Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I will answer as government representative. The short answer is that the government is reviewing the opinion provided by the Court of Appeal of Alberta. It will be considering its next steps, including a strong consideration of an appeal.

Let me say a few words, because this is an important issue with which we’re all engaged as parliamentarians. The Impact Assessment Act was designed to reflect the needs and values of Indigenous people, the public and investors so that they could have confidence that project decisions were made in their interests and that Canada can thrive on sustainable development. The government worked with provincial and territorial governments when developing the legislation to ensure that their views were considered and that jurisdictional responsibilities were respected while working toward the common goal of meeting the needs of Canadians. Whether it is safeguarding our natural environment, creating economic opportunity, protecting our health or preserving the culture, heritage and rights of Indigenous people, the Impact Assessment Act requires a holistic consideration of a project’s impacts. Working collaboratively with provinces supports a single impact assessment process for major projects that considers all project impacts.

For these reasons, honourable senators, the government remains committed to the implementation of the federal impact assessment process. The Government of Canada will continue to work with Alberta and other jurisdictions toward effective and efficient project assessments.

Finally, I return to the court’s decision. Honourable senators, here perhaps you will allow the constitutional lawyer in me to slip into my answer. The decision of the Court of Appeal of Alberta is advisory in nature. As such, honourable senators should understand that the act and the regulations remain in force.

Senator Wells: Senator Dupuis, you’re absolutely right, that’s what the Court of Appeal said. The new concept chosen by the government is “reasonable general concern,” and that’s what I have issues with because, to me, there is no limit to what might trigger a search. We’re supposed to be given comfort by the fact that we are told they’ll take notes. Well, the notes will be there to protect CBSA, for sure; they won’t be there to protect the individual, in my opinion. They will say the person looked nervous or that it didn’t appear that he was from Canada or whatever. He was sweating and fidgety.

I think that the bar of reasonable general concern — which, exactly as you said, is the new concept presented by the government, which, I guess, follows advice from CBSA — is too low for the protection of the individual’s privacy rights that every law-abiding Canadian should be afforded.