Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, can you tell this chamber how much your government is spending this fiscal year on the servicing of and interest payments on the Trudeau debt? Can you compare that to the 1.29% of GDP that your government is spending on national security, defence forces and our NATO obligations?

Honourable colleagues, can you imagine if we had to carry out an operation today like we did this week in 1944 with our Canadian troops? What would happen if they had to carry out an operation on behalf of Canadians in the name of freedom? I can tell you what would happen, Senator Gold: We would be in quicksand. I read the CBC story a couple of days ago where we have Canadian soldiers paying out of their pockets for helmets and basic equipment that they need to do their job. One just has to shake their head.

Why is this government spending so much more on interest to pay for the debt that Trudeau has accumulated compared to supplying resources needed by our forces? Isn’t your government — the Prime Minister and its ministers — ashamed of the fact that you’re spending tons more to service the debt than you are to supplying our national forces with the equipment they need?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. The Prime Minister’s decision to appoint members to NSICOP follows the terms of the legislation setting up NSICOP. It is a prerogative of the Prime Minister. My understanding is that the Prime Minister assesses first and foremost the needs — the expertise, competency and balance — of the committee in terms of experience, competency, regional representation and the like.

I have not been advised as to why the Prime Minister made the appointments that he did, nor the timing of it, nor have I been advised as to what his intentions are with regard to the remaining vacant seat.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, my question today is about the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, which the Prime Minister claims is the best place to investigate what he knew about Beijing’s interference. Two seats reserved for senators on this committee were vacant for some months. On Friday, the Prime Minister filled only one of those seats as he appointed Senator Duncan to NSICOP.

Now, let me be clear that I have no doubt Senator Duncan is very worthy and will be a valuable member of that committee. But as a result, two of the three Senate seats on NSICOP are now filled with members from the same caucus — the Independent Senators Group. These two senators were also named to this place upon the advice of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who put them on NSICOP.

Leader, can you tell us why the Prime Minister filled only one of the two vacancies on this committee last Friday? Why wasn’t a member of the official opposition in the Senate appointed to NSICOP? Leader, you have access to the Prime Minister. You’re a member of the Privy Council. Please don’t pass this off, leader. Tell us why this happened.

Hon. Brian Francis: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate an interim report relating to its study on the constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): No, the government is not ashamed, and you’ve asked me this question many times. Then, of course, you answer it, so you’ll forgive me if I don’t always take notes of your answers.

Let me say two things: The investments that the government made and the debts that have been accrued — as I’ve said on many occasions — were investments in helping Canadians get through the pandemic and transition from the pandemic and were investments in our future. The position of the government is that these things were necessary, prudent and worthwhile investments for Canada and for our future generations.

With respect to defence spending, this government is not ashamed. On the contrary, this government’s contribution to defence spending has increased and is significantly higher as a percentage of GDP than it was under the previous government.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate, no later than September 30, 2023, interim reports on issues relating to human rights generally, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the reports be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: My question is for the Leader of the Government. Senator Gold, this is Pride Month. I want to take a minute to congratulate Senator Cormier on his leadership in creating and launching the Canadian Pride Caucus.

I want to shift your attention to what is happening to the LGBTQ2 community in Uganda where they passed a draconian law, calling into question the safety and security of members of this community. The law includes the death penalty for crimes of aggravated homosexuality, and significant penalties for anyone who is seemingly promoting homosexuality.

I’m, of course, encouraged by the statements put out by our government, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Canadian Pride Caucus and other parliamentarians. But, beyond the statements, I would like to know what the government is doing proactively to work with our regional partners, possibly the U.S., in trying to build a campaign to protect the LGBTQ2 people in Uganda.

Hon. Stan Kutcher: My question is for Senator Gold. Graduate, trainee and post-doctoral programs are the apprenticeship positions in higher education that build the innovators and scientists of our future research and development and economic systems. Merit-based government-funded grants and scholarships level the playing field to allow access to those programs for everyone — and not only the privileged few.

Senator Gold, does the government realize the importance of these programs for the Canadian research ecosystem and the thriving of the future economy?

The Hon. the Speaker: Order.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. I stand with the Prime Minister in his recent remarks regarding this issue when he stated, “This law is appalling and abhorrent, and we strongly condemn it.” He went on to say that Canada will continue to stand with the 2SLGBTQI+ people, and stand up for their rights at home and abroad.

It’s my understanding, senator, that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is working with partners in the region to support communities impacted by this law, and will continue to do so. As we know, not only Canada, but also the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union have condemned this gross violation of human rights. The community in Uganda is not alone, and Canada is part of that effort to assist them. Canada stands with that community here and around the world in this fight against the rising crackdown on their fundamental rights.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question and for raising awareness of the challenges posed by the many wildfires burning across Quebec, Alberta, Nova Scotia and the rest of the country.

It is my understanding that a large number of the firefighters in Canada are volunteer firefighters, and one of the challenges facing communities is how hard it is to recruit enough firefighters to meet their increased needs. That being said, and with all due respect, it simply isn’t true that the government isn’t doing anything. On the contrary, following a request by the Province of Quebec, the government approved the deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces to help them deal with the situation.

I’m told that the government is also assessing whether additional federal resources are available to meet the province’s needs. The government knows that the current forest fire situation is and will continue to be difficult across the country for a number of reasons, including the climate, of course, but also a lack of volunteer firefighters. Your suggestion is important, and I will bring it to the minister’s attention.

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Every year, during the July 14 festivities in France, I am always impressed to see the thousands of firefighters in uniform marching in the Champs-Élysées parade. France has more than 252,000 firefighters, including 197,000 volunteer firefighters, who the country can call upon in the case of wildfires or other natural disasters. Many of these volunteers are retired members of the military.

Yesterday, I was shocked to see that the Prime Minister seemed unable to tell us what was going to be done to get the wildfires under control. We are talking about 2,200 wildfires so far this year, and it is not even summer yet. Unfortunately, wildfires, flooding and tornadoes all seem to be on the agenda for the coming years.

Will Canada stand idly by or will it do like France and set up a mobile volunteer fire brigade to intervene when major disasters strike? Believe me, we are going to need it.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Gold, the only dollar figure Prime Minister Trudeau actually revealed in his Special Rapporteur’s mandate was David Johnston’s $1,600 daily fee. Now we are learning just how expensive “special rapporteuring” can be. Johnston has decided he needs an entire entourage to help him. He hired high-powered lawyer Sheila Block. This major Liberal Party donor and “the team she led at Torys” helped Johnston interview more than 50 people. Bay Street law firm Torys is one of the largest and most expensive law firms in Canada.

Now, Senator Gold, my legal career was in Saskatchewan, not on Bay Street, but I do know that kind of help would rack up a ton of sky-high billable hours. How much are all those legal fees costing Canadian taxpayers?

Hon. Wanda Thomas Bernard: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Gold, Minister Marci Ien announced that $1.5 million is being allocated to Canada Pride to be used for safety precautions during Pride parades and festivals this year. This money is being allocated in a reactive manner in response to the very real rise in violence and threats of violence to the 2SLGBTQ+ community. 2SLGBTQ+ people also experience everyday violence year-round here in this country in the form of workplace discrimination, systemic discrimination in the medical system and harassment.

Senator Gold, given the acknowledgement of this increased violence towards this community during Pride Month, what kind of support does the government plan to offer after Pride Month is over, and what other strategies are the government planning to put in place to protect 2SLGBTQ+ people year-round?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, senator, and for underlining this important issue and the vulnerability of the LGBTQ community to forms of discrimination that regrettably, and often tragically, continue apace.

This government is proud of the measures that it has taken to strengthen our laws against discrimination. We, in this chamber, had occasion just a few short years ago to debate amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act to broaden the protection for members of that community. The funding that you announced and other measures are designed to increase and enhance support provisions to bring back the court challenges program as another mechanism whereby the infringement of legal rights, which is too often the case, can be challenged by those who would not otherwise have the means to do so.

The work will never be finished, and more will always need to be done until all Canadians can live with the full respect and dignity we are all entitled to regardless of our sexual orientation, our gender orientation and how we choose to live. This government is proud of its commitment to support those in that community. Actions speak louder than words, and actions will continue to be taken to support the community.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. Former Governor General David Johnston was given a task by this government to inquire into the serious issue of foreign interference. He has been subjected to the most odious character assassination and has had his integrity impugned time and time again. In my 72 years on this earth, I have never seen such an attack orchestrated and sustained by a political party, by an opposition that has taken rhetoric to such depths. In that regard, I think that if the former governor general felt the need to defend his integrity and to make sure that the job he was doing could be done in an appropriate way for the benefit of Canadians, then his decision is something the government is prepared to support.

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the message from the other place on Bill S-5, strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act.

A year after our comprehensive study of the bill to reform the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, known as CEPA, we are finally close to modernizing Canada’s legislative framework on toxic substances. I need not remind you that CEPA was adopted in 1999 and had not been updated since. Twenty-four long years is an outrageous amount of time to leave untouched the most important tool for protecting the environment and our health while science has progressed at an unprecedented rate and has warned us.

As we see the omnipresence of plastic pollution, microplastics in human organs, uncontrolled toxic spills, terrifying wildfires, floods and other extreme weather events caused by polluting gases warming the atmosphere, I can’t help but wonder: If we had revised CEPA 15 years ago, would we be at this dreadful cul-de-sac?

[Translation]

Bill S-5 is coming back to the Senate with a set of amendments modifying 38 clauses. We are grateful to the House of Commons, whose amendments are generally based on the work of the Senate. The House of Commons made no changes to 21 of our amendments, which validates the good work we did in committee. I sincerely thank every member of the Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

The other Senate amendments were for the most part clarified or reformulated, and only a few were rejected by the Commons.

In my speech, I will address a few specific amendments, which, I believe, were improved by the House, and also a few remaining gaps and weaknesses.

[English]

One of the main features of Bill S-5 is the inclusion of the concept of a right to a healthy environment. During our study, most witnesses applauded the concept but criticized the bill for simply instructing the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to develop and implement a plan rather than enshrining the actual right.

The House made a few modifications, but the intent remains the same. It added a definition of a healthy environment, describing it as “an environment that is clean, healthy and sustainable.” It restructured the Senate amendment that required the implementation framework to elaborate on the reasonable limits to which that right is subject but maintained the Senate’s intent.

It also further clarified the principle of intergenerational equity by stating that:

. . . it is important to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs;

Under CEPA, the government is tasked with assessing substances and categorizing them depending on their toxicity. The government assesses approximately 600 substances new to the Canadian market each year. However, it does not give itself enough resources to assess all the substances currently in the Canadian market. For that reason, I had attempted to amend the bill by imposing a set timeline for the minister to finalize an assessment and publish its results. At the time, the committee had opted not to impose a deadline, as the timeline of an assessment would depend on the amount of government resources dedicated to that matter.

To address this issue, the House proposed what I think is a reasonable compromise. If the assessment of a substance has not been completed after two years, the minister must publish a statement indicating the reasons for the delay and an estimated time frame within which the final decision is to be published.

This is a question of ministerial responsibility. Therefore, it is incumbent on the minister to justify any delay that could harm our health.

The next point I would like to address is confidentiality. Currently, when a corporation provides information on a substance requested by the minister, they can request confidentiality by written request. Under the current CEPA regime, confidentiality appears to be granted automatically with no need for approval by the minister. This demonstrates a lack of transparency. Of course, there may be many valid reasons for the need for confidentiality, including trade secrets, integrity of contracts or protection against financial loss. However, the requester should have to demonstrate why confidentiality is needed, and the responsibility should fall on the minister to grant or deny it. This is something that both Senator Miville-Dechêne and I had argued in our committee study. Unfortunately, the committee opted to defeat our proposal.

Thankfully, the House of Commons picked up on this important issue of transparency and found a compromise. Their amendment would require the minister to review a statistically valid representative sample of confidentiality requests granted and determine whether the request is justified under a set of four possible justifications. The requests that don’t qualify are then deemed non-confidential and the minister shall report annually on these confidentiality requests.

I believe this strikes a good balance. When information does not need to be confidential, Canadians have the right to access that information, especially when it concerns their health and the protection of the environment.

Overall, I feel the other place has reinforced the Senate’s work on this bill. That is not to say, however, that there aren’t any remaining gaps or unaddressed issues with CEPA.

Environmental policy experts are not satisfied with the removal of the title of Schedule 1. This list exists because these substances have been found to be toxic in certain contexts, amounts or paths of exposure. The industry complained, saying that some of these substances can be found in everyday products. Whether or not the title of this list includes the words “toxic substances” does not change any legal requirements on these corporations — it is merely a labelling issue. Out of transparency, and for the benefit of the average Canadian, nomenclature is important. Hiding the fact that these substances were scientifically found to be toxic in certain contexts is not being transparent with Canadians.

Another major issue remains with the government’s capacity to assess substances. The government is over-reliant on industry to provide the scientific basis for assessments and often merely does a literature review rather than scientifically testing the substances themselves. This is problematic as we rely on industry for decisions that are the minister’s responsibility. For example, just last week, we learned through an article published by the CBC that industry knew for decades about the risks of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS or forever chemicals, and kept it hidden. Major industry players knew these substances were toxic, yet they are present in everything from cookware to makeup. These chemicals are known to cause liver problems, pregnancy issues and cancer. Worse yet, the industry used tactics reminiscent of the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries to muddy the water around the toxicity of forever chemicals and to prevent more research to study the matter.

This is completely unacceptable, and it is our job as legislators to adopt a legislative framework that better regulates the industry. We cannot play with the health and safety of Canadians. We cannot rely on experiments that are overwhelmingly designed, performed, analyzed and disclosed by industry for the purpose of sales and profit rather than for the best interest of Canadians. We must equip our government with the adequate resources to make its own rigorous and transparent scientific assessments.

[Translation]

Colleagues, Bill S-5 makes essential updates to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It’s not perfect, and we still have a lot of work to do to ensure that our environmental protection act really focuses on preventing pollution, not managing and monitoring it.

The current Minister of Environment and Climate Change promised that more revisions are to come, and I eagerly await those proposals. Never again should we wait 24 years to modernize legislation that is so crucial to protecting our health and the environment.

I encourage you to support the bill while continuing to advocate for other improvements in the near future.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Patterson (Nunavut), debate adjourned.)

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I certainly care, as I think all senators care about the hardships that Canadians are facing due to worldwide supply chain problems, worldwide inflation and worldwide climate change, which have significantly affected our supply of food. That is why this government has made serious efforts to assist Canadians most in need, as I have outlined on many occasions.

With regard to the food banks, I do not know how the situation will continue to unfold. I have been involved in food banks in my hometown. Thank goodness for the volunteers and organizations that do provide this assistance and the governments that support them.

In that regard, the Government of Canada has made significant investments and funding available to local food banks to help them meet the needs of their residents and will continue to do so.

The Hon. the Speaker: Do you have a question?