Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Your government talks a good game about democracy, not just here at home but also around the world. You have been talking a lot lately about the rise of authoritarianism — unfortunately using it as a backdrop to curb free speech here in Canada.

Senator Gold, why isn’t your government doing more to tackle real authoritarianism around the globe? What is the Government of Canada’s position regarding the Honourable Beverley McLachlin’s role as an overseas non-permanent member of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal? Does the Government of Canada believe former Chief Justice McLachlin’s continuing membership on this court lends legitimacy to China’s interference in Hong Kong’s legal system?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I would like to thank Senator Dasko for her comments. I ask a question, because I’m looking for somebody to answer the question.

This is an important issue, Bill C-11. It is something that has not been addressed by successive governments now in over 25 years. Why is this suddenly considered in the public interest? Why is it that this has not been presented to us by this government in the last seven years? The last time we heard about it, other than what we’re going through right now, was the end of last May, early June. We were sort of forced to push this through as quickly as possible.

I agree that this is an important issue. We all agree that it requires a robust, thorough debate and review. What would be the public interest urgency to get this done in a matter of two or three weeks, come hell or high water?

Senator Housakos: Government leader, you’re absolutely right. This is a very serious issue, and it requires serious action. Two senior British judges stepped down from their roles with the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in March, one of whom issued a statement saying that he:

. . . cannot continue to sit in Hong Kong without appearing to endorse an administration which has departed from values of political freedom, and freedom of expression.

Since these resignations took place earlier this year, has there been any communication between the Government of Canada and the former chief justice about her continued membership on this court? Please, government leader, don’t say that it would be inappropriate to do so, because your government had no problem reaching out to Ms. McLachlin during the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

So, yes or no, has your government been in touch with the former chief justice on this matter? If not, why not?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, which deals with the subject matter of those elements contained in Part 10 of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.

Senator Housakos: Would Senator Miville-Dechêne take a question?

Senator Housakos: The tradition of the institution here when it comes to pre-studies has always been to pre-study bills when there is public consensus for a bill or when there is a consensus from the other place that a bill needs to be passed in a timely fashion because of public interest.

At this particular juncture, in the case of this bill, it is controversial and without consensus. There is no stakeholder consensus. It is not responding to some kind of timely urgency, clearly, because successive governments have not tackled this particular issue now in more than two decades. More fundamentally, wouldn’t you agree, senator, that our role is one of sober second thought and not to simultaneously engage in what will invariably be a very acrimonious debate and discussion on this issue in the other place? As we see, the committee in the other place has not even started their deliberations yet.

Wouldn’t it be prudent to allow for the political pressure cooker on the other side to do its due diligence while we engage in our sober second thought? Nothing in your speech has indicated that there is public urgency for this to be done in two weeks, a month, or even the fall for that matter. What I hear from many people is that it requires robust and thorough review. Wouldn’t you agree, senator?

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: Senator Miville-Dechêne, do you agree with me that if passage of this bill were delayed, it would have nothing to do with the parliamentary process and more to do with the fact that it is not a priority for this government?

I have another question. If I follow your reasoning for conducting a pre-study of Bill C-11, can we use the same reasoning to conduct pre-studies of all government bills from the other place? If not, what’s the difference, and what makes Bill C-11 more urgent than other bills, so much so that we need to conduct a pre-study right away, three or four weeks before the end of the parliamentary session?