Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Jane Cordy: I would also like to ask a question of Senator Mockler. It’s a pretty easy one. Would you agree that the legacy of the 2010 Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver continues in part because of the excellent wood structures that were built for the games? Those who got to use these buildings during the Olympics and those who continue to use the structures today underscore that the Olympians and Paralympians shared the stage with the creativity of the forest industry in Canada.

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Senator Gold, the National Finance Committee had a very interesting meeting this morning with the Auditor General. She told us that she signed off on the Public Accounts for the last fiscal year. Last year we waited nine months for the Public Accounts. In fact, we did not get them until the day we adjourned for the Christmas break. Since she signed off on the Public Accounts already, when will the government release the 2022 Public Accounts?

Senator Omidvar: Senator Cordy, maybe I missed it in Senator Klyne’s speech. Which committee does the sponsor want this bill to go to for study?

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Will the senator take a question?

Senator Mockler: I will say yes.

Senator Mockler: Yes.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Honourable senators, I want to thank Senator Tannas for bringing this forward, and I want to thank all of the speakers. There have been some very eloquent arguments put forward.

At the basis of this, though, as Senator Gagné pointed out, the actual wording of the letter appears to say that it’s the timing and content of the article in The Globe and Mail that may constitute intimidation of a witness. I’m willing to read into that what Senator Tannas has argued before us, but technically the letter is something very different than what we’re talking about here.

I have heard no proof that the parliamentary secretary or, as Senator Tannas said, the second member of Parliament who was aware of the complaint to the Commissioner of Lobbying provided any information to The Globe and Mail. It doesn’t matter how many times a senator opposite asserts that; that does not make it true and that does not provide evidence.

I could assert that those who are opposed to this bill, who have been part of a campaign of writing tons and tons of letters and who work closely with certain parliamentarians, decided that this was a way to discredit the government by bringing forward the fact that this Commissioner of Lobbying complaint had been filed.

I could assert that. I have no evidence of that. I have no evidence that the chair of the committee, who created the time and space to ask the questions of the witness and bring it forward, did that for any other reason. I have no basis and no evidence to suggest that the chair of the committee, who is very familiar with the Rules of the Senate and knows his way around these things, didn’t do that or did do that. I have no evidence. I’m saying to you there is no evidence to proceed.

Is it a serious issue? If true, would it be serious? It’s very serious. There is no evidence.

I also want to say that the fact that there is aggressive — and I agree with the words — sometimes bullying questions of witnesses is something that should be seen as abhorrent. It should be seen as egregious in that chamber as well as in this chamber and in our committees. I have seen and participated and heard and talked to senators afterwards about their way of dismissing opinions of witnesses that come before us. That in and of itself is a matter that I think we should be very clear about: that, as a collegial institution, we will not support or allow that to continue, but it is not evidence of what is being alleged here.

I believe you don’t have the grounds for a prima facie case on this, and I’ll leave it at that. Thank you very much.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Plett, did you wish to speak before Senator Tannas?

Senator Cordy: Of course.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I want to thank Senator Tannas for raising this very important question, and I want to thank all senators who took the time to participate in the debate. I will take the matter under advisement.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 5:09 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Appendix—Senators List

Senator Marshall: Thank you, Senator Gold, I would appreciate that. We need that information for our study of supplementary estimates this fall. When you inquire as to when we are going to get the Public Accounts, could you also inquire as to when we will get the departmental results reports? We did not get last year’s reports until this year. We need those documents together as a package. Thank you very much.

Senator Mockler: You are correct, Senator Woo, it is science-based. It is technical. I will take your question under advisement and I will send you a written response.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Woo, do you have a question?

Senator Plett: Leader, in October 2018, the House of Commons was told by Ralph Goodale, parliamentary secretary at the time, that officials had begun their assessment of the IRGC to list them as a terrorist entity. Yet, just last week, we were being told — or implied — by you and Public Safety Minister Mendicino that it wasn’t a job for the government.

Which one is it? Are we supposed to believe that Department of Justice officials have been working on this report since 2018? Was a report produced, and if so, did the Minister of Public Safety or anyone make a recommendation to cabinet?

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. Michèle Audette: Honourable senators, my first question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Today is an important day for thousands of families and survivors across Canada, as well as for those who have lost loved ones. We are marking Sisters in Spirit Day. I would like to thank my colleagues who have decided to participate.

I have a duty of responsibility towards these families, as well as a great deal of love for them. They campaigned for over 50 years for the creation of a national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, and Canada finally ordered the launch of this inquiry. The inquiry produced many reports and recommendations, of course, as well as Calls for Justice for Canada and Quebec. The third anniversary of the inquiry’s final report was on June 3. In addition, the first anniversary of the federal government’s action plan recently passed.

Senator Gold, one of the Calls for Justice is particularly important to me. Call for Justice 1.7 calls for the creation of an Indigenous ombudsperson position in partnership with organizations, Indigenous governments and the federal government. This Call for Justice also aims to create space for human rights and Indigenous peoples’ rights.

I would like to know where Canada stands with regard to Call for Justice 1.7, which is very important.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I want to add to what Senator Saint-Germain said. Yes, the allegations are serious, but as Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, I was there in person at the September 28 meeting during which the witness, Scott Benzie, appeared.

My colleague, Senator Housakos, did indeed ask questions about the content of the article in The Globe and Mail, and the witness, Mr. Benzie, answered directly, although he said he did not want to spend too much time talking about it. He said that the timing of the article in The Globe and Mail was suspect, but all the attacks on content creators that he referred to occurred in the House of Commons, not the Senate. He talked about attacks that had taken place several months before.

I would note that, during the meeting, I heard Mr. Benzie express his views on Bill C-11 freely and at length, several times, without hesitation. He has major concerns about the bill.

I must add that we are set to hear from about 10 content creators, people commonly called “YouTubers,” all of whom have major concerns about Bill C-11. Not one of them decided not to show up or refused to testify. They have been coming, we have spent several meetings hearing from them, and they have been telling us exactly what they think of Bill C-11.

I do not wish to comment on the merits of the case, as that is for you to do, Your Honour. By merits, I mean the information reported by The Globe and Mail. However, I do not see how the publication of this article violated my privileges, prevented me from doing my job, or otherwise impeded the committee’s work. Not to mention the fact that, as a journalist, I am concerned that an article is being used as the basis for this question of privilege, when this is an example of freedom of the press, a fundamental right guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[English]

Senator Martin: Senator, excuses and further delays are unacceptable. The government knew that the 10-year passports were expiring and knew there would be demand once the pandemic was over.

Passports aren’t the only issue at IRCC. While life has returned to normal for millions of Canadians, new Canadians still cannot take their oath of citizenship at an in-person ceremony. As an immigrant myself, I know that for a new Canadian taking their oath, alongside dozens of other excited new Canadians, is among the most important moments and memories.

(1440)

Senator Gold, why is the minister continuing to deny new Canadians this once-in-a-lifetime experience?