Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. The Government of Canada has a great deal of respect for the commissioner’s recommendations. That is his job and he does it very well. The government will take into consideration all his recommendations to ensure that the situation improves.

However, again, Bill C-13 contains very important changes and improvements that intersect with your question, and I hope that the bill will receive Royal Assent as soon as possible.

[English]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question.

Although I am not familiar with all of the details as to how the $2.5 million will be allocated, as I said, it will be allocated to set up the standing Indigenous table on missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and to include the implementation of a Red Dress alert.

I will bring your question to the attention of the appropriate minister or ministers, but this is a very important start on which the federal government is taking the lead.

[Translation]

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Honourable senators, last year in February, I spoke on the issue of neglected tropical diseases, or NTDs, a group of 20 infectious diseases and conditions affecting 1.7 billion people in the world. That’s 1 out of every 5 people living on the planet today.

NTDs are diseases you may have heard of: leprosy, river blindness, dengue fever, parasitic stomach worms and so on. These are ancient diseases that affect the lives of people living in the most disadvantaged and vulnerable communities in the world, even here in Canada.

As we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, the global community has realized again not only the devastation that can be wrought on people’s lives by infectious diseases, but the need for strong health systems to deliver health care to all, leaving no one behind.

We have to step up the fight against NTDs. Not only is it the right thing to do, but also because it is through the control, elimination and eradication of neglected tropical diseases that we can make massive contributions to broader global health, such as universal health coverage and pandemic preparedness.

Investment in NTDs goes far beyond treating the diseases themselves. The presence of NTDs in a household can perpetuate a generational cycle of poverty. By addressing NTDs, we contribute to healthier communities with better outcomes for children, better economic outputs in households and reduction of lifelong disability and disfigurement.

It would be irresponsible to do everything we have done to help people survive COVID only to leave them vulnerable to these preventable and treatable diseases. Now is the right time to accelerate our work.

Climate change will have — and is having — both a direct and indirect impact on NTDs, such as increasing geographic locations of diseases such as dengue and by displacement of people into areas where NTDs persist.

As was said so often during COVID-19, no one is safe until everyone is safe. It is time for action — inaction is not an option.

A year ago this month, Canada endorsed the Kigali Declaration, committing to being a part of the global efforts to address NTDs. In addition to myself, Senator Boehm and Senator Ravalia have been encouraging our government to act more vigorously. We congratulate the government for taking this first step toward action. We also continue to encourage the government to do more, to commit the resources needed to help end the neglect of NTDs and to realize the right to health that people everywhere deserve. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Senator Shugart’s wife, Mrs. Linda Shugart, and his daughter, Robin Shugart.

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. Ibrahima Socé Fall, Dr. Anthony Solomon and Alison Krentel. They are the guests of the Honourable Senators Boehm and Kutcher.

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

Senator Cordy: Thank you, Senator Gold. That is very positive.

We know that a motion made in the other place — or in this place — does not necessarily compel the government to act; although, you have said that they will be doing that, which is a positive thing.

As you stated, the alert systems are the jurisdictions of the provinces and territories. My question is: Will the federal government take a leadership role so that it is not just one province or one territory but, in fact, the whole country? Will the federal government take a leadership role to make the alert system a reality, and will the federal government provide some funding to help the provinces and the territories set up the alert system?

Hon. Robert Black: Honourable colleagues, I rise today to applaud the innovative and progressive work of Canada’s agriculture and processing sectors, and to highlight the red tape limiting industry’s innovations.

I recently met with representatives of Dairy Distillery, the producers of Vodkow. Many of you may be aware of this amazing and great-tasting vodka produced using dairy processing by-products. This Almonte, Ontario, business is well-known throughout Canada for its excellent spirits, but also for pivoting from making Vodkow during the COVID-19 pandemic to producing hand sanitizer, a significant amount of which they donated throughout the region and province.

This organization has taken an innovative approach to waste reduction by using dairy permeate surplus to produce ethanol. It’s innovative, progressive and an excellent addition to Canada’s economy. However, fellow senators, the government’s lack of support for innovation is clearly apparent for the Dairy Distillery and many other companies across Canada. Due to the lack of commitment to small businesses and the ever-growing changes, rules and regulations placed on Canadian business, known as red tape, Dairy Distillery has been forced to move to produce ethanol in the United States, and they are using U.S. dairy permeate surplus to produce this ethanol.

The current U.S. administration has offered significant subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act, which now is costing Canadian innovation and ingenuity. Though Dairy Distillery has acknowledged there are Canadian markets to establish an ethanol production operation here in Canada, it simply cannot find a competitive avenue to exist in this country. So they’ve settled in Michigan.

Senators, I’m concerned about the current government practices. Valuable businesses like the Dairy Distillery worked to support Canadians in times of crisis — they produced hand sanitizer for us. Now, in the climate crisis, they’re producing 2.2 million gallons of cleaner ethanol each year in partnership with a dairy co-op, which is calculated to displace 14,000 tonnes of carbon. That would mean a 5% reduction in the amount of carbon produced by that co-op. The plant will be powered by methane produced in the ethanol production process as well.

This eco-friendly process aligns with the green ambitions of this country and this government, yet they are forced to move across the border, and the U.S. will reap the benefits of the 2.2 million gallons of ethanol.

Colleagues, we must continue to foster the interests of green enterprise. Climate change is real, and the Canadian government needs to take priority action to encourage businesses to establish within our country.

I thank the Dairy Distillery for its hard work for Canadians, and hope that soon there will be equal opportunity for them to innovate here in Canada. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Senator Gold: I do not have information at this juncture. When I do find out, I will be sharing it with the leaders and, as is my practice, with any interested senators so that we will know when and if we will receive it, by the way, because the amendments are still being studied. I will resist the opportunity to say that it would have received Royal Assent had we not amended it, but the Senate did its work and now we have to see how the House of Commons, the government and the other opposition parties respond to our amendments. As soon as I know more, I will certainly share it with the chamber.

[Translation]

Senator Pate: Thank you for that, Senator Gold.

Do you have any information or can you shed any light on when exactly we are likely to see Bill C-22 coming back to us so that people with disabilities can be pulled out of poverty?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. As I have stated on many occasions, and I will repeat it again, it is the position of the government that the Special Rapporteur’s mandate has been discharged in an exemplary fashion with the publication of the report. The ongoing work that will follow the report is and will be to the benefit of Canadians and our security against foreign interference.

Senator Yussuff: First, thank you for your question, Senator Plett.

As you know, the courts have ruled in regard to minimum sentences. The government reflected that in regard to its action. But, in regard to the current average sentence for smuggling and convictions, on average those who are convicted serve eight years of their sentence. As you know, and as I said in my speech, the government has signalled, again, that it will increase the sentence for those smuggling guns into our country.

There are many things that the government is doing to deal with firearm infractions at the community level — including how we can prevent young people from adopting habits where they associate with individuals who might persuade them into gun crime. The government has dedicated a lot of resources to ensure that we can achieve that. They’re working in many border communities to stop smuggling, as well as raising awareness and support for police officers on the front lines to ensure that we don’t have illegal guns in our country.

I think those efforts need to continue as long as necessary because criminals who want to smuggle illegal firearms into our country will continue to do so. We have to find ways to combat that, and work to strengthen legislation. This bill offers us some direction to ensure those things can happen, but, at the same time, it is about supporting our front-line officers who are doing their best at the border, and other areas, to ensure they can catch these people, and ultimately put them in the legal system, so that we can try them and ensure they serve sentences for the behaviour that they are involved in.

Senator Plett: In a democratic society, the government doesn’t have to adhere to democracy.

Senator Housakos: Not this one.

Senator Carignan: There seems to be a disconnect between what this government says and what it does. Once again, one of the Commissioner of Official Languages’ recommendations is a three-year plan for the Treasury Board to rectify the situation by 2025.

Senator Carignan: There seems to be a disconnect between what this government says and what it does. Once again, one of the Commissioner of Official Languages’ recommendations is a three-year plan for the Treasury Board to rectify the situation by 2025.

Why do we need the Commissioner of Official Languages to come up with a three-year plan? Is this government incapable of governing and making its own plans to address a disastrous report on official languages?

Senator Gold: Again, the short answer to your question is that the government is of the view, notwithstanding the motion, which is not binding on the government, that the best way forward remains that which is outlined in the Special Rapporteur’s report and the steps that are going to be taken.

With respect to your question — because there were a number of preambular statements — surely, Senator Housakos, you are not suggesting that the cultural institutions such as the one referred to yesterday by our colleague Senator Woo were in every corner illegal police stations simply because there are allegations that some activities within that large organization that has served the community for 50 years have been alleged to have been illegal, and that is what has been investigated.

It may very well be the case — though I have no information to this effect, because this is not information that the RCMP shares with the government during an ongoing investigation — that certain activities were indeed shut down and may have popped up again. We will not know until the investigations are done. Again, I think it is irresponsible, with all due respect, to categorize these as untruths or “mistruths” — whatever the term was, as Hansard will reveal — or lies, as your leader has just shared with the chamber. I think it is more accurate and responsible to await the results of the independent RCMP investigations into this very serious matter.

Senator Plett: No, it was not.

Senator Yussuff: Thank you for the question, Senator Dean. It’s hard to reflect on what happened in Hamilton, Ontario. I think as parents and families, we are all shocked. These were two young people, it seems, in their prime and trying to build their lives. Whatever happened, we’ll find out later in the courts. It is true, according to what has been reported so far, that the person who committed this terrible act had guns that he legally acquired and was licenced to carry. Again, in the context of gun violence, even good people do bad things.

The red-flag and yellow-flag provisions of this bill will hopefully aid in preventing some of those situations in the future. Should somebody suspect something of happening, they could bring it to the authorities and they could intervene either to confiscate the gun or take away the licence and put restrictions on that individual. That did not happen here, so we don’t have foresight into the future. We know in other places like the United States, where there are red- and yellow-flag laws, it would make a significant difference in preventing these types of situations from repeating themselves.

I’m hoping that if this bill does pass, it will aid people in the future with knowledge that there were issues in that home or with that landlord, and they could have brought it to the attention of the authorities to ensure something tragic wouldn’t happen. Now, nobody did that, but I think the government is committed so that, if the bill does pass, those provisions will get pronouncement so the public will better know how to use them in a more effective way.

In regard to sport shooters, it’s critical for us to recognize the important role they play in the Olympics and Paralympics in our country. For those who desire to continue to participate in that sport, I don’t think this bill will impact them in any way, shape or form. There are some requirements they must meet if they are legitimately involved in the sport and continue to practise and train going forward. The bill clearly recognizes that. It was improved in the other place as a result of the debate that took place and those who went before the committee.

Senator Yussuff: Thank you, Senator Cardozo, for your question. Hindsight is 20/20. Again, in the context of the government initiating this bill and trying to get support in the other place from the opposition, they ended up getting support from three parties. Some amendments had the support of all parties in the other place, recognizing that, in order to get a piece of legislation over here, there were compromises made in regard to what the legislation currently reflects.

From a personal view, reading the bill and watching the issue being debated, I think they reached a balance in trying to bring forth a piece of legislation that Canadians have been demanding the government to act upon for quite some time. I think it reflects that. I’m sure when the committee hearings start, we will hear from those who think the bill has gone too far and from those who think it hasn’t gone far enough. We will get to evaluate that for ourselves as senators and make a judgment.

From my perspective as the sponsor of the bill, I believe the bill has struck a balance, and I am hoping that colleagues will see that, not only in the context of the debate here, but also what the witnesses will say when they come before committee.

Senator Plett: Thank you. I’m not sure what Senator Dalphond said, but I’m assuming that it’s okay to ask him a question.

Senator Dalphond, yesterday, when we voted on the report stage of the bill, both you as the sponsor of the bill and, indeed, the government really opposed the motion. You may have said, “on division,” but “on division” means you don’t agree. Can we expect that you will be voting against the bill or on division a little bit later on?

You maybe didn’t get everything you wanted, but you got a bill that you wanted. I find it strange that the sponsor and, indeed, the government would vote on division on their own bill. Would you care to explain your rationale for that?

Senator Dalphond: I will certainly, as I said, call for the vote tonight, I will remain silent and the bill will be adopted on division.

Senator Yussuff: Well, I don’t want to comment on what a front-line officer is saying from his perspective. I don’t know the context upon which he is reflecting on what he has said. I respect his opinion in that regard.

I think you and I would agree there are many illegal handguns coming into our country at many of our borders. It has been identified, and the government has allocated significant resources to help our front-line officers deal with that.

Regarding handguns in general and what the government wants to do, municipalities in general and urban areas have been calling for the government to take action on reducing the number of guns in their communities. I think this bill reflects that consensus to a large extent in large urban areas across the country. They want to see a reduction of guns in their communities. They recognize, yes, there are illegal guns, but sometimes legal guns end up causing harm, such as in domestic violence or causing harm to individuals in the context of those who are struggling with mental issues using their own handguns or other guns to inflict harm upon themselves.

There are some challenges that we have to recognize and deal with in the broader context of guns. In no way will sport shooters be impacted by this bill. It lays out provisions regarding how sport shooters can continue to do their craft. There is recognition of how they will be able to continue accessing their guns and using them to pursue their sport, of which provisions were enhanced in the other place before the bill came to the Senate.