Senator Gold: At the risk of repeating myself, it’s up to the committee to decide how to proceed with this bill.

I wear two hats: one as a parent and the other as the Government Representative. I also have some suggestions when it comes to witnesses, like the other committee members I’m sure. As I already said to Senator Downe, we need to take our time, given the issues raised. Yes, it’s always interesting and important to consult committee evidence from the other place from time to time. However, in my experience of nearly seven years in the Senate, it isn’t often that we say that they’ve done good work and there isn’t much left to do. The same witnesses appear regularly before our committees with the same briefs; the same questions are asked and the same answers are given.

For me, it’s not simply a question of saying they didn’t conduct a study. They made their decision, and it’s their prerogative to do so. We have a job to do, and I prefer to focus on the need to study this bill properly, regardless of what happened in the other place. Again, I’m confident we will do the job right. This bill is rather short, but that doesn’t make it any less important. It’s not a quantitative issue, nor is it new. There’s already case law on reverse onus. The courts have provided us with certain criteria. We have a responsibility not only to study the bill properly, but also to respect the parameters of our role in making constitutional public policy choices, with the support of all the provinces and territories. We have to find the right balance. Once again, I have full confidence in the House, and I believe that the committee is in a good position to study the bill.

[English]

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. Obviously, a critical question is what the impact of this bill is or what it might have been. I’m not going to hide behind speculation; the bill was not in place.

However, I will bring to the Senate’s attention, as I mentioned only in passing, that we don’t have proper data. There are a number of reasons for this. Not all bail decisions are actually recorded, and even those that are recorded are not necessarily gathered, aggregated or analyzed at the provincial level. Some of these decisions are made at the justice of the peace level, and there is simply no record of them, nor is there a system yet in place for gathering all the data — incomplete though it surely is at this point — and analyzing it.

It is hoped that through this bill and through, indeed, the commitment of the provinces and territories to do their part in their areas of jurisdiction, that we will start to have better, more comprehensive data and that we, as parliamentarians — whether it’s in five years, during the parliamentary review, or whether we choose to pursue that study in the interim through committees — will be able to answer those questions with greater certainty.

It’s important to understand as well, though, that these reverse‑onus provisions are situated in the context of the fundamental principles of our criminal justice system as protected, guaranteed and reflected in the Charter of Rights. This means that judges still have discretion to grant or deny bail, or to impose the conditions they see fit in the interests of public safety, whether they are dealing with a reverse-onus provision or not.

These are believed, by the Government of Canada and all the provinces and territories, to be helpful steps forward to strengthen the bail system and protect Canadian communities to a greater degree. Their impact awaits analysis and will require a serious commitment to data collection and analysis in that regard.

Senator Gold: Thank you. You are raising important issues.

As you would expect, the government is very aware of the concerns that were expressed, not only by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, but also the Elizabeth Fry Society and John Howard Society. It is clear that one important consideration in this was to ensure that the measures in this bill — the changes or, in some cases, tweaking in this bill — were done in the most narrow and focused way not only to satisfy the Charter, fundamental though it is, but also to minimize knock-on or collateral effects.

The concern about overrepresentation of Indigenous, marginalized and racialized people is a real one this government has taken very seriously, as evidenced by many of the measures that it has already introduced, including ones concerning minimum mandatory sentences and the like. It was also at the heart of the discussions that were had with many of the stakeholders as this bill was developed.

The Senate is not rushing this through. The decision was made in the other place, and not at the initiative of the government, to pass it all in one stage. When the motion was put on the table, for their reasons, all members of the House of Commons — all parties, unanimously — supported this. I think it was in recognition, by the way, that this is something of importance to communities, territories, provinces and those responsible for administering the justice system.

We, in the Senate, are going to do our job. As many of you will know by now, this bill will be sent to the Legal Committee, which will draft its work plan and conduct itself as it sees fit. I have every confidence in the committee and in this chamber to give it the proper attention it deserves, to hear from the witnesses both for and against and to do our job. All I ask is that senators keep an open mind and please follow the workings of the committee, if you see fit, so that when it does come out of committee and we have our third-reading debate, it is as informed as possible.

But it is important to the 13 provinces and territories, the stakeholders and the communities that we do our work properly and diligently, because this is a matter of public safety and public importance.

Senator Gold: Yes, I can offer you those assurances, senator, and thank you for the question. I’m told that Canadian officials are in contact and providing consular assistance to the Canadians and their families.

[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 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. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for your and other senators’ ongoing commitment to holding the government to account on financial matters. I will certainly bring your preoccupations to the attention of the minister and hope very much that the information you request is forthcoming.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, I was happy yesterday to hear you acknowledge the struggles being faced by Canadians, especially when it comes to the soaring cost of food and housing prices.

Also yesterday, incidentally, I was even happier to see the Honourable Pierre Poilievre introduce a bill called “Building Homes Not Bureaucracy.” While your government says it will drop the GST on construction of rental properties, conversely, you are threatening an extra tax to supposedly somehow combat the soaring food inflation Canadians are dealing with because of your fiscal mismanagement.

How does that work, Senator Gold? How does adding a new tax, which will be passed on to consumers, help to lower the cost of food for Canadians, who will have to choose between eating and heating during these winter months?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): One of the impetuses for Bill C-18 was a recognition that traditional media were really struggling in the face of changing circumstances and that the giants — two of whom you mentioned — were benefiting without contributing their fair share.

The government was always aware that the tech giants would use their market force to try to bully Canada and try to impede our ability to have them sit down and negotiate fair deals with both big and small media outlets in Canada. They are doing exactly what their nature seems to be doing, and the Government of Canada remains committed that it’s doing the right thing for Canada and will continue to do so in the face of the bullying tactics of big tech.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, and, again, I do regret that the answers that were requested have not yet been forthcoming. I’ll certainly follow up and make every effort to get those answers.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, just a couple of months after this chamber acquiesced to the government on a bill that the opposition warned would have the opposite of the desired effect — we warned that instead of saving media, Bill C-18 would be its death knell, especially for local and smaller outlets — and despite those warnings, the Online News Act was passed, and here we are, Senator Gold.

Facebook wasted no time carrying through on its threat, a threat you and your government scoffed at. As promised, they are out of the news business in this country. Google looks poised to follow very soon.

How is that working out for us, Senator Gold? This week we heard about Torstar Corporation shutting down its Metroland Media Group publications, and they won’t even pay severance to those who lost their jobs. What does your government have to say about how well Bill C-18 is doing with regard to saving media in this country?

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: My question is along the same lines as the previous questions, Senator Gold.

The Senate has a duty to carefully consider all of these bills, especially those that reverse the burden of proof. Wouldn’t you agree that that burden is even greater today? The House of Commons passed this bill without convening a real committee of the whole. There were no submissions or witnesses, and the bill passed in one day.

In that context, shouldn’t we be a little more thorough and take a bit longer than usual to get written submissions from the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec, the Association des avocats de la défense and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which is quoted in The Globe and Mail today criticizing the fact that it wasn’t consulted and that it didn’t even have time to prepare?

Shouldn’t we take our time on this? If the House of Commons thought this bill was so urgent, it could have passed it before June 22. They passed it the first day they were back in the House. We could have worked on it over the summer.

Hon. Brent Cotter: Senator Gold, thank you for your remarks and for your leadership on an important bill that is being considered by this chamber.

I’m a member of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, where it seems likely this bill will go, so I’ll have a decent number of opportunities to explore the bill, but I did want to ask one, what I would call, institutional question, in your capacity both as sponsor of the bill and as Leader of the Government in the Senate. You made reference to the five-year review and you used, I thought very carefully, the words “reviewed by Parliament.” But I think as you know, the bill calls for a review by the House of Commons.

I have in front of me here the clause, which is clause 2 of the bill, a review on the fifth anniversary to be carried out by a standing committee of the House of Commons.

This strikes me as not entirely respectful of this portion of Parliament, and in light of your endorsement of the confidence you have in the Senate, which I believe was part of your speech, I wonder if you could speak to what I would call an oversight. I would be interested in your view on that, especially since, as I seem to understand, the House of Commons didn’t study it at all in the first go-round.