Senator Gold: Those are fair questions. Thank you for that.

The short answer to the latter part of the question is that the government sought a three-month extension, which was granted by the court yesterday in the latter part of the day. My office was informed of it midday today, and the first thing I did — as some of you would know, and I hope you shared it with your colleagues — was I spoke to all the leaders to inform them, and I also called Senator Dennis Patterson, who was the one who had raised this first. At the time he raised the question, I did not know that the government had sought an extension, and I still don’t know exactly when they made that decision.

But I can state with some confidence that when a request for such an extension is made, it does not come with an automatic date for the hearing, much less certainty of the conclusion. I strongly believe the government acted responsibly, as the deadline was approaching, to seek an extension — and they got it — in the event that circumstances in the other place, which are not always smooth sailing, were such that they couldn’t get it to us in time, or, indeed, whenever they could get it to us, we would not have time or the will to move quickly.

In that regard, I do also want to remind senators and thank them because when we did get the bill, and it was introduced in this place, I asked all leaders and all senators to study it properly, as we did — and we improved it — and to do so with dispatch so it could be sent back to the House before we rose for the summer.

Why did I ask that? Because the deadline was known, and I thought it was only appropriate that we give the House of Commons the equivalent amount of time to study the bill that we chose to take to do it. We didn’t rush our study, and they, as it turns out, spent less time on the bill than we were able to devote to it.

The only point of difference, Senator Plett, that I would take with your question — because it’s a fair question — is I don’t think we’re being asked to rush this. I think that our committee did tremendous work. Earlier in the week I circulated both to leadership and to all senators a high-level summary of the amendments that were accepted, tweaked and introduced in the other place.

We’re here on a Thursday. It’s 3:30 p.m. We have plenty of time for each and every senator to take the floor and debate it. I continue to hope that we will conclude the debate, send it for Royal Assent and complete the work that we began and that we began so well.

Thank you.

Senator Gold: Again, Senator Housakos, you are implying wrongdoing and many things without evidence and I will not dignify those by engaging with you on that, except to say that allegations of wrongdoing, such as they may be, are being investigated whether internally or, as I mentioned before, by the RCMP.

Senator Gold: Of course.

Senator Gold: I apologize. Yes, they did. They sought and received a three-month extension.

I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear on that.

Senator Gold: Thank you. Again, it’s a legitimate and important question. I don’t know what thinking, if any, the government has put into this particular issue. It was not very long ago that the tweak, or the change, was made in the other place. You can be sure that I will raise this issue, and I fully expect that once Royal Assent is granted to this bill, this issue — and all the other issues that flow from Bill S-12 — will be taken up with proper consideration.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your comments. I really don’t know, frankly, if there is anything else to add. I believe it reflects the government’s agreement that the older way of describing this material was inappropriate, and that the definition advanced in the bill — which you sponsored here in the Senate — is a more appropriate and accurate way to describe this material. None of us wants to see it exist, but it does exist, and, therefore, it needs to be dealt with appropriately and under the Criminal Code.

Senator Gold: Senator, I will read from the directive:

Chaplains shall endeavour to ensure that all feel included and able to participate in the reflection . . . no matter their beliefs . . . .

This is not banning prayer. To continue to suggest otherwise is not true and, indeed, insulting to those who would like to see their faiths and beliefs reflected in these important public pronunciations.

Senator Gold: The government supports grain farmers. They do important, noble work on all of our behalf.

The fact that the government has a position that is different in a bill that uses its right — our right as senators — to seek to improve bills is something that is totally appropriate, and the government makes no apologies for doing that.

Senator Gold: Again, Senator Marshall, I do not have the answer to that question, but it’s a legitimate one. I will certainly make inquiries so that I better understand the situation.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: It’s a very good question. I will answer the question, and then I will comment.

I don’t know exactly what measures might be taken going forward, whether it’s by the federal government, the Crowns or those responsible for the administration of justice. It is still the case — notwithstanding that the committee deleted the amendment — that victims and witnesses are informed of the nature of publication bans and procedures. I’ll certainly make inquiries. It’s an important question for the simple reason that it’s one thing for some of us — when provided with such information — to know how to navigate it. It’s not always obvious to others either because of the circumstances or the stress they are under, or their lack of access to the kind of resources that some of us are more privileged to have.

It’s a fair question, and it’s the government’s position that the objective of this was laudable. But there were concerns that were raised in the other place. I believe it was unanimous, Senator Pate — all members of the committee voted to delete it. I’ll certainly do some follow-up to find out what, if anything, is being done, and to bring forward your preoccupations — which I’m sure you will also continue to advance — to the attention of the relevant minister.

Senator Gold: There is a migrant crisis around the world, including in Canada. The government streamlined the asylum claim process and increased its processing capacity. It has done a lot to tackle this challenge. I understand that the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Canada Border Services Agency are implementing innovative measures to streamline the process and deal with pending applications as quickly as possible.

[English]

Senator Gold: I don’t have any details to share with you, but I do want to reiterate the importance of dialogue, not only with the provinces and territories, and not only with employers, but also with unions. You noted that, and the government recognizes it as well. It is crucial to our economy that all stakeholders be at the bargaining table.

[English]

Senator Gold: Of course.

Senator Gold: The record will show that I am correct. Senator Batters is correct that I voted in support of an amendment, albeit one that was defeated.

Senator Gold: I have three points. First of all, my understanding is that the government has established working groups with the provinces and territories, and they have been meeting regularly since 2017 to discuss and coordinate public education. Second, there is a legislative review of the Cannabis Act, as we know, that was launched last year. Third, in that regard, I’m advised that the review is being done by an independent expert panel. Their important work is ongoing.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Once again, access to information is vitally important in a democracy. I will add that to my questions for the government.

Senator Gold: Thank you, colleague.

As you know, the government has already implemented Canada’s first anti-racism strategy and is building on those efforts to develop a new strategy that includes an anti-hate action plan. This strategy is supported by close to $200 million in funding.

I don’t have a date for the launch of the national action plan, but the government has always been committed to supporting 2SLGBTQI+ communities and will always stand against hate.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. You are right in saying that the price of food and housing are two reasons for the challenges Canadians are facing. I will repeat, once again, that the government will continue to work hard to ensure that the situation improves for Canadians.

Senator Gold: I will certainly inquire as to the status of the thinking of the government in this regard. Again, it is important that our public policy strike the right balance to support the charitable sector, but also to be appropriate in all other respects. I have every confidence that is the goal of the government.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. It’s an important one.

The government has taken a public health approach to the regulation of cannabis. That was the hallmark of the legislation we passed in this chamber some years ago. The government, in terms of its responsibility, along with provinces and others, is disseminating clear, factual evidence and information to users and potential users as to the health risks, the potency of the products, their composition, the provenance and so on. In that way, Canadians of all ages are able to make informed choices as to whether they should consume, what they should consume and when they should consume.

The government will continue to make available public information to continue to educate and inform Canadians about cannabis. It supports and plays a role in a national dialogue about the health and safety of these products.