The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Gold, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, testified before the Senate Banking Committee. He has recognized that he and his lieutenants in the Bank of Canada have gotten it all wrong when it comes to inflation. He has also recognized that they have completely misjudged the strength of inflation. Mr. Macklem said:

If you go back to January, we were saying that inflation would peak at about 5%, and by now you start to see some signs it’s coming down. It’s now 6.7% and it’s going to take longer to come down. . . .

Government leader, will you acknowledge that Prime Minister Trudeau and his government should start recognizing the lead taken by the Governor of the Bank of Canada and recognize that they have also gotten it all wrong when it comes to inflation? Furthermore, will you also agree with me that it’s high time that Mr. Trudeau starts thinking about monetary policy?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate.

Speaking of the Prime Minister, while the Prime Minister may never have to worry about the cost of the carbon tax or the cost of anything else, the hundreds of thousands of men and women who work in our energy sector do.

In its 2019 election platform, the Liberal Party promised energy workers a “Just Transition Act,” “giving workers access to the training, support, and new opportunities needed to succeed in the clean economy.”

Leader, Environment Commissioner Jerry DeMarco reported on Tuesday that the NDP-Liberal government has no implementation plan, no formal governance structure and no monitoring and reporting system in place to support a “just” transition.

Was this your government’s plan all along — to talk down the sector, destroy livelihoods and call that “just”?

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.

Senator Klyne: Yes. Certainly, thank you, Your Honour.

Senator Gold, what is the government’s targeted plan to address the dismal level of broadband internet access on First Nations reserves? Also, is the government planning to implement a digital transformation strategy to ensure that Indigenous peoples will be mobilized and ready to actively and meaningfully participate in the new digital economy?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Klyne, if you have a question, could you please get to it?

Some Hon. Senators: Hear! Hear!

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.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Moncion, would you take a question?

Senator Moncion: Certainly.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Senator Moncion, I am baffled by your remarks. With your background in banking, I thought your mathematical skills were more advanced. You spoke about productivity. Before the pandemic, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met for four to six hours a week.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Boisvenu, do you have a question?

Senator Boisvenu: My next question is just as straightforward. The message I’m getting is that you think our work as lawmakers comes second, here in the Senate, to other more social or professional activities. Is that so?

Senator Boniface: So much depends on the specifics of what they find and what they do. One important piece — and I mentioned it in my speech — is if it comes to the point of a criminal investigation, such as the one you refer to, that would normally be referred to a different area. The material would be held — the phone — and then they would send it over for an investigation, which would likely then go to the local police to lay the charge.

The distinction is what the device initially is looking for is regulatory contraventions under the regime of the customs legislation. I should have mentioned it at some other point, but they have 90 different pieces of legislation that are covered under the contraventions. The criminal piece is normally done by the local police service, so it would be a connection then. Then they do a criminal investigation that’s separate and apart from it. That’s normally how the process would work locally.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Thank you, Senator Boniface. You just said that the standard used is higher than that used in the United States. That raises the question of the pre-clearance agreements that we have with the Americans and the changes to pre‑clearance that will be affected by this bill. Is there a need to negotiate with the Americans for this to happen?

Senator Lankin: I am also interested, Your Honour, in the question of transition. Because I don’t think it is just about getting more committees going. For example, one of the things that could be considered — in speaking with someone from the House of Commons, indicating that their particular caucus was returning to in-person sittings, with the exception of people who had health challenges; for example, someone who had a compromised immune system because they had been receiving treatment for cancer, let’s say. It would be recognized that there is a wise public health protection provision to allow them to continue to work and be productive and increase productivity or continue productivity, but to allow them to work remotely.

In a transition, when you come forward after June, you would have to — have there been discussions or would you undertake to lead discussions with the other leaders about provisions such as that? Under what circumstances could some individuals continue — where it is warranted — to work remotely and therefore not be docked in terms of attendance and participation or criticized because they are working from their home but nonetheless working?

Senator Boniface: The question you ask is so specific that I would request that you ask it of the CBSA officers when they come before us. In fairness, I have not stood in their shoes to know exactly the step-by-step process. For me, that is how I best understand it. I would suggest that you put the question on the step-by-step process. You raise a fair question in terms of to what extent they have to inform. I think that when you learn how they walk through it in practice, that might be much better than any answer I could give you.

Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh.