Hon. Pamela Wallin: I thank Senator Kutcher for his work and for his remarks.

Honourable senators, the government’s decision to delay puts politics ahead of people, and it has devastating consequences for all those who have worked to see the law recognized and respected and assured for all Canadians. It is heartbreaking for those who face a life of mental illness.

This was, I will remind you, a government commitment. Making those with mental illness as a sole underlying condition was your priority. The government chose that over and above, for example, the issue of advanced requests. I’m still fighting for that. The government said this was its priority and gave hope to all those waiting. Then it delayed a year. And now in spite of facts and evidence to the contrary, you have delayed until after the next election.

The undermining of the joint committee process allowed the whole issue of MAID to be reopened, not just the question of mental illness. Now we are once again relitigating MAID in the public sphere because the government could not muster the courage of its convictions on this particular issue, nor could it take the advice of those who have studied this and who have concluded there is a state of readiness.

In a democracy, people are elected to make the hard decisions, not the easy ones. Anybody can do that. And if the government thinks by putting this off that you will be able to lay blame for backsliding at the opposition’s door, I think you are mistaken.

The Conservatives have long stated their disagreement with this, and we can all read the polls. The Conservatives have a reasonable chance of forming a government, so we know that means refighting this battle repeatedly. It was the government that lost its nerve and now tries to shift blame. This puts politics above life and death and the suffering of ill Canadians.

I disagree with the position of the official opposition, but at least they have been consistent in reflecting religious or moral concern, and they vote their conscience. The government has done a one-eighty. It looks political because it is. It was a government minister who said this will be put off until after the next election, and when you play with people’s lives, people, families and professionals will remember the consequences.

For me, the issue of MAID is and has always been about choice. It was for the Supreme Court of Canada, as well, when they ruled, and for the government when they made it the law of the land.

Choice — it’s all anybody asked for. The government says it believes in choice for abortion, gender or contraception, but what about choice for end-of-life care? And why will choice be denied just for certain groups?

The “better safe than sorry” argument was the debate three or four years ago before we had the training, standards, practitioners and experience with MAID provision, before MAID providers and medical experts declared readiness.

Of course, next week, next month, next year, more doctors and nurses will join those who have been trained and accredited, and the numbers will grow, but to say because only 40 are ready today that we can’t go ahead, well, that is specious. We don’t have enough doctors, oncologists, nurses or surgeons for dozens of procedures, but we don’t deny care until everyone has access. It has never been how the medical system operates.

We are told repeatedly by Senator Gold that The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, or CAMH, wants clinical standards. What most Canadians want is a CAMH facility in every city and province, but we don’t have that. That doesn’t mean we don’t treat the mentally ill, it means we do the best we can with the resources and facilities available. We cannot let perfection or equity be the enemy of common sense. Let’s do what we can now for those in need now.

But the arguments for the delays are still ill-conceived and more about politics than life struggles facing our citizens. The government says it agrees that mental illness is equivalent to physical illness, but it then proceeds to argue that those with mental illness — or even dementia or Alzheimer’s — must be denied the right to access MAID. It is the law of the land. Because some have yet to be defined as ready doesn’t mean we will deny readiness for all.

We are living and experiencing a health care system in crisis, and we do not have enough of anybody or anything, but we do not deny treatment until that problem is solved.

The provinces and health ministers’ job is to fund and safeguard our health care system, but not to judge or overrule the daily decision making of medical professionals who have direct patient experience and training needed to make safe judgments about medical procedures.

The readiness or preparedness criteria was met according to the experts the government appointed and who testified at the joint committee, and now once again the bar has been moved. What is the new bar? What are the new criteria that the government is adding to the list of four we were all asked to evaluate?

The government is unable to explain what would constitute readiness other than to say health ministers have to agree. Well, on no other file does this government seek unanimity from provinces before proceeding with the policy — energy; carbon taxes; even actual funding for health care. In fact, when governments embraced MAID, they most certainly did not have the backing of all provinces, health ministers, medical professionals or doctors.

As for the undue haste in passing the bill to delay the deadline of March 17, the government clearly, in advance, understood that time might be needed for proper debate. They have written right into the bill that should it not be finally passed by March 17, it will apply retroactively so there can be no accidental provisions of MAID. To be frank, no doctor in his or her right mind will provide MAID while it is still subject to the Criminal Code or retroactively subject to the Criminal Code, and, of course, there is the further 90-day waiting period as part of the assessment process.

Why sow this fear among the public so gratuitously? Here in this chamber, on the evening of the Committee of the Whole, we witnessed exactly why all bills should be subject to the rigorous standard of Senate standing committees and not this process.

The ministers, political creatures that they are and must be, treat it like a press conference with annoying reporters asking questions. Many senators had no chance to follow up their questions or press for substantive answers. I was one of the lucky ones, so when talking points were served up as answers, I, at least, had a brief chance to drill down. That is why our committee process works and why the Committee of the Whole works for them, but not for us.

I will give the ministers this: They are both new to their jobs and may have not had time to understand the level of debate that has occurred in this country. Yes, it is a nuanced debate. But it is a time now where we have moved well beyond that in this country. The public is ready. The system is ready. Only the government is not ready.

We have built high fences to ensure safety in the provision of MAID. It offers reassurance for families, and it offers protection for the individuals.

This delay — the denial of rights for some and the deliberate misrepresentation by government ministers of the state of readiness, and of the evidence and testimony heard — is truly troubling. I know this to be true because I sat through the testimony. Witnesses were questioned directly and repeatedly. These witnesses were people like Dr. Mona Gupta, the Chair of the Expert Panel on MAID and Mental Illness, who — among others — has been directly involved in the process of developing the regulations and guidelines for MAID assessors and providers. You may have seen the letter she sent to all of us.

As others have mentioned, this is also a sad fact, and part of this debate, that not one individual suffering from a mental disorder or who has been waiting to exercise their right to simply apply for MAID was consulted.

The government ignores those whose lives hang in the balance. It ignores the testimony of its own chosen experts and then tries to argue it was a lack of consensus on the issue. There will never be a consensus on issues that are so personal. But, then again, no consensus was sought. We were looking for a state of readiness, preparedness, and we were told by the providers that the system was ready.

All I can say to you tonight, colleagues, is please go back and read the letter sent on February 12, 2024, from 127 medical professionals. It says in their concluding paragraph:

We urge the Senate to review all of the evidence submitted to AMAD by the people actually involved in getting the Canadian MAiD system and healthcare professionals ready . . . to understand that there are many clinicians who support the implementation . . . .

It’s too late for to Senate because our process has been overridden, but I ask you all, as individuals, to take a moment to read the testimony and hear the advice of the professionals. Do it for the sake of the Canadians who live with mental illness every day of their lives.

Thank you.

Hon. Pamela Wallin, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, presented the following report:

Tuesday, October 24, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy has the honour to present its

NINTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, has, in obedience to the order of reference of September 26, 2023, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

PAMELA WALLIN

Chair

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Government leader, many Ukrainians believed us when Canada offered refuge, work and a welcoming embrace. I think the unanimous motion here today reinforces that early promise.

However, those with everything in order, with documents submitted, who have paid their own way here, are still waiting months for work visas, stuck in limbo. Their calls are not answered, their employers’ calls are not answered and I cannot get any answers on their behalf.

People need a place to live. People need to eat. They need work. They need an income. Not being able to work makes it impossible to stay or to go.

When will you put the people and resources in place to end the backlog? In my community, Ukrainians came to work in agriculture; now harvest is almost done.

How long should people fleeing death have to wait? Why is the government unwilling to do what it promised it would do and provide proper refuge for Ukrainians?

Senator Wallin: We have made a promise and a commitment, and the President of Ukraine is arriving tomorrow. This is a question that can be solved. Can you put some kind of timeline on it? I have one constituent who has been waiting without a cent coming into his pocket since June 15, having filled out every form, having paid his own way and living off the kindness of strangers in our community.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, I am honoured as a colleague and heartbroken as a friend to stand today to pay tribute to the Honourable Hugh Segal.

Ours was a friendship first forged some 40 years ago in the wee small hours of the morning, within the intimate surroundings of a national television studio — every Thursday morning — on Canada AM. Hugh was loved across this country, and across party lines, for his sharp political wit, his analytical precision and his heart. As his friend Liberal Tom Axworthy said, “. . . you were never with him without leaving with a smile on your face and hope in your heart.”

And as Bill Fox, his longtime Conservative friend, put it:

When there was disagreement or debate, that — for Hugh — was simply the starting point for a conversation and the search for compromise.

He believed government must offer freedom from want, as well as freedom from fear — the reason for his commitment to a guaranteed basic income.

He believed in the Tory idea of nation and enterprise — good governance was to be found at the intersection of market freedom and public interest.

He mourned the loss of civility, and was troubled by politicians and the media acting as merchants of polarity — which were his words — undermining hope and optimism.

Hugh was a student of history, and a believer in the Commonwealth, in the monarchy and, most powerfully, in the men and women of the military, whose sacrifice granted and preserved our freedoms.

Winston Churchill, whom Hugh admired, once said, “Fear is a reaction. Courage is a decision.”

Hugh lived a courageous life, from very humble beginnings: His sense of generosity was first learned from his mother who gave away his most prized possession — a simple wooden box — to a neighbour in order to stoke the fire to help keep her child warm.

Hugh always cheered for the underdog — not because they were, but because of why they were.

Today, my thoughts turn to his most passionate battle here in this chamber. He gave voice to those of us who had been silenced. He pleaded with his party’s leadership not to expel three senators without due process, and he did so not because he was my friend — though he most certainly was — but because he believed in fundamental rights.

In his farewell speech, he reminded senators of what our role here is. He said:

. . . above all, to champion the central and indisputable importance of rule of law, due process, presumption of innocence as cornerstones of our democratic way of life, whatever dark forces . . . impose upon us.

Hugh believed not just in the rule of law, but in justice. He was the truest of public servants, an engaged citizen and he was indeed that happy warrior for the causes that truly mattered. There was no better human being, and I am comforted knowing his legacy will live in all of us who had the privilege of his friendship.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, a former adviser to President Obama, David Plouffe, pulled back the curtain on how politicians sometimes play politics. He called it the “stray voltage” effect. He explained:

“People pay attention to and engage with controversy.” So . . . as a politician, you commit to a side . . . regardless of whether you’ve ever thought about it — then you support or oppose vehemently!

That is exactly what has become of gun control legislation, Bill C-21. Those who live a more rural life, love to hunt or sport shoot and those who live in urban centres where crime is high — two very different world views.

As Robert Freberg, Chief Firearms Officer of Saskatchewan, says, the bill will essentially criminalize thousands of Canadians despite the fact that it is the legal firearms owners that support training, licensing and registration, despite all of the things they have done to stay in compliance and promote education programs and despite following the “see something, say something” principle. The legal gun owners are now the ones being targeted by legislation.

Senator Wallin: The government wants to take away firearms from the people who have been advocating for licensing of firearms but are now having their property expropriated.

The way the government proceeded on this bill — and this was on several occasions — prevented an informed parliamentary debate or proper committee hearings with a full range of witnesses. Instead, they used cabinet orders to regulate “. . . the circumstances in which an individual does or does not need firearms.” All the more reason for this bill to be well studied by the Senate. We need evidence and facts, not just opinion and politics.

As if to further alienate rural voters everywhere, the Liberals are actually reducing the punishment for crimes committed using guns. With the passage of Bill C-5, the government has repealed one third of all mandatory minimum prison sentences, including for some 14 firearms and tobacco and drug-related offences.

Here is the issue in a nutshell: If you want to stop illegal gun crime, you need to crack down on gangs and gun smugglers, not on hunters and farmers.

Senator Wallin: When we are told about increasing penalties for smugglers from 10 to 14 years, it sounds great. But today, right now, no one has ever been given the maximum penalty of even 10 years, so 14 years makes no difference. Senator Plett suggested the other day that perhaps there was one such case, but we’re not sure.

Legislation and governments must turn their attention to the people who are constantly in and out of the system, who have firearms prohibitions against them but too often get cut loose in a few hours after an arrest. Chances are the bad guys have more firearms — or access to them — and they just go get more and often end up retaliating against the people involved in their arrest or conviction.

Since 2015, the “soft-on-crime” approach has seen violent crime increase 32%, with 124,000 more violent crime incidents in 2021 compared to 2015, and gang-related homicides have increased 92%.

As we all know, crime is about people who commit the crime. Confiscating guns or knives — knives are now actually responsible for an increasing number of deaths — will not prevent this. A tire iron, a kitchen knife or a fist can kill if that’s the intent.

Government also disingenuously uses the endless horrific and deadly gun-related events south of the border to trigger the gun control debate here — a Uvalde or a Buffalo — but we’re operating in two completely different environments.

Bill C-21 does not meaningfully address the root causes of gun violence: illegal smuggling, gang violence, illegal drug trade and drug addiction. We need to focus on rehabilitation, not red tape.

Hon. Pamela Wallin, pursuant to notice of May 30, 2023, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate a report relating to its study on business investment in Canada, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: I have a question for Senator Gold.

I would like your explanation for this: I’m going through “rapportage” on the committee discussions on the other side. Bill C-13 establishes targets for bringing more francophone immigrants to French-speaking parts of the rest of Canada. Could you tell me how that would work?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate a report relating to its study on business investment in Canada, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Thank you.

I haven’t looked at it in detail. Is there any provision for a timeline regarding the consultation or development of regulations that would allow the committee — and this chamber — to feel that they have a chance to examine the result of that process?

Senator Wallin: Are you satisfied with that?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Thank you, Madam Speaker. All the very best in your new job. You’re off to a good start here.

I have a question for Senator Gold. The constitutional role of the Senate is to study and, if need be, amend legislation and to be judicious in that work, yet we are constantly hit with arbitrary government timelines, such as time allocation on Bill C-11 or the BIA — budget implementation act — programming motion. It undermines our obligations as senators. The BIA is an omnibus bill that includes potentially dozens of stand-alone legislative initiatives, such as the Canada innovation corporation act; major amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, with a massive overhaul to the complaints resolution process, which witnesses have already said is not viable; changes to the Patent Act; the Canada Elections Act; the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and unilateral action on the extension of equalization.

Senator Gold, do you truly believe that the time frame given us to study a bill injected with such issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget is appropriate? Do you believe our rights and privileges are being respected as senators in this chamber of sober second thought?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Thank you very much, Senator Galvez.

I appreciate the question. I’m glad that you are taking notice of our work, and we were glad to have you there last week sitting in at committee.

We are, indeed, looking at why Canada, with one of the largest energy-based economies in the world, is seriously lagging other countries in attracting investment. We are hearing repeatedly from private Canadian companies why they are not investing here — too much politics, too much red tape. The same concern is coming from foreign capital, making it reluctant to invest unless the government offers up millions or in some cases billions in incentives.

The problem with the subsidy approach for us, regardless of what sector you are looking at, is that it is costly and it too often offers only short-term gain.

One of our witnesses, James Hinton, an intellectual property lawyer and part of Own Innovation, explained:

You can’t just fund your way into economic prosperity. For example, in clean technology, we own less than 1% of the global intellectual property. So unless you recognize the existing position of Canadian firms and intentionally ensure that Canadian-owned IP and data assets are part of the clean-tech value chain, you are initiating a generational wealth transfer out of the country because 99% of the foundation is already owned.

We see similar examples with Volkswagen and Ericsson — billions in subsidies without any assurances that the IP stays in Canada. Jobs are created, but what we’ve also heard from witnesses is that the jobs model — and this has been referred to frequently — is not one that incentivizes the private sector to come to the table and invest in Canadian companies as partners sharing IP.

The jobs model secures activity in the country, and it may even help shift activity toward renewables, but it is not an investment strategy that will work in the future.

The U.S. IRA strategy is putting billions into clean growth, repatriating production that was offshored. Ottawa’s approach is, “Well, frankly it is hard to compete with big spenders and with countries that have no carbon tax.”

Many of our witnesses have talked about an attitudinal issue — and I think that this troubles us all — that we tend to be risk‑averse in this country. That too must change. Our start-ups are more likely to sell than grow, so they do not even look to secure their own IP.

Whether it is green technology, clean technology, agricultural technology, communications technology or even artificial intelligence, or AI, we need to have a strategy that will do more than create branch-plant jobs.

Hon. Pamela Wallin, pursuant to notice of April 25, 2023, moved:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Thursday, December 16, 2021, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy in relation to its study on matters relating to banking, trade, commerce and the economy generally, as described in rule 12-7(10), be extended from June 30, 2023, to December 31, 2025.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: 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 Thursday, December 16, 2021, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy in relation to its study on matters relating to banking, trade, commerce and the economy generally, as described in rule 12-7(10), be extended from June 30, 2023, to December 31, 2025.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, to begin, a few thoughts on the Senate’s constitutional powers, rights and obligations that have been conveniently redefined in the context of a government simply wanting its bill passed.

Legislation in Canada must be approved by both houses. We are here to offer thoughtful critiques of legislation, to hold governments to account and to resist unnecessary aggregation of power by governments.

We are not required by law, or the Constitution, to defer to the elected house. They have rights and authorities and so do we.

Sober second thought is not just a turn of phrase, it’s our obligation. Our amendments are not just the whims of an appointed talk shop. We are parliamentarians. We are members of a legitimate house with a legitimate voice and a valid contribution to make. We are not just to be tolerated, patted on the head or told what a good job we’ve done at committee and then go to our room.

In the elected house, government members ran roughshod over the committee process and the consultation process. The arrogance was shocking. We here in this chamber had no choice but to offer Canadians a voice and a place to express their legitimate concerns about this unprecedented piece of legislation. They were heard, and our amendments were based on that testimony.

I am profoundly disappointed that the government rejected the most important amendment. This is not a numbers game. Yes, the government accepted some of your amendments, so count that and be happy. The one that was rejected was core to the bill. Our colleagues Senators Miville-Dechêne and Simons, who share many of the similar concerns that I and others have with this bill, proposed wording that would offer a generation of content creators assurances that they would not be captured under the provisions of this bill and, by extension, the regulatory and financial powers of the CRTC.

The government has said that content creators were not intended to be captured in this bill. We offered them the wording and they explicitly rejected that opportunity. Academics, experts and, of course, the content creators themselves have raised concerns that the bill will, in fact, regulate under its provisions, if the government so chooses to do so, their entire sector.

If the government was serious about ensuring that content creators would not be subject to the overreach, then put it in the law.

I believe the government’s rejection justification, the document put forward by Senator Gold, indicates their true views. They want the power today and in the future to assert more control over online content that is, of course, shared over the internet.

The message on why the amendment was rejected stated:

. . . because this would affect the Governor in Council’s ability to publicly consult on, and issue, a policy direction to the CRTC to appropriately scope the regulation of social media services with respect to their distribution of commercial programs, as well as prevent the broadcasting system from adapting to technological changes over time;

Perhaps you could only understand what that means if you sat through the dozens — perhaps hundreds — of hours of our committee process, but it is a cynical power grab. With all due respect to Senator Simons, it is more than just a small impingement on free expression; it implicitly threatens it. They may not have intended to, but in their language, they have belled the cat and admitted to what their intentions were all along.

It is clear that the government wants the power to direct the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, on user content today and maintain that power to regulate it into the future. This power will be granted to this government and every government that follows, giving them all the ability to direct CRTC policy over — among other things — Canadian content without even defining what that means. The government should be in the business of promoting and protecting selected content. Directing CRTC policy to disqualify other content is extraordinary.

In the absence of the Senate amendment, the bill continues to cover podcasts, YouTube videos and other types of content that has yet to be created. The government is looking to be able to regulate new avenues or types of user content that doesn’t exist without even going back to Parliament for debate, review or study. As some ministers have already hinted during this years‑long debate, they want more control over content they might disagree with or that they might want to restrict because it criticizes the government. This is not some conspiracy theory. This is what some of them have said out loud and on the record.

If anyone thinks that forcing an ever-larger regulatory burden on streaming services and content creators — and ultimately giving the government of the day the ability to direct CRTC policy to control content — is somehow giving us better content and greater access to a wider range of information, no, it does no such thing. It is the antithesis of democratic and free expression.

Forcing Canadian content quotas through the so-called concept of discoverability, these are also, in addition to the concerns I’ve raised, overly and overtly protectionist policies that will benefit few and serve as a detriment to many. It is fundamentally at odds with the concept of an open internet.

I’d like to acknowledge the rigorous work done by my colleagues here in the chamber and at committee to try and make this bill better, to make it more palatable for Canadians as well as fair and more realistic for content creators. While we are the chamber of sober second thought, and while the government has rejected our most important change, I maintain that if their stated intentions were actually reflected in their own bill, they would have found support in this place. But I cannot in good conscience support this. If you were looking for a democratic imprimatur, we offered you that — an opportunity to make the words and promises the actual law of the land. Thank you.

Senator Wallin: The reason we are all asking you questions that seem similar is because it is not clear in the bill. Senator Miville-Dechêne and Senator Simons presented language — a compromise — inside our own committee. They presented language that would have given the government the right and the opportunity to be clear about what you promised and what they promised publicly, on television shows and in front of the committee.

If you really believe it, then put it in the bill. That’s why we keep asking the same question. A promise in a response to questions and in appearances on television is not law, and we would like to see it written in the bill.

Senator Wallin: On that point, in fairness, Senator Gold, you did raise the issue of the constitutional role of the Senate, but that’s for another time.

To stay on topic, I will read the language of your rejection that you’ve shared with us here. The government has rejected the key amendment that we are talking about here on user-generated content:

. . . because this would affect the Governor in Council’s ability to publicly consult on, and issue, a policy direction to the CRTC to appropriately scope the regulation of social media services with respect to their distribution of commercial programs, as well as prevent the broadcasting system from adapting to technological changes over time . . . .

These are your words — the government’s words.

This rationale, of course, makes it quite clear that the government wants the power to continue to direct the CRTC on user content today, and maintain that power into the future. That’s what it states.

Obviously, these questions remain: Why are you so adamant to regulate user content online? What is your fear?

I ask this because in the discussions over Bill C-10, Minister Guilbeault, who was the minister in charge at the time, suggested that he was concerned about the criticisms of the government that he was seeing online. We have heard very clearly from Minister Lametti that he thinks it is okay to restrict rights and freedoms online if the government chooses to legislate in that direction.

Any bill that requires government policy direction to provide guidance on regulating user expression is leaving too much uncertainty on the most fundamental questions of freedoms.

Why does the government insist on having the ability to directly instruct the CRTC on user-generated content — the actual content — when this is supposed to be an arm’s-length institution?