Senator Gold: Part of the tradition where I come from is to answer a question with a question, but I didn’t talk about consensus at all. I talked about consultation. Is that what you are asking me, senator?

Senator Gold: Again, in an attempt to respect the confidentiality of the agreement — thank you for your question — no, we brought this forward. I tabled the motion without any agreement as such for exactly how the debate would be structured or what people would say in debate. I had no knowledge of amendments or tactics.

Senator Gold: I think I have answered the question. I really have nothing else to add to the answer I have provided.

Senator Gold: I agree with every point. Thank you for putting it more elegantly than I could.

Senator Gold: Thank you, colleague. I certainly will pass that on and make inquiries to satisfy myself that I know as much as I can know about this file.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, the answer is no. Thank you for your question, senator.

The purpose of the just transition and all the other programs is for the government to do what it can to assist industry, workers and families who depend on those industries to, in fact, weather the transition that the world, capital markets and our own commitment to fighting climate change necessarily impose upon us.

Senator Gold: Again, I thank you for your question. But I think the premise is incomplete if not incorrect.

It is up to the parties, including the party of which you are a member, to decide whether it wants to participate so that Canadians can have the benefit of a fair, transparent and appropriate process or to continue to posture around the issue.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for bringing this back to the chamber’s attention. Regrettably, I don’t have a response, but you do have my assurance that I will follow up and try to get one as quickly as I can.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. With respect, I do not agree with the assumption that underlies your question.

The Government of Canada, for many months, has made a reasonable and appropriate offer to all opposition parties to have these documents vetted by a panel of judges — security-cleared and informed judges — to ensure that politics and partisanship do not enter into a decision as to what documents can be safely released without compromising national security.

It is my understanding that, at least to date, only the NDP has expressed the willingness to participate. The official opposition has been resistant to do so. It is the government’s hope that all parties will join in to this process, which is open, fair, transparent and has precedent in our Parliament. To that end, the government hopes that the official opposition and the Bloc will see fit to participate in what is an appropriate process to balance the needs for transparency and the protection of national security.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, if I may enter the debate on the point of order simply to thank the senator for raising this issue and to offer my commitment in my capacity as government representative — but more importantly as a senator — to work with other leaders, I commit to working with leaders in the hope we can get an appropriate motion for distancing ready to go next week. I’m confident that the leaders will collaborate with me and we can have success in that regard. That would include also to allow gallery seating so that we can make sure that everybody is and feels safe if and when we’re here in person.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. It is my understanding that it is not the Committee of Internal Economy’s responsibility, and therefore the Committee of Internal Economy was not consulted. In that regard, I stand by what I have said: I believe that the motion I brought forward was the product of appropriate consultation as set out in the motion to which we were bound and that it is appropriate for the Senate.

To your question about rushing, we just came off a two-week break or recess, such that we had only this sitting week to be able to resolve the issue of whether or not hybrid sittings would be prolonged. Believing, as I did and other leaders did, that it was appropriate to prolong it, I brought it forward almost at the earliest moment. In fact, I didn’t give notice of it because the leadership was engaged in discussions to try to improve the motion. Out of respect and gratitude for that process, I waited a day to give notice and then gave notice of a text to which three leaders agreed with completely, and one, according to Senator Plett, agreed with only partially.

Senator Gold: As I said earlier in my remarks or in response to a question — and forgive me if I can’t recall in which context — we have spent a long time on this at the expense of focusing on the business that we were summoned here to do. I remain of the opinion that the information we have available to us is more than sufficient to justify the prolongation for a relatively brief time, for the two months set out in the motion. I think it would be a far higher and better use of our time to dispose of this issue and to prolong hybrid for the two months so that we don’t spend time next week and the following week still on this issue at the expense of the work we were summoned to do.

Senator Gold: That’s exactly the case; thank you for that. I am grateful for the collaboration that all the leaders showed and for their willingness to compromise in crafting a motion that I believed was appropriate. Although I had no illusions that it would be embraced by the opposition, nonetheless, I assumed that we could bring it to a proper and expeditious vote after a proper debate. It is still my hope that we could do that.

Senator Gold: Of course.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I know that there is an interest in many quarters for having a discussion about the future beyond the end of June, and I respect that. But that has not been the focus of these discussions. It wasn’t the focus of the consultations or the negotiations. It was very much focused on how we can address the health and safety and working needs of the Senate between now and when we expect to rise by the end of June. Colleagues, even the less experienced of us in this chamber know how intense the months of May and June can be.

It was always the view of many groups to extend until June. We extended only to the end of March as a compromise with those groups who were diffident about it, but it remains the case that we have and we will have important work to do for which we need the full participation of all senators. We recognize this will also require active and serious participation by committees.

It was in that spirit, focused really only on getting through this period that we were focused on. I would welcome anyone, any senator or group of senators, taking the lead in the conversation. We’d be happy to participate in that. We would be happy, if the Senate so wishes, to seek advice from the Committee of Internal Economy in that regard, but we are here to be the servants of the Senate. I say that humbly but sincerely. Our focus has been very narrow, perhaps too narrow for some, but we thought appropriately narrow to simply get us through what we expect to be a challenging, intensive and, I hope, productive legislative session.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. The Prime Minister, like all world leaders, has responsibilities both to citizens and to the many duties that he has. In a country as vast as ours, it is totally appropriate for the Prime Minister to use airlines, in exactly the same way it is appropriate for senators to use airlines to carry out their constitutional duties when they come to Ottawa.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. The truth is that the Prime Minister leads a government that is committed to working on behalf of Canadians, as it has done throughout the pandemic and as it continues to do, to address the issues of concern to Canadians. Regardless of the personal circumstances and good fortune of any leader — whether in this chamber or in the other place — the test of a person’s contribution to society is what they do.

Senator Gold: I understood the question.

As the government representative, we are always open to working with other senators — leadership and senators — to advance the ability of the Senate to do its work in an effective way, and in a way that is mindful of the challenges that people face when unable, for health reasons, to be here. So we would be open to participating in that. It is not ours to lead. But we would work happily with those individuals at the appropriate time, if that’s the will of the Senate.

My door is open. My mind is open. But my mind is convinced that this subamendment is not necessary and, in fact, I’m going to vote against it.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I’m not aware of a request that has been made nor of the government’s response. Permit me to say that the government continues and will continue to support ferry services for provinces and territories, including in Eastern Canada, and I’m advised that the government has made significant investments for ferry services in Eastern Canada, including purchasing multiple new ferry boats and taking action to make sure that fare prices stay affordable amid the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Intra-provincial ferry services, particularly to smaller and remote communities are, as you underline in your question, a key challenge facing provinces and their communities.

The government understands that discussions between the provincial government and the community are ongoing, and the government encourages the parties to work together to find a long-term solution for local populations.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Senator, thank you for your question and for raising this very troubling situation for the families and for those currently still in the Dominican Republic.

Of course, the Canadian government is aware of this situation, is concerned and is in fact acting. I’ve been advised that consular officials are providing assistance. They’re in contact with the families of the Canadian citizens. I’m also advised that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs is directly engaged on this file.

Colleagues, because of the importance and considerations of privacy, I’m not able to provide any further information on the details of those initiatives, but they are ongoing.