Senator Plett: I have a feeling that would be a pretty short list, and it wouldn’t take you very long. Well, it might, because you might not be able to think of any.

Leader, the Trudeau cabinet currently also has a finance minister who offers nothing new to Canadians in dealing with record inflation and who thinks she has done enough, a Minister of Agriculture who charges Canadian farmers a 35% tariff on fertilizer — which hurts them, not Putin — a heritage minister who forces his bill, Bill C-11, through the House in a completely undemocratic process, a House leader who wants hybrid Parliament to remain long after most Canadians have returned to work — in fact, they just passed it again today. To top it all off, we have a divisive, out-of-touch Prime Minister who thinks nothing of interfering with an active police investigation of a mass murder to advance his own political agenda.

Canadians deserve much better than this, leader; don’t you agree?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I was hoping that I wouldn’t be the first one because my notes are set up for debate. Nevertheless, I will try to make some assumptions on what certain people would have said and debate them.

Honourable senators, quite frankly, I was unsure. Senator Gold decided not to take part in the debate, and I was wondering whether I wanted to. I really think both sides of this issue and the motion raised will be presented fairly in our debate today. There are, clearly, a couple of different opinions on whether we should be bringing forward a motion that looks a lot like a programming motion. I’m certainly happy that it doesn’t say that it’s a programming motion, but I do feel that it is important that some facts be put on the record.

I stress that I do not believe we are creating a precedent with this motion, that we are not changing in any way how the Senate works and what the powers of the opposition as a group and individual senators may be.

Let me start by saying that the motion to limit debate and pass Bill C-28 quickly was adopted in the House unanimously, which is one of the reasons why we also support the motion and will, later today, support Bill C-28.

There was no time allocation in the other place, just an agreement on how to do things properly and quickly, and it was a negotiated agreement accepted by all sides. And that is what I want to stress: This is an agreement that was accepted by all sides.

There may be senators here who have an issue with this agreement and who have an issue with what we are doing, and I have an issue with the way the government has operated on some things, including Bill C-28 and the government not getting it to us in a timely fashion so it could be debated a little bit more thoroughly here and sent to a committee for study. Instead, we had to accept second best, and that was Committee of the Whole with a justice minister who, quite frankly, I do not think gave us the answers we needed.

So the agreement that we reached is something similar to what they have in the House. We reached an agreement on process, not on whether we like the bill. We reached an agreement on process, and all senators who stand to speak to this motion today who are part of a caucus — or we like to call them groups now, or anything else we want to call them — have elected leaders, and they have indeed been elected. Senator Gold has been appointed, but Senator Saint-Germain has been elected by her group. Senator Cordy has been elected by hers, Senator Tannas by his, and I indeed by mine, and I thank my colleagues continually and am continually amazed at their confidence in me. I certainly appreciate it.

This was decided by all of the leaders, and we signed on to this. We all said we have to develop a process. We are here in the final days and the final hours of a fairly long sitting.

Over in the House of Commons, I’m sure the ministers’ drivers are at the doors ready to rush them out of town, those who have not left yet, and the rest of the members of all parties are ready to go home.

Tomorrow is Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, an extremely important day in the province of Quebec, and certainly the fact that it’s Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day is an important issue for me. We don’t celebrate the same holiday, but we needed to do something to come out of here. We could have done something other than have this motion and come back here next week — at taxpayers’ expense — and debated this some more. We wouldn’t have gotten anywhere; we wouldn’t have changed it. The House has gone home. We could amend it; they wouldn’t be dealing with it and we would be running the risk of horrendous crimes happening across our country. Defences would be mounted because people were intoxicated, and this is not something I want.

I have argued many times in this chamber how the government is bringing us legislation that our government leader here and the government over in the other place are saying is time sensitive when there is nothing time sensitive about it. However, this bill, colleagues, is time sensitive. We need to pass this bill before we rise.

The minister said he was happy with the study, and we had a motion that the Legal Committee will study this, and we will get a report on this and will hopefully improve it, but we need to move forward.

The Senate has adopted similar motions in the past. For example, the MAID and legalization of cannabis bills were negotiated agreements, agreed by all caucuses and group leaders. There was no motion to limit debate or impose the will of the government on the opposition or other senators.

I had a part in negotiating the time frames in those where we changed some of the speaking times to 10 minutes from 15 minutes so everyone could have a say, but we did some limiting, and I believe that is good. I do not want to limit one senator from having his or her say here today, and, of course, we have passed motions that we are sitting until midnight, and that’s fine. We will sit here until midnight. We sat late last night, and this is normal.

Motion No. 53 allows Bill C-28 to receive second and third reading on the same day. Again, nothing very unusual about that. Agreeing to forgo the delays stated in the Rules is not something new. There are numerous precedents in our recent and not‑so‑recent past showing that we have done that. Bill C-28 is not a long and complex bill. It’s a very straightforward bill. The issue it touches is technical, but the bill is straightforward. So not having longer delays between first and second reading and then second and third reading is not prejudicial, and there may be senators who say it is prejudicial. It is not prejudicial.

Looking at the number of senators who have expressed willingness to speak on Bill C-28, I don’t think organizing the debate the way Motion No. 53 does will take away the right of any one senator to put on the record his or her opinion on the bill and even propose amendments. We have allowed the time. There is nothing in the motion that says we cannot put forward amendments.

The time limit on the motion is that we have to call the question by 9 p.m. tonight and, again, that is not time allocation. When the opposition signs on to a process that the government has brought forward, that cannot be interpreted as time allocation. That can be interpreted as two, three, four or, in this case, five sides getting together and having unanimity. Colleagues, I don’t think I’m breaking any confidence here, but we had unanimity on this issue. We had differing opinions on leave, for example, and, of course, leave wasn’t granted when Senator Gold brought this forward, and Senator Tannas made that clear.

I’m sorry again if I’m breaking confidence, but I don’t think I am. Senator Tannas made it clear to Senator Gold: Bring a motion in such a way that, if you are not granted leave, you have allowed yourself the one-day notice you will need to get this through. We will not hold you up here on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. We will not ask you to come back, but don’t ask us to give you leave because you know our group, our caucus, is inherently opposed to giving leave, as they have shown. But Senator Tannas was a willing participant and a willing recipient of the concept of what Senator Gold then did.

Today is June 23 — I may be repeating myself here — and tomorrow is a holiday in Quebec. Historically, the Senate does not sit on that day. Prolonging debate on Bill C-28 just for the sake of it would force us to come back for a few days next week at a large cost to taxpayers and is unnecessary.

Lastly, I want to point out that the motion provides for a thorough study of the issues surrounding Bill C-28 by our Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I already mentioned that. Again, this is something all groups agreed to. Let’s make sure the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee studies it. They have given Senator Jaffer and her committee a mandate to bring this forward. This is a government motion. This comes from Senator Gold, and I have every confidence in our members on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that they will do a thorough job of this. It should be made clear that this is a very integral part of the agreement.

So, colleagues, I know there are those — including in my own caucus — who do not want to give in. We do not want to give the government what they want, and that’s fair. However, there comes a time when you develop processes, and over the years that I have been involved — Senator Harder will bear witness to this, as will Senator Gold — I have never, when I have made an agreement, agreed that we will pass a bill by a certain time. I have agreed that we will allow the question to be called on a bill by a certain time. That’s a distinct difference, and not one leader out of the five of us committed one of you, colleagues, to how you were going to vote.

We only committed that we will do this, that we will do this today and that we will do it in an orderly fashion. We limited some speaking times, but we did not limit the number of speakers, so I encourage everyone to speak. I also encourage that we go through with this. The time will come later in the day when I will be speaking on Bill C-28 and I will make my wishes known on Bill C-28. I will have some things to say, but now we’re talking about this motion. I encourage all of us to have our say, but let’s move on to the debate on the bill, a very important bill that has received all-party support at the other end, as it should. This is an issue that concerns each and every Canadian. It is time sensitive and has to be passed before we leave here tomorrow. Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Patterson: Yes.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the programming Motion No. 53 that has been introduced regarding Bill C-28, the bill dealing with extreme intoxication leading to a state akin to automatism.

I was first alerted to the potential issues with this bill after the text was tabled last Friday. Over the weekend, the concerns continued to flood in from notable legal minds across the country. This past Tuesday, I sat and listened as senator after senator raised concerns about potential loopholes created by the bill. For me, this is one of those moments where I feel the need to exercise my independence and speak up so that, frankly, I can sleep comfortably at night. I am thankful to be supported by a group that values that type of independence.

As you all know, I summoned up my courage and gave a resounding “no” when the government tried to move this motion with leave yesterday. I want to explain why. Things happen in this place all the time that frustrate one or more of us. For me, I am most frustrated when we seem to shirk our responsibility to carefully review legislation and to ensure we are always representing our regions, minorities and voices that aren’t always heard.

I listened carefully to Senator Dasko last night, who told us that Canadians are still not seeing value for money when they look at the Senate. I have been here long enough to see tools like time allocation and programming motions used. In my experience, a programming motion is best used when we have a large, complicated piece of legislation and we need to chart a path forward for it. It’s not used to limit debate and skip stages in the parliamentary review process for a bill that, at the time leave was sought yesterday, had not even been introduced yet.

I know that the Canadian Senators Group, or CSG, leadership explored ways to allow more voices to be heard on this issue. We put forward the question of extending the Committee of the Whole. We could have had another 65 minutes after Minister Lametti’s testimony to hear from women’s organizations and other witnesses who were and are eager to testify about this bill, or it was suggested we could have a short study by the Legal Committee. We had a committee that met last night during the supper break, so it could have happened as quickly as yesterday if there had been support for that but, in the end, those options were all rejected.

Honourable senators, leadership is certainly about standing strong and firm at times. However, it’s also, I believe, about demonstrating a willingness to listen and compromise at times. I believe that because of their unwillingness to accommodate these requests and the overall inflexibility of the government, we were put in a position where we would be asked to do everything with leave. That would challenge one or more senators to be the sole reason for us having to sit, for example, on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day tomorrow or into next week. It is a tactic that forces one or more people to become the “bad guy,” and I know how that feels. so often we hold our noses and let things through despite our objections.

I want to clearly thank the leaders for introducing this motion because even though I disagree with it and feel that this is an inappropriate use of an otherwise legitimate tool — in fact, it really skirts around the Rules of the Senate — at least, other colleagues and I have the chance to stand up and speak out, as Senator Plett pointed out just now. At least we are ensuring that if we do move forward, it is because a majority of the Senate has agreed that it is appropriate to give expedited passage to this bill without hearing from anyone else but the government and ourselves.

I think that’s wrong. I fully recognize that I may stand alone, or virtually alone, in opposing this motion. I felt a bit like David versus Goliath in that respect, the underdog facing an insurmountable obstacle, but as another underdog, namely Rocky Balboa, said, “I stopped thinking the way other people think a long time ago. You gotta think like you think.”

Colleagues, I want to give the last word to the women I feel should be part of this debate by reading a letter sent to all senators dated June 21, 2022. By the way, they have been standing by, ready to come here and express their strong concerns, since this bill was rapidly moved through the House of Commons and sent our way.

I see this letter as eloquent evidence in support of my belief that we should not be proceeding with a path forward that does not include them, and it is the main reason that I will vote against this motion. I will let them speak for me because they perfectly reflect my concerns.

Here is the letter:

I write on behalf of the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL). Founded in 1974, NAWL is a feminist organization that promotes the equality rights of women through legal education, research, and law reform advocacy. While NAWL agrees that Parliament should act expeditiously to respond to the Supreme Court decision in Brown, it is deeply concerned with the seeming rush to pass Bill C-28, amending s.33.1 of the Criminal Code, before Parliament recesses for the summer. There was a lack of meaningful consultation prior to the bill being introduced and with the substance of the bill. In the best traditions of the Senate as the house of sober second thought, NAWL asks that Senators take the time to carefully examine the bill and refer it to its Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee with sufficient time to hear from relevant stakeholders, including women’s groups, Crown prosecutors, and medical experts. . . . This is necessary in order for the Committee to consider revisions to problematic aspects of the bill, which we fear will pose nearly impossible hurdles for prosecution of intoxicated perpetrators of violence against women.

I attach our press release that provides some further details of our concerns, particularly with the requirement that prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that the loss of control after the consumption of intoxicants was reasonable foreseeability and the foreseeability of harm. We also provide a chart of two alternatives to amend s.33.1, which our criminal and constitutional experts have developed in order to avoid the current weaknesses of Bill C-28. We presented these alternatives to the Department of Justice, in a meeting organized by DOJ lawyers only mere days before the Bill was tabled. As a result, these alternatives did not receive meaningful consideration and we cannot discern that they are reflected in Bill C-28 in any way. This is in stark contrast to the early consultation with NAWL before the introduction of the bill inserting section 33.1 into the Criminal Code. NAWL also testified before Parliament suggesting a number of amendments to what became the final text of s.33.1.

The defence of extreme intoxication is one that is almost always advanced by men perpetrating violence against women. Further, men responsible for violence against women are usually intoxicated. Even if it is a high evidentiary bar for a successful defence of extreme intoxication, the real-life impacts of the availability of the defence on charging and prosecution decisions cannot be underestimated. Parliament should act quickly to ensure that accused men who voluntarily become extremely intoxicated before committing gendered violence are held accountable. However, it should not act hastily and entrench a flawed bill into law. NAWL respectfully asks you to take the time to ensure that Bill C-28 will serve justice.

The letter, colleagues, was signed by Dr. Kerri A. Froc, Chair, National Steering Committee of the National Association of Women and the Law and co-signed by representatives of Luke’s Place Support and Resource Centre, Women’s Shelters Canada, Ending Violence Association of Canada, Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability, Alberta Council of Women’s Shelters, Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton, Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, Persons Against Non-State Torture, London Abused Women’s Centre, Ontario Network of Sexual Assault/Domestic Violence Treatment Centres, Action ontarienne contre la violence faite aux femmes, WomenatthecentrE and Lanark County Sexual Assault & Domestic Violence Program.

I’m happy to let them have the last word in concluding my speech with their fervent desire to be heard.

Thank you, honourable senators.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, it is common practice to honour special Canadians during Senators’ Statements. Well, today, I want to do just that, and recognize and honour one of our very own.

Right here in this chamber there is a senator, a man, a father and a force to be reckoned with when it comes to advocating for the rights of victims of crime. Senator Boisvenu, today I wish to pay tribute to you for your incredible courage to battle for a cause so near and dear to your heart.

Twenty years ago today, our colleague was faced with an unbearable tragedy — a father’s worst nightmare. I can’t even imagine the emotions you went through following the kidnapping of Julie, and that was sadly just the beginning of this tragedy. The heinous situation worsened with the realization that Julie faced forcible confinement, rape and was eventually murdered by a repeat offender.

Honourable senators, the darkness of these words and actions are heavy, unconscionable and so emotionally charged. But, somehow, Senator Boisvenu found the force and the courage to turn this horrendous tragedy into a fight against violence towards women and to improve and respect the rights of victims of crime.

Senator Boisvenu managed to turn the pain and sorrow that he and his family suffered into a life journey to support others as they struggle with similar horrors. The tremendous pain he and his family have dealt with, and continue to deal with, fuels his relentless dedication and advocacy work.

As he said recently in an interview, Senator Boisvenu has the ability to reach out to families who are victims of crime, including fathers who are going through a wide range of emotions such as anger and despair. Having a common experience of trauma naturally allows him to be able to provide support, which is often desperately needed. This also uniquely positions him with tremendous credibility as a public voice for these families.

He is the founding president of the Murdered or Missing Persons’ Families’ Association and the force behind the compensation for victims of crime legislation that was adopted in the National Assembly of Quebec as Bill 25. He is also the co‑founder of a shelter for abused women, Le Nid, in addition to a camp for underprivileged youth.

The role and public responsibility the Honourable Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu has taken on to fight violence against women have ensured preventative campaigns and impactful and sustainable security improvements not only in Sherbrooke but also on a larger scale.

Senator Boisvenu, I tip my hat to you. Through great adversity, you have made it your duty and mission to relentlessly defend and speak for others.

I know you humbly say that your advocacy work is a way to keep the memory of your daughter Julie alive. Well, Senator Boisvenu, there is no doubt that your daughters Julie and Isabelle have one heck of a father. They chose you well.

Senator Boisvenu, thank you for all that you do.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Honourable senators, this month I had the pleasure of visiting an up-and-coming hub of economic activity, a small town on Highway 138 roughly midway between here and Cornwall. Moose Creek packs a bigger punch than you would expect based on its geographic footprint. Locals know it for its quality dress shops, expanding outdoor tourism opportunities and, well, its landfill. I visited GFL Environmental’s site in Moose Creek with Senator Black. He has just spoken very eloquently about his area of expertise: agriculture and rural development.

What I would like to focus on today is the good, the bad and the exciting. First the good: This 2,400-acre site with a team of 40 employees is innovating daily. They are using hawks to deter seagulls, using stone dust instead of sand for cover, creating high quality compost from material most of us would dismiss as waste and generating electricity from landfill gas.

The bad: As officials from across eastern Ontario toured windrows of decomposing kitchen scraps and yard debris, staff commented that it seemed as though every apple core came wrapped in its own plastic bag. Plastic seems to contaminate everything.

[Translation]

Like the landfill in Cornwall, my hometown, the Moose Creek site is filling up fast because Canadians produce an unbelievable amount of waste. GFL hopes to expand its site to continue serving eastern Ontario and western Quebec.

[English]

Everyone should tour a landfill. It becomes an important exercise in self-reflection. We produce all this trash, but we don’t want to live next to it. In Moose Creek, there are open lines of communication, and I expect consultation with residents to continue. This project has partnership potential that goes beyond business. The folks I met at GFL are determined to earn the support of both the provincial and federal governments, as Senator Black indicated.

Now for the exciting: GFL Environmental has developed an ambitious plan that would see renewable natural gas produced from landfill gas. The current volume of gas could heat over 11,000 homes, and projections indicate that number could rise to 20,000 by 2045. Local farm digesters would pump renewable natural gas from livestock operations into the grid from a connection point at the GFL site. A greenhouse could be fuelled with green heat.

I believe in this team’s ability to garner support to find even more ways to repurpose our waste and to put the little village of Moose Creek on the map as a shining example of innovation, partnership and green investment. Thank you, nia:wen.

Hon. Victor Oh: Honourable senators, I rise today to commemorate the sixteenth anniversary of the redress of the Chinese head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act. On June 22, 2006, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper stood before the House of Commons and apologized on behalf of the Government of Canada for these discriminatory laws toward Chinese immigrants. This was an important moment in our history. A moment when grave injustices were recognized and efforts were made to redress and support the healing of those most directly impacted.

It was after the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the late 19th century that the Canadian government established the Chinese head tax, which was soon followed by the Chinese Exclusion Act.

During these dark times in our nation’s history, we imposed a head tax and strict regulations to deter Chinese newcomers to Canada. Chinese families became fractured and indebted, and poverty was rampant. This was the only law in our country’s history to force a tax based solely on where someone was from.

As Prime Minister Harper said during his apology 16 years ago:

We have the collective responsibility to build a country based firmly on the notion of equality of opportunity, regardless of one’s race or ethnic origin.

This, I believe, is the Canada we all strive for. Although we have collectively experienced peaks and valleys in our pursuit of racial equality, I know we have come a long way toward being a more inclusive nation, and I am optimistic for our future.

Colleagues, in closing, I remind you that Canada would not be the vibrant and prosperous country it is today if it were not for the contributions of the Chinese immigrant community.

On this anniversary, I ask that we all reflect upon the many difficulties Chinese immigrants faced while paving the way for a more tolerant and accepting future. Thank you, xie xie.

Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, I wish that I were delivering these remarks, at least the beginning of the remarks, on a day other than a day when we are acknowledging Senator Boisvenu’s suffering for the loss of his daughter.

I want to speak today a little in the context of being a father. Today, a few days after Father’s Day, I am humbled to be grateful. My son Rob and my daughter Kelly, whom you have just met, each in their own way, are heroes to me. I’m reminded of a famous line from a Wordsworth poem, “The child is father to the man,” and in its literal interpretation it surely applies to me.

The main focus of my statement today is the subject of people with disabilities from the specific to the general. Many of us — as well as our friends, sons, daughters, parents, people we love — live with disabilities.

One is my daughter Kelly. Kelly lives at Glenora Farm outside of Duncan, a wonderful, welcoming living community. She is not only my daughter, but also my friend and an inspiration to me. In fact, Kelly and her friend Carmen Sutherland are heroes. They face the challenges in their lives, challenges that most of us neither experience nor think about, with courage and optimism. Their commitment to others similarly situated or even more challenged is incredibly uplifting to me, and I am confident that many of you have similar experiences and inspirations.

It is also important to note that many of our loved ones who have disabilities are well supported by us, our families and communities, financially and emotionally. We are not in need of public intervention to help ensure that their lives are fulfilling ones.

This is not the case for many others with disabilities. Indeed, a disproportionate percentage of people with disabilities live in impoverished circumstances and have much less support in their lives than those close to us. The continuation of these circumstances for the most vulnerable of our citizens does us no honour. And it is to this, as much as to any other initiative we will be considering in the coming period of time, that I hope we will turn our minds.

Many of you in this chamber have committed your energies, influence and financial resources in support of people with disabilities. For example, earlier today, at his own expense, the Usher of the Black Rod acquired and presented 25 decorative pillows — some of you have seen these before — to pages and others as an expression of his appreciation for their work on our behalf this past year.

I am hopeful that our energy and influence will continue among us all when, at some point in time, we get to deliberate on a more comprehensive commitment to people with disabilities, the disability benefit bill. This is not a speech about the bill. That will come in the course of time. But I do hope that from time to time in the coming weeks and months, as we enjoy summers of joy and fulfillment in this great country, we give thought to the ways in which we can enrich the lives of those less fortunate than us and open our hearts to their needs. Thank you.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is for Senator Gold, the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Leader, the answers provided by you and Minister Blair yesterday, that no pressure was put on RCMP Commissioner Lucki, are difficult to believe because we’ve all heard it before.

The very morning the SNC-Lavalin scandal broke in February 2019, the Prime Minister stood before Canadians and said the allegations in The Globe and Mail are false. It wasn’t long before we found out that those allegations were true. The Prime Minister told a powerful woman what he wanted to happen in order to advance his political agenda, regardless of rules, laws or propriety. Minister Wilson-Raybould said no and was fired.

Now we have the same situation, leader, but Commissioner Lucki saw what happened when a woman says no to the Prime Minister. In fact, several women have been tossed aside over the years, and she did as she was asked.

As I said yesterday, Lia Scanlan, the RCMP’s former director of strategic communications in Halifax, said in her own testimony, “. . . we have a commissioner that does not push back.”

Leader, who is the Gerald Butts in this situation? Who in the Prime Minister’s Office spoke with Commissioner Lucki about an active police investigation?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. As I responded yesterday, and as the minister and commissioner responded, there was no interference in the investigation.

Senator Plett: Of course, the question was about who spoke to the commissioner about an active police investigation. The question wasn’t about interference. We all know that the Prime Minister says that people feel things differently. When he gropes somebody, they experience it differently than when somebody else does.

The government denies it pressured Commissioner Lucki and she denies she pressured the Nova Scotia RCMP. I will go back to the SNC-Lavalin scandal because it’s the same pattern, leader. Jody Wilson-Raybould received a call from the former clerk of the Privy Council telling her the Prime Minister is in that kind of mood. If someone hears their boss is in a mood, they get the message pretty quick.

When Commissioner Lucki hears the Prime Minister and Minister Blair ask for information on an active investigation to help advance their legislation, she gets the message. The Nova Scotia RCMP officials certainly got the message from Commissioner Lucki according to their own words in documents released Tuesday.

Leader, aside from what you’re saying, do you agree that this needs to be investigated further?

Senator Gold: No, I do not.

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Senator Gold, I would encourage you to read the order-in-council that created that commission. The government’s role is not independent. It is a stakeholder in the commission, as the order states.

I would like to address another issue that also affects the victims of Portapique. Now I understand why the Minister of Justice has not yet appointed an ombudsman for victims of crime. It’s because he is afraid that by having an ombudsman in place, these victims will file official complaints.

Here is my question. We have been waiting for nine months for the ombudsman to be appointed. We waited 11 months in 2017. Will the Minister of Justice appoint the ombudsman before June 30, 2022?

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

I too want to ask about the Prime Minister’s and the RCMP Commissioner’s intervention in the Portapique shooting investigation.

Superintendent Campbell said the Nova Scotia RCMP held back certain details so as not to jeopardize the investigation.

We know that the Prime Minister has an annoying habit of interfering in judicial matters. Case in point — as my colleague, Senator Plett just mentioned — the SNC-Lavalin file, which resulted in the dismissal of a very good justice minister, Ms. Wilson-Raybould. Do you, as a lawyer, believe that political intervention in this matter may jeopardize the investigation and result in the victims paying the price for this foul-up?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I cannot accept the premise of the specific question, so I will focus on the question. I am told that the government has launched an appointment process for a new Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, and the work to fill the position is ongoing.

In the meantime, senator, the office remains accessible to victims of crime across Canada requesting their services.

On March 29, 2022, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights began its study of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Victims’ rights remain a priority for the government. Significant policy and programmatic investments and various law reforms have been introduced since 2015 to address the needs and concerns of victims and survivors of crime.

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Leader, friends of your Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault, agree that the aviation industry’s carbon emissions are responsible for 5% to 6% of global warming and that pollution generated by global aviation increases 3% to 4% per year.

The government that you represent never ceases to amaze me with its inconsistent and illogical decisions, as I will explain.

Leader, I would like to know why the Trudeau government will spend no less than $64 million to host, next October, COP15, the United Nations conference on biodiversity, which was to be held in China. It will turn 12,000 to 15,000 environmentalists into global polluters, who are coming from 190 different countries to see Canadian achievements in biodiversity, which could easily be presented on digital platforms.

How can anyone justify such a contradiction on the part of environmentalists, who are shirking their responsibilities in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question.

The world we’re living in demands that we find a balance between the necessary — existential, even — fight against climate change and the fact that life goes on, and that includes travel to major international conferences.

We should be proud that our country can welcome experts from around the world to share their knowledge and help us move forward. We also recognize that this is not the world of Starfleet Enterprise and people can’t just say, “Beam me up.” This includes us, as well, since we travel to do our jobs here. Our work comes at a cost and with environmental consequences.

Canada is a leader in the fight against climate change and it is entirely appropriate for us to host such a gathering of experts.