Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, my question is to the Government Representative in the Senate, Senator Gold. I want to ask a follow-up question to the previous reference I made to young women athletes. October 15 was actually an excellent day for Canada. That was the day when we saw 200 girls from an Afghan school flown into Canada and resettled here in record time. Would that it be the standard we are seeing most of the time, but it is not.

My question is about whether the Government of Canada, and in particular Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and Minister Sean Fraser, could advise through a question from you whether they are conducting gender-based analysis on the evacuation and resettlement of Afghans coming to Canada. The anecdotal evidence would suggest that — even though we have a feminist foreign policy and we have the previous minister Marco Mendicino making a very strong set of statements promising that women at extreme risk would be in a priority area — our numbers relative to other countries are, in fact, low. If you would, seek clarification on this, please.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I thank the honourable senator for his question.

I don’t have any details about the case you just described or why that request was made. I will find out and come back with an answer as soon as possible.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, an article in last Friday’s edition of La Presse mentioned that a party was held in Montreal in 2020 with money fraudulently obtained through the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, the CERB. The police found almost $100,000 in these criminals’ pockets. Most of them had lengthy criminal records. Some of them even accessed the CERB while in jail. We believed that the Correctional Service of Canada intercepted all mail bearing the little red flag. It seems not. During the same period, your government was advised several times to establish mechanisms to prevent fraud, especially by inmates.

The police investigation also revealed that money illegally obtained from CERB was used to fraudulently purchase firearms. We know that firearms are a scourge in Montreal.

Can you tell the Senate how many criminal organizations used law-abiding citizens’ money to finance gun, drug or human trafficking operations?

Senator Boisvenu: The government’s feelings about this are neither here nor there. It should have had a fraud prevention strategy.

Yesterday, three Conservative MPs, Mr. Paul-Hus, Ms. Dancho and Mrs. Kusie, asked Public Safety Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada to launch an investigation into this matter, specifically with respect to the Montreal region.

Since you don’t know how many criminal gangs fraudulently used taxpayers’ money, I’m sure you won’t oppose this type of public investigation to shed light on the situation. Right?

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader in the Senate. Yesterday, the Minister of Immigration, Sean Fraser, said it would take two years to bring Afghan refugees to Canada. I understand the challenges, Senator Gold, but given that the government knew the challenges it would face — if not years ago, at least months ago — does the government expect that some of these refugees who are on the run and hiding home to home, who are also facing a humanitarian crisis, will still be alive after two years?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): The Government of Canada obviously cares about and hopes for the security of all those who are in peril. In announcing that timeline within which we hope to bring those Afghan refugees to Canada, the minister was doing his best to be open and transparent with Canadians. You have made reference to, and understandably and properly so, the myriad challenges that this government and other governments are facing in this humanitarian effort. Canada will continue to do its very best to bring as many people as quickly as possible to safety.

Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Gold, the government was being open and transparent, and that’s why we called an election on the day Kabul fell.

What do I say to the young man who was already picked up by the Taliban, who jumped out of the car and ran to escape them, running through the markets, whose family is reaching out to me saying they don’t know what to do. They are looking for him. What do I say to him?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for that series of questions. I will certainly make those inquiries and report back in due course.

With regard to your reference to my speech about hybrid sessions, I stand by what I said. We are summoned to serve in the Senate. We do not have a choice whether to go. Therefore, it is totally appropriate that we put into place measures so that those who are summoned to serve our country in this place can do so in a safe way. They have no choice but to serve, and we were happily able to accommodate the health needs of those who, for whatever reason, are unable to or feel it unsafe to travel as you described.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. The government has used Magnitsky sanctions in the past. It takes very seriously its obligations to review the facts before it comes to that conclusion, and it will continue to do that in such cases.

With regard to the International Court of Justice, I do not know what the current thinking of the government is. I will make every effort to determine what it is and report back.

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is for Senator Gold.

In your speech on your motion to continue hybrid sittings of the Senate, you spoke of the dangers associated with honourable senators catching one or two flights to get here and walking through the various crowded airports across the country, yet the Trudeau government thought nothing of flying 300 people to meet in person in Glasgow last month at COP26, including NGO representatives, bureaucrats, politicians, journalists and more.

Senator Gold, can you tell us how much taxpayers’ money was spent by the government to enable all those people to participate in COP26? Specifically, can you table in this chamber who had their trips and other expenses paid by taxpayers so they could go? On behalf of your government participating in what ended up being a super-spreader event, according to many media reports, would you commit to tabling that information here in the Senate in an expeditious fashion?

Hon. Jim Quinn: Yes.

Honourable senators, this whole debate is very interesting for a new senator like me. When I was appointed, I was appointed as an independent. I eventually choose a group, but I didn’t forfeit my independence. Rather, I embraced a group that I felt had a philosophical alignment with me, not limited to my independence.

Certainly, I feel that I must respect, in many ways, the facilitation that the leaders have brought to the institution in having discussions around proportionality. I do respect that negotiation. However, this discussion over the last few days has been very helpful, to hear both sides of an argument.

But I do feel conflicted because while wanting to respect the negotiations that were entered into by leaders, I think it is important that I, as a senator who has been appointed on an independent basis who has chosen a group that tonight is sounding more and more like a caucus — I apologize, but it does — how can I, at some point, possibly rethink my position within a group to go to another group or to become an independent and lose a position on a committee to which I feel I’m accountable to the people of Canada because I’ve been asked to serve on a committee because of a particular skill set and competency that I may represent. It’s a bit of a conflicted world for me, this whole debate. I’m sure that happens very often.

How do we rationalize the independence of this modernized institution, an institution that continues to evolve? How do we rationalize that while at the same time it’s almost like punishing someone because they’ve made a decision to realign?

I hope that realignment of someone’s philosophies isn’t something that just occurs overnight. I would hope that it is an evolution. But I don’t think that that skill set and competency should be removed from a committee to which that senator is acting and inputting on behalf of Canadians, not on behalf of a group.

How do we rationalize all of that?

Senator Housakos: Senator Quinn, those are all very good points, but with all due respect, the truth of the matter is Canadians did not put you on a committee. I’ve been put on a couple of committees by the Conservative Senate caucus. I was not put on those committees by Canadian citizens.

If tomorrow morning I philosophically change my point of view and I decide to join, for example the Canadian Senators Group or the Progressive Senate Group, then at that particular point in time I have to respect the group that sent me to do work on that particular committee on their behalf.

Now, I reiterate that your privilege as a senator is not violated. You and I can go and make representations and participate on any committee, but the moment you serve as a chair or deputy chair, at steering or you have a voting right on the committee, again, you were sent there. Your accountability is to your group on a weekly basis.

Unfortunately, there is no mechanism yet in this institution where we are accountable to the people of Canada. We don’t run for elections every four years. Furthermore, even when it comes to the Prime Ministers who appointed us here, they don’t have much accountability either to us in regard to the fact that we’re here with our privilege until the age of 75.

The self-discipline that this place imposes with the groups that we choose to philosophically associate with, that is where we get some semblance of discipline and organization. You’re right that if you make a change of group, you would think about that from a philosophical point of view, not from a self-serving point of view.

If tomorrow morning I leave my group and it costs me the chair of a committee, that chair is not mine. I would like to think the committees I have served on as chair over the years is where I have some expertise and that is why my caucus sent me there. The moment I cease to be a Conservative and I go to another group, that other group that I represent will send me to do work that that group deems necessary on their behalf.

Again, it’s difficult, because we’re not like every other Parliament. We’re uniquely different because of the fact that we’re an appointed body. We’re appointed to positions on committees by groups that represent us. It’s not an election. For example, we don’t elect every single committee seat and chair and deputy chair in this chamber. The reason we don’t is because eventually it will become a dictatorship on the part of the largest group, for example.

Historically, in this country there have been many instances where the Liberals had the vast majority of 70 or 80 seats and the Conservatives had dwindled, and there were instances where the Liberal caucus had dwindled to a small number.

By the way, I would like to inform every member here — because every independent senator that comes here thinks there’s a problem with the Senate rules — this place, ultimately, is a place of the majority. The reason we’ve survived as a coherent body is that majority group, when it becomes so big, if they don’t understand that we will only be credible by the manner in which that majority treats the minority, then the place falls apart.

I reiterate that at the beginning of 2016 when a small minority came in here, which today is becoming a plurality and a majority, the majority didn’t like it, but we knew we had to accommodate that minority. I’ve been here long enough to know that today I’m in the minority. Five or seven years from now, many of you will be in that minority. That’s just the nature of democracy. How we treat each other is fundamentally important.

Senator Housakos: Thank you, Senator Kutcher. Remember, I rose and said I wasn’t planning to enter this debate; I merely wanted to share a few thoughts.

Let’s take it to the next level, because we’re not saying different things. Of course, you are named to whichever committee by the group you represent because of your expertise and knowledge. I can assure you that when leaderships of all groups identify people for committees, they’re choosing the best people to work on those committees — those with the most knowledge, experience and interest.

Having said that, we simultaneously choose to work with a group or caucus that represents our values, and we represent their values. It’s no coincidence that you’re in the group you’re sitting with, and it’s no coincidence that group thinks you’re the best person to serve in the capacities you’re serving. I don’t think either is exclusive, quite frankly.

Yes, there are times — because that’s how Parliament works — when you and I will go to our various roles in committee and articulate a point of view that is not always exclusively agreed upon by the group. It’s called democracy. That happens when it comes to our work and dealing with policy groups and political discourse.

The truth of the matter is that I don’t think any leadership or group micromanages the representatives they name to the various committees because, as I said, there’s a reason you are on that committee. You are probably the one guiding and driving the debate in your group.

When I sat as chair of the Rules Committee, I think my group picked me for that role because of my expertise in procedure and the rules and rights of Parliament and what have you. I can assure you that I drove the debate in my group, but I was chosen to be put in that committee to represent my group’s interests. I cite committees like Ethics and Rules and Internal Economy because those are not philosophical roles; they are administrative roles. It would be wholly chaotic and undemocratic if chairs, deputy chairs and people serving on those committees someday find themselves representing only one group in this chamber. At that point, this place ceases to be representative and democratic. Going back to my original argument — talk about infringing on the privilege of a large number of senators. Potentially you can infringe on a large number of senators.

I don’t think that what you and I are saying, Senator Kutcher, is diametrically opposed at all. I hope that I clarified my perspective in detail.

Hon. Pat Duncan: Thank you, Your Honour. I appreciate the opportunity to enter into this discussion and ask Senator Housakos a question.

I would like to say at the outset that it’s almost the three-year anniversary of my appointment to the Senate. From the very beginning, I have been in awe and appreciate every single senator. There is a tremendous wealth of Canadian talent, brains and energy. I appreciate the opportunity and privilege to be of service to Canadians alongside all of you.

It is the appreciation of that talent and the strengths that each individual brings to the Senate that is causing me to ask this question. I’ve listened very carefully to the debates, and repeatedly I’ve heard “the Senate appoints.” That’s true because it is the Senate as a whole. It is all of us that approve the Selection Committee report that names different senators to committees and their service.

The leaders have met and agreed on the list of names that has been presented, however their groups have decided. People are named to a committee in that Selection Committee report. Not one of us questioned that report. No one has said, “Wait a minute. Take a good, hard look at these different committees.”

The problem that I’ve seen is that we aren’t using the talents of everyone and our committees are not reflecting the diversity of our country or are necessarily representative of the population. Forgive me, Senator Mockler and my colleagues on the National Finance Committee. It does not have a representative west of Ontario except for me. I think that’s an issue.

All of us as senators approved the Selection Committee report. No one looked and said, “There is no Indigenous representation on this committee.” Yet, Indigenous businesses represent $32 billion of our GDP. That is my concern.

I respect absolutely, Senator Housakos, your expertise and your knowledge of the Rules, and I have the utmost respect for and understanding of the arguments that have been presented.

I would like to ask Senator Housakos whether he sees what I’ve outlined as an issue and whether he has a suggestion as to how to solve it.

Senator Housakos: Thank you, senator. Of course, I understand that. We can easily start micromanaging all the various imperfections of the system. No system is perfect.

I want to highlight, colleagues, that in the Western democratic world — and if I’m not mistaken in my statistics, I think in the comparison of all democratic chambers in the world — the Senate is the most diverse. If I’m not mistaken, we’ve equalled other chambers in terms of gender parity. We are very representative in terms of various visible, ethnic and linguistic minorities. Again, I challenge comparison with any other parliamentary body in the world.

In terms of composition of committees, are we where we need to be and in the perfect range with everything? I look at the Aboriginal Peoples Committee. I’ll give you my opinion. I think there are not enough non-Indigenous people on that committee. In the ongoing process of national reconciliation, people like me have to learn a heck of a lot more about our history and this issue. Quite honestly, I look at the composition and say to myself that it’s pretty stereotypical; the only people who are interested or want to talk about Aboriginal issues are Aboriginal people. That was my reflex.

I look at the Committee on Official Languages. The only people who are interested are French Canadians? English Canadians don’t care about official languages? That struck me.

These are just a couple of examples. I’m sure that if we dissect further, we will find other examples. It is incumbent upon us to go back to our groups, discuss it with our leadership, shake the cage, come back to our leadership groups and try to fix it. As I said earlier, we’re trying to be fair and representative to the best of our abilities. We understand the problems and we try to resolve them.

Canada, and this institution, are perfectly imperfect. The only way we can correct it is to recognize that this is an ongoing process and evolution. I’m sure that every other leadership group recognizes that.

We have another problem. In the process of trying to be fair to all groups, as groups become smaller and smaller, they’re not as broadly representative of the whole country and of all linguistic groups. We can talk about inequities in the process and how this institution is not perfect.

I’m from Quebec. We have 24 senators in this chamber out of 105. The Western provinces — British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba — have 24 senators. The province of Quebec has as many senators as those four provinces. Atlantic Canada is overrepresented. We can get into the debate about how the Constitution came about and how the two founding peoples came to the table. In large part, if it weren’t for that inequality in this chamber — those of us who know the history — Canada would probably never have been founded and we wouldn’t have this country to try to make even better, as we’re trying to do today.

My point, Senator Duncan, is that we’ve come a long way and we’ve done it through patience, tolerance and negotiation. That’s how Canada came about, through negotiation — not a free-for-all, not populism, not free-for-all votes here on the floor to decide every little thing. We did it through consultation, cooperation and debate, and sometimes acrimonious debate. But the Westminster model is designed such that acrimonious debate takes place behind the scenes. Senator Gold and I can have screaming matches, and he can get upset with me and I with him. We come here and work it out and get into the nitty-gritty of the substance of the debate. That’s my take on it.

Senator Duncan: Understood. Thank you.

Senator Duncan: I did. However, in the interest —

Senator Gold: I will add those to my list of questions for the government. Thank you.

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