Senator Duncan: Thank you. I’m going to ask this question without being incredibly familiar with your bill.

In this discussion, I have not heard the situation in the North referenced at all, and the three territories are completely different. In the Yukon, Diamond Tooth Gerties in Dawson City was — to the best of my knowledge — the first gambling hall licensed in Canada. The restrictions on their licence are that a certain percentage of the money raised has to go to improvements, restoration and work in the community.

I’ve also heard you mention this as referencing on-reserve. We don’t have reserves in the Yukon. We have government-to-government relationships. How on earth would this bill fit into the Yukon situation? I have no idea about Nunavut or the Northwest Territories. To the best of my knowledge, they don’t have gambling situations like Diamond Tooth Gerties.

How would you see the North fitting in — in particular, the Yukon — to this legislation?

Senator Cardozo: I would still like to hear if there is a timeline in terms of passing such a bill by the end of the year.

My supplementary question is about dental care, the other part of health care that is related to affordability. This policy has been put in place. Could you update us on where the dental care policy is at this point?

Senator Tannas: I mentioned this in my speech, and we didn’t spend a lot of time on the North because there isn’t much going on up there in the gambling world, right? It’s not something, and it doesn’t appear in the Criminal Code — territories are not mentioned. It says “provinces.” It doesn’t say “territories.”

The objectives here are to deal with First Nations gaming on‑reserve where there are, in fact, 30-odd casinos operating today.

To the extent that if there is language we can find that the Northwest Territories, the Yukon or somebody else wants to propose, we would definitely welcome that. However, from what we could tell, it would require something completely different than what is in the Criminal Code and what we’re proposing to do, which is specific to reserves.

Senator Dagenais: Can you explain the logic behind the government’s fight against these web giants, when the Prime Minister himself uses them to announce changes in his family situation instead of using a local, Canadian news channel? In a way, he is proving the effectiveness of web giants in the system.

Senator Gold: The idea behind the bill is not to go backward and get rid of commonly used tools such as social media. It is instead to ensure that our traditional media and our local journalists, which Canadian democracy relies on, receive fair support compared to the media giants who benefit from it.