Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. I will certainly do that in the area and the jurisdiction over which the government has some responsibility.

Senator Gold: I will do my best to get the answers as quickly as I can.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. As I’ve answered in this chamber before, the government has listed a number of entities attached to the regime and individuals — and, indeed, most recently, the government has added more to the list and is constantly reviewing how to proceed further. The government condemns the actions of Iran against its own citizens and the actions of Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism.

If I may respond to the preamble to your second question: Of course, these are serious questions. Of course, they’re important questions. But the fact that I don’t have, at my fingertips, the answer to what due diligence has been taken with regard to specific attempts, such as there may be, to enter this country, and the fact that I undertake to try to find an answer that can be shared, without compromising national security, is something that I hope senators will understand is the best that I can do. That is in no way to diminish or minimize the importance of the question.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I do not have any details about plans for creating a new team. However, I will pass on those suggestions to the government and the minister for their consideration.

Senator Gold: Having participated as a witness to those events, I couldn’t agree with you more about how important they are to the members and their families.

The government is working to be in a position to make all services available — as they once were before the pandemic — and will continue to do so. When changes to the system can be introduced, the announcements will be forthcoming.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, senator, for your question. I will have to make inquiries and come back with an answer as quickly as I can.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government completely agrees with you, colleague, that the situation is totally unacceptable. That is why the minister has announced, as you just pointed out, that she wants to see a change within the team.

I will go even further. The government recently announced a comprehensive reform to the funding and accountability framework for sport federations. This reform will give Sport Canada the leverage to closely monitor organizations with respect to their governance and transparency practices. Accountability within sport federations will be significantly strengthened. In conclusion, the government reaffirms its resolve to put an end to the culture of silence that has prevailed for too long in the field of sport, not only in hockey, but unfortunately nearly everywhere, as we have seen recently.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people have the right to be safe in the communities they call home.

This national strategy calls for a whole-of-government approach, which means respecting our goals as a country and all the Calls for Justice.

I am told that, in the Federal Pathway, the Government of Canada committed to producing an annual progress report on key milestones and its progress toward fulfilling the commitments. On June 3, 2022, the government released the first Federal Pathway progress report. The report provides an update on more than 50 initiatives and programs launched as part of the Federal Pathway and led by 25 federal departments and agencies. The report also identifies what remains to be done.

Senator Gold: I don’t have an answer to your question. I will look into it and try to get a response for you. I want to note, however, that the work has already begun in partnership with Indigenous communities to ensure that we can develop the Federal Pathway together.

[English]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. I don’t have the answer to your question. I will endeavour to determine what information can be shared on a subject that clearly engages our security and our commitments to oppose the tyranny and the state-sponsored terrorism for which Iran is properly held accountable. I’ll do my best to have an answer as quickly as I can.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for underlining again — it can never be too often — the plight of the Uighurs and the oppression of which they are victims.

I don’t know what steps are being taken, and I will have to make inquiries and report back.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Senator Plett, thank you for the question. I was referring to an important teaching in the Jewish tradition that imposes upon all of us the responsibility to do what we can to make this world a better place. All of us here in the chamber, having agreed and been summoned here, would agree that that is what we are here for in our small, modest ways.

With regard to your question, I stand by my answer. The Government of Canada, this government — unlike any other government before — is taking seriously the work with Indigenous communities across this country to begin the process of confronting the truth of our history and doing what is necessary so that we can reconcile ourselves with our Indigenous citizens and with our history.

In that regard, the amount of work that has been done, though difficult, is impressive. There is a great deal to be done, and Minister Miller and the whole of government are to be congratulated for the seriousness with which they are approaching this work and the respect they are giving our Indigenous colleagues and partners in the co-development of the initiatives.

Senator Gold: The government is committed to doing what it has set out to do to improve the lives of Canadians, as it has helped us get through a worldwide crisis, the effects of which we are still feeling. This is about concrete action to help Canadians. It is not about appearances or scoring partisan points.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The minister and the department are working hard to address what is a very difficult situation for too many Canadians who are facing uncomfortable and stressful waits. The government is very aware of the burden that this imposes on Canadians who want to travel. It is seeking to do — and has done — many things to tackle these challenges.

There is a triage system in place in our larger communities, such as the Vancouver area — where you’re from, senator — the GTA, Calgary and Edmonton, to help people be served more expeditiously. Officials continue to look for solutions to what is a very troubling and difficult situation for far too many Canadians.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I certainly did not intend to say that the government had no responsibility for the ultimate decision in the process that you described. So if you said my answer implied that, I think that was certainly not my intent.

But if I recall, your question also touched upon the role of security agencies that are seized with the responsibility to advise and make recommendations as part of an appropriate process to make sure that decisions of this nature are made intelligently and appropriately.

In that regard, the government remains focused on what further steps it might take to enhance the sanctions and the pressure on Iran, its agencies and its instruments to condemn and further underline our condemnation of the actions against their citizens and against our values abroad.

Senator Gold: Senator, you know from your own political experience and your experience in government that I’m not at liberty to disclose what advice or reports were issued to cabinet. I simply stand by the answer that I have already given on a number of occasions to this question.

Senator Gold: I’m choosing to find a question in your comments, which gives me the opportunity to say the following: These are serious matters. As I’ve said on many occasions, what Canadians are going through — with the rising cost of food and other essentials and with the challenges in finding appropriate and affordable housing — are real and serious problems. I have stood here many times, Senator Housakos, and tried to draw a distinction between the tone and content of the questions, as well as the use of slogans like “JustinFlation” — which does not violate any privileges in this place because there is no Justin here. It can’t be used in the other place, so I guess one has to cycle these slogans where they can be safely said.

I draw the distinction between the purposes, which I accept and which we all accept. Question Period is where you ask questions to hold the government to account, and I do my best to answer. These are serious questions that deserve serious answers. As I’ve tried to do on so many occasions — and I won’t sit here and lecture, because I think you’re tired of hearing me say the same thing, as are our colleagues here who may have a different view than you as to what the policy instruments or causes are. Suffice it to say, these are real problems that require real solutions and analysis worthy of this chamber.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): No, I do not. Thank you for your question.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of September 29, 2022, moved:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice:

1.the Senate resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole at 6 p.m. on Thursday, October 6, 2022, to consider the subject matter of Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (temporary enhancement to the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax credit), with any proceedings then before the Senate being interrupted until the end of Committee of the Whole;

2.notwithstanding rule 3-3(1), the sitting be suspended at 5 p.m., rather than 6 p.m., for a period of 60 minutes;

3.if the bells are ringing for a vote at the time the committee is to meet, they be interrupted for the Committee of the Whole at that time, and resume once the committee has completed its work for the balance of any time remaining;

4.the Committee of the Whole on the subject matter of Bill C-30 receive the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, P.C., M.P., Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, accompanied by no more than two officials;

5.the Committee of the Whole on the subject matter of Bill C-30 rise no later than 95 minutes after it begins;

6.the witness’s introductory remarks last a maximum total of five minutes; and

7.if a senator does not use the entire period of 10 minutes for debate provided under rule 12-32(3)(d), including the responses of the witnesses, that senator may yield the balance of time to another senator.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I rise, albeit briefly, in response to the point of privilege raised by Senator Tannas to offer some perspective that may assist you, Your Honour, as you come to a determination. I have full confidence in your ability to come with sound judgment on this issue.

At this point in the process, we are to address the narrow issue of whether there is a prima facie case of a question of privilege using the four criteria set out in rule 13-2(1). The four criteria listed in rule 13-2(1) begin by underlining the urgency of the matter. It must be raised by a senator at the earliest opportunity.

I respectfully submit that the question was not raised at the earliest opportunity. The article in question was published Tuesday, September 27, with the witness in question scheduled to appear Wednesday, September 28. The Senate sat on both Wednesday, September 28, and on Thursday, September 29. Although I acknowledge Senator Tannas’s claim that more details were required before proceeding, there was an opportunity to raise the question of privilege on any of those two days. In fact, a point of privilege on this matter was, indeed, raised in the other place by the Member of Parliament for Perth—Wellington on Wednesday, September 28.

On September 16, 1994, the Speaker ruled that even a gap of a few days may invalidate the claim for precedence in our proceedings.

Second, rule 13-2(1) provides that the matter must directly concern the privileges of the Senate, any of its committees and must relate to a grave and serious breach, which has been defined as something that “would seriously undermine the ability of committees to function and would even jeopardize the work of the Senate itself.”

Clearly, colleagues, this bar is set very high. I would note in that regard, at least at first blush, that the case brought forward by Senator Tannas involves more than its fair share of conjecture and indeed rests upon a large measure of speculation. To state the obvious, colleagues, it is newspapers who are in control of what they publish and when they publish.

At the crux of Senator Tannas’s argument is the notion that a newspaper report containing information around a complaint to the Commissioner of Lobbying is tantamount to a form of intimidation that has jeopardized the Senate’s work.

Now, assuming for argument’s sake that we accept all of the speculation and conjecture, Senator Tannas seems to be making the case that a journalistic source is engaging in a form of witness intimidation rising to the level of a breach of the Senate’s privileges.

To be frank, there’s something chilling about the idea that the Senate would embark upon inquiries around journalistic sources based upon conjecture alone. Indeed, this chamber has pronounced itself firmly in favour of freedom of the press and the need to protect the confidentiality of journalistic sources.

The point of privilege raised today engages broader questions of principle that, unfortunately, cannot be addressed adequately in this forum today, which I would invite you, Your Honour, to address: How do our privileges interact with freedom of the press in a context such as this? May we rely upon the Senate’s privileges to interfere with the confidentiality of journalistic sources?

I would also submit that, notwithstanding the speculative nature of the point of privilege, the record plainly shows that the committee’s ability to function has not been jeopardized or undermined by media coverage of Bill C-11. Setting aside the conjecture around the content and timing of the news story — which I would again note is entirely within the purview of the news outlet — did this newspaper story impinge upon the ability of parliamentarians to do their jobs properly?

For my part, I fail to see how this story undermined the ability of the committee to receive true and factual evidence from the witness. And, indeed, I would further submit that the individual in question did appear before the committee on Bill C-11 and was able to fully advance his views on the bill, as is, of course, appropriate.

Finally, it strikes me that for Senator Tannas’s argument to be valid, one must necessarily first conclude that the complaint made to the Lobbying Commissioner was, itself, a form of intimidation. However, let us be clear that the Member of Parliament for St. Catharines was perfectly entitled to contact the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying if he believed that there was a bona fide allegation of conflict of interest with respect to a witness appearing on a bill and having a financial interest in doing so.

Your Honour, I look forward to your ruling on the matter.