Senator Gold: Again, the position of this government is that it has confidence in Canadians to exercise responsible decisions, and it is also deeply committed to helping those who really need help putting groceries on their table and feeding their families and to provide that assistance as quickly as possible.

You are perfectly willing to vote against this bill, which I hope you do not do, because you don’t like the title. I have explained as clearly as I can to you and to whomever is listening what the purpose of this bill is.

I have been as clear as clear can be. Canadians who are watching this will know exactly what this bill is about and exactly what will be provided to those most in need.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Audette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mégie, for the second reading of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Senator Gold: I can’t comment on the assumption behind your question, but as I said, I will undertake to raise this with the minister and with the government and try to get an answer as quickly as I can.

Senator Gold: Thank you. That’s a very good question.

It allows me to remind colleagues that one of the elements of the agreements in principle that have been struck is precisely that they call for bilateral agreements. That is important because every province has its own needs in health care, its own priorities and its own programs in place for which it needs and seeks additional funds to operate even more effectively for the benefit of its citizens.

Again, without knowing what is going on in negotiations between the federal government and, say, Manitoba, Nova Scotia or any of the other provinces or territories, if it is a priority of the provincial government, they will bring that to the table, and they will have a willing partner in the federal government in the course of those negotiations.

Senator Gold: Once again, thank you for sharing what has been made public, but you’ll understand that some things are not yet public and I’m not in a position to share them. This shows that the government is serious not only about the principle, but also about making it work on the ground.

I’m confident that once the full details of the bill are released, Canadians will see a more robust system than what’s in place now.

[English]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. Once again, it is an important question. Unfortunately, I don’t have enough information to give you a proper answer.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. Once again, it is an important question. Unfortunately, I don’t have enough information to give you a proper answer.

I believe the government has demonstrated in many ways that it is quite convinced of the importance and need to eliminate discrimination in all areas.

I will inquire with the government and get back to you with an answer.

Senator Plett: Senator Gold, again, you don’t need to explain why this bill is important. We understand that, which is why it passed unanimously in the other place. That is not the argument. You don’t need to sell the bill to me; we will likely support it in this place.

The fact of the matter is that it is misleading. Don’t tell me it is not misleading. You’re saying it is a grocery rebate, when, in fact, a senior who goes and spends that money on tools at The Home Depot or on golf clubs or whatever the case may be — and I’m not suggesting that there is anything nefarious about what the government is doing, but call it what it is.

It is not a grocery rebate, so why is it called a grocery rebate? Every part of your answer, Senator Gold, was exactly what you heard Senator Batters say under her breath: “a PR game.”

That is what the term “grocery rebate” is, so you don’t need to sell your bill. Senator Lankin will help you answer this, if you need help — she is already helping you — but tell us why you are calling it a grocery rebate when it is not a grocery rebate?

That’s all I want to know. I don’t want you to sell the bill to me; I will vote for it.

Senator Gold: Thank goodness for that.

Senator Gold: Senator Plett, I am going to keep a promise to myself today to not get drawn into this, so I am just going to say this: I have answered your question.

This initiative was in response to the continuing rising cost of groceries that affects moderate- and low-income Canadians. Putting food on the table for yourself and your family is one of the most basic human needs — that and shelter — and the government is doing its part to help Canadians. It is delivering it through the fastest, most efficient and dignified mechanism it can, as any responsible government would and should do.

It is not a PR exercise. This is an exercise in helping Canadians. Those who need it the most know that this is going to help them. With all due respect, I am not going to be distracted or misled by rhetoric around how it is named or — and I am answering the question.

Senator Gold: First of all, senator, thank you for your question. Thank you for underlining the challenges that are facing all Canadians affected by this strike.

The position of this government is, has been and will continue to be to support the collective bargaining process. It has confidence in this process, in its negotiators and in the leadership of the unions to try to reach an appropriate negotiated settlement.

It is true that strikes are disruptive. It is true that there has been and may continue to be inconvenience to Canadians. The government is committed to being transparent about these matters and the impact on services. Essential federal services, which protect the safety and security of the public, are continuing and will continue to be delivered. This includes payments for Old Age Security, Canada Pension Plan, Child Care Benefit, veterans’ and unemployment insurance. Other services may be partially or indeed fully disrupted, and that includes Service Canada centres, passports and the like.

It is not business as usual. The government’s priority is to support the collective bargaining process in the hope that a negotiated settlement can be reached soon.

Senator Gold: The government is not going to apologize for helping Canadians. You listed a litany of issues — potholes, health care — many of which are outside of provincial jurisdiction. Of course, it is the privilege of the opposition to say what they want without having to offer real solutions.

Here is what the Government of Canada has done to offer solutions: As part of Bill C-46, the government has offered a grocery rebate to 11 million Canadian households — which I will be speaking to later today and which I hope we will debate.

The government is providing $2 billion to provinces to assist them with health care challenges — provincial jurisdiction, federal assistance.

The government has struck agreements in principle with nine provinces in terms of health care transfers, representing a huge injection of funds into the provincial coffers — again, in areas of provincial jurisdiction but of benefit to Canadians.

In addition, the government has provided assistance to Canadians — which I have catalogued on earlier occasions — to help them with challenges based on rising rents, not only in Toronto but elsewhere in the country. The government has also provided assistance to deal with the impact that inflation has had. Happily, inflation is coming down, but the government knows and appreciates that Canadians are still struggling to make ends meet. That is why the government is there. These are the facts that matter to Canadians.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Thank you for both questions, senator. I’m not sure that I have the precise level in regard to your latter question. These are the questions that will be easily answered, I would assume, in the first meeting of the committee that is called upon to study this bill — where officials will be present. If that will not happen quickly, I will try to obtain the answer and report back to the chamber. I look forward to the study at committee of this bill, and those questions, of course, will be answered competently by the officials.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, and congratulations again on the bill that has passed in the House of Commons. It reflects the importance of the work we do in this place. It is a credit to you and to us. Please allow me to share that honour with you.

That being said, the government’s intentions are not necessarily set in stone yet, so I don’t have anything specific to share with you in terms of the details of the government’s planned legislation. As soon as the discussions turn into proposed legislation, the Senate will be informed.

[English]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, Senator Cormier, for that important question that raises a major issue.

Unfortunately, I do not have the dates for the start of the consultations. Obviously, I will try to get answers shortly.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question and for underlining the terribly difficult circumstances that all people, including Canadians, are experiencing in Sudan.

The government is looking at every possible option to support Canadians in Sudan. Last week, the Canadian Armed Forces Strategic Advisory Team, as well as liaison officers from the military, were deployed to Djibouti to support the evacuation of Canadian personnel from the Canadian embassy. As you know, services are being provided from outside the country as best as they can be. They are working in collaboration with their allies and partner nations.

Over this past weekend, additional personnel from the Armed Forces and Department of National Defence, including a military assistance team with additional liaison reconnaissance elements, were deployed to begin planning for non-combatant evacuation. We have approximately 200 Canadian Armed Forces members deployed to the region to assist with this line of effort. The government will do everything it can to assist.

The circumstances are challenging on the ground, as you would expect, and the government is hopeful that its efforts will bear fruit so that all Canadians can be evacuated safely as soon as possible.

[Translation]

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

The government remains committed to taking steps toward pharmacare, and it is in active discussions, as you would expect, with not only the NDP — because, as you properly mentioned, this is part of the supply and confidence agreement — but as you also appreciate, Senator Osler, this is also a matter over which to engage the provinces and territories. Any sensible plan needs to make sure it will land properly with the partners in the jurisdictions that have primary responsibility.

As well, the budget to which you made reference had to strike an important balance between continuing to invest in the future, providing assistance to Canadians who have gone through difficult times and being fiscally responsible. It is the position of the government that it did strike that balance, but this particular budget, for several reasons, was not one in which additional expenditures could be made, above and beyond the massive investments in health care to which I have already referred.

But the government continues to treat it seriously and is working with its partners to move it forward.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. Despite all the time that has passed, it is always appropriate to pay tribute to the victims of this tragic and horrific attack, which hits close to home for me. I hope that everyone in this chamber and in Canada feels moved by what happened.

The Government of Canada received the request for extradition. It is being examined, and the decision will be communicated to the public as soon as it has been made.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Gold, perhaps I missed it, but what did you say the total cost of this particular bill is?

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Senator Gold, we are talking about the grocery rebate, and I have to tell you that on my street the other day, I saw a senior go to Canadian Tire and buy a lot of tools. They could have used their grocery rebate to buy the tools, but I was looking at him, and he looked pretty healthy to me — well-fed. I am assuming he had eaten and that he had bought groceries as of late.

Is the government going to say he should not be eating because he bought some tools, or can he use the grocery rebate to rebate the groceries he bought, the prices of which are going up astronomically?

Do they apply to the groceries that he bought?

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

This government is of the view that Canadians make responsible choices in their lives and that it is not the business of government to tell them what to do.

It is the business of government to help Canadians when they are in need, and in this regard, the position of this government is the same as the traditional position — or at least the position of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and, I would hope, the Conservative Party of Canada of today — and that is that we trust Canadians to make responsible decisions when they are given the benefit of either assistance or tax breaks.

We trust Canadians. We know that those who are in need will use the money responsibly for their families, and in this moment in time in our country, they need help putting food on their tables.

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

The impetus for providing assistance to Canadians was very much a function of the rising cost of groceries, a rise that continued even when global inflation came down through the combination of efforts of the Bank of Canada, the government and the operation of our economy more generally.

It is not misleading to identify this particular assistance as a grocery rebate, because that was really what was at the heart of it.

However, what the government chose to do was to deliver it in the most efficient, effective and dignified way to those Canadians and households — half of Canadian seniors — with moderate incomes.

It would be wrong to ask people who are struggling to pay their bills to not only continue to struggle but to keep their IGA clips for their litres of milk. This is the most efficient and quick way to get it into the hands of Canadians who need it most. It is designed to help them with the cost of groceries, and this government’s position is that it would be completely wrong to demand that; we’re not talking about huge sums of money. This is a prudent and practical way to assist, in some measure, those households. Nobody believes that this will solve the problem of the rising cost of groceries, whether it is a family of one, a single person or a family of five. It is help that the government can afford to provide and is happy to provide.