Hon. Leo Housakos: Yes, it is very clear. First, it is important to understand that there are some differences between the Senate and the House of Commons. A committee chair, like the Speaker of this chamber, is not a referee. They are a regular member of the chamber. I do not know whether most senators are aware of this or not, but the Speaker has the right to vote and express their opinion on political issues.

The chair of a committee has the same rights, privileges and responsibilities. The chair of a Senate committee has the right to vote, to express their opinions and to ask questions. They also have the right to be against a bill. That is nothing new or out of the ordinary. That is the way things have worked for years. If senators want to change that rule or procedure, then let me know, but for now, I am upholding the tradition and rights that have applied here for a very long time.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): My question is also for the Leader of the Government. This weekend, the voters of Vancouver sent a clear message: They are done with the radical policies of the Prime Minister and the NDP mayor. They are fed up with the violence, the overdose deaths and the overpriced housing market. Voters in Vancouver have said, “Enough.” They have fired the NDP mayor and rejected the radical policies — and, instead, they voted to remove the gatekeepers, build more affordable homes and bring in common sense laws to restore safe streets.

Senator Gold, will your government get the message and correct the failed policies that have contributed to the growing concerns of safety and security in the streets and communities of Vancouver and Metro Vancouver?

Senator Gold: No, I was not saying that everything is okay.

I regret that we still have the vacancies that we do. I look forward eagerly to announcements. It is, unfortunately, the case that the situation in every province differs and that, in some cases, the committees were slow to be constituted. As a result, the process has taken longer. I am choosing not to name names, because that would be unfair.

The process has more levels and layers to it, and is somewhat more time-consuming than previous processes. I join you in looking forward to filling our vacancies as quickly as possible.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: This is a pleasant surprise. My question is to Senator Gold, please.

Recently, I had the honour of co-hosting with Senator Lynn Ruane of Ireland an international round table, the first of its kind, that brought together lawmakers from many different countries who are leading in making new laws to address the misuse of nondisclosure agreements, or NDAs, that are used against victims of harassment and sexual misconduct in private and public workplaces, including publicly funded universities.

A report from Employment and Social Development Canada found in 2017 that 60% of women reportedly experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. As demonstrated by Hockey Canada, NDAs are often used to gag victims of sexual misconduct in the interests of the institution perpetuating the violating behaviour.

My question today is focused on the International Labour Organization’s Convention No. 190 entitled Eliminating Violence and Harassment in the World of Work. The International Labour Organization adopted this in 2019 as the first international treaty to recognize the right of everyone to a world of work free from violence and harassment, including gender-based violence and harassment. Twenty governments have ratified this convention, Senator Gold, but Canada has not. The Canadian federal government has no clear legislation to identify, regulate and stop the misuse of NDAs.

My question is: When will Canada adopt ILO Convention No. 190 and join these countries to start putting in place the necessary laws and policy measures to more effectively prevent violence and harassment in the world of work?

Senator Plett: Let me clarify that: It will help those who are not the poorest people more than the poorest people. You’re right: Someone earning $30,000 a year is by no means rich, but it will help somebody earning $30,000 more than it will help somebody earning $10,000.

Senator Gignac: For the record, I disagree with your last sentence that this bill will help the rich more than the poor. It’s limited because people who earn more than $30,000 a year do not have access to this GST reduction.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. As has been mentioned several times, nobody is trying to hide information as such. The disclosure of confidential contract information would be a violation of agreements between the government and suppliers. This is standard practice, obviously. I am not ashamed, and neither is the government.

[English]

Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Plett: Yes, I will at least take some questions. I’m not sure how well I will answer them. I am the critic on this bill, not the government, and it’s not my place to defend it or answer the questions, but let’s try.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Plett, a few senators would like to ask questions. Are you ready to answer some questions?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Senator McCallum, for your speech. I want to phrase this question properly. Before we had this — I don’t know whether I should call it a shambles of a Senate that we have now, with all these different groups instead of us being back in the good old days when we had two political parties here. Even during those days, Senator McCallum, we did have independent senators or non-affiliated senators, and those non-affiliated senators typically would go and they would be, not under the umbrella of the government, but they would deal with the government leader. I think Senator Martin would agree with me. When she was the deputy leader back under Claude Carignan, every day she would deal with some of these non-affiliated senators and make sure they got speaking slots, they got to ask questions and they got to make their speeches.

What I find strange, Senator McCallum is that, first of all, you’re under the same title as our government leader and deputy leader. They’re also non-affiliated, so I think you should have at least the same rights as they have, since you are under the same umbrella. But tell me, Senator McCallum, what is the answer? If you get what you are asking for, it would seem to me that you would have a caucus of non-affiliated senators. We already have three or maybe four caucuses of non-affiliated or independent or these kinds of senators. Now, are you suggesting that we have one more and that you form a group of non-affiliated senators? Is that what you would suggest is the answer for this?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Senator McCallum: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator McCallum, Senator Plett wishes to ask a question but your time has expired. Are you asking for five minutes to answer a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Excuse me, Senator Omidvar. I apologize for interrupting you, but it seems we have reached the bewitching hour. It’s now 6 p.m., and rule 3-3(1) requires me to leave the chair until 8 p.m. unless it is agreed that we not see the clock. Is it agreed that we not see the clock?

Senator Omidvar: Fair enough.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Of course.