Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. It is my understanding that it is not the Committee of Internal Economy’s responsibility, and therefore the Committee of Internal Economy was not consulted. In that regard, I stand by what I have said: I believe that the motion I brought forward was the product of appropriate consultation as set out in the motion to which we were bound and that it is appropriate for the Senate.

To your question about rushing, we just came off a two-week break or recess, such that we had only this sitting week to be able to resolve the issue of whether or not hybrid sittings would be prolonged. Believing, as I did and other leaders did, that it was appropriate to prolong it, I brought it forward almost at the earliest moment. In fact, I didn’t give notice of it because the leadership was engaged in discussions to try to improve the motion. Out of respect and gratitude for that process, I waited a day to give notice and then gave notice of a text to which three leaders agreed with completely, and one, according to Senator Plett, agreed with only partially.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: In my opinion, the nays have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

Some Hon. Senators: No.

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.

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. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I rise to express solidarity with Vladimir Kara-Murza, a democratic opposition leader in Russia who has recently been arrested by the Putin regime to silence him.

A journalist and former deputy leader of the People’s Freedom Party, Mr. Kara-Murza is a longtime colleague of the late opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, who was assassinated outside the Kremlin in 2015. That year, and again in 2017, Mr. Kara-Murza survived two near-fatal poisonings traced to Russian authorities.

Mr. Kara-Murza is also a friend of our Parliament and a Senior Fellow with the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights in Montreal. In 2016, he appeared before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee to urge Canada’s adoption of the Sergei Magnitsky Law, named after another victim of the Putin regime and became law in 2017.

On April 11, after bravely returning to Russia after a trip in Europe, he was arrested outside his home after an interview on CNN where he criticized Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and accurately described Vladimir Putin’s government as a “regime of murderers.” Mr. Kara-Murza now faces Orwellian criminal charges that could result in up to 15 years in prison.

The Parliament of Canada and our allies must stand with Mr. Kara-Murza, as urged by his wife, Evgenia Kara-Murza, in a recent interview reported in The Globe and Mail. On April 12, our Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Mélanie Joly, called for his immediate release. Yesterday, Member of Parliament Anthony Housefather rose in the House of Commons to join this call. Also yesterday, chairs of foreign affairs committees in 20 countries, including Canada, issued another such call.

I trust, colleagues, that you will join efforts to support Vladimir Kara-Murza, a star of hope in the Russian sky. Let there be no doubt that Canada stands with the heroes inside and outside Russia who dare to speak and act against the tyrannical Putin and his war crimes.

Thank you.

(1420)

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.