Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-5 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended, in clause 4,

(a) on page 11, by adding the following after line 25:

“(8.1) Despite subsection (8), section 19 of the Statutory Instruments Act applies to an order made under subsection (1), (3) or (4) as if it were a statutory instrument.

(8.2) Despite subsection (8), section 19.1 of the Statutory Instruments Act applies to an order made under subsection (1), (3) or (4) as if it were a regulation.”;

(b) on page 12, by replacing line 6 with the following:

“the outcomes set out in paragraphs 5(6)(a) to (e);”;

(c) on page 14, by adding the following after line 7:

“(7.1) Despite subsection (7), section 19 of the Statutory Instruments Act applies to the document as if it were a statutory instrument.

(7.2) Despite subsection (7), section 19 of the Statutory Instruments Act applies to the document as if it were a regulation.”.

Thank you, Senator Simons. The answer is yes, and it’s another reason why it should be fixed.

Honourable senators, I rise to speak briefly on the amendment proposed by our colleague Senator Woo. With the greatest of respect, I’m going to urge you to oppose it.

I want to begin by acknowledging the work that Senator Woo has done and continues to do on examining and shedding light on our regulatory system and on the fundamental issue and importance of parliamentary accountability. I also want to acknowledge — and nobody who has worked with Senator Woo as long as I have should be surprised by this — the attention to detail he brings to his role as a legislator, because he identifies these problems early. And thank you for bringing them to the attention of the government; we do appreciate that.

Senator Woo has noted that clause 24 of the bill establishes a parliamentary review committee that will indeed provide oversight on all facets of the building Canada act, including the enactment of regulations provided for in the proposed sections 22 and 23 of the act. This is in addition to the very important and vital role that the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations will continue to play as an additional layer of parliamentary oversight.

Indeed, as Senator Woo acknowledged — and we were here for it — Minister LeBlanc stated and acknowledged this at the Committee of the Whole last week when he told us it’s “. . . an important parliamentary responsibility that has been exercised over a long period of time by both chambers.” Again, it’s referring to the role of the standing joint committee.

When speaking to Senator Woo, Minister LeBlanc went on to say he “. . . would be happy to work with that committee . . . .” to ensure, as you said, the fundamental respect for Parliament is preserved. In that regard, senators, by now you all have received yesterday’s correspondence from Minister LeBlanc in which the government has committed to working with the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations to ensure they can continue to play a central role in assessing and reviewing the regulatory process that will stem from the building Canada act.

In the Committee of the Whole, you might recall that Senator Woo asked the minister to follow up with examples of other federal laws that are exempt from the Statutory Instruments Act. In fact, the approach taken in the bill before us is not unprecedented in the context of federal statutes. Let me cite the following examples: they include orders designating projects under the Impact Assessment Act; regulations designating a country as a safe third country under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; various orders under the Fisheries Act; various orders under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999; emergency orders under the Species at Risk Act; and decisions made under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, to name but a few.

Senators, to be clear, Bill C-5 will still ensure that any regulations be justified and made public through the normal regulatory process and be subject to scrutiny from the parliamentary review committee, to which I referred earlier in my remarks.

Let me now briefly address the other issue raised by Senator Woo, which includes the omission of clause 5(6)(e), dealing with clean growth and climate change as one of the five factors that the Governor-in-Council may consider when deciding whether to make an order as part of the new registry that will be established under the act. I’m not here to speculate, and I join Senator Woo in not speculating about the reasons this passed as it is. I’m here to tell you what the intent of the government is in this regard. The government intends on respecting the legislative intent which is, and will remain, to report on all factors considered in clause 5(6)(a) to (e), including the contributions to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change in the interim.

That is the government’s stated intent, and I stand before you as the representative of the government in this chamber to so declare. That said, for full clarity and legal certainty, I can also confirm to this chamber that the government intends to correct this issue at its earliest legislative opportunity, and the government will deliver on that commitment. This was also reiterated yesterday in the chamber by our colleague and the bill’s sponsor, Senator Yussuff. Following the passage of Bill C-5 — as I hope it will pass today — all of the factors outlined in the reporting requirements, including clause 5(6)(e), will be fulfilled and upheld until such time as this correction is made.

Colleagues, let me conclude in some sense by echoing different things that you have already said during the debate we had yesterday and today. It is this: Bill C-5 is also fundamentally about trust. Trust in each other that we all have the best interests of Canada at heart. Trust that this newly elected government will act with honour in responding to the moment, including in its dealings with Parliament and this chamber. Trust that — as the opposition has said — we can work together on the path to make Canada stronger, as Senator Housakos alluded to in this chamber.

Yes, Bill C-5 is indeed extraordinary, and it indeed entails unprecedented trust. I think even the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, though no doubt disappointed with the results of the recent federal election, has confidence that the Prime Minister truly believes and truly wants what is best for Canada during this crucial time and wants the government to succeed. One way or the other, Bill C-5 implements the central promise that both major parties made in the previous election, whether it’s “Canada First” or “Canada Strong.” This is not about any particular partisan interest but rather the interests of our country.

Speaking more personally, given this may be the last time or one of the last times that I speak in this chamber — a chamber I have come to love very dearly — during my time as Government Representative, I made such commitments in the past when time was of the essence, such as addressing fixes in legislation dealing with the Old Age Security Act or the Official Languages Act, to name but a few, and I think Senator Harder was kind enough to mention others the other week. On these and on all other occasions, I was grateful for the Senate’s trust, and in each and every case, the government delivered.

With the full assurance and the confidence given to me by Minister LeBlanc, I’m asking for your trust one more time. If you are prepared to trust me and the commitment I have given on behalf of the government, I urge you respectfully to vote against this amendment so that we may move forward with this important and timely bill — a bill that Canadians need and a bill that allows our country to meet this moment.

If this is indeed the last word I say here, know this: my word is my bond. Thank you very much. We will not disappoint. Thank you. Meegwetch. Hiy hiy.

Thank you, Senator Gold, for that heartfelt and sincere intervention. I think there is great and growing trust amongst many of us in this chamber, but we are also talking about a question of trust that expands well beyond the chamber, and I wish you would be here in the fall to help make sure the government fulfills that obligation you just undertook. I’m sure some of us will hunt you down. In all sincerity, thank you for all the incredible leadership and work that you have contributed.

Honourable senators, I want to thank all of our colleagues for their amazing interventions today, and I want to thank Senator Woo for bringing forward these amendments, which I support. I want to speak in particular to the second one.

The ability to meaningfully scrutinize the regulations developed under Bill C-5 will be crucial. First, the regulatory powers granted under Bill C-5 are significant and unprecedented. Under clause 22 of the bill, for example, the government may, by regulation, exempt a national interest project from having to follow Canadian laws. We have heard a lot about the honour of the Crown and the fact that the law will be respected, but baked right into this law is the ability by regulation — and regulation is not supposed to go against the intention of the legislation itself, but the government would have the ability — to regulate away those laws. That’s hugely significant.

Second, we have heard extensively from Minister LeBlanc and others about the legislative intent of the bill and the importance of trusting the government to properly implement Bill C-5, including the intention to uphold Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination and to promote clean growth and meet Canada’s climate change obligations.

In addition to what Senator Woo has said, I would remind us all how often the honour of the Crown and the inducement to trust the government have included promises made by the government to deter us from making legislative changes, at times like this, to fix deficits in bills. Indeed, as you know, several bills I have sponsored exist only because of the failure of the government to live up to those commitments.

In my decades of work with and on behalf of imprisoned youth, men and women, I’ve witnessed how often legislative intent can be not only disregarded but undermined by regulations. Canada’s Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or CCRA, was envisioned as a piece of human rights legislation, which included measures to expedite rehabilitation and community integration of prisoners, especially Indigenous peoples. I don’t have to remind anyone of where we are now on that front.

The CCRA has been implemented in a far different spirit. Despite every law student knowing that policy and regulations developed under laws must not contravene the law and its legislative intent, that is precisely what has happened with respect to corrections.

If Bill C-5 is to be more than a regulatory blank cheque, and if it is to operate in practice in a way that advances Canada’s responsibilities with respect to Indigenous peoples and climate commitments, then significant oversight is required, including careful scrutiny of how the government will wield the incredible regulatory powers it has with respect to Bill C-5. It is for that reason that I support this amendment.

I understand and also respect the will of the chamber. As Senator Woo said, if we don’t pass this amendment, then it’s on all of us to prevent this from happening again. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Are senators ready for the question?

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

All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: In my opinion the “nays” have it.