Hon. Renée Dupuis: Would Senator Seidman agree to answer another question?

Senator Seidman: Certainly.

Senator Dupuis: I have a supplementary question, if Senator Seidman agrees to answer it.

Senator Seidman: Of course.

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Would Senator Seidman take a question?

Senator Seidman: Yes, of course.

[English]

Senator Seidman: I will say we’re terrible at data collection and a whole lot of other areas.

Senator Wallin: About data collection and its —

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Tannas, we have a few senators that are in line to ask you some questions. Will you accept questions?

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

Hon. Scott Tannas moved:

That, pursuant to rule 5-7(b), the question under debate be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for examination and report; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than March 31, 2022.

Senator Tannas: I will, any and all.

Hon. Jim Quinn: I move the adjournment of the debate.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Quinn, seconded by the Honourable Senator Downe, that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate.

If you oppose adjourning the debate, please say “no.”

Senator Dalphond: Thank you, Senator Woo, for the question.

We are going a bit beyond the scope of this bill. I know that in the U.S. there are some special powers given to the President to seize and freeze assets and also to make specific orders. This is as far as I know about the American situation. I will avoid commenting further.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: We’ll have a vote at 6:01. Call in the senators.

Motion negatived on the following division:

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I believe the nays have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

On February 18, 2022, to justify the use of the Emergencies Act, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, and I quote:

 . . . we know that foreign interference is a reality, which is why we decided to go ahead.

That said, on the subject of funding, she also said, and I quote, “. . . where is this information campaign coming from? Where is its funding coming from?”

These were the grounds used to justify the seizure of bank accounts belonging to individuals who participated in the various demonstrations. In your opinion, did these grounds justify the violation of section 8? Were there sufficiently urgent, real and serious grounds to seize bank accounts without a warrant?

Senator Dalphond: Senator Richards is right to refer to the fact that the source of the issue here is a contract that was entered into between the federal Crown and the Government of Canada in 1880. That’s an old contract. I agree with that. That is a clear definition of it. But the judgment of the Federal Court of Canada that was released in September, before the Saskatchewan legislature adopted the motion, is essentially about the scope of this contract. Since the Federal Court has decided that the scope of this contract does not encompass income tax, GST, excise tax or tax on carbon, maybe we should look at these issues carefully and make sure that what is left for Saskatchewan — Saskatchewan is forced to provide an exemption as long as the exemption is provided in the contract.

So if there’s not much in the contract, maybe we’re not talking about $391 million. Maybe we’re talking about the tax on capital according to provincial, Saskatchewan law for the periods that are not yet time barred. Maybe we are talking about a few million dollars. Maybe it’s something we should be looking at as you suggest. I certainly appreciate your suggestion and think it’s a good one.