An Hon. Senator: No.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Colleagues, we’ve already had two five-minute extensions. Senator Wells and Senator McCallum wish to ask questions. Senator Boniface, do you wish to ask for another five minutes?

Senator Martin: Leader, last June, when I asked why your government had failed to bring forward the “Just Transition” legislation as promised, you blamed “the environment we’re in, including a minority Parliament.”

In fact, according to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, the Trudeau government had not developed the legislation. I don’t see how your government’s inaction can be blamed upon a minority Parliament. The commissioner was blunt when he said the NDP-Liberal government was “unprepared and slow off the mark.”

Leader, the just transition consultations — which were also criticized by the Commissioner of the Environment — end this Saturday, April 30. Can we expect even more delay after their conclusion — before we finally learn just what a “just” transition really means to this NDP-Liberal government?

Senator Batters: Senator Gold, if you are so concerned about getting proper health information and making a prudent decision here, why wouldn’t you consider the types of health information that both Senator Plett and Senator Seidman are requesting in their amendments to be exactly the kind of information you would want to see? Federal government public health guidelines and current federal government public health opinions about proper, safe ways to have in-person meetings. That should be something that you, as the government leader in the Senate, can very easily get for us.

Senator Gold: As I said earlier in my remarks or in response to a question — and forgive me if I can’t recall in which context — we have spent a long time on this at the expense of focusing on the business that we were summoned here to do. I remain of the opinion that the information we have available to us is more than sufficient to justify the prolongation for a relatively brief time, for the two months set out in the motion. I think it would be a far higher and better use of our time to dispose of this issue and to prolong hybrid for the two months so that we don’t spend time next week and the following week still on this issue at the expense of the work we were summoned to do.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Boniface, quite a few senators want to ask questions. Will you take questions?

Hon. Terry M. Mercer: It is a quick question. As you go through this process, people are going to give you all kinds of suggestions that should be added to this. If you can’t add it to this bill as you go along, can you make a commitment now that you will keep a record of all of those things and put them in a new bill that catches up with it as you learn?

Senator C. Deacon: I have a few more years here, Senator Mercer. I’ll see what I can do.

Hon. Tony Dean: Senator Boniface, thank you for taking on the sponsorship of the bill. You are not unoccupied as it is already, and we appreciate your taking on the sponsorship.

I note that the proposed amendments to the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act will be accompanied by regulatory changes, and we all know from experience that those regulations can lag behind the legislation or the amendments themselves, and we often have to confront this. I suspect we will have to confront it in this case.

What you can tell us about whether there will be some delay? And could I ask — and I’m not doing this on my own behalf but on behalf of all senators here — that you communicate to the minister that the narrower that gap, the better for everybody concerned and, indeed, the stakeholders and those who will be affected by the amendments?

Senator Gold: That’s exactly the case; thank you for that. I am grateful for the collaboration that all the leaders showed and for their willingness to compromise in crafting a motion that I believed was appropriate. Although I had no illusions that it would be embraced by the opposition, nonetheless, I assumed that we could bring it to a proper and expeditious vote after a proper debate. It is still my hope that we could do that.

Senator Gold: Of course.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Housakos, a question or on debate?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: On a point of order, Senator Lankin.

Hon. Robert Black moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, as Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, I would like to highlight an amendment to Bill S-222, which was adopted at committee. This amendment concerns the change in the wording from “must” to “shall” with regard to the consideration of potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits, which makes it consistent with the language in the original Department of Public Works and Government Services Act.

Hon. Senators: Question.

Senator Boniface: They said it would be somewhere in between. It is novel. However, when you refer to other countries, let me also say that in the United States, in the United Kingdom and in Australia, the threshold is actually lower than what Canada is putting in here in its place. When we compare this to some of our like jurisdictions, this is actually a higher standard than exists in other jurisdictions.

That is an important question and that is why I said at the end of my speech that the committee that has the privilege to look at this bill needs to ask these questions. It is a unique circumstance at the border. Devices are unique in terms of the time frame that border officers have to look at them and to make their decisions. I think how they built in some of the accountability for officers is an important mechanism that helps us flesh it out. There is no doubt that the courts will have to look at this at some point; it will be challenged, and they will have to look at it. I am extremely hopeful that we will be in a position where we recognize the balance that must be taken in this case. I encourage those at the committee that sees this to make sure you ask those questions.

Senator Boniface: Senator Yussuff, thank you very much for the question. As indicated in the briefing that I received, as well as the briefing that was available to senators this morning, discussions have been ongoing with the Privacy Commissioner over some period of time. On this topic specifically, they haven’t yet had a conclusive discussion with the Privacy Commissioner. However, I would encourage the committee — whichever committee it is decided this goes to — to invite the Privacy Commissioner for those discussions and views. I would expect, as we do in this chamber all the time, that everyone will be open to amendments, and certainly the Privacy Commissioner’s voice is an important one to hear.

Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, let me understand this clearly. The motion was not debated at the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. This committee did not bring witnesses in terms of senior administration or other health authorities to come to a debate or a conclusion on the motion. The motion did not trickle down from the committee after discussion to caucuses for their input. The motion you tabled is a government motion. Yet you tell us this has nothing to do with the government. How do you explain that?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: We are out of time, but we still have four senators who wish to ask questions. Senator Boniface, are you asking for five more minutes?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I know that there is an interest in many quarters for having a discussion about the future beyond the end of June, and I respect that. But that has not been the focus of these discussions. It wasn’t the focus of the consultations or the negotiations. It was very much focused on how we can address the health and safety and working needs of the Senate between now and when we expect to rise by the end of June. Colleagues, even the less experienced of us in this chamber know how intense the months of May and June can be.

It was always the view of many groups to extend until June. We extended only to the end of March as a compromise with those groups who were diffident about it, but it remains the case that we have and we will have important work to do for which we need the full participation of all senators. We recognize this will also require active and serious participation by committees.

It was in that spirit, focused really only on getting through this period that we were focused on. I would welcome anyone, any senator or group of senators, taking the lead in the conversation. We’d be happy to participate in that. We would be happy, if the Senate so wishes, to seek advice from the Committee of Internal Economy in that regard, but we are here to be the servants of the Senate. I say that humbly but sincerely. Our focus has been very narrow, perhaps too narrow for some, but we thought appropriately narrow to simply get us through what we expect to be a challenging, intensive and, I hope, productive legislative session.