Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I am advised that the minister is often required to travel with classified material and equipment between Ottawa and his residence in British Columbia. To ensure that classified materials and equipment are not viewed by officials without the appropriate security clearance, officials are granted this exemption — it’s a partial exemption — to the search of security-sensitive materials and for those materials only. The minister and his personal belongings still go through security — which often includes secondary screening — on all domestic flights, like any other Canadian.

I have no other information with regard to any other requests for exemptions.

Senator Gold: Senator Housakos, thank you for your question. I stand by the answer. Your premises are not accepted or correct. The commissioner was clear in her statement. Minister Blair was clear in his statement, and that is the appropriate answer to that which you have asked.

Senator Gold: I know all Canadians, this government and members of the opposition are heartbroken over the tragedy that happened in Nova Scotia. I stand by my answers to your question. I am saddened by the use of the tragedy that befell the victims in the way that you have presented your commentary and question.

The fact is the government respects the independence of the RCMP. The minister was clear that there was no interference. The commissioner was clear that there was no interference. That is the position of the government.

It is the position of the government that respects not only the RCMP, but respects the integrity of the inquiry that is going on and, most of all, respects and honours the memory of those who lost their lives in Nova Scotia.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question, senator. It’s an important one. I don’t know the number of cases. I do know the investigation into serious allegations of crime sometimes takes time. That may or may not be a factor underlying the statistics of which, unfortunately, I’m ignorant, nor do I know specifically, but I will inquire, as to what discretion, if any, there may be in the hands of civilian police officers faced with an allegation.

Again, procedurally and within normal practices, there are certain thresholds that may need to be reached before next steps are taken, from allegations to gathering of evidence, to the determination that a charge would be justified in being laid. I’ll make those inquiries, senator, and hope to get back to you.

Senator Gold: I’m going to be careful in my response, senator. I would perhaps invite you to speak to your colleague to your left as to what the understanding was of the process that was agreed to as reflected in the motion. I would further encourage you to listen to my speech with an open mind and to recognize that the government took into account the views of many stakeholders, only one of whom seems to have been mentioned at length here.

Senator Gold: As for your questions, I will submit a request for information to the government and get back to you with an answer.

[English]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, which I will answer briefly. No, I do not think that is necessary. As students of the law know, the purpose and intent of legislation are gleaned not only from the words and structure of the act or the act into which the particular bill is inserted, and not only by the record that may exist in parliamentary debates, but is also informed by what courts have said about the purpose of provisions in previous cases.

Honourable senators, when debate on this matter begins, I will have opportunities to set out more fully my views on the bill and why the bill is worthy of our support.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): No, not at all.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. As I may have answered on a previous occasion, senators may recall that the government, in fact, laid the foundation in this area, as in many others, by accepting an interim recommendation from former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour to begin referring the investigation and prosecution of Criminal Code sexual offences from the military justice system to the civilian one.

Since Minister Anand received and accepted the recommendation to refer sexual offences from the military justice system to the civilian system in the fall, the government has made substantial and substantive progress in such referrals.

As Ms. Arbour outlines in a report — and this is my understanding of the facts on the ground — there have been some challenges with certain jurisdictions. To this end, Minister Anand is writing, again, to provincial and territorial partners about the path forward and to start the process of establishing a formal, intergovernmental table to build a durable transfer process that will better serve the Canadian Armed Forces now and in the future, and, of course, serve the interests of justice for those who are victims of alleged assault.

Senator Gold: Thank you. I’m flattered and honoured to be in this position despite what some of my colleagues have said about the government that I represent.

But I’m neither the sponsor of the bill nor an expert, nor indeed even a member of the committee, even though I participated ex officio.

Senator Galvez, respectfully, I think that the question was asked — or should have been asked, if it wasn’t — to the officials in the course of the protracted and extensive study on the bill. I’m afraid I’m not in a position to answer that question in this setting.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question.

The government has been very clear from the outset that it does not support Bill 21, notwithstanding that Bill 21 appears to be within the jurisdiction of the province. It does not support it because of its infringement on fundamental rights. The government has been clear about that. The Prime Minister has been clear about that from the outset.

Indeed, the Prime Minister was the first to even discuss the possibility of intervening in court cases when leaders in all other parties were reluctant to say a word.

More recently, the Prime Minister has made it clear that he will intervene. In that regard, Senator Loffreda, I think the government can stand proudly on its record for defending minority rights in this country and doing its part within its jurisdiction and within the division of labour between our institutions to stand up for Canadians’ rights.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice:

1.if the Senate receives a message from the House of Commons with Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced extreme intoxication), the bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading on June 23, 2022;

2.if, before this order is adopted, the message on the bill had been received and the bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at a date later than June 23, 2022, it be brought forward to June 23, 2022, and dealt with on that day;

3.all proceedings on the bill be completed on June 23, 2022, and, for greater certainty:

(i)if the bill is adopted at second reading on that day it be taken up at third reading forthwith;

(ii)the Senate not adjourn until the bill has been disposed of; and

(iii)no debate on the bill be adjourned;

4.a senator may only speak once to the bill, whether this is at second or third reading, or on another proceeding, and during this speech all senators have a maximum of 10 minutes to speak, except for the leaders and facilitators, who have a maximum of 30 minutes each, and the sponsor and critic, who have a maximum of 45 minutes each;

5.at 9 p.m. on Thursday, June 23, 2022, if the bill has not been disposed of at third reading, the Speaker interrupt any proceedings then before the Senate to put all questions necessary to dispose of the bill at all remaining stages, without further debate or amendment, only recognizing, if necessary, the sponsor to move the motion for second or third reading, as the case may be; and

6.if a standing vote is requested in relation to any question necessary to dispose of the bill under this order, the vote not be deferred, and the bells ring for only 15 minutes; and

That:

1.the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs be authorized to examine and report on the matter of self-induced intoxication, including self-induced extreme intoxication, in the context of criminal law, including in relation to section 33.1 of the Criminal Code;

2.the committee be authorized to take into consideration any report relating to this matter and to the subject matter of Bill C-28 made by the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights;

3.the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than March 10, 2023; and

4.when the final report is submitted to the Senate, the Senate request that the government provide a complete and detailed response within 120 calendar days, with the response, or failure to provide a response, being dealt with pursuant to the provisions of rules 12-24(3) to (5).

[Translation]

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

The independence of our law enforcement operations is a key principle of our democracy and one that the government deeply respects. I have been assured that at no point did the government pressure or interfere in the operational decisions of the RCMP. I direct all senators to the commissioner’s statement from yesterday in which she makes very clear that there was no interference.

Canadians, including those directly impacted by the tragedy, have expressed concern about when and how the RCMP shared information with the public, and that is why the government specified in the order of reference that the Mass Casualty Commission examine the communications approach taken both during and after the event.

Finally, senators, the former Minister of Public Safety, Minister Blair, both during Question Period in the House and today to reporters, was unequivocal. I know Minister Blair is a man of integrity, and I quote him from Question Period:

I can confirm for the House, as the commissioner has also confirmed, that no such direction or pressure was exerted by any member of this government to influence the commissioner’s exercise of her authorities over her police service.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): The Government of Canada has always been clear that it is on the side of Quebecers who are shocked and disappointed that a young teacher can no longer practise her profession because of how she chooses to observe her religion.

This government is committed to defending the rights and freedoms that are protected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right to freedom of religion and the right to equality, as this matter touches upon those fundamental freedoms and the interpretation of the Charter which underscore our liberal democracy.

This government fully expects that this case will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. If that happens, the government is committed to contributing to the debate, giving the broad implications for all Canadians and the need to defend the Charter, including the way in which the “notwithstanding” clause was invoked. The government has stated clearly that it will intervene in this matter at the Supreme Court level.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, Senator Galvez. I participated in many of those hearings, so I’m aware of the questions that you asked. I do believe that you received answers and they would be reflected in Hansard.

I don’t have Hansard at hand. I can refer you back to those answers. I hope that they are satisfactory. On the assumption that they are not, thank you for raising the issue in the chamber. We look forward to the third reading debate on the bill later today.

Senator Gold: I have not finished my answer, sir. I will take a cue from a colleague more experienced than I. To your question, “is the government content to ignore,” the government is not ignoring, so the answer is no.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: The answer is no. To the best of my knowledge, this was the only request. I repeat that the exemption that was granted was partial only. The minister still has to go through regular security screening, save and except for the equipment and documents that are classified and not appropriate for review by the officials.

(For text of Delayed Answers, see Appendix.)