Senator Yussuff: Well, again, thank you for your question and, of course, your comments.

The reality, of course, is I think we probably won’t agree that this bill has achieved balance because you have a perspective, and I respect that. And, equally, I hope that you will respect mine — that there were many witnesses who came before the committee, including the chiefs of police who spoke to provisions in the bill that will interdict guns at the border. They support those measures. They are not against them. I understand that, yes, some of the witnesses do not like certain provisions in the bill and have spoken out against that. But I think that it would be wrong to suggest that there is not support for this bill, for many aspects of it, from the witnesses who came before the committee in the other place to talk about the provisions in the bill.

I do believe in the context of debate around guns in our country, as it is in the other place that we have witnessed, there is always going to be some polarization. But I think that as honourable senators in this place we recognize the importance of trying to find a balance and do the right thing. I think this bill achieves that. It may not be perfect from certain perspectives, but I believe that if it is passed and it should become law, it will make a significant difference in making our country and communities a safer place for all of us.

There will always be those who disagree, who think there should be no restriction on them owning guns in this country. The reality is, I do believe, there have to be some restrictions.

I was fortunate to go to the RCMP gun vault at the beginning of my tenure to understand some of the complexity in the work that they are doing. I came away from there frightened, not because of what they were doing — when they showed me the guns that they had interdicted across the country that I was privy to look at, I was literally scared out of my pants because I could not understand why anyone would want to have any one of those weapons. These were not toys. These were machines that were created to kill human beings in a massive way. They brought them into our country, and they were interdicted. I know there are many in our country today.

My point, senator, is that we will get this bill to committee. I am sure that there are things you and I will disagree on and there are things we will agree on. We recognize we have to do something to improve the safety of Canadians in this country in a variety of ways. Interdicting guns coming in across our borders is one of those. But also trying to deal with gun violence that is happening in our country is another. Trying to ensure that young people do not get into the gun culture in our country is something we can also work at.

As you know, the government has invested a significant amount of resources right across this country, working on the front lines. I think it is wrong for you to say the majority of provinces are against the bill. I know some provinces are against the bill. I live here in Ontario and I certainly know my province has not spoken out against this bill, because there is a recognition in Ontario that we have to do something about gun violence in this country.

Thank you so much for your question. I look forward, of course, to this bill going to committee, and I look forward to you speaking on the bill next week at second reading.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. Look, it is a challenge in government to work across departments. From my experience in the last three and a half years, I can attest to the fact that on many policy fronts there are three, four or sometimes even a larger number of ministers who are mandated to work together on this, which is a serious attempt to not be trapped in silos. The government is attentive to that and, in my experience, is in fact doing that. I will certainly bring this to the attention of my colleagues in the other place to reinforce the point that you made, which is a totally valid one.

With regard to what we can do in the Senate, the Senate can do many things. We are the masters of our own house. That includes, if the Senate so wills, launching a study on this and providing some input, guidance and reflections to the benefit of this and any future government.

Senator Plett: The made-up Special Rapporteur’s statement defying the will of the House was clearly written before the votes were cast, just as his report was sent to translation before he even met with Erin O’Toole on who CSIS says was a target of Beijing’s interference. His statement yesterday said, “. . . my mandate comes from the government.” Exactly — that is what I’ve been saying all along, leader. That’s what we’ve been saying. He is not independent. He is an old Trudeau family friend and a member of the Trudeau Foundation. He was hired to help out the Prime Minister and his government in a made-up job. The Privy Council Office handles his media requests. He is not independent.

Leader, the very first words of the cover-up issued by the Special Rapporteur last week were this: “Our democracy is built on trust.” If the rapporteur and the Prime Minister can so easily dismiss the result of a democratic vote by elected members of the House of Commons, why should Canadians trust the Trudeau government about Beijing’s interference or, indeed, about anything else?

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, I would first like to acknowledge that we are meeting today on the traditional, unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation whose presence here reaches back to time immemorial. I extend my sincere gratitude and respect to them and to all First Nations, Inuit and Métis people who are the stewards of these lands.

I am pleased to rise today to tell you one of the ways in which the Progressive Senate Group has decided to mark the start of National Indigenous History Month.

Yesterday, staff and senators from the Progressive Senate Group participated in a Blanket Exercise, an interactive workshop that was created as a response to the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples from 1996. Using blankets as a visual representation, we witnessed the many injustices inflicted on generations of Indigenous people, including through the aggressive and often deadly dispossession of their lands and the decimation of their families, communities, cultures, languages and entire ways of life.

As a result, we were able to deepen our understanding of the past and present realities of Indigenous people in what is now known as Canada.

I know I’m not the only one who found the experience tremendously impactful. Our Indigenous facilitators — John, Francine and Jesse — graciously shared their own experiences to teach us about a history that most of us were never taught, including about the lasting harms associated with the continued apprehension of Indigenous children through the child welfare systems. As we confronted the uncomfortable truths of our shared past and present, we cried — and we laughed — and we all walked away with a deeper understanding of the depth of injustice that has been borne by Indigenous people. More than that, we left with a renewed commitment to help advance reconciliation inside and outside this institution.

I encourage everyone to find their own ways to mark National Indigenous History Month. We need to honour the experiences of Indigenous Peoples, and that cannot happen without listening and learning with open hearts and open minds.

Thank you to Senator Francis and your staff for organizing such an opportunity. Thank you to the senators and staff who participated. The Blanket Exercise is an experience I certainly won’t forget, and I urge everyone to participate if you are ever offered the opportunity. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Senator Housakos: Leader, everything that you just highlighted was nothing more than navel-gazing. The minister was here yesterday and, yes, he confirmed that there were RCMP investigations ongoing into the illegal Beijing place stations — the same minister who many weeks ago got up in the House of Commons and said to parliamentarians and Canadians that they were all shut down. That is contempt of Parliament. Either he misled Canadians when he said they were all shut down or he intentionally lied. I would hate to believe it was the latter.

Government leader, the truth of the matter is that we have a government that, outside of anything more than discussions, has not taken action. Now we have the minister himself come before Parliament, and he cannot answer a simple question and has actually been caught in the mistruths that he has perpetuated. First he says they were all shut down, and now we find out that they were not shut down. Now we have a vote in the Parliament of Canada asking for this fake rapporteur to step down in a democratic vote, and this rapporteur and the government refuse to respect the democratic will of the House of Commons. Do you call that democracy, and do you call that respect for our institutions of Parliament?

Senator Plett: I didn’t hear the motion.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. The Government of Canada has a great deal of respect for the commissioner’s recommendations. That is his job and he does it very well. The government will take into consideration all his recommendations to ensure that the situation improves.

However, again, Bill C-13 contains very important changes and improvements that intersect with your question, and I hope that the bill will receive Royal Assent as soon as possible.

[English]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question.

Although I am not familiar with all of the details as to how the $2.5 million will be allocated, as I said, it will be allocated to set up the standing Indigenous table on missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and to include the implementation of a Red Dress alert.

I will bring your question to the attention of the appropriate minister or ministers, but this is a very important start on which the federal government is taking the lead.

[Translation]

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, last year in February, I spoke on the issue of neglected tropical diseases, or NTDs, a group of 20 infectious diseases and conditions affecting 1.7 billion people in the world. That’s 1 out of every 5 people living on the planet today.

NTDs are diseases you may have heard of: leprosy, river blindness, dengue fever, parasitic stomach worms and so on. These are ancient diseases that affect the lives of people living in the most disadvantaged and vulnerable communities in the world, even here in Canada.

As we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global community has realized again not only the devastation that can be wrought on people’s lives by infectious diseases, but the need for strong health systems to deliver health care to all, leaving no one behind.

We have to step up the fight against NTDs. Not only is it the right thing to do, but also because it is through the control, elimination and eradication of neglected tropical diseases that we can make massive contributions to broader global health, such as universal health coverage and pandemic preparedness.

Investment in NTDs goes far beyond treating the diseases themselves. The presence of NTDs in a household can perpetuate a generational cycle of poverty. By addressing NTDs, we contribute to healthier communities with better outcomes for children, better economic outputs in households and reduction of lifelong disability and disfigurement.

It would be irresponsible to do everything we have done to help people survive COVID only to leave them vulnerable to these preventable and treatable diseases. Now is the right time to accelerate our work.

Climate change will have — and is having — both a direct and indirect impact on NTDs, such as increasing geographic locations of diseases such as dengue and by displacement of people into areas where NTDs persist.

As was said so often during COVID-19, no one is safe until everyone is safe. It is time for action — inaction is not an option.

A year ago this month, Canada endorsed the Kigali Declaration, committing to being a part of the global efforts to address NTDs. In addition to myself, Senator Boehm and Senator Ravalia have been encouraging our government to act more vigorously. We congratulate the government for taking this first step toward action. We also continue to encourage the government to do more, to commit the resources needed to help end the neglect of NTDs and to realize the right to health that people everywhere deserve. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Senator Shugart’s wife, Mrs. Linda Shugart, and his daughter, Robin Shugart.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Ibrahima Socé Fall, Dr. Anthony Solomon and Alison Krentel. They are the guests of the Honourable Senators Boehm and Kutcher.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Senator Cordy: Thank you, Senator Gold. That is very positive.

We know that a motion made in the other place — or in this place — does not necessarily compel the government to act; although, you have said that they will be doing that, which is a positive thing.

As you stated, the alert systems are the jurisdictions of the provinces and territories. My question is: Will the federal government take a leadership role so that it is not just one province or one territory but, in fact, the whole country? Will the federal government take a leadership role to make the alert system a reality, and will the federal government provide some funding to help the provinces and the territories set up the alert system?

Hon. Robert Black: Honourable colleagues, I rise today to applaud the innovative and progressive work of Canada’s agriculture and processing sectors, and to highlight the red tape limiting industry’s innovations.

I recently met with representatives of Dairy Distillery, the producers of Vodkow. Many of you may be aware of this amazing and great-tasting vodka produced using dairy processing by-products. This Almonte, Ontario, business is well-known throughout Canada for its excellent spirits, but also for pivoting from making Vodkow during the COVID-19 pandemic to producing hand sanitizer, a significant amount of which they donated throughout the region and province.

This organization has taken an innovative approach to waste reduction by using dairy permeate surplus to produce ethanol. It’s innovative, progressive and an excellent addition to Canada’s economy. However, fellow senators, the government’s lack of support for innovation is clearly apparent for the Dairy Distillery and many other companies across Canada. Due to the lack of commitment to small businesses and the ever-growing changes, rules and regulations placed on Canadian business, known as red tape, Dairy Distillery has been forced to move to produce ethanol in the United States, and they are using U.S. dairy permeate surplus to produce this ethanol.

The current U.S. administration has offered significant subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act, which now is costing Canadian innovation and ingenuity. Though Dairy Distillery has acknowledged there are Canadian markets to establish an ethanol production operation here in Canada, it simply cannot find a competitive avenue to exist in this country. So they’ve settled in Michigan.

Senators, I’m concerned about the current government practices. Valuable businesses like the Dairy Distillery worked to support Canadians in times of crisis — they produced hand sanitizer for us. Now, in the climate crisis, they’re producing 2.2 million gallons of cleaner ethanol each year in partnership with a dairy co-op, which is calculated to displace 14,000 tonnes of carbon. That would mean a 5% reduction in the amount of carbon produced by that co-op. The plant will be powered by methane produced in the ethanol production process as well.

This eco-friendly process aligns with the green ambitions of this country and this government, yet they are forced to move across the border, and the U.S. will reap the benefits of the 2.2 million gallons of ethanol.

Colleagues, we must continue to foster the interests of green enterprise. Climate change is real, and the Canadian government needs to take priority action to encourage businesses to establish within our country.

I thank the Dairy Distillery for its hard work for Canadians, and hope that soon there will be equal opportunity for them to innovate here in Canada. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Senator Plett: Your Honour, I won’t belabour this, but I want to correct the record. This is indeed a government bill. This is a bill that has been introduced by the government and you, Senator Dalphond, are the sponsor of a bill that has been brought here by the government. So let’s not muddy the waters. This is a government bill — a report — that you didn’t appreciate, nor did the government leader. So, for the record, Your Honour, this is a government bill.

Senator Gold: I do not have information at this juncture. When I do find out, I will be sharing it with the leaders and, as is my practice, with any interested senators so that we will know when and if we will receive it, by the way, because the amendments are still being studied. I will resist the opportunity to say that it would have received Royal Assent had we not amended it, but the Senate did its work and now we have to see how the House of Commons, the government and the other opposition parties respond to our amendments. As soon as I know more, I will certainly share it with the chamber.

[Translation]

Senator Pate: Thank you for that, Senator Gold.

Do you have any information or can you shed any light on when exactly we are likely to see Bill C-22 coming back to us so that people with disabilities can be pulled out of poverty?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. As I have stated on many occasions, and I will repeat it again, it is the position of the government that the Special Rapporteur’s mandate has been discharged in an exemplary fashion with the publication of the report. The ongoing work that will follow the report is and will be to the benefit of Canadians and our security against foreign interference.

Senator Yussuff: First, thank you for your question, Senator Plett.

As you know, the courts have ruled in regard to minimum sentences. The government reflected that in regard to its action. But, in regard to the current average sentence for smuggling and convictions, on average those who are convicted serve eight years of their sentence. As you know, and as I said in my speech, the government has signalled, again, that it will increase the sentence for those smuggling guns into our country.

There are many things that the government is doing to deal with firearm infractions at the community level — including how we can prevent young people from adopting habits where they associate with individuals who might persuade them into gun crime. The government has dedicated a lot of resources to ensure that we can achieve that. They’re working in many border communities to stop smuggling, as well as raising awareness and support for police officers on the front lines to ensure that we don’t have illegal guns in our country.

I think those efforts need to continue as long as necessary because criminals who want to smuggle illegal firearms into our country will continue to do so. We have to find ways to combat that, and work to strengthen legislation. This bill offers us some direction to ensure those things can happen, but, at the same time, it is about supporting our front-line officers who are doing their best at the border, and other areas, to ensure they can catch these people, and ultimately put them in the legal system, so that we can try them and ensure they serve sentences for the behaviour that they are involved in.