Senator Batters: I’m just preparing my third-reading speech, so I think I know the answer. I think it is seven full meetings hearing from witnesses and then three clause-by-clause sessions, so quite a few. I don’t think I totalled up the number of witnesses yet, but we will have that. In comparison, the House of Commons Justice Committee studied it only for three meetings and held one clause-by-clause session, so we certainly did a good bit of work on that.

One other thing I wanted to ask you about, Senator Cotter, is just because there has been considerable media attention since this bill was first dealt with in this chamber, so many in this chamber may not know this answer. There is currently quite a high-profile case involving a Supreme Court justice and a disciplinary conduct proceeding that is ongoing right now. It is my understanding — and Justice Minister Lametti indicated this — that this act would not apply to that proceeding because it is not law yet. Is that correct? Only cases moving forward after Bill C-9 becomes law would be subject to this new disciplinary process, and any current cases would be under the existing system; is that correct?

Senator Cotter: I think you are right on that, Senator Batters. It is one good argument for moving this along fairly expeditiously so that a modern regime can be put in place for any new complaints that might be presented in relation to Superior Court judges. With respect to the matter to which you referred, the old, existing process would apply.

Hon. Denise Batters: Minister, with every avenue your government employs to fix this Beijing interference scandal, all roads lead to the Trudeau Foundation. The Prime Minister chose Morris Rosenberg to report on foreign election interference. He was the Trudeau Foundation CEO at the time of the infamous Beijing donation. His conclusion? Nothing to see here.

The Trudeau Foundation was invisible in Special Rapporteur David Johnston’s 55-page report. Johnston, himself a Trudeau Foundation member, concluded he’d replace the public inquiry Canadians want with more “Special Rapporteuring.” To counter questions about his close ties to PM Trudeau, Johnston sought an independent legal opinion from another Trudeau Foundation alumnus, Frank Iacobucci. And the two security committees tasked with this scandal? NSIRA has two Trudeau Foundation alumni, including the chair, while the lone senator on NSICOP is also a Trudeau Foundation alumnus.

Given this pattern, why should Canadians trust they will get the answers they deserve on this shocking interference scandal?

Hon. Denise Batters: Thank you. I appreciate that.

First of all, I will certainly give a robust explanation as to my amendment, which was for suspension with or without pay, and without pay would have been only a 30-day time frame. We will discuss that in the near future, and you will have a fuller explanation as to my standing on that.

Senator Cotter, I wanted to ask you a couple of very general questions. Thank you for the explanation about the number of amendments, but I don’t think this was contained in your report: How many committee meetings did we have, and how many witnesses did we hear from at our committee?

Senator Cotter: The answer is quite a few, and I’ll get the specifics to you as soon as I can.