Hon. Pamela Wallin: Senator Gold, many of us were relieved to see the British Parliament’s honest review of their process of withdrawal from Afghanistan, admitting it was a disaster and a betrayal of Afghans.

We, on the other hand, have suggested we could have acted with “greater prudence.” That would be to risk painful understatement. Our diplomats fled, Afghans were misled, abandoned and had their documents destroyed — not to mention their homes, families and lives — and some were left to be murdered by the Taliban. Not only did the evacuation fail, but so too has the transition and resettlement.

We have a plane landing tomorrow with a few hundred more Afghans. Why can we not get on top of this and do what we are morally obligated to do, which is to provide safe passage for those who protected and served our military?

Hon. Pamela Wallin, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, presented the following report:

Tuesday, June 14, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce has the honour to present its

THIRD REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization, has, in obedience to the order of reference of April 28, 2022, examined the said bill and now reports the same with the following amendments:

1.Delete clauses 132 to 152, pages 54 to 73.

2.Clause 159, page 76: Add the following after line 1:

“and under a written agreement or arrangement that defines the elements of personal information, the purpose for disclosure, any limits on secondary use and onward transfer of personal information, and other relevant details,”.

3.Clause 160, page 77: Replace line 8 with the following:

“for the purposes of cooperation, where such disclosure would be made under a written agreement or arrangement that defines the elements of personal information, the purpose for disclosure, any limits on secondary use and onward transfer of personal information, and other relevant details.”.

Your committee has also made certain observations, which are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

PAMELA WALLIN

Chair

(For text of observations, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 712.)

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, many of us here have lived with the fear of losing a much-loved mother or father or mentor.

I remember many years ago my grandmother would leave our home, suitcase in hand, on a biting cold Saskatchewan winter day in search of a memory and a life long past. Her behaviour, known as “wandering,” is common amongst those suffering from dementia. Our family was in a constant state of panic — mom and dad frantically leaving work or counting on the kindness of strangers and friends to bring her back home safely.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case for other families. There are too many stories of folks with dementia wandering and never coming home. If a person is not found within the first 12 hours, they face a 50% chance of injury or death. About six in ten people with dementia will become wanderers.

A brutal, indiscriminate medical condition that knows no boundaries, dementia — or Alzheimer’s — affects more than 700,000 Canadians and their families, and those numbers are expected to double in the next 15 years. And it knows no boundaries — everyone from Ronald Reagan to Robin Williams to Rosa Parks — it robs them of a future.

Coping with this means often frustrating situations, and it touches us all in some way or another. But on May 31, 2018 — and believe me, it was late at night — we unanimously passed a motion here in the Senate asking the government to work with the provinces and territories to institute a national framework on silver alert, and I thank Senator Plett for being the co-sponsor.

A silver alert, much like the successful Amber Alert system that is used to locate abducted children, helps find people with major neurocognitive disorders who have gone missing or who are in imminent danger. Given the similarity of the systems, they could be easily integrated, making silver alert a cost-effective strategy to find our loved ones. Statistics from cities and states from our southern neighbour show that silver alert has been a very effective strategy.

So I was happy to see yesterday that the Quebec government has announced that it is launching three silver alert pilot projects in the municipalities of Joliette, Val-d’Or and Drummond. A silver alert strategy in these towns is a great start, and we’ve seen Alberta and Manitoba adopt legislation to implement the system. But a federal network would help each of the provincial and territorial systems communicate and work together. My hope is that the government sees the success of these projects and takes the lead, as we ask them to do.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on May 4, 2022, the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on June 6, 2022, its second report, which deals with the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 5, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17 and 30 of Part 5 of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Hon. Pamela Wallin moved second reading of Bill S-248, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).

She said: Honourable senators, I have some brief remarks on Bill S-248, the Senate public bill that I tabled last Thursday.

The bill amends sections of the Criminal Code relating to medical assistance in dying to allow individuals diagnosed with an incurable illness, disorder or disability to make an advance request for medical assistance in dying.

This bill is a result of many years of careful consideration and consultation with dozens of stakeholders, organizations, experts and those, most importantly, with lived experiences.

Last year, we passed an amendment here in the Senate to the government’s bill regarding advance requests. Sadly, that amendment was rejected by the government. Still, I am proud to be trying again after another year of further consultation and study.

I wish to speak only briefly to the bill now and provide more fulsome comments when we return in the fall and have time for proper debate and study. However, I believe it is important that this bill be tabled now for two reasons. Our Special Joint Committee on MAID has been looking at advanced requests, mature minors, mental disorders as a sole underlying condition, the state of palliative care and the protection of Canadians with disabilities. We have a decade of federal reports and expert panels on these subjects, and particularly on advanced requests. They are wide-ranging and have set out recommendations in support of advance requests, but it is still unclear whether the committee will hear from further witnesses on advanced requests before the reporting deadline in October. So I am uncertain that the review will be able to examine a potential gap in the law.

It is necessary that we seek legal clarity on the issue. A few weeks ago, the Quebec government tabled advanced request legislation. It is a reasoned bill based on the recommendations of the Quebec all-party committee on the end of life. This report and subsequent bill established a framework and a timeline for advanced requests, outlined requirements for a registry and for the process of updating an advanced request and its notarization. I believe it offers an appropriate balance between safeguards and respecting the autonomy of the individual. However, if this bill is passed in Quebec, there will be a gap between the exemptions for medical assistance in dying established in the Criminal Code and the advanced request framework being created in provincial legislation. That obviously creates some concerns about criminal liability and could lead to another Supreme Court challenge. So the aim here is to anticipate and avoid any federal-provincial ambiguity and to begin to look at this. A Senate committee will reassure all of us and, I hope, the Canadian public, as our goal would be to educate, anticipate, prepare and give us all time for more fulsome consideration of the legal issues.

I believe an advanced request is a right to a dignified death. Public support is already there. The government has been a bit reluctant to take the lead, so I believe this is our opportunity to do just that. This is our responsibility, as legislators, to do the heavy lifting, to look at how to provide safeguards and to create a path forward. I look forward to working with you to fix the gap in our MAID laws.

(On motion of Senator Wallin, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fourth report (interim) of the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight, entitled Senate Audit and Oversight Charter, presented in the Senate on June 2, 2022.

Hon. Pamela Wallin introduced Bill S-248, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).

(Bill read first time.)

Senator Wallin: Certainly.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much. Certainly, today, a lot is being said in the Senate, some direct, some indirect and some with innuendo, but the debate is really important. I would like to maybe even think about calling out the elephant in the room. I think we are all quite familiar with our former governor general, Mr. David Johnston, who wrote a book on trust and 20 ways to make this country better.

To you, my question is: Are we talking about the debate about having a pre-study, or are we talking about trust that the process and diligence that are supposed to take place, that we hear in the Senate, are going to be done in due course?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, I, too, would like to join this discussion on the motion to force a pre-study on Bill C-11 — a highly contentious government bill, but not urgent in nature.

So let’s cut to the chase. This pre-study motion intends to ensure the passage of bills that have not been subjected to proper scrutiny or study or debate or anything close to first sober or second sober thought. We have been witnessing this in the other place for the last week, and it is shameful.

Pre-study of any bill is for the convenience, by and large, of government, not for the benefit of the public. In the case of Bill C-11, this legislation remains highly controversial. I have had literally hundreds of emails and exchanges with stakeholders and citizens who have repeatedly tried to make their cases, fact-based cases, but they have been ignored or shut down in the other place.

Government has been shown the fault lines, the evidence that, globally, we are out of step and that their attempts to control the high-tech sector will prove ill-conceived. Even their own officials have publicly contradicted them on user-generated content being subject to censorship. These are not simple commas or adjectives. This is a flawed, not-ready-for-primetime, core content problem, and it impacts fundamental rights.

In his speech on the motion on pre-study on May 18, Senator Gold said, “I just don’t know, nor does anybody else in this chamber,” if this bill will be amended in the House. Agreed. That is the point. Let them do their work, and then we will do ours. This is not a budget or a pandemic spending bill. No lives are hanging in the balance. There is no crisis. And governments can’t always have what they want just because they want it. That’s why we have a system of checks and balances.

Given all the drama that took place in and out of committee in the other place on Bill C-10 last summer — the secret amendments that were invalidated by the Speaker — it was an embarrassment then and we are seeing it again. It was then and it is again now not only a flawed bill but a flawed process.

Of course, the government wants this bill and all of their bills passed quickly and, usually, with as little examination as possible, but that is not what we do here. We have no right to turn a blind eye. Our job is to examine government legislation, fix it, improve it, make it Charter-proof and, all the while, ensure that the rights of Canadians are secured and protected.

As we know, pre-studies don’t allow for amendments. There is no guarantee that regular committee study will, in fact, ever take place when we do get the bills. But this bill, every bill, needs hearings and witnesses and, most importantly, we need some honest debate.

My concern is that by agreeing to ever more pre-emptive pre-studies, we are allowing a new culture to take hold here in the Senate — a culture of complacency, one where the government no longer needs to respect parliamentary procedure or weigh the cost of spent political capital. They no longer need to ensure actual debate or a fair exchange or airing of differing views or win the day with a solid argument with facts, never mind show that they have consulted and actually listened.

I fear that the role of the Senate to uphold the interests of the people we represent will become some quaint, out-of-favour ritual. If all government bills are deemed urgent or essential, then in fact none of them are.

During COVID, we let billions of dollars in spending and new programs slide by without proper scrutiny. We accepted that they were extraordinary times and that time was of the essence, but no longer. This is now a convenient and growing trend. Complicated changes are hidden in budget bills. Debate is curbed. With no ability to introduce amendments, without the guarantee of full committee study and without waiting to see if the bill will be changed in the other place, my concern is that we are truly becoming the thing that offends me to my core: We are becoming a rubber stamp.

The voters passed judgment on this government last fall and, in their wisdom, offered only a minority: a limited hold on power. There was a message from the voters: “We want checks and balances on what you do.” Yet, through a side deal, the government has now engineered a majority. So, given that, we must be, more now than ever, the check and balance in the process.

Our committees are capable of doing great work. We have been waiting to get back to our real work, stymied as we have been by technology, by lack of facilities and translators and by being considered second class when it comes to access to resources. We want the tools and the time to do our work.

The senators on the Transport Committee, of whom I am one — although I have been denied the right to participate because of hybrid scheduling — and all who remain bring a breadth of experience and expertise to any issue. I look forward to a careful examination of Bill C-11. But already under a constrained calendar, with very limited resources, and committees meeting just once a week, this is going to be a tough task.

At the Banking Committee, we have been asked to examine key components of a budget bill and Bill S-6, both of which make sweeping changes to a whole range of important laws in this country. Clearly, we do not have enough time, yet again, to address the increasingly complicated legislation. Changes to the Copyright Act and the Competition Act, which were quietly shoehorned into the budget, need and deserve more time to be carefully considered. But we are no longer afforded that right due to some contrived, I think, politically driven declaration of urgency. This trend is troubling.

Increasingly, government bills receive much less time in committee, and too often we hear from witnesses from the department or the minister, and there is little time for the critics or the concerned or even those who simply want to know why, when and how come.

Is this a fulsome examination of something as complex as a budget or changes to regulatory regimes or a bill that changes how Canadians fundamentally communicate with each other and interact with the internet?

I would like to make one final comment on this process. This debate on the pre-study motion is exactly the kind of healthy dialogue needed in this chamber. Let’s have it. Let’s have it out. Why? Because it is much more difficult to undo bad legislation than to get it right the first time. It clogs our courts and costs taxpayers and consumers unnecessarily.

Colleagues, I think it’s important that we remind ourselves of our unique role, why we exist within not only the parliamentary process but also the political world. As independent as we all believe we are, we must pass judgment on the actions of the government of the day. To believe that this motion for pre-study is somehow purely intended to give the committee more time, a gesture to afford us this luxury, would be naive at best, something I do not believe any of us are.

But I also find it an affront that someone in the other place would believe that this chamber could be tricked by such a transparent proposition.

And claiming that we’re wasting time by debating this motion is an insult to my intelligence and yours and undermines the very commitment when we swore in our oath to do the work necessary and to preserve the rightful reputation of the upper house and of Parliament itself.

So I ask, colleagues, let us not drift complacently into irrelevance. Let us not ignore the political or economic consequences of what we do. Let us not forfeit our very basic right to speak our minds, to fight in the arena of ideas and difference and not be silenced by political correctness or pressure or fear. Let the government do its homework before we do ours. It’s their job. Hash it out. Don’t silence the critics or shut down committees or curb study.

Let’s wait and see what the bill looks like when the fight has been had in the political arena.

Let’s not fall for the procedural games of any government. Please, colleagues, join me in voting against this motion for the sake of the Senate today, for those who will follow us into this chamber and for the oath we took. It is surprising what we may find when we shine a little light on some of the dark corners. Thank you.

Senator Wallin: I understand that Senate committees study issues and forward those reports to government, hoping they will listen and respond — sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t, as I well know from the MAID legislation.

However, are you suggesting that during this brief period where pre-study might happen for a day between now and the end of session, they have agreed to pause and wait until we’ve completed our study before they send us the final bill?

Senator Wallin: They are inextricably linked. To be asked to do a pre-study on the promise that we will have all of the time in the world is one thing, and many other senators, myself included, have heard other comments and other suggestions about what the real intent is. Of course, trust is at the core of it. I think this was part of Senator Tannas’s point.

We have a different relationship with one another in here than we see in the other place all too often. I am sitting on a joint parliamentary committee, and it is a frustrating process. I’m trying to clean up my language because we are here in the Senate.

We need to preserve that difference and a different approach. It’s hard because, of course, we are dealing with government legislation. As I said, that’s our job. We get to pass judgment on it, whoever the government of the day is, and whatever it is that we may think about particular bills.

But as for this process of saying we must get this pre-study done — and I think timing is part of it — if we were talking about a pre-study with months of runway in front of us, we might have a different feeling in our gut. But when we’re talking about the crisis that is at hand if we don’t start this pre-study tomorrow morning at dawn, then something goes off in my mind. I mean, I have been in and out of this city for decades covering politics and being part of the process in different ways, and my instinct tells me that you have to be wary. If somebody wants something so badly, and they want it now, let’s examine that. Let’s look at that. Let’s think about why. Let’s look at what their potential motivations might be — I’m not saying they are horrible people. Governments get to decide what they want to do. We get to decide what we want do.

I’m just saying let’s be intelligent and critical thinkers, and let’s take those gut instincts into account.

Senator Wallin: I will try again.

If you think this work is so important, that they will listen and that the studies will continue into the fall, then you are assuming they are not trying to rush this legislation forward; and that if there is a pre-study — somehow, magically — we will receive these bills and we will be asked to pass them before the end of this session.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Senator Moncion, I’m curious; you seem to suggest that if these committees sat and examined these pieces of legislation that somehow the House would respond to it. Do you have assurances that is their intention?

Senator Wallin: Well, I mean, this is what we’re dealing with, that kind of request. We have kind of merged the two issues in that we have a request to pre-study legislation, but then we are told that we can roll that into a different kind of long-term process. That’s not how we do business. Either we do a pre‑study, as we have just completed on the budget, or we do an appropriate committee study in which we choose our timetable, we choose our witnesses and all of those things.

These are two different creatures, and they don’t just meld.

[Translation]

Senator Wallin: Perhaps you could ask members of the government who are participating in the committee to ensure that these joint committees don’t treat senators as second-class citizens. Schedules are determined by members of Parliament, and their behaviour tends to be more partisan. We even have different speaking times for senators.

Moving forward, can you assure us that, on these kinds of joint committees dealing with such profound matters, senators are treated more equitably?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, my question is for Senator Gold. More than a year ago, the government rejected an amendment passed by the Senate to allow for advanced requests for medical assistance in dying but then promised there would be significant consultations and study of the issue. The election brought those meetings to a halt, and then there was another five-month delay in getting the committee up and running again. The committee has held just two meetings on advanced requests with no intention to review it further before its report this fall.

Senator Gold, our mandate requires us to conduct:

. . . significant consultations and study, including a careful examination of the safeguards for persons preparing advance request and safeguards for practitioners administering medical assistance in dying . . . .

Do you believe these two meetings meet the requirements set out by that mandate?

Hon. Pamela Wallin, pursuant to notice of earlier this day, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 4, 2022, at 6:30 p.m., even though the Senate may then be sitting and that rule 12-18(1) be suspended in relation thereto.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(a), I give notice that, later this day, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 4, 2022, at 6:30 p.m., even though the Senate may then be sitting and that rule 12-18(1) be suspended in relation thereto.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Minister, when testifying last night before the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency. The Honourable Perrin Beatty, the architect of the act said:

Emergencies legislation is designed to be legislation of last resort. It’s explicit on that. It is designed to be used when there is no other legal authority available.

Now that it has been used, it has become easier to invoke. You must not define down the threshold at which extraordinary powers are used to curtail civil liberties.

He continued:

That it made law enforcement easier is clear. However, the issue is whether the deliberately high threshold was met, not whether the powers given were useful.

Of course, the police have said that it was a useful deterrent. The Prime Minister said that he didn’t like or agree with the people. You have said the security of the nation was at stake. Many others have said it was unnecessary as the police had existing powers.

Minister, what then was your government’s actual rationale for invoking the act? It’s a precedent. Please state it as simply and clearly as possible. Thank you.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: The international consensus, minister, is clear — including experts such as the International Energy Agency and even your own colleagues, such as Minister O’Regan — that the path to net zero before 2050 must include the full range of energy solutions, including nuclear. You assert that Ottawa has no role and that only markets develop sources, but we all know that the federal government does have a role in recognizing, funding and ensuring the positive green impact from nuclear.

Minister, you have publicly and vociferously opposed nuclear power most of your life. Is that still your belief?

Senator Wallin: Would you take another question?