Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented the following report:

Thursday, March 31, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its

FOURTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred motion No. 14 under Government Business, which proposes “that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the annexe schedule” to repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Tuesday, March 1, 2022, examined the said motion and herewith presents its report.

Your committee recommends that the Senate adopt the said motion.

Your committee notes that the adoption of this report by the Senate would constitute the Senate’s agreement with the proposed resolution to amend the Constitution.

Your committee notes that this report was adopted on division. Your committee held two meetings over four hours and heard from the following witnesses:

•The Honourable Gordon S. Wyant, MLA, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Saskatchewan

•Michelle Lang, Chief of Staff for the Honourable Gordon S. Wyant, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Saskatchewan

•Louise Baird, Assistant Deputy Minister, Intergovernmental Affairs, Privy Council Office

•Daniel Bourgeois, Senior General Counsel, Tax Law, Department of Justice Canada

•Warren J. Newman, Senior General Counsel, Public Law, Department of Justice Canada

•Nancy Othmer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law and Legislative Services, Department of Justice Canada

•Merrilee Rasmussen, Lawyer, Rasmussen & Co, Barristers and Solicitor

•Michael Vandergrift, Deputy Minister, Intergovernmental Affairs, Privy Council Office

•James Clements, Senior Vice-President, Strategic Planning and Technology Transformation, Canadian Pacific

•Dwight Newman, Professor of Law and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights in Constitutional and International Law, University of Saskatchewan

•Benoît Pelletier, Professor, University of Ottawa

•Patrick Taillon, Professor and co-director, Centre for Constitutional and Administrative Law

Respectfully submitted,

MOBINA S. B. JAFFER

Chair

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. As senators and colleagues would rightly understand, the internet is a space that knows few borders, notwithstanding our sovereign right to regulate as best we can. Therefore it’s an all-of-government issue to make sure that Canada remains protected against all forms of threats emanating from cyberspace, whether it’s information online or information coming from foreign sources. In that regard, we have agencies like the Communications Security Establishment, CSIS, the RCMP and others working with government and partners to ensure that we remain safe, both from cyberattacks and from the other equally pernicious forms of misinformation that come our way through the cyberspace.

Hon. Claude Carignan: Does the Minister of Justice, in his capacity as the Attorney General of Canada, intend to make an application to the Court of Appeal, just like his Quebec counterpart, to obtain as much information as possible about the controversial phantom trial?

Hon. Robert Black: Honourable senators, I have a second agricultural question for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, as you may know, the Agri-Food Innovation Council, otherwise known as AIC, with the support of the agricultural sector, called for the creation of a national strategy on research and innovation in the agri-food sector in September 2021.

In fact, there have already been 32 key supporters, including the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association; CropLife Canada; the Deans Council – Agriculture, Food & Veterinary Medicine; Olds College; TELUS Agriculture; and the Rural Development Network, among many others.

Agri-food in Canada has strong innovative potential and is the key driver of economic growth. It is one of Canada’s best‑performing sectors. But, in order for Canada’s agri-food sector to continue to meet the world’s markets’ growing demand, innovation must be supported through science-based policy work and needs-specific funding.

Honourable colleagues, I recently met with representatives of AIC, who indicated that they are ready and willing to co-chair the group developing the strategy in hopes that the government will provide the other co-chair. However, AIC is not pushing what should be included in the strategy. They are simply pushing for the creation of a strategy and the inclusion of industry through an equal-led process between government and industry.

Senator Gold, can you advise us on the status of the creation of the national strategy on research and innovation in the agri-food sector?

Senator Cordy: I will.

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Would Senator Cordy take one more question?

Senator Patterson: Senator Cordy, you asked why we should not follow the House of Commons in continuing hybrid until the end of June. I would say to you that the problem we have in the Senate is that, unlike the House of Commons, we clearly do not have the adequate resources to support our committees while we’re in the hybrid mode. You understand that those resources are interpreters, technical operators and camera operators. That limits us to one committee meeting per week.

So I would like to ask you this: Would you agree that until we get adequate resources to allow our committees to do the important work that Senate committees do, we should not be embracing the hybrid motion because it’s crippling our ability to do our committee work?

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?

Senator Marshall: Yes, of course.

Senator Lankin: Thank you very much. I want to indicate that I agree with everything you’ve said, including the comments that most of us want to get back to in-person sittings and two committee meetings a week.

I’m concerned that, even without hybrid sittings, our resources are very stretched. One of the things that concerns me is that there is a cyclical argument of, “We’ll go to April, and then after that, maybe to June.” There is a hope being held out that we may, within the next couple of months, fix this problem of resources.

I wonder if you could tell me if you would support an initiative where we sit down with the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, attempt to seriously address these issues and not wait until we know if we’re coming back to a full sitting or not. Thank you.

(1640)

Senator Cordy: Yes, I will.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Senator Cordy, you will take another question, I hope?

Hon. Claude Carignan: Honourable senators, I rise today to share my thoughts on the government motion to extend the hybrid sittings of the Senate.

On March 13, 2022, we entered the third year of a devastating and deadly pandemic. Societies all around the world were plunged into turmoil and ravaged by the COVID-19 pandemic.

(1720)

Canada was no exception, and our health care system was hit extremely hard as the virus spread like wildfire. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the women and men who, day after day, took in and then cared for thousands of Canadians who needed urgent and essential care. Our health care system cracked but did not collapse thanks to the dedication of these health care workers. I have the utmost respect for them.

Unfortunately, esteemed colleagues, another system was compromised during this pandemic. I am talking about our democratic system.

[English]

Since the beginning of the pandemic, our Parliament has been reduced to its simplest expression, and that was done at the expense of democracy, unfortunately. To be totally honest, I believe that the slowing down of the primary function of Parliament has served Prime Minister Trudeau well. Mr. Trudeau likes to govern by decree.

[Translation]

People often say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Every year, the Economist Intelligence Unit, a research and strategic analysis firm, publishes a document that ranks nearly all of the world’s countries in terms of health and democracy. The democracy index is based on 60 indicators grouped into five categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture. Ratings on a scale of 1 to 10 correspond to the average score across all five categories. Countries are then classified as one of four types of regime based on their average score: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes.

Canada has always placed high in the rankings, usually around 7th, 6th or even 5th place, which is enviable and an accurate reflection of the fact that our democratic traditions are well established. In 2021, however, Canada fell from 5th to 12th. It appears this drastic drop is due to the Trudeau government’s many authoritarian and anti-democratic approaches.

This fall from grace is worrisome according to Andrew Potter, Associate Professor at McGill University’s Max Bell School of Public Policy. How does Mr. Potter explain this slide? I’ll quote him:

What has happened over the last two years is that the Prime Minister has basically shut down Parliament for a long time and has been keen to limit the opposition as much as he can . . . . The House sat for a record low number of days . . . .

Mr. Potter went on to say, and I quote:

When people who disagree with the government’s decisions can no longer express themselves in the appropriate forum, they will look for other ways to be heard, on the streets if necessary. By deciding to silence the voice of the opposition within the institutions, Mr. Trudeau is directly responsible for what is happening . . . . His attitude towards Parliament has been contemptuous and dismissive . . . . What is happening on the streets of Ottawa is, to a large extent, a direct result of this. When people feel that their opinions are being ignored or disregarded, it is likely to lead to anger.

He concluded by saying the following:

If you were deliberately trying to make Canada less democratic, it would be difficult to do worse than what the Prime Minister has done over the past two years.

During the occupation of Parliament Hill in January and February, the government used the Emergencies Act to seize the bank accounts of protesters and force them to leave, in direct contravention of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects citizens from unreasonable seizure. The Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged this a few days after the Emergencies Act was lifted. This is outrageous and antithetical to a democracy that respects itself and, above all, that respects its citizens. I will give you another example of the government’s contempt for democracy.

In the midst of the pandemic, Mr. Trudeau called an election that no one wanted, in his words to deal with the pandemic emergency. After wasting $612 million on the election, which yielded almost the same result as last time, Mr. Trudeau waited two months before convening the new Parliament. Finding himself once again at the head of a minority government, Mr. Trudeau ignored the popular will, pulled out his cheque book and sealed an alliance with the NDP in order to run the country as though he had a majority government. Only a very clever person will be able to tell us how many billions of dollars this political and undemocratic alliance will cost the public treasury.

The government will continue spending billions of dollars, either for the Prime Minister’s enjoyment or, most importantly, to keep him in control for the next three years. In doing so, it will be outrageously and irresponsibly inflating Canada’s debt, which has already hit astronomical heights.

Now for the government’s legislative agenda, which is disjointed and hard to predict. The government is sending bills marked “very urgent” to the Senate at the last minute because it apparently cannot or will not give us enough time. On more than one occasion, senators in all groups have felt rushed and disrespected by the government’s approach. It is often very difficult for committees to study bills in hybrid sittings because the technology sometimes fails and senators have quite limited interactions with each other. We need to abandon this approach as soon as possible in order to breathe life back into our democracy, which is so important to our society.

Honourable senators, while the Prime Minister is gallivanting around the world, preaching love and peace, he has let his country’s democracy fall further and further into disarray, which I find incredibly sad and appalling.

Canada deserves much better.

Thank you for your attention, honourable senators.

[English]

Senator Carignan: Would Senator Housakos agree to take a question?

Hon. David M. Wells (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I don’t support this motion. As you have heard, it’s clear that our chamber and committee work are less effective when we’re not in person. I recognize the comments from Senator Marshall and agree to some extent. It is convenient to be at home, but our job is here. When we took the job, we knew that was the circumstance.

Most of us are vaccinated, have the booster and wear masks. I’m at a loss as to how this place is so much riskier than a supermarket, a school or a hockey rink where thousands gather with no masks, distancing or vaccine provisions.

We have been told, colleagues, for two years that we have to trust science and listen to the experts. Senator Cordy now asks us not to listen to the experts who have advised the policy-makers that the restrictions will have no effect, but instead to listen to the House of Commons, which I find more than baffling. It defies logic, common sense and the good practices that we should be undertaking here in the Senate.

Senator Patterson: Yes.

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: Yes, absolutely.

Hon. Éric Forest: Would Senator Housakos take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Bellemare has a question. Senator Deacon, would you take a question?

Senator C. Deacon: Absolutely, thank you.

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