Senator Gold: I’m going to be careful in my response, senator. I would perhaps invite you to speak to your colleague to your left as to what the understanding was of the process that was agreed to as reflected in the motion. I would further encourage you to listen to my speech with an open mind and to recognize that the government took into account the views of many stakeholders, only one of whom seems to have been mentioned at length here.

Senator Gold: As for your questions, I will submit a request for information to the government and get back to you with an answer.

[English]

Senator Carignan: This government has found a new way to deal with lineups at passport offices.

This morning, at the Guy-Favreau Complex, they handed out 73 tickets to the first 73 people in line, so the lineup was reduced by simply kicking everyone else out of the line, which stretched to over 400 people. Consequently, Canadians, citizens who had been waiting for hours, and in some cases days, were kicked out.

This government does not take action and tends to make excuses or apologize. Now that it has made enough excuses, will it soon apologize to the people who are waiting and establish some way to offer compensation to those who missed their vacations or trips because they didn’t get their passports on time?

The Hon. the Speaker: The vote will take place at 8:36 p.m. Call in the senators.

(2030)

Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator McCallum negatived on the following division:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné, for the second reading of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Leader, every minister’s mandate letter contains the following statement:

Canadians continue to rely on journalists and journalism for accurate and timely news. I expect you to maintain professional and respectful relationships with journalists to ensure that Canadians are well informed and have the information they need to keep themselves and their families safe.

Yesterday, however, journalists covering the infamous passport story on public property were told by security officers that they were on federal property and were asked to leave. Journalists were kicked out of passport offices at the Guy‑Favreau Complex, which is a public space.

Is that the government’s vision for freedom of the press and for Canadians’ right to be fully informed?

Senator Galvez: I would appreciate it if you could provide me with the answers because the answers were not to my satisfaction.

Bill S-5, finally, clearly states that risk is the approach to managing toxic substances, but is it the risk to humans or the risk to the environment? What constitutes highest and acceptable risk?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, which I will answer briefly. No, I do not think that is necessary. As students of the law know, the purpose and intent of legislation are gleaned not only from the words and structure of the act or the act into which the particular bill is inserted, and not only by the record that may exist in parliamentary debates, but is also informed by what courts have said about the purpose of provisions in previous cases.

Honourable senators, when debate on this matter begins, I will have opportunities to set out more fully my views on the bill and why the bill is worthy of our support.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Boehm, if you have a question, Senator Marshall will have to ask for additional time.

An Hon. Senator: No.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Marshall, are you asking for five minutes to answer questions?

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): No, not at all.

The Hon. the Speaker: Simon Hopkins has just graduated from Carleton University with a Bachelor of Public Affairs and Policy Management, specializing in International Policy Studies, Security and Defence. In the fall, Simon will continue his studies at Carleton with a Master of Journalism. Simon says he is honoured to have served the last two years as a page working during many historic events. He would like to thank the Office of the Usher of the Black Rod, the page leadership team and his colleagues for their hard work and support over the last two years.

On behalf of all senators, thank you, Simon, for your dedication and hard work.

The Hon. the Speaker: John Shand, our Chief Page, will be continuing his studies next year at the University of Ottawa, studying Political Science with a minor in Psychology. Having now finished his third year as a page, John has been proud to represent the province of Manitoba and honoured to have served as Chief Page for this past year. He would like to thank the Office of the Usher of the Black Rod, the Senate page team and his friends and family who have made this unique and wonderful experience possible.

On behalf of all senators, thank you, John, for your service.

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-10, An Act to give effect to the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement, to amend the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act and the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill without amendment.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kutcher, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the third reading of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, as amended.

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

Some Hon. Senators: Suspend.

Senator Cotter: I didn’t go back and study the record, Senator Batters, and I wasn’t referring to the quality of examination of mandatory minimums. I was referring to the vast body of law in the law of sentencing, and my guess is that it was not extensively studied and adequately enough respected in this exercise. In my judgment, the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences imposes constraints on judges implicitly because of lack of confidence in them and the system they administer.