Senator Batters: Senator Gold, now that the Special Rapporteur has resigned, the bills will be flooding in for work done on his report.

First, there are the likely eye-watering legal fees for Liberal Party donor Sheila Block and her legal team from Bay Street firm Torys, especially given that, for some unknown reason, they are continuing to rack up sky-high billable hours until the end of June. There will also be money owed to Orchestra for their media relations advice. Taxpayers also are on the hook for paying Navigator, the crisis communications firm for their “communications advice and support.” I sure hope it wasn’t them who advised putting George Washington in a report about Beijing election interference and keeping the Trudeau Foundation out.

The bills are piling up, Senator Gold. How much has Trudeau’s failed attempt to crisis manage this election interference scandal cost Canadians in total? How much? Just the number, please.

Senator Gold: Again, thank you for the question and for reminding us that the cost of living and the basic necessities of life — food, housing, all the basics — are much more expensive in the North and remote areas of this country. I’ll certainly add that to my questions and follow-up with the minister.

[Translation]

Senator Wallin: The government wants to take away firearms from the people who have been advocating for licensing of firearms but are now having their property expropriated.

The way the government proceeded on this bill — and this was on several occasions — prevented an informed parliamentary debate or proper committee hearings with a full range of witnesses. Instead, they used cabinet orders to regulate “. . . the circumstances in which an individual does or does not need firearms.” All the more reason for this bill to be well studied by the Senate. We need evidence and facts, not just opinion and politics.

As if to further alienate rural voters everywhere, the Liberals are actually reducing the punishment for crimes committed using guns. With the passage of Bill C-5, the government has repealed one third of all mandatory minimum prison sentences, including for some 14 firearms and tobacco and drug-related offences.

Here is the issue in a nutshell: If you want to stop illegal gun crime, you need to crack down on gangs and gun smugglers, not on hunters and farmers.

Senator Wells: First of all, thank you for not taking the full time that was allotted for your speech, unlike what our colleagues did so as to not allow questions.

You mentioned this being a behavioural tax and that it’s a behavioural modification tax. Do you see this additional levy on farmers as being fair where there’s no alternative? You mentioned that there is no other reasonable alternative on Prince Edward Island for drying their grain or heating the facilities where cattle are kept.

Senator Plett: Thank you for the question, Senator Omidvar and, no, I have not done research on that. I would assume that the majority of the immigrants that I certainly have had connections and relations with who have come over to our country have very many of the same family values that I have, and maybe that is because those are the ones that I socialize with. But the majority of them would have many of the same values as me. I don’t think that there could be any clear distinction made that one ethnicity is — I don’t want to use the word “violent” — more aggressive than others. I may be wrong.

Senator Plett: Again, this is on debate, Your Honour, not a question. I would like to not engage with Senator Simons any further, and so I will not answer her question.

Senator Batters: I noticed that you only noted in passing the fact that the Legal Committee in our report made significant observations stating how concerning we found it that major criminal law sections were included in a 430-page budget implementation act rather than in stand-alone bills. Those included a couple of the sections that you mentioned.

One part that you didn’t note was the digital asset section dealing with changes to the Criminal Code. Our Legal Committee didn’t even have time to hear any evidence about that part. Would you agree that is a concerning thing, and that these types of criminal law changes should be dealt with in stand-alone bills rather than in a 430-page budget implementation act?

Senator Loffreda: Thank you. As I said, no bill is perfect. It is common practice now to have omnibus bills. I think, yes, certain measures should be dealt with in separate bills. I mentioned a few of the ones which could have been dealt with separately. That is one, maybe, that should have been dealt with separately. As I said, no bill is perfect, but this is a good bill. It will support Canadians and help our economy going forward. I thank you for your question.

Senator Dupuis: Do we agree, you and I, that this question deserves to be studied by the Senate as legislator, since the Supreme Court itself noted that it couldn’t rule on the change to section 43, which is ultimately in the hands of parliamentarians?

[English]

Senator Poirier: This is where I think the committee could do some work. First of all, at the moment, there isn’t even a system in place to give a voice to those who are affected by all this. There’s no one to hear them.

It is all well and good to speak with the government representatives who are here and are making the decisions, but there’s no recourse to make sure that those voices are heard. That’s where we have to start, to make sure that everyone understands. The sad thing is that many people believe that seasonal workers — I already introduced an inquiry on this subject a few years ago, perhaps before you arrived in the Senate.

There are places in the country, like New Brunswick, for example, where people work in the fishing industry, in a potato field, in agriculture or in tourism, but the season eventually comes to an end. The number of weeks of benefits they receive it isn’t good enough, especially if they have a family. We got a response right away, and everyone agreed that, yes, we need a pilot project, but we’re well beyond that now. We need to do something to fix the situation in the regions. If all seasonal work were to disappear, our country would be in a real sorry state. Thank you.

Senator Yussuff: First, thank you for your remarks in regard to your experience but also on the bill. As we know, it has been decades since we have had a major overhaul of the EI system in this country. Regardless of where you live, whether in an urban environment or a rural community, the challenges a worker faces on a daily basis are no different — what happens to them if they fall through the cracks or do not have benefits or are unemployed.

I think it is fair to say the system we have used for the last decades to try to address these concerns has not really gotten to the crux of the matter: How can we put a better system in place to recognize the reality of what Canada is?

In rural communities, it is quite normal that people work seasonally. Without those people, those industries would die. I will use P.E.I. as an example. We need people to harvest potatoes as we need people to harvest fish. But there are times when there is no work for them to do in those industries, and it is part of our collective responsibility to look after them.

I hope that many of the concerns you have raised on the bill can be addressed by the committee and that they will hear from witnesses who will be able to tell their stories. The structure that Senator Bellemare’s bill proposes will be as inclusive as it can be to ensure that all regions and all industries in this country have a seat at the table. The workers and employers are the ones who pay into the system.

Would you not agree that we can address those concerns you have raised while, equally, ensuring those voices will be heard when the new structure is created if this bill were to pass and become part of the law in this country?

Senator Forest: I have a follow-up question. How do we distinguish between a slap out of love and a spanking? How do we define that?

[English]

Senator Plett: I think that if you had been listening to my speech, Senator Dupuis, you would find out that, no, I’m not in agreement with that. We’ve dealt with this 17 times before, and each time it was rejected. I do believe in a democracy. If it is again rejected and next year somebody brings it forward — I’m only here for two more years, I only have two more kicks at this — I will oppose it the next two times, as I did the last time.

Do I agree that we have the right? No, I wish that we would kill this bill now. I’m not going to oppose it going to committee; it has been decided. I spoke today as the critic, Senator Dupuis. That in itself should tell you that I do agree with legislation being studied at committee. It will go to committee tonight.

Senator Woo: Would you take a question, Senator Downe?

Senator Downe: Yes, of course.

Senator Wells: Thank you, Your Honour. I’m not on debate. I’m not questioning your hearing of the call for “no,” but I didn’t hear it. So I wanted you to ask the question again. Thank you.

Senator Gold: There’s no question there.

Again, it’s quite clear: There’s a big difference between an obligation to submit reports to Parliament — which is important and healthy and demonstrates good governance — and asking a minister to get involved if, in fact, the legislative framework doesn’t allow such involvement.

[English]

Senator Anderson: Thank you. In the Northwest Territories, where 100% of our children in care are Indigenous, and in Canada, where we have overrepresentation of Indigenous children, my question to you is: Has there been any thought given to the risk that the passage of this bill would give additional grounds for the removal of Indigenous children from their homes and communities as well as potential grounds for criminalization of Indigenous parents?

Senator Gold: — looks forward to the constructive engagement of the opposition parties to chart a path forward.

[Translation]

Senator Gignac: Thank you, Senator Gold. I understand that CPP Investments is independent of the political power, and I respect that.

In my opinion, Canadians have the right to know more about the nature of the investments that their retirement plan is making abroad. That would help us to validate not only the carbon footprint of those investments, but also their tax footprint and democratic footprint, given that they’re being made in many countries that don’t really respect the rules of law, human rights and tax fairness. Senator Gold, don’t you think it is time for the Minister of Finance to require CPP Investments and other public sector pension plans in Canada to provide more information and to be more transparent about their activities abroad?