Senator Marshall: My supplementary question relates to — again — the lack of financial information. It’s just not available. When I asked you the question in May or June, I mentioned that there is an air of secrecy over some of this information. At the time, you took offence and didn’t agree with me.

Even the simplest of information isn’t being provided. This is information that, historically, the government has been free to provide to us in committee. I find that the door is now being shut on even the most basic information.

I’ll give you an example. In June, I asked Department of Finance officials for the consolidated debt of the government. That would be the central government plus all its Crown corporations. In the past, they have always provided me with the number or would later send it as a follow-up. Now I can’t get that number.

The strange thing about this is that I could get the number myself, but I’d have to go through about 12 different financial documents and add up the numbers. It would take me a day to do it. I don’t understand why the government is so secretive over very basic financial information.

You continually talk about transparency, but when you talk about the government being transparent, I always think about the difficulty I’m having in getting basic financial information.

My question is the same as the last time: Why is the government so secretive about basic information that, though I can’t say is readily available, you could find if you put a day’s effort into it? Can you answer that question? Can you explain it?

Senator Wallin: We have made a promise and a commitment, and the President of Ukraine is arriving tomorrow. This is a question that can be solved. Can you put some kind of timeline on it? I have one constituent who has been waiting without a cent coming into his pocket since June 15, having filled out every form, having paid his own way and living off the kindness of strangers in our community.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I certainly will bring these to the attention of the minister. I can also tell you that I have the personal experience to which you refer of someone who on approximately the same timeline is still waiting for resolution. I understand these things take time and I understand the frustration and difficulty that the delays or the times imposed. The government is working as hard as it can to address them.

Senator Gold: Decisions were made in the past and are being made today about what images appear on our passport. The images that you mentioned are important, but there were many others that were invisible in the previous design. The decision was made to ensure that the passport better reflects Canada, and not just one image in particular. The government understands that there has been grumbling in some circles. Let’s not forget, however, that when the last passport was put in place with the images you described, there was also discontent because some people didn’t see themselves in those images. There will always be differences of opinion on the symbols used. The government made a choice and followed the rules to ensure that the passport is more inclusive and better reflects our country’s diversity.

[English]

Senator Gold: Again, I certainly understand and respect the question. I will certainly bring this to the attention of the relevant minister.

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: Yes, we’re all very well aware of Liberal action. It’s called public relations exercises by calling grocers here to Ottawa and basically saying, “The burden to solve the problem is on you,” because of the incompetence of your government. This is the same government that six years ago promised in their electoral program to get rid of a GST on the construction of rental housing in this country — six years ago. Talk about always trying to catch up to the curve.

The truth of the matter is that when you’re putting in place a carbon tax, which is going to be punishing middle-class and working-class Canadians who are trying to heat their homes, put shoes on their children’s feet and drive their children to school, that’s a tax that is directly causing inflation and is directly causing a growth in the cost of living, and your government is doing nothing. All you have to do is put a pause on that tax.

I know you love taking money out of people’s pockets as a government, but put a pause on that tax so that Canadians can have a break.

Senator Gold: It is simply not the case that the Prime Minister is appointing “supporters” of him. He has named three eminent, qualified senators who are not identified with any political party. NSICOP has members of the Conservative Party and all opposition parties in the chamber. It is a well-rounded, diverse and extremely competent body that has served Canadians well.

Senator Gold: The extension of the loan repayment to Canadians is an example of this government being sensitive to the fact that though the payments were necessary for many thousands of businesses and, indeed, critical in helping our economy weather this storm, circumstances have made it difficult for many to repay it. That is why the government is extending the time in order to give companies a longer period of time to repay and take advantage of the benefits that the program provides.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I don’t have concrete examples to provide. I do know that the government is committed to working with its allies and, indeed, beyond its allies, with those countries that have expressed an interest — as I said on another occasion, in their own self-interest — in reducing carbon emissions so that their resources and the world’s resources will not be further degraded.

In that regard, the fight against climate change is part of the international suite of priorities that Canada continues to prosecute with its counterparts on the world stage.

[Translation]

Senator Coyle: Thank you, Senator Gold.

Senator Gold, we also know that international cooperation on climate is of paramount importance. In fact, without more, better and sustained global collaboration on climate, we’re at serious risk of exceeding the 1.5-degree Paris Agreement target.

Senator Gold, in today’s ever-more-fractured geopolitical world, could you tell us if and how Canada plans to be more proactive on climate diplomacy?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. It’s a fair question. I am not in a position to explain the delays in getting the information that you’re seeking; however, once again, I will do my best to try to facilitate the discharge of that information.

Senator Batters: The Department of Justice actually would have this information, or absolutely should have this information, as they draft such a bill, because all we’re looking at are the types of offences and the number of years that an offence would potentially be subject to. If you don’t know the answer, that’s fine, but can you please get us the answer as soon as possible, particularly as you are looking for very quick passage? You are the Senate sponsor of this bill and the government leader in the Senate.

The Department of Justice absolutely would have done such an assessment to determine how many potential offences this type of bill would cover. Could you please get us that information as soon as possible?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question and your comment.

I have confidence in the Senate. I have confidence in the committee that it will develop a work plan that is appropriate to the bill — its content, the issues it raises and its importance. I’m confident that the Senate will strike the appropriate balance as we have always done — at least in this era — balancing the importance of the bill and the support for the bill from those who are seized with the responsibility of living with it — Indigenous and other communities, and provinces and territories — and the need for us to do our constitutional job of providing proper, critical review of legislation before us. That is what is before us, and I have every confidence we will do the job Canadians expect us to do.

[Translation]

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Gold: Every bill is different, raises different issues and requires different points of view to be properly brought to bear on it. So I don’t know what is typical for a very short bill like this, the principles of which — I hope to your satisfaction — I have certainly outlined accurately. The government has made a policy choice, in consultation, not only with all provincial governments but with other stakeholders, to make some additional changes to the existing bail reform system, which already contains measures and reverse-onus provisions for serious crimes. This simply adds to — and, in some senses, perfects or completes — some of the work that was already done by us in the chamber with the bills, which I mentioned, in 2019.

I am confident that the committee will hear from the necessary witnesses and that all points of view will be properly canvassed. Senators will have the opportunity to question not only the minister and the officials, but also those who have different points of view. I have every confidence that our debate in the chamber will be as robust as we choose for it to be.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. It’s a fair question. I think that’s a question that should be explored at committee and posed to the officials as to why specific mention was made not just simply of Parliament but of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in the House of Commons, which is typically the place in the other place that deals with these matters.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Ontario Provincial Police Constable Brett Boniface, Senator Boniface’s son; as well as Grayson and Hudson, her grandsons.

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

Senator Gold: The government takes very seriously the impact of the criminal law and the criminal justice system on Canadians and is very aware — as we all are — of the disparate impact that any otherwise neutral law has on those with means and those without. Independent of whether it’s a reverse onus, if you have the means to have a good lawyer, you’re going to navigate the system far better than if you’re impecunious. That’s a fact of life in our society.

This government has taken these issues very seriously, and again — at the risk of saying more than is necessary at second reading — to its credit, as compared with previous governments.

That said, this builds upon an existing body of law in the Criminal Code and an existing body of law in our courts that recognize that it’s appropriate, at times, to reverse the onus because otherwise the risk to public safety, individuals and communities is unreasonably compromised, potentially. Judges always retain the same discretion, for better and for worse, in the face of someone accused of a crime in applying for bail.

These are proper questions for the committee, proper questions for the minister and the officials and for the other witnesses, but I am assured that the government is taking these considerations very seriously and believes that the collateral impact of these changes, modest though some of them may seem — and some of them are, as I explained in my speech — will not materially change what is the unfortunate disparate impact of our criminal law on those with more and less means.

[Translation]

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(At 4:59 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, September 26, 2023, at 2 p.m.)