Senator McPhedran: First of all, I’m loving this discussion tonight. I’m also in awe of how you managed to deflect the questions with your erudite answers. However, I’m going to see if we can stay focused.

In some ways my question ties in with the reference that Senator Woo made. Under the current set of rules, if I were to be given a committee seat and then I was to change my affiliation or my non-affiliation, I would get to keep that seat for the session, correct?

With the Selection Committee report, if it’s voted on and accepted, anybody who changes affiliation or for any reason their group is in need of some corrections — shall we say — their position can be yanked from them under the proposed report. Is that correct? Thank you.

Senator McCallum: I want to thank you for the comments you made.

Senator Housakos: I don’t think it’s that at all. It’s a question of maintaining respect for proportionality and respect for the operational semblance of this institution without it becoming the Wild West where votes on seats become negotiable with groups. On the contrary, if you or I want to change affiliations, yes, I will lose a voting right on a committee because, again, there must be respect for proportionality, but it doesn’t prevent me from doing work.

In this Parliament, I no longer serve on the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee. That’s one of my loves. As you can see from what I do in this chamber, I do a lot of work on human rights and on foreign affairs issues. About 80% of what I do here is touched upon at the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee. Unfortunately, because of our group’s proportional representation, we’re down to two members on that committee, so two of us had to cede our seats. I was one of them.

Do you think in any way it hinders my capacity if I’m in this group or any other group to move the motions I’m moving, to table the private member’s bills I’m moving? Do you think I will be prevented from participating in the debate on issues of Foreign Affairs and International Trade? Absolutely not. I will be there. I will be participating. I will be asking questions, but I won’t be casting a vote, officially, on behalf of my group or any other group in respect of that proportionality.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Kutcher, do you have another question?

Hon. Claude Carignan: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

This summer, Canadians learned that the Trudeau government had petitioned the courts to prevent the families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy from accessing information from the Parole Board of Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada in preparation for the parole hearing of Paul Bernardo, the man who murdered those two young girls.

(1450)

The government objected to the release of this information to the families on privacy grounds and won the case. The Trudeau government then shamefully demanded that the families pay the government’s legal fees, which came to just over $19,000. The judge reduced the amount to $4,000.

How can the Trudeau government possibly justify foisting its legal fees on these families, who have already suffered so much from the loss of their child?

Senator Housakos: Absolutely.

Senator Boisvenu: In our society, the principle of rehabilitation depends on accountability. If the government pays for all citizens’ expenses, we are making citizens unaccountable. If an individual commits a traffic violation, such as impaired driving causing bodily harm, the justice system will order an electronic starter device to be installed in their car at a cost of roughly $800. The system ensures that it is the individual who committed the offence who pays for the ignition interlock device. When a criminal record is expunged, why make society pay fees that should be charged to the criminal?

[English]

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of December 8, 2021, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Monday, December 13, 2021, at 6 p.m.

Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Patterson, for your question. I cannot speak for your group, but I can tell you definitively that, in the ISG, chairs and deputy chairs that are designated to the ISG through the negotiation process are selected through a democratic process by the members of that committee. They know that the important criteria have to do with expertise. They have to do with the ability to chair meetings. They have to do with real-life experience.

I’m very confident that ISG members make wise decisions in choosing their chairs and deputy chairs.

[Translation]

Senator MacDonald: Again, you didn’t answer the question. To accept the release of the two Michaels as being out on bail is to give validity to these illegal detentions of these two Canadians for over 1,000 days. That is something Canada shouldn’t do and I’m sure it is something Canadians do not accept. To say they are out on bail implies that Canada somehow accepts these conditions that the two Michaels have to follow to maintain their release.

Senator Gold, why does the Government of Canada accept that the two Michaels are out on bail?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, as you know, there were two candidates for the position of Speaker pro tempore. I wish to thank both the Honourable Senator Bovey and the Honourable Senator Ringuette for having put their names forward for consideration, giving the Senate two excellent choices.

The voting process established pursuant to order and announcement has now concluded, and the Clerk has compiled the results. I am therefore pleased to advise you that the Honourable Senator Ringuette will be Speaker pro tempore for the remainder of the session. Pursuant to the established process, the following motion is deemed moved, seconded and adopted: “That the Honourable Senator Ringuette be named Speaker pro tempore for the remainder of the session.”

Colleagues, I know that, like me, you will wish to congratulate Senator Ringuette on her new responsibilities, and I know you will join me in thanking Senator Bovey for standing as a candidate.

Thank you, Senator Ringuette, for all your diligent work for the Senate, and my very heartfelt congratulations and best wishes.

[English]

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Would you take a question, Senator Woo?

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: I have a question for my colleague, Senator Carignan, if he would accept it.

Senator Carignan: Of course.

Senator Lankin: I know in terms of the two official languages yes, she is; but we have many people who occupied these lands before us who speak a variety of Indigenous languages, such as Innu.

I also think that we are in a moment when we both need to revitalize and build sustainability for the French language, but we need to recognize that we’re in a moment of reconciliation as well, and this is such a significant appointment.

I enter this discussion wanting to think of this as a special, significant and really important appointment, and I accept the commitment to learn English here. However, I pose to you — and this is not a criticism of your bill; you’re trying to deal with something now — that we probably would be better in the long run in this country if we dedicated more time for all Canadian students to be proficient in both official languages. Do you have comment about that or are you interested in pursuing those kinds of recommendations or intervention with provincial education systems?

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: Yes, definitely. Obviously, when I said she was unilingual, I meant that she was not bilingual in terms of our two official languages. I commend the Governor General’s ability to speak other languages, including Inuktitut.

We must promote the two official languages, and we should encourage the idea of sending the best messages possible and funding everything to do with education in both official languages across the country as much as possible. I have children who became francophones outside Quebec. I’m not a grandfather yet, but I hope that my grandchildren will have the opportunity to continue to speak French and that they will be able to learn French even if they are outside Quebec. I hope that enriching experience will be available to them. Obviously, I do agree with that.

Hon. Frances Lankin: I’m very interested in the arguments that you make and very open to being supportive of this. I cherish this about our country, but my general approach to these things is, where possible, don’t try and fix it at the end. Let’s try and fix it at the beginning.

For me, that means maybe a group of us should get together and take a look at how we could build recommendations to influence provincial education systems to give appropriate language training in both official languages and bring our students through.

I certainly didn’t have access to quality training as a young person. I did in-place training in Quebec.

You said a number of times that we have a unilingual Governor General. I just want to point out that she’s not unilingual.

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: Yes, you are correct.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Carignan, will you take a question?

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: Yes.

[English]

Senator Wells: Senator Carignan, I meant Governor General. If I said lieutenant-governor, I accept the error.

You talk about presenting a positive light. Do you think it would be presenting a positive light if a French-speaking candidate for Governor General committed to learn English or the opposite — an English-speaking Governor General committed to learn French? Don’t you think that would also present perhaps an even more positive light on the position and on the necessity of bilingualism in Canada?

[Translation]

Senator Carignan: The problem with committing to learning the other language when you don’t have the required proficiency from the beginning is that these are five-year terms. So, if the individual can’t communicate for two, three or four years with people in both official languages, part of their duties remains unfulfilled. The person should therefore have this proficiency at the time of the appointment, rather than promising to learn the other language.

We saw the example of the Auditor General. Mr. Ferguson began giving interviews in French about three years after his appointment. There was a period of time during his tenure when he was unable to communicate with francophones when presenting his reports and taking journalists’ questions. Obviously, making an effort to learn French or English, as the case may be, sends a positive message. I think you’ve seen my English improve, too. You’ve seen the efforts I’ve made to learn English and speak it as well as I can. Many of you have witnessed this. That said, the proficiency required to fill these positions must be in place from the beginning, not gained along the way, so that appointees can fully perform their duties.

[English]

Senator Woo: Yes.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(b), I move that the bill be read the third time now.

Senator Housakos: Oh, “solution.” I do apologize. Senator McCallum, I’m getting old and it’s late. I thought I heard “pollution” instead of “solution.” I was surprised, because I know you are very thoughtful and have made huge contributions to this place. I was a little taken aback.

Back to the substance of your question, and I do apologize, colleagues — it’s late and I’m tired. Like I said, I wasn’t planning to enter the debate. To answer your question, senator, for the time I’ve been here now, 13 years, every time a non-affiliated senator has come into this chamber and was not a member of one larger group or another, my recollection is that we have gone always out of our way to accommodate them.

We did that from day one in 2016 when the first eight or nine non-affiliated Trudeau senators were appointed and didn’t have a group. They weren’t large enough. They were facing hostility from the then Liberal caucus, which, of course, has since been expelled from the national caucus. And the Conservative caucus, no secret, had a lot of deep reservations about the government’s new experiment in this chamber. Yet, we still welcomed every member. We still found ways to make sure they were given seats on committees. That has always been the case.

Even now with the two truly independent members of this chamber, I can tell you as leader I have reached out to both of them. I have had conversations. It wasn’t because of any motion from Senator Mercer or anyone else. It was understood because I know they have a voice. Senator McPhedran can confirm that. We have reached out because we believe they have a role to play.

Furthermore, as someone who understands rules and procedures in this place, there is no other chamber in the Westminster parliamentary system anywhere in the world where the rules are so weighted in favour of non-affiliated senators. How many times every night and every afternoon does the Speaker or Speaker pro tempore get up and say, “with leave of the chamber?” This simply means any senator can say, “Speaker, I don’t grant leave.” It could be Senator McPhedran or Senator Woo — they are equal in this place.

How many bills this week that we fast-tracked past second and third reading would not be law if Senator McPhedran today — whom I call the true independent along with Senator Brazeau — did not grant leave? They don’t have a group. They don’t have leadership. They could have stopped every single bill this week. They have as much power as anybody, including the government leader. Probably even more power. And that’s the truth. We are at the pleasure of these independent senators.

So if anyone believes you are joining a group because that gives you more strength, nonsense. God bless her, Senator Anne Cools taught me that just when I was sitting with the Conservative government benches as a backbencher and government leader at the time. Every time there was a government bill, we would look at — God rest her soul — Senator McCoy and Senator Cools and we said, “Boy, they’d better agree with this government legislation or it’s never going to pass and we are going to be here for weeks.” Right? How many times did we have to sit on Friday and Monday because Senator Cools and Senator McCoy weren’t happy? Of course I’m saying things that might give Senator McPhedran some ammunition. And I can tell you, she calls me regularly for advice. She has become a quick pupil on procedure, and she’ll be using them pretty soon — government leader, I’m sorry. Again, Senator McCallum, to answer your question, that’s the nature of the place.

I have been watching you with curiosity, and you are learning very quickly yourself and you are becoming a fantastic contributor. I see you with the number and the substance of your private members’ bills that you are tabling and your motions. You are representing your community with tremendous capacity. It has nothing to do with whatever group you’re in. You are doing it because you are exercising your right as a parliamentarian. You are moving great motions. You are speaking to them in an articulate fashion, and you persuade enough of your colleagues that they are going to pass. They will become the rule of the law of the land. That’s the way it goes.

Anybody who thinks this place is designed to give some kind of an advantage to a majority group, I can tell you that’s not the case. On the contrary, the most disadvantaged people in this chamber as a group, and I saw it because I came in with the government, is the government side. Senator Gold and Senator Gagné have the toughest jobs here, and it has become tougher because they have these various groups with various values to herd. I hope that answers the question.

Like I said, if anybody feels because they are independent or in a smaller group that they are somehow diminished, that’s not true. I repeat my point: When you are appointed as chair or deputy chair on any of these committees, you are representing a caucus. You are representing many other people behind you. Again, look at the accommodations despite the Rules. How many times have we gotten up here and done things where we said, “Notwithstanding rule . . .?” Why? Because we give in. We realize we have to be decent amongst each other to have credibility as an institution.

That is what I hope we will continue to do in this place, in the spirit of respect and cooperation, not in a spirit of antagonism. Yes, sometimes there are politics. Senator Gold and I engage in it. I have the utmost respect for him, and I hope he has some respect for me. We find ways to work. We put the politics aside when we have to and we do what we need to do in the best interests of the country. Eventually, we’ll solve all the problems of all the groups we represent. Thank you.