Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Welcome, minister. Minister, certain parts of Atlantic Canada were hit hard by Hurricane Fiona, certainly the southwest coast and the gulf coast of Newfoundland — you’re familiar with that — all the Atlantic seaboard of Cape Breton, and Prince Edward Island as well was hit particularly hard.

Two days ago, you posted the following on Facebook:

The impacts of Fiona were hard hitting, and they continue to be, especially as we move into winter months.

That’s why I am so happy to hear that my friend and colleague Minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor has announced that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency . . . will now begin accepting applications through the Hurricane Fiona Recovery Fund to help support communities in hard hit sectors in the Atlantic that are not eligible for other financial support.

In the face of such an emergency, what took the government so long to make an application form available to the communities and businesses affected by Hurricane Fiona? Why would it take over two and a half months?

Senator MacDonald: Well, as you know, I’m not alone in these concerns. As I mentioned in the speech, Senator Simons raised the same concerns. Proposed sections 4.1 and 4.2 are contradictory. One suggests it’s going to be protected, and the next provision removes that protection. So what are we to make of it?

It doesn’t give me any confidence. Certainly, it doesn’t give the witnesses, who are very well versed in this stuff, any confidence. I think this stuff has to be better explained and better justified. That’s why I’m looking forward to it going to committee to see if we can get a handle on these particular provisions, because I don’t think they give Canadians the confidence that they deserve and need when it comes to free speech, freedom of expression and free access to information on the internet.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

(At 3:17 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

I am privileged to be a member of the Senate, for more than 13 years now, so I’ve seen many bills pass through our chamber. For most of this time, I was a member of the Transport and Communications Committee, eventually serving as both deputy chair and finally chair of the committee, until this new Parliament was established after last year’s election. I have acquired a lot of experience, over those years, in dealing with communications issues.

I believe I am safe in saying that this bill is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation to have been brought before any recent parliament. Many of the more controversial bills have been opposed by particular special interest groups; other bills have, to varying degrees, been controversial with the Canadian public.

However, with this bill, we have a piece of legislation that has truly aroused intense concern among ordinary Canadians. By “ordinary Canadians,” I mean people who normally do not have an interest in politics — particularly people under 40 years of age who do not watch the news or read the newspaper. This is what makes this legislation so unique.

Many Canadians believe this bill will have a very direct impact on them in a personal way because it touches directly on their viewing and listening habits. Other Canadians — usually younger Canadians — recognize that this legislation may impact their ability to express themselves online. This bill raises the spectre of government regulation interfering with that ability.

I would like to reference some quotations that help illustrate the depth of concern that has been expressed regarding this legislation. During the Transport and Communications Committee’s study on Bill C-11, Tim Denton, the Chairperson of the Internet Society Canada Chapter, made the following comments:

. . . We oppose Bill C-11 because it embodies a fundamentally illiberal idea of communications, because it constitutes a vast overreach of governmental authority and because it threatens the engine of innovation and economic growth, which is the internet.

What we object to is the nearly boundless extension of governmental regulatory authority over communications. . . . [This bill] captures virtually all online audio and video.

Then we have J.J. McCullough, a YouTuber and columnist, who told the committee:

. . . content creators and consumers don’t merely consider Bill C-11 a badly written bill — although it is, . . . many people consider the bill at its core badly motivated. Of the dozens of online video makers and viewers I’ve heard from, all have been crystal clear that they have zero desire to live under a government with the power to force platforms like YouTube to push, promote, suggest or otherwise encourage certain kinds of Canadian content to Canadians who have not freely chosen to see it.

Morghan Fortier, the Co-Owner and Chief Executive Officer of Skyship Entertainment — a Toronto-based company that produces children’s content and has more than 48 million subscribers and more than 20 billion views in the past two years — testified before the Senate committee that:

Bill C-11 poses a danger not only to my company but to thousands of Canadian content creators who have been steadily building this industry with nothing more than their unique voices and their hard work. Their content is enjoyed by millions of Canadians here at home and many millions of people outside of Canada. They do it all without a government handout and without the government forcing it down people’s throats through false algorithm manipulation.

Senators may or may not agree with these perspectives, but the common element between them is the belief that Bill C-11 represents an attack on consumer choice and on the freedom of Canada’s online entrepreneurs. In essence, Bill C-11 is increasingly seen as an attack on freedom of expression, freedom of consumer choice and freedom of the press.

Freedom of the press was established in 1835 — in what is today known as Canada — by Joseph Howe, who was the editor of Nova Scotia’s leading newspaper. Howe was accused of libel by those who wielded social and political power at the time, and, since no lawyer would represent him, he had to represent himself in court.

Howe won his case, but I wonder what he would think of today’s circumstances surrounding Canadian mainstream media. The CBC and our legacy print media are now subsidized by approximately $2 billion annually. With most of our mainstream media now on the payroll of the government, thoughtful Canadians demand access to independent points of view — not compromised by government interference.

The social engineers in this government want to give the CRTC control over the information that Canadians can access. They want faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats to decide what content Canadians should consume. Who will benefit from that? Rogers, Bell and Shaw might benefit financially — don’t they always? All three service providers rake in billions of dollars annually — sometimes quarterly — with Rogers presently trying to purchase Shaw for a mere $26 billion. They don’t seem to be hurting under the present circumstances, do they?

Yet Canadians pay some of the highest fees worldwide for phone, internet and cable services. The CRTC has proven to be little more than a toothless tiger when it comes to looking out for the best interests of the Canadian consumer.

Now the government wants to give the same CRTC control over the algorithms that will direct people toward information and opinions that they prefer and approve of, but limit access to information and opinions that don’t subscribe to their views of what the CRTC deems to be appropriately Canadian.

So let’s review the public policy objectives this legislation purports to address. A core perception of Bill C-11 proponents is that, today, Canadian law does not apply to the foreign-based web streaming services, like broadcasters that operate over the internet. The perception is that those tech giants siphon billions of dollars out of the country, without any requirement to invest back into the Canadian system. But the reality is that many of those tech giants actually do reinvest in the Canadian economy, and they invest billions in that regard.

That reality notwithstanding, a common perception is, nevertheless, that their investments are insufficient. This bill is supposed to address that.

This bill also purports to ensure that investment flows to Canadian-based companies and artists. It is designed to try to force streaming services to give Canadian audiences a chance to discover Canadian shows. I understand the depths of this perception. I know that this perception has served as the foundation of Canadian cultural policy for, at least, part of the past half-century.

But this approach does not align with many of the realities of the internet world in which we now live, so we seem to have a dichotomy: The traditional view, from elements of our cultural history, is that Canadian culture is highly vulnerable unless we have significant government regulation and control. The other view is that the past 30 years demonstrate exactly the opposite, namely that Canadian culture and Canadian content have actually thrived in an era with little regulation.

What concerns me about this bill is that it largely comes down to favouring the former position. It pays very little attention to the new realities that have emerged over the past several decades.

So although I’m not currently a member of the Transport and Communications Committee, I’ve been following the mounting critiques of the bill, and it is increasingly evident that this bill — based on cultural policies that originated in the last century — constitutes a serious overreach by the government. Notwithstanding the public policy arguments in favour of the legislation, the bill is too one-sided since it ignores contemporary realities. I fear that — unless we amend the bill in a significant way — there’s considerable danger that we will generate backlash that’s so significant that the bill itself, including policies that are worthwhile, will become unsustainable.

Much of what is wrong with this bill seems to be grounded in sections 4.1 and 4.2. Those are the sections related to the incorporation of user-generated content within the scope of the bill. Those are the sections that Senator Simons has accurately characterized as the “problem child” of the bill. This characterization is very widely shared and has certainly been fed by the government’s extremely poor handling of the issue of user-generated content in both Bill C-11 and the previous Bill C-10.

In relation to this issue, the Consumer Technology Association warned — in a brief to our Senate committee in August — that:

(1510)

The association noted its strong concern related to the breadth of Bill C-11, about the bill’s lack of precision in certain areas, particularly in terms of the power it is granting to the CRTC and how those powers may be used. So what do sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the bill precisely do?

I’ve tried to understand this issue in layman’s terms, and in essence, these sections purport to exclude user-generated content, but then immediately create an exception to that exclusion. Section 4.1(2) notes that despite what is stated in subsection 4.1, the act does apply to user-generated content if a program:

(a) is uploaded to the social media service by the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or by the agent or mandatary of either of them; or

(b) is prescribed by regulations made under section 4.2.

Point (b) is a considerable concern, since the regulations allowed for under section 4.2 are, to say the least, extremely expansive.

According to some witnesses, theoretically, the CRTC could arbitrarily consider any factors that it wants in making regulations prescribing programs in respect to the act. This is precisely why so many ordinary Canadian creators and consumers are so concerned.

When she testified at the Senate committee, Morghan Fortier referenced the situation as follows:

What keeps me up at night about this bill is the potential to gate content that is deemed not Canadian . . . .

Ms. Fortier referenced potential retaliation from other countries:

. . . should this type of a law pass through, we’re done. I don’t mean my company. I mean we don’t need to talk about this bill anymore because it’s over. That will affect regionalized content creators, small content creators and larger content creators. The world is watching. Australia will follow, and the U.K. If the U.S. were to decide, well, what’s fair is fair, that’s a complete game changer that no one seems to be talking about, which scares me.

She continued to say:

It’s the free, open internet for a reason. Attempting to put in place a bill that insists the government mandates its behaviour and intentionally gates content of a particular nature is exceptionally problematic.

I know that the Senate Transport and Communications Committee is looking at these concerns very seriously, and I know senators on both sides of the aisle are aware of these concerns. Some of you have noted in your remarks the potential negative implications. I am encouraged by that, since I think we are witnessing a groundswell of concern throughout the country about the implications of this bill and about some of its more troublesome provisions. I am hopeful that when we consider the bill at third reading, we will receive a bill from our Senate committee that will at least try to address some of these serious issues. I fear that if we pass this bill without addressing these concerns that have been raised by so many Canadians, particularly young Canadians, we risk undermining the legitimacy of our entire broadcasting policy.

In this regard, I think it is useful to reiterate the comments made by J.J. McCullough before the committee when he said:

Of the dozens of online video makers and viewers I’ve heard from, all have been crystal clear that they have zero desire to live under a government with the power to force platforms like YouTube to push, promote, suggest or otherwise encourage certain kinds of Canadian content to Canadians who have not freely chosen to see it.

We need to understand that if we do not heed this warning, these Canadians have options. Should they choose to simply opt out of Canada, we will all end up losing.

I encourage all senators to listen to the substantive and legitimate concerns of all Canadians regarding these issues. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press are protected in our Constitution. Those are core Canadian values that should never be compromised. Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator MacDonald: Yes.

Senator MacDonald: Yes.

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Mr. Wilkinson, the people of Atlantic Canada are concerned, and need some reassurance and support from the federal government regarding the Atlantic Loop. Not long ago, you indicated that recent events were “a bump in the road.”

The Atlantic Loop is essential for Atlantic Canada. It will secure the power needed to phase out coal plants and pave the way for the provinces to meet their 2030 clean energy targets.

A few months ago, you indicated that the federal government was still actively pursuing this energy corridor, but, minister, I’m hearing that the project cannot be built on time if the construction doesn’t begin very soon. Time is of the essence. Minister, is the funding for the Atlantic Loop required to be in the spring budget for the project to go ahead? What are the repercussions if funding is not in the budget?

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable senators, on Thursday, September 8, Canadians learned that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II had passed away.

Although a life of 96 years is certainly a full life, most of us believed she still had a few more years with us, as she was such a remarkably durable figure for so long.

Like most Canadians, I do not remember any other head of state. Princess Elizabeth ascended to the throne in February of 1952 upon the death of her father, King George VI — more than three years before I was born — and she was a fixture ever since in my life, and in the life of Canada, the Commonwealth and the world.

As then-prime minister Louis St. Laurent said in the House of Commons in February 1952:

And we now hail our new monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Though young in years, Her Majesty is qualified to follow in the footsteps of her illustrious father ... Hon. Members, I know the Crown rests on a head which will bring to it further honour and glory.

Even former Prime Minister St. Laurent would be impressed by the prescience of his remarks.

Yesterday, over 5 billion people around the world followed the obsequies on the television, as over half of the world’s population tuned in to her funeral. What a testament to the impression she left upon the world and the respect in which she was held.

I had the opportunity to be in the presence of Her Majesty on several occasions. The first was in 1994, when she and Prince Philip visited the fortress in my hometown of Louisbourg, Nova Scotia. The other times occurred during her last visit to Canada in 2010, when she unveiled the Diamond Jubilee window in the Senate entrance, held a reception at Rideau Hall and celebrated Canada Day with us on Parliament Hill. I was privileged to be present at all of these events.

Part of that 2010 visit was spent in Nova Scotia, as the Queen rededicated the restored Government House, the residence of the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia since 1800. It’s a day I remember very well. The weather was perfect, the crowd was huge and I was standing on a viewing platform with the American ambassador and his wife.

The ambassador’s wife was particularly excited for the opportunity to meet the Queen. When I asked her what she thought of the event, she responded, “It’s wonderful that Canada has the Queen as head of state,” adding that “the monarchy is something that Canada should always retain, as it is something that distinguishes Canada from the United States.”

Indeed, the Crown is something that distinguishes Canada. If you travel down the mainland of the Americas, from Canada to the tip of South America, only Canada is not a republic, only Canada exists as a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy.

Our loyalty to the Crown was fundamental to Canada’s creation as a nation. The American Revolution created not one but, eventually, two new countries, as the colonies of Nova Scotia and Quebec refused to join with the rebellious Yankees, and instead worked toward building a new country under the protection and continuity of the Crown. Over 80,000 loyalists, including some of my own ancestors, came north to Canada after 1783, helping to lay the foundation of our great nation.

The international media, naturally and understandably, refers to Her Majesty as the Queen of the United Kingdom, but that does not define her relationship with Canada. She was the Queen of Canada, and our relationship with the Crown is direct — it does not run through Westminster, nor is it dependent on the U.K. or any of the other realms.

I grieved when I heard that Her Majesty had left us, and I mourn her passing, but I am mindful of the enduring legacy that she dutifully created and I salute her for her service to Canada and to the Commonwealth.

Her Majesty served all of the Commonwealth admirably, but she always had a special place in her heart for Canada, making 22 official visits during her reign. She always considered Canada to be her home away from home. It was touching to see the RCMP on horseback leading the funeral procession along The Mall in London. This was Her Majesty’s request. It speaks volumes about her devotion to Canada, and was a gesture that sent a wonderful message to the world about her relationship with Canada.

The world witnessed over 5 billion people tuning in to say goodbye to Canada’s head of state. There is simply no elected politician nor appointed head of state in the world that could garner even a fraction of the admiration and respect in which Her Majesty was held.

As the young people might say, “The Queen was awesome!” Yes, she was. Her Majesty was truly a remarkable individual and all Canadians thank her for her 70 years of dedicated, selfless service.

God bless Her Majesty, and God rest her soul.

God save the King.

Senator MacDonald: According to the answer tabled in the other place in February of this year, the Department of National Defence awarded a contract of $125,000 of taxpayer dollars to one consultant firm to process just one Access to Information and Privacy, or ATIP, request. As well, the document showed that Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada paid $36,000 to one consulting firm for a contract between February and March of 2020, and processed no access to information requests — not one.

Senator Gold, how does the government possibly justify these contracts?

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate and concerns our access to information system. According to an answer to a written question from Conservative member of Parliament Kelly McCauley tabled in the House of Commons, the Trudeau government paid private consultants over $39 million to process access to information requests. This $39 million has been spent just since January 1, 2020.

Senator Gold, the annual report of the Information Commissioner says that in 2021-22, access to information staff in 28 federal institutions had no access or limited on-site access for processing physical files. Given this, how can the government justify paying tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to consultants to censor government documents?

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA.

When I first spoke to this bill at second reading, I highlighted the very objectives that the government has declared that it wishes to achieve with this bill. First, the government has said that it wishes to reorganize existing inadmissibility provisions related to sanctions in order to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions that Canada may impose in response to an act of aggression. Second, it proposes to expand the scope of inadmissibility based on such sanctions to include not only sanctions imposed on a country but also those imposed on an entity or a person. Third, the bill expands the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act. Finally, the bill amends the regulations to provide that the Minister of Public Safety will have the authority to issue a removal order on grounds of inadmissibility based on sanctions under new paragraph 35.‍1(1)‍(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

These measures appear in some respects to be quite broad. They are said to close a gap in the law, in this case, primarily to ensure that Russians who are supporters of the current regime are inadmissible to Canada. Obviously, we all want to ensure that.

However, as I noted in my remarks at second reading, sometimes our supposed strong measures may be less strong and less necessary than they actually are being made to appear. Some of the witness testimony we heard on this bill at committee confirms this.

When Dr. Andrea Charron, director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba, appeared before our committee, she said this bill “. . . repeats a pattern whereby Canada tinkers on the margins of legislation without addressing core policy and process issues.”

This critique of government bills is becoming all too commonplace of late. Many of the bills that the government is introducing are increasingly reactive measures, usually quick responses to external events. They are hasty measures designed to be symbolic, and it shows.

When Professor Charron spoke about Bill S-8 in committee, she lamented that the government often seems to introduce a legislative solution to a problem when that problem is really one of process and policy.

We have a government that tries to look good while avoiding consultations, as well as the more comprehensive and difficult policy work. In relation to Bill S-8, the government has said that the bill is necessary to avoid a gap in the law where a sanctioned individual might otherwise be admissible to Canada despite being sanctioned. But, as Professor Charron asked, was there a case of a foreign national under sanctions who was inadmissible but gained access to Canada? She noted that this does not seem to have ever occurred.

Indeed, when Richard St Marseille, Director General of Immigration and External Review Policy at the Canada Border Services Agency, appeared before our committee, he informed us that no sanctioned individual appears to have entered Canada in the past five years. There have been refusals abroad, evidently; 5 under the Special Economic Measures Act and 10 under the Magnitsky Law. But even those refusals are out of 1,858 individuals sanctioned under the Special Economic Measures Act and roughly 2,200 individuals listed under various sanction grounds.

None of these individuals appear to have entered Canada, and evidently fewer than 1% ever even attempted to apply abroad to do so. Dr. Charron argued that the main shortcoming in Canada’s approach relates not to legislative gaps around the sanctioning regime but due to the fact “. . . that Canada is not always clear about the reasons for sanctioning or the conditions to be met for their lifting.” In other words, Dr. Charron argues that the main problems are a lack of policy clarity and policy inconsistency.

(1650)

I cannot help but think about Dr. Charron’s words this past weekend when we learned that a senior official from Global Affairs Canada attended national day celebrations at the Russian embassy. The government claims this was a mistake, but, honestly, how would such a mistake occur?

If an error such as that is possible in the current international climate, it is scarcely surprising that there may be a lack of policy clarity and policy consistency when it comes to the effective coordination of our sanctions policy, or indeed, when it relates to the effective coordination and implementation of any dimension of our international policy.

Unfortunately, Bill S-8 has the feel of an initiative that is designed to give the appearance of something being done rather than actually doing very much at all. That said, it could be that some of the measures incorporated in Bill S-8 may, in fact, be useful. Perhaps there is a need, at least a theoretical need, to close legal gaps between our sanctions regime and inadmissibility provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. But I must say that I’m not supremely confident given the lack of clarity that the government has provided on the need for this bill.

Mr. Mario Bellissimo also appeared before our committee and warned that, in his view, Bill S-8 both expands and contracts inadmissibility provisions. He argues that the bill actually incorporates considerable ambiguity, and some of that ambiguity may simply be due to a lack of planning and thought.

Mr. Bellissimo argued that this ambiguity may create new unattended issues, including ambiguity as to whether foreign nationals may be treated as violators of human rights, regardless of whether or not the sanctioned person has been involved in personal wrongdoing themselves. Regrettably, the testimony by Mr. Bellissimo also speaks to a likely lack of policy attention being paid to policy issues that surround the crafting of such legislation.

All this leads me to conclude the bill we have before us today is largely a reactive measure. However, I can support it for the minor issues it purports to address. I do, however, wish that we had a government that was a little more thoughtfully proactive, a government that actually consulted and listened to these individuals, such as the informed witnesses who appeared before our committee. If we had such a government, we might actually begin to see more thoughtful and comprehensive policy approaches being adopted.

Canadians should be served better in this regard. We would have fewer bills that soak up legislative time but actually end up achieving very little. However, in spite of these legitimate concerns, what little this bill contributes is hopefully better than doing nothing at all, and I encourage honourable senators to support this bill. Thank you.

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable senators, I rise today to address Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The bill we have before us seeks to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, in order to do several things.

First, the bill seeks to reorganize existing inadmissibility provisions relating to sanctions in order to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions that Canada may impose in response to an act of aggression.

Second, it proposes to expand the scope of inadmissibility based on such sanctions to include not only sanctions imposed on a country, but also those imposed on an entity or a person.

Third, it expands the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of SEMA, the Special Economic Measures Act.

Lastly, it amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations to provide that the ministers of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, instead of the Immigration Division, will have the authority to issue a removal order on grounds of inadmissibility based on sanctions under new paragraph 35.1(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The government has introduced these measures, among others, to respond to Russia’s bloody invasion of Ukraine. We are now entering the third month of that invasion, and we have all witnessed the horrifying scenes of Ukrainian cities and towns being destroyed and innocent Ukrainians being targeted by the Russian military.

Honourable senators, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has forced nearly 8 million people from their homes, with nearly 7 million of them now having been forced to leave Ukraine itself. Unfortunately, that number continues to grow.

I certainly agree that this humanitarian catastrophe is something that we cannot ignore.

We have also all viewed the disturbing reports of the atrocities committed by the Russian military against civilians. I know that the images associated with these actions have shocked every senator in this chamber who have seen them.

In the face of these accounts, I agree completely with the government that those who actively support the Putin regime cannot be permitted to remain immune to the consequences of their actions.

I agree that since Canada has imposed sanctions against individuals who are part of or are supporting the Russian regime, it is logical to expand the provisions of IRPA in order to incorporate all the grounds of the Special Economic Measures Act in order to ensure that the foreign nationals who are sanctioned are inadmissible to Canada. That is to say they will be inadmissible as long as they do not claim refugee protection under the provisions of IRPA.

In this respect, I note that the Minister of Public Safety has been careful to note that:

Foreign nationals who are inadmissible to Canada due to sanctions will still be eligible to have a refugee claim considered by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, and will have access to a full pre-removal risk assessment.

One can readily agree that in circumstances where sanctioned individuals may have, for example, turned on the Putin regime and then arrived at a Canadian port of entry, it is wise to have some flexibility regarding their inadmissibility. However, I am concerned that, as is often the case, the supposed strong measures that the government is introducing in a piece of legislation may, in fact, not be quite as strong as they appear.

I recognize that there is jurisprudence that permits literally anyone to make a refugee claim at a Canadian port of entry, but I remain concerned that there are those who will inevitably abuse this, using it as a loophole to gain entry into Canada. Such individuals can then potentially use the slow pace of our judicial system against us in order to remain in Canada for an extended period of time.

This cautionary note aside, I nevertheless agree that the bill we have before us is at least another tool in our toolbox that we can use to sanction those who are supporters of the Putin regime and who effectively underwrite its despicable actions.

I am very heartened by the scope of measures that we are finally passing through the parliamentary process.

Just a few weeks ago, for example, I had the privilege of speaking to Senator Omidvar’s bill, Bill S-217, which would permit the repurposing of the assets of individuals and entities that have been sanctioned in connection with crimes — such as Russia’s premeditated, unjust and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine — in order, potentially, to assist the victims of such acts.

I do believe that these sorts of measures, if correctly applied — with loopholes minimized — can have an important impact. They will be particularly impactful if applied in conjunction with similar actions taken by like-minded states.

In this respect, Professor Brooke Harrington recently wrote in The Atlantic that some of Russia’s best-known oligarchs — persons Professor Harrington describes as “business figures who have built up huge fortunes, in most cases through their connections to the state” — are now calling for an end to the war.

Professor Harrington noted that the billionaire industrialist Oleg Deripaska, and Mikhail Fridman, a founder of Russia’s largest private bank, have both urged an end to Putin’s war.

She argues that such calls were directly related to the fact that oligarchs themselves have been targeted for the support they provide to the current Russian regime.

I think we have to hope that, in the long term, such emerging divisions within Russia’s elite class will start to have an impact.

What I only wish is that, collectively, the West had been more effective and proactive before the current phase of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine erupted this past February.

(1520)

What I lament in relation to Ukraine is that our responses have really been behind the curve. We need to remember that Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine really began in 2014, when Crimea was seized from Ukraine in complete violation of international law.

While I think the previous government did its best to respond decisively to that invasion — for instance, by leading the charge on expelling Russia from the G8 — the West’s collective response was less than effective, and herein lies the problem.

We are often reluctant to respond strongly to events that do not remain front and centre in the news. When such events fade from the headlines, so too does our interest. We can see that today through our completely ineffective response to the genocide in the Xinjiang region of China and to the Chinese government regime’s repeated threats to invade Taiwan. But neither of these events are front and centre in the news. We have few images of Chinese concentration camps, so our response peters away to ineffectiveness.

On the question of China, of its threats against Taiwan, its genocide and its continued support for Russia, our government remains far behind our allies in responding decisively to this growing threat. I want us, as a country, to be able to move beyond simple virtue signalling when a crisis suddenly erupts and when it is already too late. As a country, we must have a more strategic, decisive and effective international policy.

The bill we have before us today is a reactive measure. Given the threat that we all face in Ukraine, I support this measure for what it is, and I agree that it is needed. But, going forward, I do call on the government — and all of us in this chamber — to do better.

I believe that in today’s more threatening global environment, doing better is now an imperative for everyone’s national security. I encourage honourable senators to get this bill to committee as soon as possible so Parliament can expedite passage of this legislation.

I’m not sure if Senator Harder and I have been sanctioned by the Russians yet, but I suspect we will be now.

Thank you, colleagues, and let’s get this bill to committee.

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Minister, Nova Scotia has 10 senatorial positions. There’s a long-standing convention going back to 1907 that one of these seats is always set aside for a representative of Nova Scotia’s Acadian community. However, there has not been an Acadian senator from Nova Scotia in this place since the retirement of our esteemed colleague Gerald Comeau in 2013, although your government has had multiple opportunities to correct this situation.

There are two vacancies presently in Nova Scotia. Minister, do you think the Prime Minister should address this omission? Will you advocate for such an appointment?

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable senators, I rise to speak at third reading of Bill S-217, known by its short title as the foreign assets repurposing act. This is a bill that has been around the Senate for nearly as long as the senator sponsoring it. It was first introduced by Senator Omidvar in March of 2019 as Bill S-259. When it died on the Order Paper, she reintroduced it two years to the month later as Bill S-226. That too died on the Order Paper and now we have the bill before us, sponsored again by Senator Omidvar.

Senator Omidvar’s efforts in this regard brings to mind the wisdom of the thirtieth president of the United States, the taciturn Calvin Coolidge.

Coolidge was elected vice-president in 1920 on the Republican ticket along with president Warren Harding. Harding would unexpectedly die in 1923, and Coolidge would succeed him then be elected as president in the 1924 election. “Silent Cal,” as he was popularly known, was not much for small talk. In fact, he would often accept invitations to public events only if it was agreed that he would not be asked, nor be expected, to speak. But when he did speak, he had some interesting observations, especially regarding the most important qualities of a politician.

Coolidge said that talent is not enough:

Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.

Coolidge insisted that a politician without persistence will have a hard time getting anything accomplished.

I want to personally congratulate Senator Omidvar for her patience and determination to get this legislation through Parliament – she has provided a great example for all of us on the importance of persistence in pursuing worthwhile goals. Well done, senator.

Senator MacDonald: And now, the timing of this legislation could not be more significant. The difference now, of course, is the invasion of Ukraine by the authoritarian dictator Vladimir Putin, supported by his oligarchs. That has focused the Senate’s mind wonderfully on the issues that this bill addresses. So, we find ourselves in a little bit more of a hurry to get this bill passed at third reading and sent on to the House. In this circumstance, it has been around long enough for our hurry to not appear in any way unseemly, especially now that the government has shown its willingness to support this bill.

In short, honourable senators, in my opinion, Bill S-217 is a bill whose time has come. I can describe the reason for that no better than did the sponsor in her remarks this past March before the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, when she said:

In the past month, we have seen the world change. The brutality of the Russian invasion of Ukraine has called for swift and severe action by the world. And we have seen sanction regimes, such as taking Russia out of the SWIFT banking system, which no one would have thought conceivable a few weeks ago.

Recently, the government announced that Canada will join an international task force with the U.S., the U.K. and others to:

. . . commit to . . . working together to take all available legal steps to find, restrain, freeze, seize, and, where appropriate, confiscate or forfeit the assets of those individuals and entities that have been sanctioned in connection with Russia’s premeditated, unjust, and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and the continuing aggression of the Russian regime.

As Senator Omidvar has explained:

The frozen assets repurposing act, or FARA, as proposed in Bill S-217, would provide that legal basis and that legal tool to help hold dictators, human-rights abusers and kleptocrats accountable for their actions.

But while the invasion of Ukraine by Russia has certainly given this bill much-needed impetus, moral outrage, as we heard from professor Fen Hampson at the Foreign Affairs Committee, “. . . is not necessarily the basis of sound public policy.”

So, Senator Omidvar, while you may view with some chagrin the length of time it has taken your bill to be accepted, the rest of us who support this bill can at least console ourselves that it is not simply a product of this latest moral outrage, but in fact long precedes it.

Punishing Russian oligarchs by seizing and repurposing their ill-gotten gains would certainly be a satisfying outcome of this bill becoming law, but the current situation in Ukraine was neither the specific impetus for the bill nor were Russian oligarchs the particular targets, though they would clearly have been among them.

I think it is worth remembering that while this bill would be useful in addressing the Ukraine crisis, it also transcends it. Its genesis, as Senator Omidvar reminded us when she spoke to Bill S-259 in 2019, was sparked by what she called the most significant crisis in the world today, the crisis of the forcibly displaced — 70 million of them around the world, at that time, half of them children, who had to flee their homes because of armed conflict.

Honourable senators, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has added more than a million refugees to that number and, unfortunately, the number continues to grow.

I was struck at the time when Senator Omidvar said that her bill was inspired by the World Refugee Council’s report entitled A Call to Action: Transforming the Global Refugee System, that had been released earlier that year at the UN. In her second reading speech on Bill S-259, she said:

It urges nation states, regional organizations and multinational institutions to do more than just talk; it urges them to take action. This bill is a direct response to the call for action.

However, I am reminded, and disturbed, by the amount of virtue signalling that the current government is still engaging in. For instance, it loudly proclaimed a few weeks ago that it is sending RCMP officers to Europe to probe war crimes being committed in Ukraine. This may sound good, but it is almost certainly an empty gesture given the basic reality that it will likely not be possible to arrest soldiers from a nuclear-armed state for war crimes. We can pretend that Russian generals will be arrested and tried, but how that would actually be operationalized is very difficult to imagine.

When we were considering this bill at committee, I also could not help but notice that former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy — when he appeared before our committee — took time to laud the anti-personnel land mines treaty that he spearheaded a quarter-century ago. It was certainly a worthwhile initiative. However, this was surprising since the invasion of Ukraine demonstrates exactly how that treaty is not working, since Russia is busy using exactly these weapons in Ukraine.

I really wish that the Government of Canada would stop pretending and virtue signalling. As a country, we need to begin to be honest with ourselves. And as the Parliament of the country, we must be honest with Canadians about the stark threat that we face.

I would like our government to initiate measures that can really make a difference. This bill can contribute to that if we work tirelessly with our allies on a joint approach. But then we need to be clear-headed and frank about the difficult road we have ahead of us and to avoid simply focusing on empty gestures that are part of pretending about the great difference we want to believe we are making.

To quote Professor Hampson again:

FARA levels the playing field when our country is forced to deal with bad actors and corrupt regimes. Our government needs the ability to fire back at those who are not constrained by the rule of law . . . .

It is action — not just more talk and not just pulpit diplomacy.

Honourable senators, I don’t want to leave you with the impression that all the witnesses or even all the senators on the committee supported the bill. During the Foreign Affairs Committee’s study of Bill S-217, Transparency International was particularly critical of three aspects: that the focus was solely on displaced persons as victims; that the government has done such a poor job of seizing assets that there would not be enough to be repurposed; and that judges lacking knowledge in foreign affairs will be sufficiently knowledgeable of the context of the country or group that might receive these funds, such that the repurposed assets might end up back in the wrong hands.

Brandon Silver of the Raoul Wallenberg Center was a strong supporter of the legislation but also offered what he called three proposed refinements to the bill to strengthen it. That included broadening it beyond its application solely to displaced persons.

Many of these proposals informed our deliberations as we approached clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, leading to several amendments being proposed. In the end, only two of the amendments were adopted by the committee, both of which were, more or less, technical in nature in order to bring the bill in line with current government practice under the Special Economic Measures Act. Therefore, some of the substantive concerns remain unaddressed.

(1600)

Perhaps this reality will provide the government with an opportunity to further examine how the bill might be improved. I urge the government and members of the House of Commons to undertake a serious effort in that regard if it were to help make this bill more substantive.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that I had reservations about one of the amendments that will now broaden the reasons for the repurposing of seized assets to include:

a grave breach of international peace and security has occurred that has resulted in or is likely to result in a serious international crisis.

I realize that it simply aligns the language in Bill S-217 with that used in the Special Economic Measures Act, as Senator Coyle said in proposing the amendment, but I am concerned that this language is both too broad and possibly too limiting at the same time.

It could be too broad in the sense that, as Senator Richards pointed out in committee, it could be applied subjectively and used for almost any purpose. For instance, how will one define a “breach of international security” leading to a “serious international crisis?” Could Israel have been targeted for its defensive strikes in 1967, which certainly led to an international crisis?

On the other hand, I fear the language could also be too limiting in the sense of what might constitute a “serious international crisis.” Would Vladamir Putin’s relatively bloodless seizure of Crimea in 2014 have met this definition, or would his 2008 seizure of Georgian territory have met the definition?

Regrettably, it is far from clear.

Senators noted at committee that, ultimately, the question of what constitutes “a breach of international security” leading to a “serious international crisis” will be defined by the Government of Canada. But in all scenarios, leaving this solely to the government of the day may not be entirely reassuring.

I can only say that, fortunately, this will only be one of the conditions that would trigger action under the bill.

As we so often hear in this place, let us not let the search for perfection be the enemy of finding the good. On the whole, I do believe that this is a good bill. It is the right bill for our time. I urge all senators to unanimously support this bill and vote for it at third reading.

Thank you.

Senator MacDonald: Senator Gold, yesterday we received a written response to a question that Senator Martin had asked about whether Canada would bring Iran to the International Court of Justice. However, the response really didn’t answer the question, so I’ll ask you again.

The government admits that further attempts to negotiate with Iran are futile. Will your government hold to account those responsible for this crime by bringing this case before the International Court of Justice?

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Senator Gold, the families of flight PS752 continue to seek justice for their loved ones who were killed in January 2020 when Iran shot down a Ukrainian passenger jet with Russian-made missiles. Following Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, the families of flight PS752 issued a statement declaring their solidarity with the people of Ukraine.

In a decision released in January of this year, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded $107 million plus interest to the families of six victims aboard this flight, which they can now try to collect with the seizure of Iranian-owned assets abroad. Senator Gold, what is the Government of Canada doing to help these families collect on the court’s ruling?

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Minister, in 2015, in response to a request from the Quebec government, Enbridge’s Line 9B was reversed to provide an increased supply of oil to Montreal’s refineries. The volume went from 12% to almost 50% of required supply. Much of the other 50% comes through the Gulf of St. Lawrence, but now the endangered right whale is migrating to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where large tankers ply the waters.

Given this development and remembering the rail tragedy at Lac-Mégantic, wouldn’t complete delivery of all oil to Montreal refineries by pipeline be in the best interests of both safety and conservation? If you don’t agree, what alternatives do you propose to address these unnecessary vulnerabilities?

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable senators, I would like to take this moment, my earliest opportunity in this chamber, to address the comments I made last week.

Last Wednesday evening, while walking back to my hotel after a late supper with my colleagues, I was approached by a man who wanted to speak to me about the protests in Ottawa. I said yes — but only on the condition that it was off the record and not recorded. He agreed. I later discovered that was not the case.

I left the impression that I agree with trucks being illegally parked downtown, and I made some mangled remarks about the sentiments of people in Ottawa regarding the protest.

First, I want to apologize to the people of Ottawa for my clumsy language. It was not my intention to disparage anyone. Like many Canadians, I’m mentally exhausted after two years of lockdowns and a third year facing more of the same. I support the desire to open this country up — a sentiment that was stated initially by the truckers and later supported by many Canadians across the country who showed up on Parliament Hill.

I appreciate how frustrating this has been for the people of Ottawa. Over the past 12 years, I have experienced many noisy demonstrations on the lawn in front of Parliament, directly below my office. I don’t always agree with the causes being advanced, but I strongly believe in the right of peaceful protest. When I arrived for work over three weeks ago and saw the trucks all over Wellington Street, I could not believe that this was allowed to occur. Ottawa has a professional, well-trained, modern police force, which — if properly directed — is more than capable of preventing a situation like this from developing. This failure is the responsibility of city hall.

Yes, I am one of the many fortunate people in this country who didn’t have to worry about the pandemic affecting my regular paycheque because I am paid by the taxpayer. Politicians and bureaucrats at all three levels of the government nationwide, academics, teachers, employees of the military, anyone drawing a good pension and anyone directly or indirectly paid by the taxpayer across this country endure the restrictions put on people’s lives with little worry. But over half the people in this country don’t have that security. That’s what I was trying to express. That those of us in secure positions should put ourselves in the shoes of those in Canada who don’t have income security and certainty.

It is time we stand up for those working men and women who only get paid when they create their own income. In today’s Canada, families are being destroyed, businesses are being lost, depression is rising and children are falling behind in their education. I have never seen this country so unhappy and divided, and people so stressed. A lot of people are falling through the cracks. And if this unfortunate episode brings some attention to this unacceptable truth, then my present embarrassment will have accomplished something positive.

I assure all my colleagues that I am contrite. I have always tried to be a responsible and actively engaged senator. I love this city and working toward the betterment of my country. I’m sorry to those I disappointed. I particularly want to apologize to my wife, who is the salt of the earth and the rock of my family. I expect better from me and I will do better going forward.

Thank you.

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group concerning the U.S. Congressional Meetings, held by video conference, from March 15 to 18, 2021.

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Senator Gold, earlier this week, Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Daniel Therrien, said his office was informed — not consulted, but informed — by the Public Health Agency about the collection and use of the mobility data of 33 million Canadians during this pandemic without their consent.

The commissioner also said that when his office proposed to examine the technical means used to depersonalize this data and to offer advice, the Trudeau government declined and said it would rely on other experts instead.

Senator Gold, why did the government turn down an offer from the Privacy Commissioner to provide expertise on this matter? Does your government regularly refuse advice from our Privacy Commissioner? As well, who were the experts your government did consult, and how much did it cost taxpayers?