Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I rise today to mark the second anniversary of Russia’s illegal and egregious invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. I also wish to acknowledge the killing of Alexei Navalny, the brave and dedicated opposition leader and voice against the injustice and corruption of Vladimir Putin’s revanchist regime. Because of his ceaseless activism to better his country for his family and fellow Russians, Navalny was killed by Putin and the Russian state. That Navalny was killed is a testament to his impact.

I attended the recent Munich Security Conference where, on February 16, Navalny’s widow, Yulia Navalnaya, stood before us shortly after the world learned of her husband’s murder. Ms. Navalnaya’s brave message was clear: Putin and his cronies “will be brought to justice, and this day will come soon.”

In recent years, February has become a significant month in the bloody history between Ukraine and Russia. In 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine again after its previous February invasion in 2014 that resulted in Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea on March 18 of that year. On February 16 of this year, we learned of Navalny’s killing in a Russian prison, and on February 27, 2015, another noted opposition leader and fierce Kremlin critic, Boris Nemtsov, was assassinated in Moscow.

The deaths of these activists — and the killings and attempted murders of others — further exacerbate the human toll of Russia’s longstanding aggression toward Ukraine. I know we all share concern for the health and safety of our friend Vladimir Kara-Murza imprisoned in Russia since 2022.

Colleagues, after attending the Munich Security Conference, I participated, along with our colleague Senator Wells, in the Winter Meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Vienna. While the tone was dark, reflecting the sombre state of world affairs, I can attest to the palpable sense of solidarity among global leaders to bring an end to the war in Ukraine and to Putin’s reign.

A sustainable Ukrainian victory relies on two principles: first, ensuring that Ukraine has all it needs to defeat Russia on the battlefield; and second, a viable plan to rebuild Ukraine to ensure its prosperity and security after the fighting stops. As the war grinds into its third year, Russia is counting on Western support for Ukraine to decline. I know that Canada, for one, will continue to stand with Ukraine on all fronts.

Colleagues, as I said in my statements in the hours after the invasion in 2022 and on its first anniversary last year, Canada, and all democracies around the world, must remain united in both condemning and opposing Russia’s actions and in our steadfast support for Ukraine and its strong, resilient people. On that, we must not falter. Thank you.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate, no later than December 29, 2023, its final report relating to its study on the Canadian foreign service and elements of the foreign policy machinery within Global Affairs Canada, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I am deeply saddened to rise today on behalf of the Independent Senators Group to pay tribute to our late colleague the Honourable Ian Shugart, who left us far too soon.

Ian was many things: an excellent colleague, a scholar, a teacher, a leader, an intellectual and a patriot. To me, he was also a mentor, a role model and a friend.

I first met Ian about 20 years ago, when he was an assistant deputy minister at Health Canada and I was transitioning from my assignment at our embassy in Washington to an assistant deputy minister job here at what was then the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

At the time, Ian had successfully managed policies regarding severe acute respiratory syndrome, a.k.a. SARS, and I attended a few interdepartmental meetings on the subject. I was struck by the calm, highly intelligent interventions he made on ways forward once others had expressed their views. I remember him saying that Canada had to develop standard operating procedures to prepare for the next mass health scare or even a pandemic — how very prescient.

I left for my assignment in Germany a few years later, and, unsurprisingly, Ian moved upward to associate deputy minister and then deputy minister at Environment Canada. By the time I returned to Ottawa in 2012, Ian was Deputy Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada, and I was what in bureaucratic slang was referred to as a “baby DM.” I felt I needed a mentor who could help me find my way through Ottawa officialdom. He took me on and always had time to discuss policy issues and approaches. To my delight, a few years later, we also ended up working together in the same portfolio.

He hosted my retirement event at Global Affairs Canada, presenting a slide show full of wry cartoons from the acerbic comic strip The Far Side. The highlight was the two bears seen through the hunter’s scope with one smiling and pointing at the other as the preferred target. “You are the one smiling, Peter,” Ian said.

Colleagues, I was not the only one mentored and shaped by Ian Shugart. Since his passing last Wednesday, in addition to the grief felt by his beloved family — his wife, Linda, and their children, Robin, James and Heather, who are here with us today — there has been a tremendous outpouring of gratitude from many, not just in the public service but across the country, whose lives and careers he touched in his gentle, helpful way. It is this quality, coupled with his deep spiritual faith and love for his country and its institutions, that took him to the pinnacle of the public service as Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet.

Ian Shugart was a leader without peer. This rings true in the remarkable speech he gave in this chamber on June 20 on the value of restraint in political discourse and action. As with SARS all those years ago, he was telling us to be prepared, to exercise our best judgment and to be mindful of the consequences of our actions. He said this diplomatically, of course, because after all, the art of diplomacy is letting someone else have your way.

Rest in peace, my friend, you great Canadian.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm moved:

That the twenty-sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, entitled Cultural Diplomacy at the Front Stage of Canada’s Foreign Policy, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on June 11, 2019, during the First Session of the Forty-second Parliament be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-23(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Canadian Heritage being identified as the minister responsible for responding to the report, in consultation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm, pursuant to notice of June 20, 2023, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be authorized to examine and report on Canada’s interests and engagement in Africa, and other related matters;

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2024;

That the committee have permission, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit reports on this study with the Clerk of the Senate if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the reports be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate; and

That the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be authorized to examine and report on Canada’s interests and engagement in Africa, and other related matters;

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2024;

That the committee have permission, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit reports on this study with the Clerk of the Senate if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the reports be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate; and

That the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

[English]

Hon. Peter M. Boehm moved second reading of Bill C-248, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Ojibway National Urban Park of Canada).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today as the Senate sponsor of Bill C-248, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Ojibway National Urban Park of Canada), which passed the House of Commons on April 26, 2023, after a near‑unanimous third reading vote of 319 to 1 and which was introduced in the Senate the same day. It is my expectation that this bill will be sent to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, and it is my hope that it will be referred before the summer recess.

Given the time of year and the hour of the day, and the fact that the principle of the bill has overwhelming support and should thus result in a relatively quick second reading, I promise I will not speak for the allotted 45 minutes.

I thank the bill’s sponsor, Mr. Brian Masse, Member of Parliament for Windsor West, where the park will be located, for his dedicated work for many years on this significant project, both outside and inside Parliament. The idea for this bill was initiated by a public town hall hosted by Mr. Masse in 2019, but the fight to establish Ojibway national urban park has been ongoing for decades. I wish to acknowledge the residents of the Windsor region and the local Indigenous peoples who have been working diligently and passionately to protect this significant green space and its ecosystem.

As a senator from southern Ontario — my hometown of Kitchener is not far from Windsor — I am honoured to have been asked to shepherd this legislation through the Senate. This is also important to me as a staunch and long-time advocate for reconciliation between Canada and Indigenous peoples.

This is one bill, colleagues, where I will not refer to any clauses because if you have read it, you will have found it to be little more than longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates and 304 instances of the word “thence.” Indeed, Samuel de Champlain’s astrolabe might prove useful in that regard.

The bill itself sets out the boundaries of the approximately 900 acres of publicly owned land that will become Ojibway national urban park: Ojibway Park, Spring Garden Natural Area, Black Oak Heritage Park, Tallgrass Prairie Heritage Park, Ojibway Prairie Provincial Nature Reserve and Ojibway Shores. Of note is that Ojibway Shores, a 33-acre green space, is the only remaining undeveloped natural shoreline in the Windsor-Detroit area and is home to 130 endangered species.

Crucially, ownership of the land on which Ojibway Shores is located was also recently transferred in May from the Windsor Port Authority, under Transport Canada, to Parks Canada. That had been a long-standing hurdle, now overcome, on the journey toward creating Ojibway national urban park.

Colleagues, the lands that compose the future Ojibway national urban park — including the Detroit River — are home to hundreds of endangered species, including butterflies, birds, other fauna and trees, and it also mitigates flooding due to climate change.

Further, as you all know, North America’s busiest border crossing is between Windsor and Detroit, and is currently served by the Ambassador Bridge. In 2025, the long-awaited Gordie Howe International Bridge is expected to be completed and opened to traffic, also between Windsor and Detroit. With six lanes for vehicle traffic — three Canada-bound and three going into the United States — and one multi-use lane for pedestrians and cyclists, the new bridge will serve as a vital new link for people and trade between Canada and the United States at our busiest crossing.

However, progress for the economy, including increased tourism, often comes with hardship for the environment. With thousands of vehicles, including transport trucks, expected to cross the bridge every day for business and ecotourism, as is already the case for the Ambassador Bridge, the impact on the local ecosystem, especially endangered species, in the adjacent lands of the proposed Ojibway national urban park will increase significantly.

Compared to the Parks Canada process, the more expedient process of this bill, which will ensure the impacted land and ecosystem are protected sooner once the bill is enacted, is partly why local Indigenous communities and environmental groups, along with the City of Windsor, whose city council in April 2022 voted unanimously for a resolution supporting Bill C-248, are all in favour of this bill.

Also, the creation of the park and the resulting protection and preservation of its land and species will offer significant mental health benefits as residents of the local communities and surrounding areas will be encouraged to get outside and enjoy the park. We all saw how important access to green and outdoor spaces was during the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic when lockdowns and social distancing were in effect.

Colleagues, in my introduction, I referred to reconciliation. It is important to note that along with the City of Windsor; the Wildlands League, a major national conservation organization; and the Friends of Ojibway Prairie, a volunteer group that promotes public awareness of the biological and historical importance of the Ojibway Prairie Complex, the Caldwell First Nation also offers its vital support for Bill C-248.

On October 28, 2022, during consideration of Bill C-248 at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Mary Duckworth, Chief of the Caldwell First Nation, appeared as a staunch supporter of the bill, the process it has undertaken and the ultimate creation of Ojibway national urban park. In responding to a question from Mr. Masse about whether Caldwell First Nation views the park as reconciliatory — after claims by Chief Duckworth that Caldwell First Nation was not meaningfully consulted by the federal government about the Gordie Howe International Bridge, which is being constructed on its ancestral territory — Chief Duckworth spoke about the importance of action in reconciliation. She said:

In truth and reconciliation, we talk about that, and the truth is that we’re trying to create a national park through a legislative framework so that it is solid and it will be there.

The reconciliation part comes with action. There can be no truth and reconciliation without actions from the governments that sit over top of the nations. We like to see ourselves as equals to you; however, we are not treated as equals, as you know.

She went on to say:

Being able to have truth and reconciliation means exactly what we’re doing. Look at us all working together at different levels of government, as well as non-government, special interests and people who care about the environment. We’re all at the table.

We’re all waiting. . . .

In closing on that question, with a specific reference to Parliament enacting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in June 2021, Chief Duckworth stated that:

. . . we know Canada has aligned itself with the rights of indigenous people. Where is Canada at with that? Now that Canada has adopted that, it’s a piece that we need to look at when we’re developing these parks and respecting what is happening.

Colleagues, as Chief Duckworth made clear, and as we have heard so much in the past few years as we discuss reconciliation and the nation-to-nation relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples, words are nice, but they’re nothing without action.

The treaty rights to the Anishinaabe territory on which the parcels of land that will compose Ojibway national urban park are held by the peoples of the Three Fires Confederacy. That is the Anishinaabeg in the Windsor area, which comprises the Ojibwe, Odawa, and Potawatomi peoples.

I understand that Parks Canada is actively engaged with the Caldwell First Nation and the Walpole Island First Nation on co‑management agreements in which both nations are interested. According to the Parks Canada website, both nations have also:

. . . expressed strong interest in . . . the potential of the park as a place for traditional and cultural practices, a place to demonstrate leadership in conservation and stewardship, and a place with potential for economic benefit for their communities.

So, colleagues, Ojibway national urban park is not just a park but an example of reconciliation in action.

As Chief Duckworth said at committee in the other place, part of the reason getting the park established through this bill is so important not just to the local First Nations but also to the residents of the Windsor area is that it is a concrete, legislated framework.

That leads me to address the concerns about the competing processes underway to create Ojibway national urban park. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, establishing Ojibway national urban park is a long-standing goal of many stakeholders, including Parks Canada. The goal is not in dispute but, rather, the path to achieve it.

I will be brief in summarizing this debate at second reading as it is during eventual review by the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources that these technical and very important details should be studied.

Mr. Masse, Member of Parliament for Windsor West, introduced Bill C-248 in the House of Commons on February 9, 2022, after a public town hall in August 2019 where the plan to create Ojibway national urban park was initiated. It was not until two years later, in August 2021, that Parks Canada launched its national urban parks program. According to the backgrounder on the program available on Parks Canada’s website:

The new National Urban Parks program will build on the many successes of the Rouge National Urban Park, exploring different approaches that involve working with partners to develop collaborative and innovative management and governance frameworks.

The backgrounder further states that:

Parks Canada is developing a national urban parks policy to guide the designation and management of national urban parks. The Policy will provide a flexible framework in recognition of the unique characteristics and local circumstances of each national urban park, such as local Indigenous authorities, while also ensuring that national urban parks across the country meet a common set of standards.

That is all well and good, and Parks Canada is, of course, an agency of which all Canadians should be proud for its stewardship of our best-in-the-world national parks. However, while Bill C-248 has, between February 2022 and today, gone through the entire legislative process in the other place, with extensive public consultation before and during, and is now being debated in this chamber, the Parks Canada national urban parks policy is, nearly two years after its launch, still in draft form. In fact, its website, as of two weeks ago, on May 23, when it was last modified says:

Over the coming months Parks Canada will prepare a first edition of the National Urban Parks Policy. . . .

I do not believe, colleagues, that Bill C-248 is cutting any corners, neither in terms of consultation nor due diligence. What I do believe, as someone with a few decades of experience in public policy and governance, both as a federal public servant and as a parliamentarian, is that this debate comes down to bureaucratic process versus action.

The approximately 900 acres of publicly owned land that will compose Ojibway national urban park is an area of significant biodiversity that is home to hundreds of endangered species.

Protecting the land and conserving its natural environment is vital for the flora and fauna that call it home, for the region’s human residents who rely on the green space to lead active lives conducive to their physical and mental health, for the regional economy on both sides of the international border and for the strengthening of the nation-to-nation relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples who have called these lands home since time immemorial.

All of this, while the explicit goal of stakeholders on all sides, will happen sooner through this legislation than it will through the national urban parks policy of Parks Canada.

I would encourage all honourable senators interested in this legislation, and especially members of the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to review the debate on this bill in the other place, as well as the transcript of the meeting held last October 28 at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

While there are indeed questions about process and consultation, the creation of Ojibway national urban park — the very principle of the bill — has overwhelming support both inside Parliament from all parties, including the government, and outside Parliament, including from Parks Canada.

Therefore, colleagues, I encourage senators to vote to refer Bill C-248 to the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources expediently, before the summer recess, so the bill and any concerns may be studied in depth by the committee when we return in the fall.

Thank you.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the eleventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which deals with the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 4, 5 10 and 11 of Part 4, and in Subdivision A of Division 3 of Part 4 of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

(Pursuant to the order adopted April 27, 2023, the report was deemed referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance and placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

Hon. Peter M. Boehm moved:

That the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, entitled Strengthening Canada’s Autonomous Sanctions Architecture: Five-Year Legislative Review of the Sergei Magnitsky Law and the Special Economic Measures Act, tabled in the Senate on Tuesday, May 16, 2023, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Foreign Affairs being identified as the minister responsible for responding to the report, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, entitled Strengthening Canada’s Autonomous Sanctions Architecture: Five-Year Legislative Review of the Sergei Magnitsky Law and the Special Economic Measures Act.

This comprehensive report is the culmination of eight meetings between October 26, 2022, and February 15 of this year. Over the course of the committee’s study, it heard from 26 expert witnesses, including officials from Global Affairs Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, legal and banking experts, renowned academics, sanctions advocates and members of civil society. I will highlight three particularly high-profile witnesses from whom the committee was honoured to hear.

Bill Browder is an author and head of the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign. His lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, was, of course, the inspiration for Canada’s Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as the Sergei Magnitsky Law.

Evgenia Kara-Murza is Advocacy Coordinator of the Free Russia Foundation. Her husband, Russian political activist and opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza, is imprisoned in Russia on charges of treason, partly for speaking out against the war in Ukraine. Like her husband, Ms. Kara-Murza is an unwavering and courageous long-time advocate for introducing Magnitsky laws around the world and targeting Russia in particular with Magnitsky-style sanctions.

Finally, we heard from our dear former Senate colleague and my predecessor as chair of the committee, the Honourable Raynell Andreychuk. It was former Senator Andreychuk who spearheaded Canada’s Sergei Magnitsky Law by sponsoring then Bill S-226, which received Royal Assent on October 18, 2017.

Senator Andreychuk’s bill and the date it became law provided the impetus for the committee’s study. The Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act prescribes a report and review requirement under section 16. Section 16(1) states:

Within five years after the day on which this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and of the Special Economic Measures Act must be undertaken by the committees of the Senate and of the House of Commons that are designated or established by each House for that purpose.

This is the procedural answer to why the committee undertook this study and when, but it was not thrust upon us either. The committee actively sought authorization from the Senate to conduct this study, which was granted on October 17 of last year. In my completely unbiased opinion, the Senate Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee was best placed between the two houses of Parliament to take this on, given both the Senate’s strong reputation for committee work and the Senate’s less partisan nature.

Section 16(2) states:

The committees referred to in subsection (1) must, within a year after a review is undertaken under that subsection or within any further time that may be authorized by the Senate or the House of Commons, as the case may be, submit a report on the review to Parliament, including a statement of any changes that the committees recommend.

Well in advance of the one-year mark, that is what the committee has done, colleagues, and I’m expanding on that a little bit today.

Part of the reason I as chair was so keen on the committee undertaking the first comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the Sergei Magnitsky Law and of the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA, was because, as we all know, sanctions have been one of the most used diplomatic tools and one of the most debated issues of the past 15 months since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022.

Also, these legislative instruments have become increasingly important in the government’s tool kit, particularly as the United Nations Act is used less frequently given the gridlock at the United Nations Security Council on sanctions issues — and so many others. In other words, colleagues, both procedurally and topically, this was the right time for this study.

As the report states, over the course of the study, witnesses highlighted various improvements made to the sanctions regime over the past five years, including the creation of the Consolidated Canadian Autonomous Sanctions List. However, witnesses also said that the Government of Canada must improve how it communicates information on autonomous sanctions to the public and called on the government to develop clear guidance on the interpretation of sanctions regulations.

After hearing from the 26 expert witnesses, the committee concluded that Canada must outline the goals it wishes to achieve through the imposition of sanctions and must analyze the results regularly.

It was clear in our deliberations that the committee believes in the usefulness of the Sergei Magnitsky Law and the Special Economic Measures Act. However, as is outlined in the report, the committee is making 19 recommendations to improve the coherence and operation of Canada’s sanctions regime. I wish to highlight a few of the more consequential recommendations.

Recommendation 19 calls on the government to:

. . . amend the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to require that new regulations made under either Act include a sunset clause that would prescribe a date for the termination of the sanctions regime unless renewed prior to the expiry of the term.

As the committee heard, there is a fair bit of precedent in the use of sunset clauses and sanctions laws around the world, including by the European Union and the United Nations.

Dr. Meredith Lilly, a professor at Carleton University’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, summarized the need for sunset clauses during the committee’s meeting on November 2, 2022. Dr. Lilly said these measures could “. . . ensure that outdated and unnecessary sanctions are removed, and it can also decrease the politicization of the sanctions.” She further argued that automatic sunsetting clauses:

. . . force a discipline on the public service to continuously monitor and stay abreast of the developments to inform any renewal decisions.

Basically, the committee is advocating for sunset clauses to amendments to Canada’s sanctions regimes to ensure that the laws always serve their intended purposes and are, without politicization, consistently reviewed by well-informed policy‑makers.

In recommendation 18, the committee recommends that committees of the Senate and the House of Commons conduct a comprehensive review of the two acts every 10 years to ensure that Canada’s autonomous sanctions regimes remain fit for purpose. This recommendation is deliberately non-prescriptive to give the government of the day flexibility in determining how to amend the Sergei Magnitsky Law in this regard.

What this could look like, in my opinion, is that to ensure ongoing review, the designated committees in the Senate and the House of Commons could alternate five-year periods so that, in effect, the Sergei Magnitsky Law and SEMA would each be reviewed every five years, and by each committee every ten years.

For example, the Senate Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee reviewed the laws in 2023; the House committee could do so in 2028; then it would be back to the Senate in 2033, et cetera.

Other fundamental recommendations include those on communication; interdepartmental cooperation; administration and enforcement; collaboration with allies, civil society and the academic and research communities; and delisting.

With regard to interdepartmental cooperation, the committee noted the establishment of a sanctions bureau at Global Affairs Canada and the need to ensure that officials engaged in sanctions work — especially in the RCMP, CBSA, FINTRAC, CSIS and CSE — are well versed. Increased cooperation among domestic departments and agencies also requires closer collaboration with similar units in jurisdictions with which Canada is allied.

On communication, I was struck by the extent to which a more effective sanctions regime comes down to better communication with the public regarding the effects and implementation of autonomous sanctions. That is why recommendation 10 calls on the government to:

. . . provide more detailed identifying information on sanctioned individuals and entities in the regulations made pursuant to the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law).

The committee further recommends:

The government should also include detailed identifying information in the Consolidated Canadian Autonomous Sanctions List, along with the justifications for listing individuals and entities.

Colleagues, I will not recite every recommendation. I simply wished to highlight a few that I feel are particularly important.

I encourage those of you who are interested to read the report, as it is, I think, an exceptional piece of work, of which I am proud as chair, on a subject that is both crucial and timely, especially given the significant increase in the use, by Canada and our allies, of autonomous sanctions since Russia invaded Ukraine.

I wish to thank committee members and other colleagues who participated in these meetings, the staff — in particular, the committee analysts who drafted the report — and the expert witnesses, without whose time and commentary this study would not have happened and this report would not exist.

Colleagues, there may be other senators who wish to speak on this report. I very much look forward to more debate on this important topic. It is my hope that this motion, and thus the report, will be adopted very soon — as in very, very soon — so that we can maintain momentum and start the clock on the 150 days the government will have to provide a full and detailed response. Thank you very much.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled Strengthening Canada’s Autonomous Sanctions Architecture: Five-Year Legislative Review of the Sergei Magnitsky Law and the Special Economic Measures Act and I move that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

(On motion of Senator Boehm, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[Translation]

Hon. Peter M. Boehm, pursuant to notice of May 4, 2023, moved:

That the twenty-sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled Cultural Diplomacy at the Front Stage of Canada’s Foreign Policy, tabled in the Senate on June 11, 2019, during the First Session of the Forty-second Parliament, be placed on the Orders of the Day under the rubric Other Business, Reports of Committees – Other, for consideration at the next sitting.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to explain and advocate for this motion, which is the first step towards the Senate finally adopting the 2019 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled Cultural Diplomacy at the Front Stage of Canada’s Foreign Policy.

This report was tabled in the Senate on June 11, 2019, during the first session of the Forty-second Parliament but was not adopted before Parliament was dissolved that summer in advance of the federal election in October 2019.

This means that, despite the comprehensiveness of this report on an important subject and the significance placed upon it by practitioners and supporters of cultural diplomacy and Canadian studies programs, no response has been required from the Government of Canada.

Should this motion — and then, subsequently, the report — be adopted, a government response will be requested of and required by Global Affairs Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Along with me and fellow current committee members Senator Coyle, Senator Greene and Senator Housakos, colleagues who were members of the committee during the study leading to this report were Senator Ataullahjan, Senator Cordy, Senator Dean, Senator Massicotte and Senator Saint-Germain.

Former Senate colleagues who were members at that time included my predecessor as chair, Senator Raynell Andreychuk, and Senator Dennis Dawson and Senator Thanh Hai Ngo.

Several more senators contributed to the committee’s study, including current colleagues Senator MacDonald, now a member of the committee; Senator Cormier; Senator Martin; Senator Miville-Dechêne; Senator Mockler; Senator Oh and Senator Tannas. Former senators Anne Cools and Richard Neufeld also participated.

Colleagues, I recite all of these names to underline the breadth of experience and expertise from which the committee benefited during its study between 2017 and 2019 on “. . . the impact and utilization of Canadian culture and arts in Canadian foreign policy and diplomacy, and other related matters . . . .”

There is one senator I have yet to name, a committee member at the time of the study, whose unwavering advocacy for the importance of cultural diplomacy as a pillar of Canada’s foreign policy ultimately led to the committee’s study and the report we are now considering putting back on the Order Paper. That senator is, of course, our dear colleague Senator Patricia Bovey —

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I rise today to call attention to the newcomers to Canada whom we have just recognized in the gallery. Like all refugees who come to our shores, they have stories of enduring hardship, suffering and danger related to their arrival here from their native Afghanistan. We heard a very powerful statement by Senator Ataullahjan just a few minutes ago on that subject.

I want to acknowledge the support of the Anglican Diocese of Ottawa, a long-time participant in the Private Sponsorship of Refugees program run by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, and the key role played by Robert and Mary Fowler. Mr. Fowler and Mrs. Fowler are distinguished Canadians with great international experience and reputations in facilitating both the processing of applications through IRCC as well as the group’s international travel and settlement in Canada.

Honourable senators, Mr. Amin Sidiqi came to Canada in July 2018, and his family — here with us today — joined him here after leaving Afghanistan on the last Canadian flight out of Kabul in August 2021. Holding a Master of Arts degree from New York University, he is now studying law at the University of Ottawa, as well as working part-time with the research team of the university’s Refugee Hub and also as a court interpreter. His spouse, Nafisa, and sons Mahdi, Abbas and Hussain are settling in and learning our official languages. At school, the boys are enjoying essay writing and debating, and have taken up soccer and, of course, hockey, as one does in our country.

Mr. Yadullah Yasa came to us via Indonesia, and he is looking to continue his university studies in Canada and to work as a filmmaker — which was his passion at university when he was forced to leave Afghanistan.

Ms. Mahmudah Sahar fled her village in Afghanistan and arrived in Canada in November of last year. She attends the Adult High School here in Ottawa. I understand that it took some persuasion to get her here today because it means that she is missing some classes. Mahmudah is working part-time in a store and hopes to pursue a career in nursing.

Honourable senators, as I look around the chamber, I am reminded that several of our colleagues came to Canada from afar, and that many, like myself, are first-generation Canadians — being the children of immigrants or, in my case, refugees. As we have seen since 1867, our country has been enriched by newcomers of all kinds who contribute to and strengthen our society in all its diversity. Canadian society is also enriched by civil society and community organizations. I mentioned the Anglican Diocese of Ottawa, but there are other churches and community groups that are particularly active with respect to settling refugees from Afghanistan in this city. Of course, there are thousands of Canadians, like Robert and Mary Fowler, who have given selflessly of their time and energy in order to help newcomers come here and find their way.

May it continue to be so across our great country. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Peter M. Boehm, pursuant to notice of May 3, 2023, moved:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Tuesday, February 7, 2023, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade in relation to its study on the Canadian foreign service and elements of the foreign policy machinery within Global Affairs Canada be extended from September 29, 2023 to December 29, 2023.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the twenty-sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled Cultural Diplomacy at the Front Stage of Canada’s Foreign Policy, tabled in the Senate on June 11, 2019, during the First Session of the Forty-second Parliament, be placed on the Orders of the Day under the rubric Other Business, Reports of Committees – Other, for consideration at the next sitting.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Tuesday, February 7, 2023, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade in relation to its study on the Canadian foreign service and elements of the foreign policy machinery within Global Affairs Canada be extended from September 29, 2023 to December 29, 2023.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm moved the adoption of the report.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I rise tonight at this late hour not to offer any new groundbreaking analysis on this well-debated topic of time allocation, but simply to join other colleagues in offering my opinion.

This has been a contentious and at times heated debate, as has been the case with Bill C-11, generally. While there is much disagreement about the use of time allocation, it is clear that all senators in this chamber are acting in what they believe to be the best interest of Canadians.

I support the motion. I do not agree with the argument that the government is stifling debate, because the facts simply do not support that assertion. Colleagues, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications has done extraordinary work in studying Bill C-11, both in comprehensiveness and length. In the Senate alone, along with a pre-study of Bill C-11 that began on May 31 of last year, Transport and Communications held 31 meetings on the bill from the time it began its study on October 25, 2022. It heard from 138 witnesses over the course of 67.5 hours of meeting time. Beyond this incredible number of witnesses who appeared before the committee, it received another 67 written submissions. Of the 31 meetings held, 9 were just for clause-by-clause consideration, which began on November 23 of last year.

During clause-by-clause consideration, 73 amendments were proposed, 26 of these 73 proposals were adopted to a total of 11 different clauses. There were 13 subamendments proposed, of which 2 were adopted, along with 8 recorded votes.

Let us all spare a thought for the fortitude of the procedural clerks and other committee staff who handled all of that. Colleagues, those statistics do not even take into account the eight days overall during which debate occurred on the messages between the Senate and the House of Commons between February 2 and April 19 of this year.

There is also, of course, the work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. That committee heard from 80 witnesses in 32 hours over 12 meetings from the time it began its study on May 24, 2022, and debated approximately 100 amendments in its three clause-by-clause sessions, which began on June 14 of last year. It also received 52 written submissions. That, colleagues, is just Bill C-11.

Of course, there was also a full study done on Bill C-11’s predecessor in the last Parliament, then Bill C-10, at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and the Senate began second-reading debate before the dissolution of the Forty-third Parliament.

The Senate has spent more time on Bill C-11 — everyone has said this — than it has on any other piece of legislation in its 156-year history.

Honestly, colleagues, what more is there to say? The Senate, especially the members of the Committee on Transport and Communications, has more than done its work. The committee listened and debated, and so has the Senate. To argue that the government is crushing debate is simply not true.

This is the first time this government has invoked time allocation in the Senate since the start of the Forty-second Parliament in December 2015, nearly seven and a half years ago. In the Forty-first Parliament, however, under the previous government, time allocation was invoked 21 times in less than four years. It seems that support for time allocation depends on where you sit in the chamber.

I will close by reiterating again, colleagues, that time allocation is appropriate in this situation, where the bill in question has been so thoroughly and exhaustively debated, with its principle being debated over two different Parliaments. There is nothing left to say on this bill that has not already been said many times. I thank you, colleagues.

[Translation]

Senator Boehm: No, thank you, Senator Carignan.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I rise today to address the shameless, unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine by Russia. A year on, this is a war with great loss of life on both sides and horrific atrocities committed by Russian military and paramilitary forces at the behest of their dictator, Vladimir Putin. The ramifications of this cynical war are global: strains on the global economy, grave impacts on food security, massive movement of Ukrainians beyond their homeland and, yes, an exodus of Russians who want no part of Putin’s war.

The global community voted convincingly at the United Nations two weeks ago, condemning the Russian Federation for its aggression. It has often been said that Putin is a master strategist, always a step ahead in his calculations as to how to garner advantage. But now, to use the direct vernacular, he has blown it. The Russian military has sustained significant losses, and its weaknesses have been exposed. NATO is more united, coherent and stronger than ever, with Finland and Sweden on the cusp of joining the alliance. Europe has turned its back on Russian energy imports, business connections and commerce. We have all stood together to impose the harshest economic and individual sanctions ever undertaken. We have provided arms and financial assistance packages to Ukraine. Was this part of Putin’s calculation? Probably not.

I have attended two major security policy conferences over the past year. The first was the Halifax International Security Forum in November, and the second was the Munich Security Conference just two weeks ago. At both, the predominant focus among leaders, policymakers, experts and parliamentarians like ourselves from around the world was the war in Ukraine. Our solidarity is palpable and strong.

Putin is increasingly cornered. In fact, I believe that his continuity in office will depend on achieving small victories that his propagandists can spin for domestic consumption. The chances of a dangerous escalation in this war are high, particularly if Putin receives some foreign help beyond that already proffered by the Iranian regime.

As for how to proceed, as leaders said at the Munich Security Conference, now is the time for us to double down. It seems to me that neither side in this conflict is ready for negotiations any time soon. Canada has a great role in this conflict and its aftermath, and, in my opinion, should continue to take all the right measures. Political leaders and ministers are in dialogue with their counterparts, including those in Ukraine, and are providing every assistance to Japan in its G7 presidency this year.

When this war is over, Russia will almost certainly be one of two things: a diminished global power with fragile institutions, subservient to its raw material outputs, or an isolated dictatorship considered a pariah by much of the world and at continuous odds with the rest of us. Perhaps it will be both.

Colleagues, the aftermath will be long and not easy. We, as other parliamentarians, must be firm in our resolve to support Ukraine and its people to the utmost of our abilities, particularly in what will be the parlous and difficult months ahead.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Peter M. Boehm, pursuant to notice of December 8, 2022, moved:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Thursday, February 24, 2022, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade in relation to its study on the Canadian foreign service and elements of the foreign policy machinery within Global Affairs Canada be extended from March 30, 2023, to September 29, 2023.