Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. With respect, I do not agree with the assumption that underlies your question.

The Government of Canada, for many months, has made a reasonable and appropriate offer to all opposition parties to have these documents vetted by a panel of judges — security-cleared and informed judges — to ensure that politics and partisanship do not enter into a decision as to what documents can be safely released without compromising national security.

It is my understanding that, at least to date, only the NDP has expressed the willingness to participate. The official opposition has been resistant to do so. It is the government’s hope that all parties will join in to this process, which is open, fair, transparent and has precedent in our Parliament. To that end, the government hopes that the official opposition and the Bloc will see fit to participate in what is an appropriate process to balance the needs for transparency and the protection of national security.

Senator Plett: Last June, Senator Gold, I asked a series of questions regarding the government’s secrecy surrounding the security breach at the Winnipeg lab. For example, I asked how a Chinese military scientist received high-level clearance to work at the lab. I never received an answer to my questions. It’s clear now that I was never going to get an answer.

A government that thinks nothing of suing the Speaker of the House of Commons isn’t going to bother itself with answering questions in the Senate.

Your government defied orders from the House, breached parliamentary privilege and ignored legitimate questions, leader. Why should any Canadian believe that an NDP-Liberal committee reporting to an NDP-Liberal government will shed any light on this?

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to, on division.)

(At 8:32 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, May 3, 2022, at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, if I may enter the debate on the point of order simply to thank the senator for raising this issue and to offer my commitment in my capacity as government representative — but more importantly as a senator — to work with other leaders, I commit to working with leaders in the hope we can get an appropriate motion for distancing ready to go next week. I’m confident that the leaders will collaborate with me and we can have success in that regard. That would include also to allow gallery seating so that we can make sure that everybody is and feels safe if and when we’re here in person.

Senator Batters: Also, in the remarks that you just gave, you were indicating that the health information that you provided was from the Senate and not from PMO or anything like that. Are you speaking about the health information just simply being the total number of people who have contracted COVID in the Senate and the Parliamentary Precinct over the last little while? Is that the health information you’re talking about?

Wouldn’t you agree, Senator Gold, that what Senator Plett and now Senator Seidman are requesting is actual health information about guidelines and opinions from the federal government about how to do in-person meetings safely? That’s the kind of information that we’re requesting. Senator Seidman is requesting a letter from Dr. Theresa Tam, the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, outlining how we can do these things. That’s the sort of health information we’re talking about.

Is the health information you were speaking about merely just totalling up who might have COVID and whether or not it was simply a positive test but really minimal symptoms ranging from people who are fairly sick with COVID?

Senator Boniface: Yes, of course.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, are we agreed?

Hon. Frances Lankin: I have a couple of different points that I want to raise questions on. May I start with understanding in terms of what I’ve heard around the process?

There are some elements of the motion that you moved that actually contain the beginning of a plan for transition, in terms of increasing hours of Senate committees. I’ve heard that Senator Plett contributed to that thinking and I want to say I appreciate that. I think setting out some kind of transition and helping us understand and boosting our opportunity to do really important work, as we see the Budget Implementation Act and other things coming through, is important.

Is that, in fact, the only area of discussion that there was either agreement by some and opposition by the other? Or was there, in fact, also agreement which usually happens in leaders’ meetings to the process that will follow that this would be tabled, it would be called at a certain point in time, that there would be a vote, maybe standing, maybe on division? I do not understand. Normally these agreements are accompanied by a process agreement as well.

Senator Housakos: Again, with all due respect, government leader, the Committee of Internal Economy can meet at any time, as you know. If this issue was as important as it is, why would you wait until the last moment to get this done? Again, with all due respect, on decisions of this nature — which are very important decisions — I, for one, do not believe they should be taken in a vacuum by a bunch of leaders on this floor. These are decisions that impact this institution and should respect the protocol in terms of administrative protocol. The Committee of Internal Economy had authority to meet even while we were on a break, had the authority review this in an appropriate fashion and report to this chamber with a course of action that we could have dealt with accordingly.

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.

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.