Pursuant to notice of December 11, 2024, moved:

That, pursuant to section 3 of the Statutes Repeal Act, S.C. 2008, c. 20, the Senate resolve that the Act and the provisions of the other Acts listed below, which have not come into force in the period since their adoption, not be repealed:

1.Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, R.S., c. 33 (2nd Supp.):

-Part II;

2.Contraventions Act, S.C. 1992, c. 47:

-paragraph 8(1)(d), sections 9, 10 and 12 to 16, subsections 17(1) to (3), sections 18 and 19, subsection 21(1) and sections 22, 23, 25, 26, 28 to 38, 40, 41, 44 to 47, 50 to 53, 56, 57, 60 to 62, 84 (in respect of the following sections of the schedule: 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 7.1, 9 to 12, 14 and 16) and 85;

3.Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, S.C. 1998, c. 32;

4.Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, S.C. 1999, c. 34:

-sections 155, 157, 158 and 160, subsections 161(1) and (4) and section 168;

5.Yukon Act, S.C. 2002, c. 7:

-sections 70 to 75, 77, subsection 117(2), sections 167, 168, 210, 211, 221, 227, 233 and 283;

6.An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2003, c. 26:

-sections 4 and 5, subsection 13(3), section 21, subsections 26(1) to (3) and sections 30, 32, 34, 36 (with respect to section 81 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act), 42 and 43;

7. Budget Implementation Act, 2005, S.C. 2005, c. 30:

-Part 18 other than section 125;

8.Budget Implementation Act, 2009, S.C. 2009, c. 2:

-sections 394 and 401 to 404;

9.Payment Card Networks Act, S.C. 2010, c. 12, s. 1834:

-sections 6 and 7;

10.An Act to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy by regulating certain activities that discourage reliance on electronic means of carrying out commercial activities, and to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Competition Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 2010, c. 23:

-sections 47 to 51, 55, 68, subsection 89(2) and section 90;

11.Financial System Review Act, S.C. 2012, c. 5:

-sections 54 and 56 to 59;

12.Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, S.C. 2012, c. 17:

-sections 70 to 77;

13.Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, S.C. 2012, c. 19:

-sections 459, 460, 462 and 463;

14.Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, S.C. 2012, c. 31:

-sections 361 to 364;

15.Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, S.C. 2013, c. 24:

-sections 12, 13 and 46;

16.Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act, S.C. 2013, c. 25:

-sections 1 to 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24;

17.Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, S.C. 2013, c. 33:

-subsection 228(2);

18.Northwest Territories Devolution Act, S.C. 2014, c. 2:

-section 47;

19.Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, S.C. 2014, c. 20:

-sections 371 to 373;

20.Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act, S.C. 2014, c. 29:

-section 28, subsection 29(1), sections 31, 33, 35, 37 to 39, subsection 40(1), sections 41 to 49, subsections 50(2) and (5), sections 52, 53, 55 and 56; and

21.Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, S.C. 2014, c. 39:

-sections 306 and 308, subsection 309(1), section 311, subsection 313(2) and sections 387 to 400.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Government Motion No. 207, which relates to the Statutes Repeal Act.

Before briefly giving an overview of the motion, I’d like to give some general information and context about the Statutes Repeal Act itself for the benefit of our newer colleagues. Those of you who have been here for some time are well aware of this, and I know you have been eagerly anticipating my remarks on this topic all year long.

The Statutes Repeal Act was adopted in 2008 and took effect in 2010 through Bill S-207, which was an initiative of our late colleague the Honourable Tommy Banks — we will hear more about him soon — who represented the magnificent if somewhat complicated province of Alberta in this chamber from 2000 to 2011. In the 15 years since his bill came into force, the motion I’m moving today has become something of a Senate holiday tradition. This motion is a housekeeping exercise that seeks to ensure the effective maintenance of federal legislation through the regular repeal of provisions that are not in force and are no longer needed.

Section 2 of the Statutes Repeal Act requires that the Minister of Justice table an annual report before both houses of Parliament within the first five sitting days of each calendar year. This report lists the acts or provisions of acts that were enacted at least nine years earlier and that are not yet in force. Under the Statutes Repeal Act, every act or provision listed in the report gets automatically repealed at the end of the year unless either house of Parliament adopts a motion exempting them from repeal.

This year, the report listing all the provisions slated for repeal was tabled on January 31 in the other place and on February 7 in the Senate. A revised report with one additional provision was subsequently tabled on May 22.

The Department of Justice Canada then contacted the relevant departments to ask whether any of the listed provisions should be retained. The result of that internal consultation process was this: The government recommended allowing the repeal of certain provisions of 4 acts while deferring the repeal of 1 complete act and provisions of 21 other acts. I tabled a list of those provisions in a draft resolution prepared by the Department of Justice on November 5. That document, along with the annual report tabled in May, was then referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for study. My office also shared a background document by email with all senators on November 27.

The committee heard from officials from 14 departments and produced a report that was tabled in the chamber last week. On this point, I’d like to acknowledge Senator Tannas and the Canadian Senators Group for advocating to build this committee review mechanism into the Statutes Repeal Act process and for their vigilance in assessing this important annual motion. I hope this new part of the process, which we instituted last year, will continue well into the future.

There has been one development of note since the committee heard testimony. In recent days, and following further reviews conducted by the Department of Justice, the Minister of Transport brought into force sections 263, 266 and 267 of the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2. These provisions, which were published in the Canada Gazette on December 4, had been included in the draft resolution I tabled last month. However, since they’re now in force, they’re not reflected in the motion before us, which now seeks to defer repeal of one full act and 20 provisions of acts.

Given my limited speaking time today, I’ll refer you to the background documents that my office shared a few weeks ago for a more detailed explanation of which provisions are being recommended for deferral of repeal and why. As a brief overview, the list is as follows:

The Minister of Foreign Affairs recommends deferring repeal of one complete act, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act.

Provisions of one act each are being recommended for deferral of repeal by the Minister of Justice; the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food; the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations; the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry; the Minister of Public Services and Procurement; the Minister of Environment and Climate Change; the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; and the Minister of Northern Affairs.

The deferral of repeal is being recommended for provisions of two acts each by the Minister of National Defence; the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs; the Minister of Transport; and the Minister of Labour and Seniors.

The Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board are each recommending deferral of repeal for provisions of three acts within their areas of responsibility.

The reasons for these deferrals of repeal can include the following situations: a pending external event, like the enactment of an international treaty or provincial or territorial legislation; ongoing development of related legislation; ongoing litigation; ongoing regulatory processes; and ongoing consultations or policy development. There may also be situations where failure to defer repeal could have a negative impact on international relations, relations with First Nations, Inuit or Métis people, or relations with provinces and territories.

It’s important to note that under the Statutes Repeal Act, deferrals of repeal are valid for only one year. So, any acts or provisions whose repeal is deferred this year will appear again in next year’s annual report, and the Legal Committee will get to study them again and bring officials in to tell us why they have not yet been enacted.

It’s also important to note that the deadline for deferring repeal of these provisions is December 31. In other words, if we don’t pass this motion by the end of the calendar year, the provisions I’ve listed will be repealed automatically, with consequences including inconsistencies in federal legislation; tension with provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples; negative effects on Canada’s international relations; and a probable need for new legislation to restore some of the repealed provisions.

For all these reasons, I encourage honourable senators to support this government motion. I again want to thank the committee for its work, and I thank all of you for your attention.

Thank you, hiy hiy.

Senator Batters, do you have a question?

Thank you, colleague, for bringing that to the chamber’s attention. It’s true. That is the observation that the committee made. I think the committee did an admirable job of holding the government officials to account, asking very good questions and finding out why some aspects of legislation have not come into force. I will be happy to relay that message.

Thank you, Senator LaBoucane-Benson, for your remarks. They save me some time explaining.

First of all, a lot of smart initiatives come out of the Senate. This is one. Senator Tommy Banks brought this forward. Unfortunately, it took us a few years — since 2008 — before we started asking ourselves why we are just passing these things.

We receive this list, but it always comes around this time when we’re looking at our watches to get out to a Christmas party or go home or whatever, and so we would pass it.

A few years ago, my colleagues in the Canadian Senators Group and I were talking, and we said, “What is this? Why do we just pass it? What does it mean?”

I brought up an idea at our leaders’ meeting, and everybody said, “Yes, let’s do it.” We just finished our second study after calling in the officials from the various departments to provide explanations.

I don’t want to throw anybody under the bus, but last year, there was a lot of the following: “We are continuing consultations with this department and that department.” And we said, “Well, it has been two decades. How long do you need to converse with yourselves over something?” It was the same thing this time. There were a number of times where consultation was being used as an excuse.

In some of them, when we pressed further, consultation wasn’t the issue. There were other issues. In some cases, it turned out to be very legitimate issues, but they didn’t want to say it because we had junior people there. Some guy must have angered his boss, and he was sent to the meeting. There was a lot of squirming and uncomfortableness with this, so that means it’s working.

We saw further evidence of it working. After we went through the list, and we asked some questions, guess what? Out of the blue, a law was enacted between the end of the meeting and today.

It’s having an effect, and I’m really proud of the work that we all did collectively to realize that just passing it without asking questions is not what Tommy Banks would have wanted and not what the Senate wanted when they did it. I’m really pleased about that. It has certainly been insightful.

I can give you some examples of what I’m talking about. In some cases, it was a little bit disturbing. Here is one: Parliament passed a law to give the Minister of Public Services exclusive authority for procurement in 2005, but it hasn’t come into effect because — according to the poor, hapless official who was sent — the department needs more time to consult with other government departments. How many decades do they need?

You begin to realize that there is such a thing as bureaucratic inertia against the will of Parliament in some of these circumstances. That one was interesting.

There was another one that bothered a number of us with respect to supplementary death benefits. We passed a law on supplementary death benefits to be awarded in the Department of National Defence. The answer is this: consultation within the Department of National Defence for 20 years.

We thanked the fellow. He was not very happy. It was not defendable. We told him that we hoped we wouldn’t see him next year because we hoped this would be brought into force. We’ll see.

I just want to say that I would like to recognize the work on this file for us by Dr. Peter Price. He is the Director of Research for the Canadian Senators Group, and his involvement in this over the last number of years has probably made him the leading expert in Canada on this process and legislation.

He has helped the government in a couple of instances where there was some confusion about what was to be repealed and what wasn’t. We had to do some shuffling of paper and obtain some legal opinions to make it all work. It was his work that allowed the government to bring the proper list, both last year and this year.

With that, I’ll leave it there, colleagues. I look forward to talking about a shorter list next year.

Thank you.

Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)