Senator Gold: Again, thank you for your question. I repeat that I will make inquiries to understand the sources that fed into the expert opinion. I have every assurance that I’ll have answers that I can provide in a timely fashion.

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

The Government of Canada does recognize the strategic importance of Africa. As you know, Canada and Africa have enjoyed a significant relationship for quite some time. For example, the recent visit of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to Senegal and Nigeria in April also helped strengthen these ties. In Dakar, he met with key government representatives to discuss Canada-Senegal relations and the priorities of the African Union.

Senator Gerba: I understand, Senator Gold, that the Government of Canada is currently making efforts to reach out to Africa, but what is the Government of Canada doing in concrete terms to rally Africa to its cause within international entities?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question.

As I mentioned, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs recently went on a visit to Africa. In Nigeria he met with parliamentarians to discuss trade, the repercussions of COVID-19 and the invasion of Ukraine, as well as the importance of ties between our peoples.

The Government of Canada remains determined to develop these important ties with our African partners and to continue building on its commitments with respect to regional priorities and international issues.

[English]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for that question and for underlining the unacceptably tragic situation affecting women in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

As you point out, it is very challenging to work in that environment, and Canada continues to work with many human rights organizations and women’s organizations to do its best. I don’t have the specific answer to your question. I will certainly make inquiries, colleague, and get back to you as soon as I can.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, colleague. The stories you told are tragic and our hearts go out to the families who have suffered.

I still believe that the bill we passed did strike a reasonable balance. I am encouraged as well by the work of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to seek improvements to the law. I’m confident that we in the Senate and our colleagues in the other place will continue to work to ensure that the law continues to strike the appropriate balance.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. The short answer — and I will be brief, as I’ve been recommended to be — is no, I do not agree, senator.

Senator Gold: The government is doing everything that it can to help them, and regrettably it is taking far longer than any of us and anyone in the government would want. I can assure this chamber that the government continues to be focused on this and doing the best that it can.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Gold, last week the Trudeau government ended several federal COVID-19 aid programs with Deputy Prime Minister Freeland saying, “. . . the time for extraordinary COVID support is now over.”

I can tell you some other extraordinary measures that are no longer needed, Senator Gold, like taking someone’s job and benefits away because they can’t or won’t get a vaccination, or preventing a Canadian citizen from being able to board an airplane or train and move freely inside the borders of their own country. Senator Gold, I have asked you twice before when Prime Minister Trudeau would lift his federal vaccine mandates. You didn’t have an answer so I will ask you again, hoping that the third time is the charm. If the Trudeau government now admits that extraordinary measures are no longer needed to assist Canadians with COVID, when will you also end the extraordinary and punitive federal vaccine mandates?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. Not to disappoint you, Senator Batters, but you may not be pleased with my answer.

There is a difference between recognizing that the enormous amount of financial support to individuals and businesses that were necessary to get Canadians through the pandemic may no longer be necessary and that focus must now properly turn to strengthening the economy going forward and ensuring that we address the important issues with which we are confronted like affordability, inflation and the like. There is a difference between that decision and the decision to take a prudent and cautious approach for public health considerations. At such time as the government decides, as it has on regular occasions in the past months, that certain rules are no longer needed, those announcements will be made public.

Senator Batters: Senator Gold, you would think that having a job would help with affordability.

Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, stated that Canada is experiencing “decreasing transmission in many areas.” She says waste water levels are “showing signs of a potential plateau.”

The provinces have dropped their mandates. Our allies around the world have done the same. The Trudeau government has ended assistance programs for COVID-19, and yet you refuse to even create a plan to lift these unnecessary federal vaccine mandates. Why?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. I will certainly make inquiries to better understand the substance of your question.

The changes that may occur to the MAID regime will be a function of the work of the special joint parliamentary committee and whatever legislation is introduced — legislation which, of course, we will have a role to review and oversee.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question, Senator.

I fully understand the urgency, the frustration and the importance of this issue. That said, you need to understand that cabinet committee discussions are confidential. I’m not in a position to answer your question, except to say once again that the government is taking this very seriously and will be making announcements soon, I hope.

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.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you. I will certainly make inquiries.

Colleagues, the issue of whether the justification, which was multifold and included economic considerations, did or did not pass a test was, first, one that we assessed as parliamentarians and decided in light of the legislation and the progressive elements in the back-to-work legislation as sufficient to pass a Charter test. It is also the role of the courts to so assess.

I would remind colleagues that, first, this back-to-work legislation was an absolute last resort. The government did not take it lightly. Secondly, as colleagues know, the Port of Montreal is Canada’s second-largest container terminal. It handles 35 million tonnes of cargo representing $40 billion worth of goods a year. The work stoppage had the potential to cause severe and lasting damage to our economy. It was highlighted by the declaration provided on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal.

The damage to the economy was estimated, through the modelling, to be somewhere between $40 million to $100 million per week. There was a judgment of the government, supported in Parliament, that the legislation was essential to safeguard the public interest. To the extent that a court would disagree, we would, of course, respect the decision of the court, but I think the government remains satisfied that it had met the standard under the Charter.