Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: For all women in Canada and elsewhere who believe in gender equality, the selection on October 6 of Nargues Mohammadi, Iranian activist, as winner of the Nobel Peace Prize sends a wonderful message of hope.

From deep in the prison where she is being held in Tehran, despite heart problems and mistreatment, Nargues Mohammadi remains among the harshest critics of Iranian theocratic power.

Arrested 13 times and sentenced five times to a total of 31 years in prison and 154 lashes, this activist is fighting body and soul against mandatory veiling and violence against Iranian women.

[English]

Her voice is powerful. Here are her own words in an essay recently published in The New York Times:

What the government may not understand is that the more of us they lock up, the stronger we become.

The morale among the new prisoners is high. Some spoke with strange ease about writing their wills before heading onto the streets to call for change. All of them, no matter how they were arrested, had one demand: Overthrow the Islamic Republic regime.

What is less known is that Narges Mohammadi is also a mother who for eight years has not seen her twins, now 16 years old, who are exiled with their father. Her son speaks of her with pride. Her daughter only wants to be reunited with her mother. But Narges refused to leave Iran to continue her fight for freedom. This is a heavy sacrifice.

Could this highly publicized Nobel Prize breathe new life into the Woman, Life, Freedom movement in Iran, which has moved underground since the regime’s violent repression? Is Narges Mohammadi the long-awaited leader who could unify the opposition? Who knows? But we can hope.

[Translation]

In the meantime, Canada should be using every tool at its disposal to put maximum pressure on the Iranian regime and its accomplices. Although a Senate motion urged the Government of Canada to do just that, it has yet to declare the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity, despite its close ties to Hamas, which is designated a terrorist entity.

We cannot remain indifferent to what has been described as an unprecedented feminist revolution. Narges Mohammadi is counting on us. With all eyes riveted on Gaza or Ukraine, let’s not turn our backs on Iranian women.

Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, today, as Jewish people from across Canada and around the world are gathering here in Ottawa for an anti-Semitism conference, I feel compelled to talk about what that will mean as Israel increases its military action in Gaza. This conference was scheduled long before the October 7 Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel that saw men, women and children of all ages murdered, raped and paraded through the streets as trophies; babies beheaded and set ablaze; and 200 Israelis taken and who remain hostage.

October 7 wasn’t an act of war or resistance. It was an act of cowardice and depravity. It was an act of terror and pathological Jew hatred, full stop.

The first and sole objective of Hamas is the destruction of the state of Israel and the Jewish people. That’s what they mean when they say, “From the river to the sea . . . .” It’s not a rallying cry for freedom and certainly not for peace. Hamas has no interest in peace. When we say that Israel has a right to defend itself and to defend its people, there can be no equivocation, especially in the coming days.

Of course, it is not easy to see images of civilians killed by Israeli rocket strikes. We can and should mourn the deaths of civilians in Gaza, as we mourn those in Israel.

However, we must be clear. Israel is acting in accordance with international law. It is engaging in a lawful, proportionate attack against a genocidal enemy force. While the human suffering of war is undeniable, we must remember that this war is not by choice for Israel. It is by necessity. Their very existence depends on it.

Israel’s military response against Hamas is not an act of retaliation, nor is it punitive. To describe it as such or to falsely accuse Israel of widespread atrocities, as at least one member of Parliament has done, is not only patently false and unfounded but an attempt to equate Israel with the cowardice of Hamas. Shame on anyone who does so, whether it be that MP, delegates at federal party conventions, members of provincial Parliament, heads of public service unions or Canadians marching shamefully in the streets in pro-Hamas rallies.

We’ve heard people at these rallies claiming that Hamas is not a terrorist group and that any violence they commit is justified in pursuit of a free Palestine. I don’t know how that can be characterized as anything other than hateful and anti-Semitic. Saying such things should be covered under our hate speech laws. If such laws don’t apply to the glorification of murdering babies and parading the bodies of dead women through the streets, to what do they apply?

If the October 7 attacks and the subsequent pro-Hamas rallies and anti-Israeli rhetoric being espoused by politicians and senior bureaucrats have shown us anything, it’s that — more than ever — we must recognize that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. We must face it and we must fight it.

Never again means never again.

Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr. David Huntsman, Professor in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of British Columbia. He is the guest of the Honourable Senators Ravalia and Woo.

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. Jiaying Zhao, from the University of British Columbia, and Jessie Golem, creator of the “Humans of Basic Income” portrait series. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Pate.

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

Hon. Kim Pate: My question is for you, Senator Gold.

Today is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. By 2030, it is estimated that 7% of the world’s population will be living on less than $2.15 per day.

Throughout the pandemic and beyond, we are experiencing the crises of deepening poverty, homelessness and health and food insecurity. This is especially true for marginalized women, Indigenous and Black people, folks with disabilities and the 2SLGBTQIA+ communities.

As you know, in 2021, the government’s National Action Plan for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls identified the role of guaranteed liveable income as a short-term priority to begin within the coming one to three years — that’s by next year, by 2024. What steps has the government taken toward implementation, and when will they act to assist provinces like P.E.I. and other jurisdictions that are interested in pursuing such initiatives?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question.

Canada’s stated condemnation of Hamas — and its continuing support for Israel’s right to defend itself — is consistent with international law. Canada’s continuing support for providing humanitarian assistance to those who need it stands as a testament to the moral position that Canada has taken and continues to take. With regard to actions on the ground, Canada is doing its part as well to assist those who are held hostage and those who seek safe refuge from the war, and shall continue to do so.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government response to the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, entitled Strengthening Canada’s Autonomous Sanctions Architecture: Five-Year Legislative Review of the Sergei Magnitsky Law and the Special Economic Measures Act, tabled in the Senate on May 16, 2023.

Hon. Leo Housakos: My question is for the government leader.

Senator Gold, I’ve been asking questions regarding ArriveCAN for two years now. I’ve asked about the unconstitutionality of leaving Canadians stranded overseas. I’ve asked about Canadians being unlawfully quarantined. I’ve asked whether your government would finally do the right thing and cancel the outstanding fines levied against Canadians. Every time, no matter the question, you regurgitate the same talking points that the Prime Minister’s Office, or PMO, sends over here. It sounds good, but it’s completely irrelevant to the questions being asked. Senator Gold, I’m putting you on notice that those answers just won’t wash.

Very simply, this is my question: why? When she was in the middle of her own investigation, why was the Auditor General of Canada not informed that the RCMP was also investigating allegations of fraud pertaining to the ArriveCAN scam? Why did the Auditor General have to find out about the latest criminal investigations into your government through media reports?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question.

The Auditor General operates independently of the government, as do investigations by the RCMP. My understanding is that the Auditor General — now apprised of that — has extended the time for her evaluation and analysis.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government is committed to supporting Canadians. Indeed, between 2015 and 2021, close to 2.3 million Canadians have been lifted out of poverty, including 653,000 fewer children and 11,000 fewer seniors, representing a 49% decrease in poverty.

While basic income could help to address poverty, there are significant design considerations that require further study, including funding implications for existing programs and the potential effects on the labour market. To this end, I note that a study is being conducted by our Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.

It is my understanding that the government will continue to monitor research and analysis on basic income, and the government is exploring potential short-term and long-term policy responses to address the needs of Canadians.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate and is on the affordability that comes with pharmacare and the dental care system.

[English]

The idea of pharmacare has been around for a while. At various times, the Liberal, New Democratic and Green parties have proposed a national pharmacare policy. In June of this year, the NDP health critic, Member of Parliament Don Davies, introduced a private member’s bill on this topic, Bill C-340. Last weekend, the NDP National Convention endorsed the party’s push for such a policy. The Liberal government has announced that they plan to introduce such a plan, and we know that the two parties are in discussion on a draft bill. Can you provide this house with an update on the negotiations and a timeline of when this bill will be introduced?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. Bill C-69 was and is legislation designed to affirm the importance of proper environmental overview of projects. The Government of Canada respects the Supreme Court’s decision and is considering the guidance that the Supreme Court has provided. The Supreme Court made it clear that important sections dealing with federal jurisdiction remain constitutional and has provided guidelines for moving forward.

The government and the minister have announced that they will be adjusting the legislation to bring it into conformity with the Supreme Court’s decision and will continue to provide the leadership on environmental issues that this country needs and deserves.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question.

The goal of Bill C-18 is to force web giants to sit down with our small and large media companies to come to a fair and equitable agreement for the benefit of Canadians.

Obviously, web giants are afraid of the precedent this has created in Canada and Australia. They are flexing their economic muscles to try to bully us into not going forward with this bill. However, the Government of Canada is staying the course in supporting this bill, which is good for Canada.

Hon. Marie-Françoise Mégie: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, in the wake of Minister Miller’s announcement last week, Le Devoir published an article today entitled “Ottawa accusé de faire marche arrière sur son engagement humanitaire après Roxham,” or “Ottawa accused of walking back its humanitarian engagement after Roxham.” Here’s part of what it says:

“I think the meaning of ‘humanitarian’ is being twisted,” said Adèle Garnier, a professor in the department of geography at Université Laval. She believes it is clear that temporary foreign workers “are not humanitarian migrants” according to the traditional definition because this kind of program exists “specifically to meet economic needs.”

According to the article, even though there is already a family reunification program, “The 11,000 Colombians, Venezuelans and Haitians will qualify if a member of their extended family is already in Canada.”

Senator Gold, when will we learn the details of the new program Minister Miller announced, and when will it be on stream?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. Canada is committed to welcoming 15,000 people from the western hemisphere. As you pointed out, the minister announced a new humanitarian pathway for permanent residence for 11,000 people from the Americas, including Haiti. I’m told the program will open this fall.

The government will also welcome an additional 4,000 temporary foreign workers from the region. The Government of Canada continues to offer regular humanitarian and economic immigration pathways as well as temporary work programs.

I’m also told that work is ongoing in collaboration with our partners.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Gold, last week, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the vast majority of Bill C-69 and the entirety of its regulations are unconstitutional. The act has almost 200 sections, and the Supreme Court found only 10 sections acceptable. The court held that the “’designated project’ scheme . . . exceeds the bounds of federal jurisdiction.”

Bill C-69 was an unmitigated disaster from the start. The Trudeau government itself proposed 150 amendments at the House of Commons committee stage. The Senate passed almost 200 more, and the government accepted 99 — mostly government — amendments. Now, Minister Guilbeault says they will do their homework and tweak it a bit.

Enough, Senator Gold. Stick a fork in it; it’s done. It’s time to repeal the whole bill. When will the Trudeau government finally admit their colossal failure on Bill C-69?

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

I see that measures taken by our government to force web giants to negotiate have been unsuccessful. Even worse, some media outlets are being financially impacted and losing visibility.

What will it take for the government to acknowledge that it is going down the wrong path with the Online News Act?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I’m advised that work is ongoing to introduce a Canada pharmacare bill to help Canadians have greater access to the health care that they deserve and need. I understand that conversations are ongoing with the New Democratic Party and indeed all parliamentarians to ensure that Canadians aren’t put into an impossible position when they must figure out how to pay for essential items, such as drugs.

At the same time, the government must ensure that it acts prudently and in a fiscally responsible manner. In that regard, the government remains focused on determining the most effective way to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals for Canadians.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. Colleagues, the ministers and this government are continuing to work hard to fulfill their responsibilities. My understanding is that the current mandate letters published in accordance with the beginning of the mandate in December 2021 exist and remain available online. I’m not advised of any updates, but I’d be glad to bring your comments forward to the government.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. I appreciate you asking and moving forward on that. I would think that if we’re looking at a shift in ministers and a new minister that there would also be subsequent adjustment or refinement of mandates. I look forward to ensuring that we have some connection between those two soon.