Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Senator Gold, I don’t need to tell anyone in the chamber — or you — how charities have suffered during COVID and post-COVID. Donations are down, while service demands are up, and now they are facing the negative tail end of the alternative minimum tax, which was in Budget 2023. According to a report by the Canadian Association of Gift Planners, they estimate that as much as 30% of the $11.4 billion that is given to charities annually could be tied up in these changes. That’s not chump change. That’s a lot of money, Senator Gold.

I don’t disagree with the principle of the alternative minimum tax. Canadians, whether they are wealthy or not, should pay their fair share, but this should not come at a cost to Canadian charities. Will the government remove the provisions impacting charities?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: My question is for Senator Gold. I wish to follow up on the question from a few days ago from Senator Cotter on the implementation of Bill C-22.

When we studied the bill at the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, we took the promise of then-Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Carla Qualtrough, for the co-creation of regulations as a promise that would be fulfilled. More disturbingly, the disabled community is telling us that — instead of a co-creation model — they are seeing standard round tables and online surveys, which are in no way “inclusionary” in the way they understood it.

Will the government change course and create a truly collaborative co-creation process for the implementation of Bill C-22?

Senator Omidvar: Senator Gold, would you also convey to the minister that one of the largest stakeholders, the March of Dimes, has raised this question with us? They have also raised the issue that there will be no money flowing to the disability community without an allocation somewhere.

Will the government table their financial allocation soon to assure the disability community that benefits will be flowing sooner rather than later? They really are concerned.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: I wish to ask Senator Gold a question, if he will take one.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Gold.

I am not a member of the Official Languages Committee. I don’t have the deep knowledge of the bill that my colleagues — who have spoken — have.

I understand what you have said: The reference to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language in the bill is not a political accommodation or a substantive accommodation; it’s a reference to fact and context. So far, I think I interpreted you correctly. I’m not a lawyer — I’m trying to explain it to myself in plain language.

My question is as follows: Does this set a precedent for future legislation to reference a provincial law that applies only to one province within a federal law that applies to all others?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Welcome back, Senator Gold. It’s good to see you looking fit and healthy.

I want to shift our attention to global affairs and, in particular, the feminist revolution in Iran. “For women, for life, for freedom” has become the rallying slogan, not just for the people of Iran but, in fact, around the world — so much so that the song won a Grammy a few days ago for Best Song for Social Change.

We know the social change and slogans must be accompanied by political action. Canada — I’m very pleased to say this — has already imposed sanctions on 127 Iranian individuals and 189 entities. My question to you is whether and when the government will move to the next logical step, which is to seize the assets of some of these individuals and repurpose them back to support the people of Iran in different ways. Thank you.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Gold. I feel that the next time I hear the words, “The government is seized with this issue,” I will likely have a seizure.

I understand that it is within the authority of the Attorney General to introduce an interim protective measure. Could you kindly convey this proposal to him on an urgent basis and ask him to consider it? Thank you.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Gold.

Senator Gold, let me first start with the good news before I get to my question. Yesterday, The Globe and Mail reported that Minister Sajjan and the government will table amendments to the Criminal Code so that international aid organizations operating in Afghanistan will be exempt from criminal charges under the code. However, as much as I am relieved that the government is listening to all the voices that have been raised on this issue, it concerns me that such an amendment will likely take a few months, at least, before it is passed into Royal Assent. We know that in this chamber. We could be looking at April or May.

Senator Gold, it is winter in Afghanistan now. The people in Afghanistan are freezing now, they are hungry now, they are sick now, and they need our help now. They cannot wait for Canadian due process to receive urgent aid to save their lives. Will the Attorney General then undertake an interim measure to guarantee the non-prosecution of Canadian international aid organizations providing humanitarian aid in good faith until the amendment is given Royal Assent?

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Gold, for that fulsome answer. I’m glad to have given you advance notice of it.

I do have an area of concern, though. In the next three years, the government is planning to increase immigration in almost every category, but by the year 2025, its target for refugees will decrease by roughly 2,600 or more.

Given all the turmoil in the world, given the 100 million displaced people in the world, our own pride in being a country of refuge, Senator Gold, are we turning our back on our own brand?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Wallin, for that question. It is indeed a novelty for me to answer a question. I can see Senator Gold looking very pleased as I do so.

I want to tell you, I really appreciate the thrust of your question because I believe the matter you have raised is one of great urgency. I have raised it in this chamber with Senator Gold. I have followed up with a letter to Minister Lametti that was co-signed by my colleagues Senator Ataullahjan, Senator Marty Deacon and Senator Jaffer.

But you’re asking me a question as the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. While I agree that a spot study could really provide some context and solutions to the government — although the solutions are apparent and clear because the U.K. and the U.S.A. have provided exemptions — I’m not sure that the Senate’s Social Affairs Committee is the right place. It is a matter of the anti‑terrorism code, so it could be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. It is a matter of the human rights of the Afghan people, so it could be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, and it is a matter of international development as well, so it could be referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I really appreciate the question, and I hope my colleagues who are the chairs of these other committees will take up your idea. Thank you.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: My question is to Senator Gold, the representative of the government in the Senate.

Senator Gold, I want to pursue the line of questioning undertaken by Senator Francis yesterday about the Maritimes and, particularly, about Prince Edward Island.

We all know how the people of the Maritimes are struggling to get their lives back. The situation is difficult and complex. The people of Canada are generous. They have opened their hearts and minds and wallets to the people of the Maritimes, and the Canadian government is matching their donations for disaster relief.

Senator Francis also noted that the Canadian Red Cross — the primary agency with which the government is matching donations — has had difficulty in rolling out aid and services to Maritimers and, in particular, Islanders. The charitable community is disappointed that the government has once again chosen to limit the matching funds to the Red Cross.

I have nothing against the Red Cross. They are a storied institution. We trust them and rely on them. However, I think we all know that when you are on the ground and in need, it is local agencies like the local United Way and the local food bank that are best positioned to provide immediate and effective relief.

Can you tell us why the government has made this choice of limiting matching dollars to only the Red Cross?

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Gold, for that response. I’m grateful that you will look into this matter and get back to me. I should tell you that the charities themselves have reached out to me. They’re afraid of asking the question because they’re afraid of jeopardizing their government funding.

I also want to point out that when the government matches charitable dollars for overseas disasters, they recognize the need for many players and they match charitable donations to other charities. Why is it the Canadian government chooses to be so exclusive in their choice in Canada?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Will Senator Gold take a question?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Senator Gold, will you take a question, please?

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Gold. That was very fulsome answer. I appreciate that.

Although Afghanistan is not Syria — the context is extremely different — I also want to give credit to the government for that Herculean effort just six years ago. That history, I think, is still fresh in our minds.

The government has so far produced three reports outlining the lessons learned from that experience. My concern is that the lessons learned may well be lessons lost, because we’re not applying them. Can you tell me what the government is doing to train Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, staff so that they can be better prepared for these crises, which will no doubt come again, and apply them at this moment to Afghanistan?

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Gold, for that update. It is encouraging.

Buried in the announcement was a tiny line that the government will consider providing pathways to permanency for temporary foreign workers, or as I like to call them, essential workers. These are essential workers. I will remind us all that this chamber unanimously passed a motion last year, I think, to provide pathways to permanency for these essential workers. But the government is moving slowly on this promise. Will those in so-called low-skilled sectors have an easier path to permanency soon, or should Canadians simply accept that this program is class-based?

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Gold. I look forward to hearing from you on that response, as does Mr. Cotler.

I understand that citizenship applications are backlogged for many because of the virus, but we have families who have been waiting for close to two or three years to get an initial response to their application, even though we significantly increased the budget of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, last year, and the Budget Implementation Act, or BIA.

As one example, members of the Syrian family I sponsored in 2016 were disappointed that they could not vote in the last Canadian election because they were not yet citizens. Their 16‑year-old son, who is a graduate of high school, desperately wants to join the Canadian Armed Forces, but he cannot because he is not yet a Canadian citizen.

I hope you will agree with me, Senator Gold, when I say: What more could this country want from its refugees? Will you kindly inquire into these delays for many anxious wannabe Canadians?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: My question is for Senator Gold, the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

My question, Senator Gold is about Afghanistan and our obligations to those who are in danger because they worked alongside Canadian Forces, Canadian NGOs, journalists and activists. Now they are in danger and Canadians believe it is our moral imperative to bring them to safety.

However, the government’s good intentions — and I want to grant that the government does have good intentions — must be followed through with execution and implementation. By all accounts, we are failing significantly on that front.

Why is the government not taking a leaf out of the Syrian refugee playbook? If there is a key lesson to take forward from our response from that time, it is this: A deadline serves all parts of the system, political and bureaucratic, to get to the finish line.

When will the government outline a detailed plan, with timelines, to bring Afghan refugees to Canada?